Debates of June 4th, 2024

Before the Clerk announced the results of the vote:

Public Complaints and Review Commission Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that we were unable to identify the member for York South—Weston.

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

His vote will be withdrawn.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #795

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

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from May 3 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 the motions in Group No. 1.

Report Stage

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

I would like to remind members that, pursuant to order made February 28, for the remainder of the sitting, the Speaker shall not receive any quorum calls or dilatory motions and shall only accept a request for unanimous consent after receiving a notice from the House leaders or whips of all recognized parties stating that they are in agreement with such a request.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was cut off during my last speech on Bill C-20, which was my first time debating the bill. It now, unfortunately, has been time allocated. I am a big believer that all members of Parliament should at least have the opportunity to debate one stage of a bill, as it goes through the parliamentary process, to represent our constituents and express any concerns or support for said bill.

As was pointed out in the time allocation motion debate a little while ago, this is, unfortunately, the third attempt to pass this bill. It was Bill C-98 in the 42nd Parliament, which died on the Order Paper when that Parliament ceased to exist. In the 43rd Parliament, it was Bill C-3, but it died when the Prime Minister called the unnecessary election, which he called despite having voted a couple of months before the election against doing that.

Ultimately, Bill C-20 has been kicking around for almost two years now. It came out of committee last fall and was only brought forward here last month. My last comment in the first two minutes of my speech was that I was looking forward to finishing this speech when it became a priority for the government again. Lo and behold, it only took it a month this time to make it a priority and now the government has decided to time allocate it.

What is this bill about? There are two fundamental things. It is renaming the existing review body, which already exists for the RCMP, but now it would be expanded to cover the Canada Border Services Agency, too. This is important because currently the CBSA is the only public safety agency in Canada without an independent oversight body for public complaints. Establishing this independent review body would foster and enhance public trust and confidence in Canada's law enforcement and border services institutions, something we can agree is desperately needed. It is just disappointing that it has taken this long.

The first of the concerns I heard, and I know this was brought up when it was being studied at committee, was a lack of consultation. There is also the concern over the qualifications or experience required for these Governor in Council appointed commissions, which is an oversight. The third concern is the potential lack of independence for access to the information, and the final concern I have heard is with the lack of a mandated review period. I am only going to have time to address part of this in my remaining few minutes. I really want to focus on the lack of consultation because it is clear that these crucial conversations did not take place.

Various stakeholders, including indigenous chiefs and the National Police Federation, which represents the RCMP, flagged various problems with the bill. Most importantly, they felt the current framework, which relies on the RCMP to investigate itself, is insufficient and does not inspire public trust in the process. Bill C-20 does not fully address this as the new complaints commission would still rely heavily on RCMP resources, meaning that it would not be truly independent. Conservatives tried to move various amendments to increase the independence at the committee stage, but it was clear that there was no will from the other parties.

Another issue, raised by the CBSA union, was the need for remuneration for back pay for officers who had been suspended when an investigation ultimately deems them innocent. This is a major oversight in the bill, which common-sense Conservatives advocated for. Particularly in the midst of this cost of living crisis created by the Prime Minister, it seems especially cruel to punish these officers. As one stakeholder said, “When the allegations are not founded and it's found that there was no wrongdoing, we're told to file a grievance to recuperate the lost salary. It's devastating to people. You're right—I really don't know anyone who could go a year with no pay.” Once again, it is sad that it was not the will of the public safety committee to adopt this common-sense amendment.

I want to draw a bit of a parallel to something that was tabled last November by the NSICOP committee on a study of the mandate of the RCMP for federal policing. There are two recommendations I would like to share. The first recommendation states:

The Minister of Public Safety provide clear and regular direction to the RCMP to strengthen Federal Policing, including in areas of governance; financial controls; human resources, recruiting and training; and information management. In each of these areas, this direction should include the Minister’s expectations, clear interim and final objectives, and clear performance measures.

The second recommendation is that “The Government recognize that Federal Policing resources are insufficient to fulfil its various mandates and put in place measures to ensure Federal resources are appropriated fully to Federal priorities.” The reason I am bringing up those two recommendations from that report is that it is crystal clear from reading that report, which is completely unredacted, with the exception of two sentences in the whole report, that it talks about the strain and pressure that the RCMP is already under to fulfill its federal mandate, yet here we have another example of additional resources still being pulled, though for an important reason, from within the RCMP and not outside it.

The last thing I want to bring up is that the CBSA, which, if I heard the news correctly today, is potentially only a couple of days away from taking strike action, needs this additional support and oversight, because it would help protect not only those workers, but the whole mandate of what the CBSA is there to do, which is to ultimately protect Canadians. We need that, because our CBSA officers are phenomenal. They help keep us safe and keep our borders safe. We have heard from umpteen debates in this House, when it comes to justice issues, about the lack of support that the CBSA has and the lack of necessary resources coming from the government to deal with so many crimes, such as the illegal trafficking of firearms across our border.

In conclusion, I really want to highlight that this is an important bill. It is a bill that I intend to support. However, it is frustrating and disappointing that it took the government this long to make it a priority for debate in this House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the concluding remarks from the member. He supports the bill. He is disappointed that it is taking us so long to pass it, and at the beginning of his comments, he was talking about how the government was unable to get it passed in the last session. It is truly amazing. “Look in a mirror”, I say to the members opposite. The reason it does not get passed is that the Conservatives do not want it to pass. The member needs to talk to his House leadership team. The Conservatives moved a very simple motion to delete the short title of the legislation in order to prevent it from passing.

I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts on why he believes his own Reform-Conservative Party does not actually want to pass it and instead filibusters.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will just push back and counter the parliamentary secretary's comments, because, as I mentioned at the start of my speech and as I have brought up in debate previously, I am a big believer that every member in this House should have the opportunity to speak to every piece of legislation, if it is something that their constituents want them to speak to. That member is a member who speaks at every stage to every bill and to every amendment. In fact, he even spoke just two days ago to my private member's bill. He did not even listen to my speech on it, and I am the sponsor and the mover of the bill. There were other Liberal MPs I talked to who wanted to speak to it, yet he does not want to let them speak. He has to speak to it, when he does not even have a clue what he is speaking about.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I like the member very much, and I would like to hear his comments on the following point.

During his speech, he talked about the importance of transparency and independence. My understanding of the bill is that the chairperson of the commission is to report to the minister rather than reporting directly to the House. This is a problem we have previously discussed. For example, the military ombudsman reported exclusively to the minister, which led to issues with transparency in the Jonathan Vance case.

Does my colleague think that this is one of the blind spots in the bill and something that could perhaps be improved down the line?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is very important. Transparency is not only something that we see with different ombudsmen and different roles, but ultimately it is important.

Again, we just need to look at anything that has been tabled in the House recently on some of the reports that have been coming out. We can look at foreign interference and the importance of transparency there to get to the crux of what we need to tackle as Parliament, and what the government needs to focus its efforts on.

When it comes to complaints, it needs to be dealt with. My background is that I am ex-military. Unfortunately, I just read in the news today that the Information Commissioner was complaining that she has to take extraordinary action to even get information out of the government when it comes to understanding what the issues are.

When we have a complaints commissioner set up, they will need to have that same access to all the material, ultimately, and not be held up during the process.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member is saying that the Conservatives will be supporting the bill. It is kind of belied by the fact that the Conservatives have tabled nuisance amendments that delay the bill at the same time as they are saying that the bill should pass.

The member mentioned the NSICOP report. It is very important. There are worrisome allegations in this report about foreign interference into the recent Conservative leadership process. Does the member believe, as I do, that a full and complete investigation by all the appropriate authorities is warranted into that Conservative leadership convention?

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

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the member knows that as a member of NSICOP, I have to be very careful and judicious about what I talk about.

I congratulate all the members, including the NDP member, the four Liberal members, the Bloc Québécois member and the senators who are part of that committee. It is a very important report that was just tabled. I know there are lots of questions being raised by other members of Parliament.

I encourage the government to follow up on the findings of that report and the recommendations made. I encourage every single MP to read the report because, ultimately, we all have a responsibility to make sure we are being very judicious in our actions and whom we interact with, and to make sure that Canadians and this country are first and foremost in everything that we do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-20 in this place.

This bill is incredibly important, as it would enact a new stand-alone statute to establish the public complaints and review commission, or PCRC, as an independent civilian review body for both the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency. For the first time, both these law enforcement agencies would fall under the scrutiny of an external review body. The bill would also bring about enhanced reporting mechanisms, improving our ability as parliamentarians to hold the Minister of Public Safety to account in relation to complaints and systemic reviews.

I urge my hon. colleagues to adopt this bill without delay. It responds to long-standing, unfulfilled commitments from the government's first mandate to introduce legislation to create a review body for the CBSA. Indeed, Bill C-20 follows three previous attempts to fill this gap. Now is the time for us to make sure that Bill C-20 passes the finish line. Robust, independent review of our law enforcement agencies is essential to public trust and the rule of law, and central to our role as parliamentarians in holding to account the Minister of Public Safety through his reporting to Parliament.

Bill C-20 is an effort to foster trust between Canadians, the RCMP and the CBSA, and it would do so by providing greater transparency and accountability. Adoption of this bill would be timely, as there has been a notable erosion of trust in Canadian law enforcement agencies. There are many reasons for this, but the erosion has largely been influenced by several recent events involving law enforcement misconduct. The erosion of trust is also the product of broader discussions around systemic racism within law enforcement. A public opinion survey from 2022 found that only one in three Canadians agreed that the RCMP treats members of visible minority groups fairly or that it treats indigenous people fairly. CBSA and RCMP officers are entrusted with broad powers, and Canadians expect and deserve assurances that these powers are not abused or misused. They expect and deserve assurance that any allegations of misconduct will be reviewed and redressed when warranted.

As lawmakers, we have the power to restore public confidence in our law enforcement agencies in order to sustain our country's peaceful and civilized society. Under this legislation, we would ensure that Canada's two largest law enforcement agencies are required to demonstrate their ongoing commitment to justice and fairness in all their actions. Through the establishment of the new independent review body, they would also need to be transparent with the public about their powers and their integrity in exercising these powers.

As I mentioned, Bill C-20 responds to calls from the public for greater transparency and accountability from Canada's law enforcement agencies. The PCRC would replace the existing Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP and extend its mandate to the CBSA with increased accountability and tools at its disposal. Complainants and eligible third parties would now have access to an external body that could independently initiate, review and investigate RCMP- and CBSA-related complaints as they relate to conduct and/or levels of service.

In general, the PCRC would first refer the cases to the RCMP or the CBSA for initial investigation, to ensure accountability remains first and foremost on these agencies. If an individual is not satisfied with how the RCMP or CBSA handled the complaint, they could ask the PCRC to review it. At the end of the PCRC investigation, the review body would report its findings and make recommendations. Tracking these recommendations and their implementation by the RCMP and the CBSA would better allow us to hold the minister to account.

Further, the bill would allow third parties to submit complaints to the PCRC. Vulnerable individuals are sometimes reluctant to file a complaint or may be unable to proceed with the complaints process, because of language barriers, distrust of law enforcement or other reasons. In some cases, a complaint against the CBSA may come from someone who is detained in a CBSA facility.

The inclusion of third parties would provide for greater representation from individuals who may be reluctant or unable to complete the complaint process. This would make the PCRC accessible to a greater number of individuals who interact with the RCMP and the CBSA, including migrants detained in immigration holding centres and provincial facilities or in any future designated immigrant stations as proposed in Bill C-69.

There is a second type of review that the PCRC could undertake as part of its mandate, and that is the conduct of specified activity reviews, or SARs, on the PCRC's own initiative, at the request of a third party or by the Minister of Public Safety. Also called systemic investigations, SARs would allow the PCRC to identify systemic issues and develop recommendations around policies, procedures or guidelines relating to the operations of the CBSA and the RCMP. These investigations would provide the PCRC with the tool to identify broader concerns in Canadian law enforcement and to contribute to solutions to address them.

In contrast to its predecessor, Bill C-20 would also provide PCRC with enhanced tools to fulfill its complaints and review mandate. First, it would establish the PCRC under stand-alone legislation to reinforce the commission's independence from the agencies it reviews. To further increase accountability, the bill would also create codified timelines for the RCMP commissioner and the CBSA president to respond to the PCRC's interim reports, reviews and recommendations. This would help deliver on some of the recommendations made by the Mass Casualty Commission with regard to creating more transparent reporting of federal law enforcement agencies.

In addition, deputy heads of the RCMP and the CBSA would be required to submit an annual report to the Minister of Public Safety to inform them of the actions taken in response to the PCRC recommendations. Annual reports would be tabled in both Houses, allowing for parliamentary scrutiny, which would further strengthen the accountability process. To facilitate the identification of and contribute to the government's efforts to address systemic issues around vulnerable populations, the PCRC would be required to collect disaggregated demographic and race-based data of complainants.

The bill would seek to improve law enforcement's interactions with the public by mandating PCRC outreach activities, including with indigenous or racialized communities, and raise awareness of people's right to file a complaint.

I think the legislation is crucially important. All members at the committee stage and all parties represented have had the opportunity to put forward amendments and work collaboratively with us. With respect to the arguments around its timing to get here, if members truly believe the legislation is needed and important, then they should vote with us to ensure that it passes quickly.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the way mentioned timeliness. At committee, the NDP put forward an amendment that would assure timely action on some of the complaints, the specified activities complaints. The amendment had the support of a large coalition of groups across the country and the support of the union, yet the Liberals voted it down even though it included provisions to extend the deadline if necessary. I am wondering why the Liberals voted against our amendment for timely action on these complaints.

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

Mr. Speaker, part of the work is to ensure that we can build a system that is in place to help protect Canadians and bring complaints forward, but part of the important work is also the review process. The concern my hon. colleague raises is something that now Parliament would be able to see and be seized with, in annual reporting, to determine whether the process is working. There would now be reviews to ensure that there is transparency and accountability.

Should additional changes be needed in the future, Parliament and the other place would now have the appropriate mechanisms and would also have data that is clear in order to make good policy choices.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois obviously supports Bill C‑20, but we have to wonder. Neither of the two former bills C‑3 or C‑98 were prioritized by the government, so they died on the Order Paper.

The next election campaign is fast approaching. Next winter will be the last before the next election. Can my colleague assure us that, this time, her government will make this bill a priority and modernize the way that the CBSA and the RCMP process complaints?

Furthermore, we cannot overlook the need to review the funding of these organizations. There is no time to address existing complaints because the number of complaints is growing, in part due to high immigration levels. Will the government provide the funding needed to process these complaints in a timely manner?

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the hon. member, and I thank the Bloc for its constructive work at committee. The legislation before us is important legislation. We do want to see it move forward. I think the witness testimony we heard and the amendments put forward by all parties are a very good example of how Parliament and parliamentary committees can actually work together to improve legislation that the government members supported.

With respect to the member's question about funding, I can confirm that, in order to set up the PCRC, we would invest over $112 million over the next six years and then $19.4 million ongoing. The member pointed out quite correctly that, after its establishment, more complaints may come forward, but it would be crucial to protecting Canadians.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that most Canadians recognize when they elect people to Parliament is that we come here to make laws. We come here to make laws between elections, and we participate in committees. I know that I have a lot of colleagues with relevant background who were at the committee and who did not feel like their considerations were actually dealt with during the legislative process. At the end, the amendments matter. When we bring people forward, we bring people from different walks of life in Canada to give their expertise in making amendments.

I would like to ask the member whether she would consider some of the amendments brought forth by some of the law enforcement officials now serving in Parliament who had some significant value to add to the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, if the amendments are so important to the Conservative member and to the Conservatives, then why was the only amendment they brought forward to delete the short title? It is quite embarrassing that the member would stand in this place to say that Conservatives have concerns, despite the Conservatives' moving a fake amendment to delete the short title.

Therefore, my question in return is this: What specifically was wrong with the short title that took precedence over the so-called amendments that the member would support from law enforcement agencies?

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑20 is the second bill that I had the chance to work on at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security since I first joined it in 2020. First there was Bill C‑21, which we talked about a lot here, then there was Bill C‑20.

Many people have talked about the timing of the study of this bill. It has been a long process. The bill was introduced in the House on May 19, 2022, more than two years ago. As some colleagues mentioned, before Bill C‑20, there was Bill C‑3 during the 43rd Parliament, and Bill C‑98 during the 42nd Parliament. Both of those bills died on the Order Paper simply because the government chose not to prioritize them.

That is basically what happened with Bill C‑20 as well. It took a very long time to get to second reading in November 2022, six months after the bill was first introduced. The bill was then referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, where, once again, it took a very long time, another six months, before it could be studied. The government obviously bears some responsibility for these long delays, but the Conservatives also played their favourite game in parliamentary committee, specifically slowing down the work under the pretext of having another priority. There are always other priorities.

The study of Bill C‑20 was therefore delayed by many hours. In fact, we lost several meetings over several weeks. The committee was finally able to begin its study before the summer, so members could hear from the minister, public servants and various witnesses. However, right when the committee was about to begin clause-by-clause consideration, it suspended its work for the summer. When the committee returned in the fall, the same thing happened and parliamentary business was delayed for various reasons. It was not until six months later that the bill came back to the House of Commons, which brings us to third reading today.

I am going over these events to show those who might be following our work that the process of studying and amending a bill can be long and sometimes arduous.

That said, the Bloc Québécois still managed to help improve this bill, and that is what I am going to talk about this evening.

It is worth noting that there is still no external review commission to address public complaints against the Canada Border Services Agency. There is one for the RCMP, but not for the CBSA, which is the only federal security organization that does not yet have a review commission associated with it. However, 20 years ago, Justice O'Connor recommended that an independent process be created to handle public complaints against the CBSA. This issue dates back to 2004.

Bill C‑20 finally corrects this situation. Victims of the CBSA, and they do exist, have been waiting for this bill. As with any organization, abuses of power can happen, and some people have indeed been the victims of such abuses. They have been contacting us and asking to meet with us ever since the bill was introduced two years ago. They want to help us improve the bill. For them, the process has been very long, and I salute them today. As my colleague mentioned earlier, it is a little ironic that this evening's debate is subject to time allocation, as if time is suddenly running out. However, I do hope that we will see the process through to a successful conclusion and pass this bill quickly.

As we know, the CBSA has certain powers. These powers are fairly significant, such as the power to detain and search Canadians or deport people. Cases of misconduct have been reported in recent years. One that comes to mind is the case of Maher Arar, a dual Syrian and Canadian citizen who was arrested during a layover in New York City on his way back to Canada. I have talked about him in this place before.

In January 2020, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada found significant flaws concerning searches of travellers' electronic devices. Documents released around 2017 or 2018 mentioned complaints about racist or rude comments about clients or travellers. They also noted allegations of sexual misconduct. I would remind the House that the number of investigations into misconduct by border officers increased during the pandemic even though the number of international trips had decreased. The misconduct primarily involved giving preferential treatment or showing disrespect toward clients by making inappropriate comments about people, as I was saying. Other border services officers abused their authority and shared private information about the CBSA.

It is not just Canadians and travellers from this country who can be victims of the CBSA. Immigrants and refugees can also be targeted. The Canadian Council for Refugees came to committee to share what it would like to see improved in this bill. It should be noted that people who do not have permanent status in Canada are often extremely reluctant to file a complaint because they fear that it will be used against them and might hurt their chances.

When something goes wrong during a person's removal, it can be difficult for the person to lodge a complaint and go through the process, as it can sometimes be complicated given that they are outside the country. That is why the Canadian Council for Refugees told us that it would be good if organizations could bring forward third party complaints on behalf of people who, for various reasons, are unable to do so.

The government had not included this in the bill. That is why the Bloc Québécois tabled several amendments to this effect, which were fortunately adopted. Thanks to these amendments, third parties will be able to reviews of specified activities, file complaints and help citizens file complaints. Thanks to the Bloc Québécois's additions, they will also be notified if there is a refusal to investigate and will be informed of the reasons for decisions. This is a major improvement over the original bill.

It is important to note that many people who are mistreated by the CBSA are unlikely to file a complaint, as I said, sometimes because their status is not secure or because they fear consequences or reprisals. It may also be because of language barriers or problems accessing a computer or the Internet. In short, non-governmental organizations, such as the Canadian Council for Refugees, are well placed to file complaints on behalf of individuals. Some individuals may simply prefer that the organization with which they have established a relationship of trust file the complaint on their behalf.

Also, given that organizations work in this field and obviously see quite a few situations of this nature, they are well placed to identify and act on problematic patterns. If they have several examples of the same situation, a complaint about a pattern of behaviour may be more viable than an individual complaint about one person. This way, they can provide stronger evidence that there is a problem. Thanks to the Bloc Québécois amendment, organizations will be able to act as third parties, which is extremely valuable.

Essentially, the bill creates the public complaints and review commission. It will be made up of civilians who are not former members of the RCMP or the CBSA. It was very important that this be included in the bill. However, there was nothing in the bill to say that the members of this commission should reflect the diversity of society. We therefore tabled an amendment to ensure that would be the case. It was actually a recommendation from the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP, which already exists and has experience in handling complaints. It said that it was important for the people who sit on the commission to reflect the diversity of society. The Bloc Québécois therefore got this amendment adopted.

Other changes were made. The proposed subsection requiring that the commission be satisfied that sufficient resources exist for conducting the review of a complaint has been removed. There were concerns that the underfunding of the organization would be used as an excuse to avoid reviews. Witnesses told the committee that underfunding is common. This clause was like a loophole in the bill that would allow the commission to refuse to deal with complaints. However, we are confident that the government will properly fund its organizations, including this new commission, and that the commission will not be able to hide behind this aspect in order to avoid handling complaints.

We also added the requirement that a copy of communications be sent to the complainant's legal representative, because that was not the case previously. If the victim was the only person who could file a complaint, there would be no legal representative involved. That part was therefore added, which was a request from the Quebec Immigration Lawyers Association.

Some aspects pertaining to the refusal to investigate were changed thanks to amendments proposed by the Bloc Québécois. We proposed allowing the commission some room to manoeuvre. Now it may refuse to deal with a complaint, instead of being forced to refuse to deal with it, if other recourse is available to the complainant. These are small adjustments, small additions, that may make a big difference for victims of the CBSA.

We hope that these people's voices will be heard, that their complaints will be addressed in the most neutral and objective way possible and that they will get justice. Obviously, we hope that this bill is passed quickly.

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

Mr. Speaker, in listening to the member's comments, I can appreciate why the parliamentary secretary responsible indicated that she is very co-operative and helpful, has all sorts of ideas and is, apparently, a delight to work with on the committee, so I commend her on her actions there.

The question I would have for the member in regard to the legislation is with respect to the issue of how the passage of this legislation would assist in building public confidence within the system itself because of the independence of what is being proposed. Could the member just provide some further thought on that aspect?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his kind words.

It is important to point out that there is already a system for handling complaints internally. There is no requirement for public disclosure, however, which allows for the possibility that complaints may not always be handled objectively and without bias.

The union even came to tell us that it would be a good thing. Yes, it is good for the public, but it would also be good if officers themselves could file complaints against their superiors. Apparently it is complicated to do it through the internal process. Obviously, this will promote public trust, or at least, I hope it will.

Earlier on, my colleagues were talking about funding. We need to make sure that the commission is properly funded so that all complaints are processed and people receive a response. Sometimes, the process seems long and arduous, and people might think that a response will never come. If someone has a bad experience, and on top of that, they get no response to their complaint, their trust in the institution will suffer. That does not encourage trust in the CBSA.

I really hope that Bill C‑20 will help improve public trust in the government authorities in charge of public safety.

[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.

The Liberals made this a campaign promise in 2015, yet here we are in 2024, and it is only now being passed. This bill, Bill C-20, seems to have broad support. I just wonder if the member could give her perspective as to the reason that it did not get passed, say, in the 42nd Parliament or in the 43rd Parliament, obviously due to prorogation.

Does the member believe the bill is the priority that the government says it is, given that timeline?