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.

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

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I thank all members for their attention.

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

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

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

Bill C‑40—Time Allocation Motion

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

The House resumed from June 10 consideration of the motion that Bill C‑20, an act establishing the public complaints and review commission and amending certain acts and statutory instruments, be read the third time and passed.

The Public Complaints and Review Commission Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[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 Bill C-20 this evening. This is a piece of legislation that the government thought was fairly straightforward. When we take a serious look at the essence of the bill, it would provide a sense of public confidence in our bureaucratic system.

For many years, there was an independent commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, where, if there were complaints or issues surrounding them, the public knew they had a way they could address a grievance of one form or another by going to the commission. I thought that it was fairly well established and that people had a basic understanding of the true value of having something of this nature. It has done well. If we look at the different agencies across Canada, particularly law enforcement agencies, we often hear about the importance of having some sort of checks in place to ensure a higher level of accountability.

In Manitoba today, for example, there is a sense of independence in offices, where it is not necessarily the police checking on the police or holding the police accountable when there is a grievance, but it is an independent board. It is important that it be independent for the simple reason that there would be far more confidence in the person bringing forward the grievance or the complaint. That is really important to recognize. Whether it is for provincial jurisdictions or for the RCMP, this has been deemed by all aspects of society as absolutely essential.

When we look at the Canada Border Services Agency and the fine work that border officers do, day in and day out, at the end of the day, there was no independent body at the same level as the RCMP. It makes sense. The government had a choice. We could have a stand-alone independent body for the RCMP and we could also have a stand-alone body for the Canada Border Services Agency, but it was determined that the best thing would be to bring the two agencies together.

I should have started my comments by highlighting that, even though we are bringing forward this legislation, it is not a reflection on the fine work that the border agents or the RCMP members do. The vast majority of the work is done in an outstanding fashion. Countries around the world often look at what is happening in Canada, through these two agencies. Unlike in many other countries, these institutions are held in high esteem, particularly the RCMP. I have travelled to nations where the confidence level in their national policing agencies is nowhere near as high or as respected as it is in Canada because of issues such as alleged corruption, whether real or perceived.

Periodically, I talk to individuals who came from another country, and they talk about the RCMP being the difference between Canada and some other nations. The RCMP, especially when one puts on that red uniform, is something that is highly respected. Historically, it might not necessarily have been a shining gold star. Yes, there have been many mistakes, but we have been able to overcome those mistakes, and in good part, still today, we look at ways we can compensate for those mistakes.

A good example of that is the record with the RCMP and indigenous people of Canada. There has been a great deal of effort through truth and reconciliation, with all forms of gestures and actions, to deal with some of those issues. By doing that in a public way, it does what the board has actually been doing; it helps build confidence in the institution. I believe we should all strive to see that. Fast forward to today, where we have the legislation that recognizes the importance of having these independent agencies. Through this legislation, we would create the opportunity for the Canada Border Services Agency to be incorporated into a new entity both for the RCMP and for the CBSA.

I thought this would have been universally well received by all members in the chamber. I was surprised at the degree to which members of the official opposition have resisted passing the legislation. I was not participating at the committee level, so I could not tell members how they performed at the committee level, but I was here during the report stage and the second reading stage. The lack of goodwill in recognizing the legislation was somewhat disappointing. When we actually got to the report stage, in fact, the Conservatives moved an amendment to it. It was what I would classify as a silly amendment; it was to delete the short title. When I look at the legislation, it suggested, in an amendment at the report stage, that this act may be cited as the public complaints and review commission act. That is the short title.

When one looks at the short title, one questions the benefit of moving that amendment. The reality is that the only purpose of moving that amendment was to delay the passage of the legislation. That is the reason that they moved that amendment and the reason that we see some of the behaviour of Conservative members, in particular, dealing with second reading, whether it is Bill C-20 or other pieces of legislation. That is why we see many of the concurrence reports brought through. Time and time again, and Bill C-20 is an excellent example of this, the Conservatives are more determined to try to prevent legislation from passing.

A lot of that legislation is solid, tangible legislation that would make a difference in the lives of Canadians. When I look at this piece of legislation, I look at the many benefits of it, and I fully expected that the legislation would have passed relatively quickly. I know that Conservatives are going to be following my comments this evening, so it will be interesting to to hear where their objections to the legislation actually are. Do they not feel that the principles of the legislation are something that could have warranted us passing the legislation sooner?

That principle applies on a number of pieces of legislation, but I think that has a lot more to do with the politics inside the chamber than the actual substance of the legislation. That is a determination that has been made by the House leadership of the Conservative Party.

I am glad we are at this point today because it would seem that there is a very good chance that the legislation is going to pass third reading, and for a very good reason. When we think about our border control, all one needs to do is to look at the number of people who travel back and forth to the United States or, for that matter, to any country in the world. I have an active interest in trying to help facilitate people coming to visit Canada.

In the area I represent, every month, I write literally hundreds of letters. In some months, it is probably four hundred or five hundred letters, and in other months, it is probably closer to eight hundred letters, trying to get individuals to be able to come to Canada to visit, whether they are attending weddings, funerals, graduations or just visiting family members who may have immigrated from countries like Philippines, India, Pakistan, and many other countries.

Every time someone comes in, they have to deal with border control officers. We are getting numbers that go into the millions. Our border control agency and its officers are dealing with literally millions of people coming into Canada every year. They have a lot of authority.

I have had the opportunity to take tours of our detention centres, through customs, where people are going through without the appropriate papers, for example. Our officers actually have the ability to detain or to prevent someone from leaving the airport. That is a fairly serious responsibility.

With that responsibility comes the need for accountability and transparency. It does not mean that we are saying that there is something wrong with the system because that is not the case. All in all, the system works exceptionally well. We are talking about tens of millions of people coming and going every year.

If we look at the actual number of complaints we receive, it is but a small fraction of the overall number of people coming and going. However, that small fraction does warrant the need for us to be able put something in place so that if people have concerns, maybe it is the manner in which they were treated at a border or at an airport, wherever it might be, they have an opportunity to be able to express themselves.

If I was going through the Canada-U.S. border, an agent could ultimately make a decision that items I have brought with me are going to be kept or that something is going to be applied to them, and I might not feel that it was appropriate. It could also be something that greatly offends someone, anything from a racial incident to a wide spectrum of other behaviours that one might see.

At the end of the day, I would suggest that establishing a place that people can go to in order to express their grievance is absolutely critical. For those individuals who feel intimidated by it, as I said, it is not a reflection on the vast majority of the people who are performing this service. It really puts into place the opportunity, as I have said and as I have tried to amplify, that those agencies will in fact be better off because there will be a truly independent commission that actually deals with what is coming up. This legislation enables the commission to investigate complaints and take a look, for example, at levels of service, or even conduct a CBSA employee investigation where it is actually warranted. The commission does have the powers to review the activities of the CBSA. It would exclude things such as issues related to national security and other sensitive types of areas, but it has significant powers to look into, to review, to come up with recommendations and be able to take actions.

At the end of the day, what we do know is that it has been very effective for the RCMP. I believe that it will be just as effective for Canada border control officers. Canadians must have confidence in our law enforcement agencies, and having an effective civilian review is central to implementing public confidence and trust.

Let me just add to that. Bill C-20 would establish the PCRC, which would function as an independent review body for the RCMP and the CBSA. Through this review body, we will ensure that all Canadians can expect consistent, fair and equitable treatment. We will do that through strengthening the review body's independence and discretion, requiring annual reports from the RCMP and the CBSA on the implementation of PCRC's recommendations, which is a really important aspect, receiving those annual reports. Often we are able to make good, solid policy decisions based on the types of reports that we receive, collecting and publishing disaggregated race-based and demographic data to help assess and address systemic racism in law enforcement. All of that is part of our commitment to making Canada a safer place for anyone.

There are a number of points dealing with the legislation. The one that I would highlight is that the government is proposing to invest well over $100 million over the next six years, and about $20 million per year ongoing, in order to support the actions that the legislation is taking.

As I indicated, this is legislation that could have very easily passed a whole lot earlier. I am glad that we finally have it at a stage today where it would appear as if it will be passing. I do look forward to comments coming from, in particular, the Conservative Party, realizing, of course, that all the amendments and so forth have actually been dealt with. It is just a question of allowing it to ultimately come to a vote so that it can become law and add more value to building public confidence in two outstanding institutions.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

moved that Bill C-20, An Act establishing the Public Complaints and Review Commission and amending certain Acts and statutory instruments, be read the third time and passed.

Public Complaints and Review Commission Act

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

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at report stage of Bill C-20.

The question is on Motion No. 1.

The House resumed from June 6 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.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-20 in this debate tonight. We have an important issue in front of us.

As we consider making changes to the oversight of the RCMP and the CBSA, it is important for all of us to recognize and honour the active members of both organizations. I grew up in southwest Saskatchewan, and our farm was about a five-minute drive to the border crossing, which is the port of Turner on the U.S. side and the port of Climax on the Saskatchewan side. There are three other border crossings in the southwest: Willow Creek, Monchy and West Poplar River. We have a few really good border crossings in our part of the country, and I can personally attest to the great work the CBSA agents have done in southwest Saskatchewan. They have been valuable, contributing members to our communities. I went to school with some of the kids of people who worked at the border crossings, and they were fantastic people who brought a lot to our communities.

The RCMP and the municipal police services again are made up of fantastic people who do great work. They have signed up to serve the country, and they serve very well in the capacity they are given. That is part of the importance of this debate here today. Anybody who enters public service is doing it because they have, or should have, a deep desire to serve their country and not to benefit themselves, which unfortunately we do see quite rampantly with these Liberals when they are in power and with a lot of the people they are putting into important positions.

For example, earlier today we were debating our opposition day motion about the green slush fund with SDTC and 186 conflicts of interest in this one area alone. It is quite mind-boggling when one thinks about it. As we go through other departments, and as we go through other levels of government, we start to see that there seems to be a pattern.

It is important that we have a good civilian oversight for the RCMP and for CBSA. I do think what the government is trying to do here is in the right vein. We heard in the previous questions and comments period about amendments Conservatives are looking to get. There are always things we are looking to improve when it comes to legislation.

I want to go into a few examples of some issues that have arisen at CBSA over the last couple of years. Back in 2021, there was an article in the CBC. Forgive me, as I will be quoting CBC articles a couple of times tonight. One will not normally catch me doing that, but for tonight, I will. The border agency concluded that, in 2021, there were “92 founded investigations” that year. It came up with 92 investigations for which there was enough proof of evidence to pursue a certain course of action. This includes everything from somebody getting called into the manager's office for a reprimand to people being given dismissals. There were a few different issues that people dealt with.

In 2022, there were over “500 allegations the CBSA deemed 'founded'”. Over 500 is quite a jump from the numbers of 2021. I will read this part because there is a common thread emerging, especially given what we now know from the NSICOP report. The article states, “A Canada Border Service Agency employee opened himself up to the threat of exploitation by 'hostile intelligence services' after visiting massage parlours in China, Japan and Canada”.

This person engaged in illegal activities and put himself in a vulnerable position where hostile intelligence services could take advantage of him because of where he worked and could hold the illegal actions that he had engaged in over his head by saying, “Do this for us or else.” Having civilian oversight would allow for a more thorough examination of what was going on in some of these cases and would hopefully bring a quicker resolution to some of the issues and claims.

I had the opportunity to speak to a similar piece of legislation in the previous Parliament. At that time, the timeline for processing a complaint or a review was up to seven years. That is problematic. If I made a complaint to my banking institution, my cellphone provider or anybody else who provides a good or service and it took seven years for it to be resolved, that would be totally unacceptable in all cases. I know it is not as cut and dry with the CBSA. Obviously, there are more things it has to look into. However, seven years is absolutely ridiculous.

We have had some good comments from the Customs and Immigration Union:

There is also a glaring lack of time limit requirements for the Commission to complete an investigation, which is only amplified by the absence of time limit requirements for the Commission to submit a final report following reception of the CBSA President’s response to an interim report (Section 64). In short, we fear an investigation could take years to complete, which is neither fair to the employee under investigation nor to the complainant.

We recommend that Bill C-20 include clear language around time limits for every step of the process.

Along with that, the Canada Bar Association said:

It seems inevitable that as the Commission’s workload increases, delays will grow. The Commission’s work could then be portrayed as being “efficient” in dealing with complaints, when in fact the goal lines have been moved. The Bill imposes a one-year delay for a complainant to file a complaint. Thus, it is reasonable that the Commission be required to conclude its work in a fixed timeframe as well.

That would have been very helpful to include to clearly set an expectation as part of the complaint process. I think any civilian who would issue a complaint, or even an officer who had a complaint levied against them, would want it dealt with sooner rather than later. To have it left hanging out there for seven years or longer is a problem. That definitely needs to be brought up and dealt with.

In my remaining time, I want to emphasize how important it is that we get things right when it comes to public safety. The RCMP plays a very important role in southwest Saskatchewan. Rural crime, unfortunately, is on the rise. The rate of assault against peace officers nearly doubled between 2011 and 2021. This legislation, this oversight, would ensure that we protect both sides in interactions with law enforcement.

Rural violent crime is up 19% in the country, and the crime severity index is 60 points higher in rural Saskatchewan than in urban Saskatchewan, which is the largest gap in the country. RCMP officers do good work. There is a lot of hard work they have to do. There are lots of split-second decisions they have to make that sometimes make them vulnerable or susceptible to complaints. That does happen. They need some certainty and clarity on the timelines of the review process as well. That would have been an important component to have sorted out in this bill.

With that, I will wrap up my remarks. I look forward to hearing the questions and comments.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Conservative members on the public safety committee submitted 33 amendments for Bill C-20, but they withdrew over 75% of them. Meanwhile, they dragged out the Bill C-20 meetings repeatedly by filibustering other parties' amendments and moving motions that were completely unrelated to Bill C-20. How does the member account for that?