SoVote

May/3/24 10:17:38 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, time and time again, this is what the NDP-Liberal government does. It holds its legislation until the last possible minute, and then it tells members of Parliament that we cannot have a debate on it. If we do want to have a debate on it, then we are filibustering the legislation. We cannot have that. In order to effectively represent the will of the Canadian people and in order to be effective parliamentarians, we need to have opportunities to debate this legislation. The Liberal government has allowed this legislation to die on the Order Paper in two Parliaments. It allowed this legislation, which passed in committee in November of last year, to sit on the Order Paper and to not come to debate until May of this year. It is clear that the Liberal government is not taking this seriously. It does not want to have real debates in the House; it just wants to railroad its legislation through. Common-sense Conservatives will not allow that happen. We will stand up for our Westminster system of parliamentary democracy. We will stand up for robust debate in the House, and we will never apologize for that.

198 words

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval (Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, BQ)

May/3/24 10:18:42 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-20

Mr. Speaker, we are currently debating Bill C-20, an interesting bill. My colleague said that he intends to vote in favour of this bill. My colleague opposite will also be voting in favour, and I think my colleagues to my left will do the same. I have a feeling that everyone is going to vote in favour of the bill. Therefore, rather than talking specifically about Bill C-20, I will talk about something related to Bill C-20, which is how this government handles border control and customs management. Generally speaking, aside from Bill C-20, is my colleague satisfied with how the government is managing customs?

109 words

Mr. Dane Lloyd

May/3/24 10:19:32 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we recently had shocking testimony at the public safety committee that the CBSA has not scanned any containers leaving the port of Halifax. We know that Canada's ports have become a haven for organized crime, shipping not only stolen Canadian property, primarily Canadian vehicles, but also drugs, which are being manufactured in Canada, all across the world. The fact that the current government has not given the appropriate resources to law enforcement and to the CBSA to do their jobs effectively, to protect Canadian properties and to keep our country from becoming a haven for organized crime is unacceptable. There is no excuse from the government. The Liberal government has had nine years to fix this problem. It has risen by over 100%; car thefts are up over 100%, since 2015, under the NDP-Liberal government. It is unacceptable, and we are definitely not satisfied. We are going to fight to make sure that we fix our borders. We need to secure our borders to prevent Canadians' property from being exported abroad.

175 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

May/3/24 10:20:36 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-20

Mr. Speaker, I like the member, and I like working with him at the public safety committee. However, seriously, the CBSA cuts were done under the Conservative government. The Liberals have not fixed what the Conservatives broke, but the Conservatives broke it in the first place. The reality is that we saw Conservatives filibustering this bill, Bill C-20, repeatedly at the public safety committee, for months. Every time we showed up at the public safety committee to actually go through the bill, we ended up going through some motion, another dilatory motion that was raised by Conservative members at the committee. The reality is that we are debating, today, the deletion of the short title. The cost to taxpayers of the hours of debate around this Conservative fringe motion, which is only in place to delay this legislation, is going to be tens of thousands of dollars, and we would not get to third-reading debate, which I agree would be an important debate to have. Will the Conservatives withdraw this dilatory motion to delete the short title so that we can vote on report stage and move on to third reading?

193 words

Mr. Dane Lloyd

May/3/24 10:21:44 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-20

Mr. Speaker, I do enjoy working with the member at committee as well. There are definitely opportunities for collaboration. I am a collaborative kind of MP, but this is part and parcel of what we have seen from the NDP-Liberal government. We have a New Democratic Party that is more aggressive about passing government legislation without proper review and debate than the Liberal government is. The NDP-Liberal government just wants to railroad things through. We have to remember what happened last fall. Canadians wanted answers about Paul Bernardo's transfer from a maximum-security to a medium-security prison. The NDP-Liberal government refused to allow Canadians to get those answers. We, as Conservatives, were open to having even one meeting on this, but instead, the NDP-Liberal government was desperate to cover that up and desperate to not have a conversation. The government kept the committee dragged out for months so that Bill C-20 was delayed until November.

162 words

Mr. Chandra Arya (Nepean, Lib.)

May/3/24 10:22:57 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-20

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by recognizing and thanking those serving in the RCMP and the CBSA. Today, we stand at an important moment in the evolution of Canada’s approach to law enforcement and to border security. With the introduction of Bill C-20, we commit to enhancing transparency, accountability and public trust in our institutions. The creation of the public complaints and review commission, the PCRC, marks a significant advancement in our continuous pursuit of a fair and just society. Let us begin by acknowledging that the essence of law enforcement and border security relies not only on the enforcement of laws but also on the public's trust. Trust is hard-earned and easily lost. Public trust in law enforcement agencies is fundamental to the stability and the effectiveness of legal systems worldwide. It ensures that citizens respect, obey and support the enforcement of laws, which is critical for maintaining public order and security. When the public trusts the police and other law enforcement bodies, they are more likely to co-operate with investigations, report crimes and adhere to legal directives, fostering a safer community for everyone. Trust between the public and law enforcement also reinforces the legitimacy of the police in the eyes of the community. This legitimacy is crucial as it underpins the public's compliance with laws, without the need for coercion. People comply because they believe it is the right thing to do, not just out of fear of punishment. Moreover, high levels of trust in law enforcement correlate strongly with lower crime rates. Communities where trust is prevalent tend to have more positive interactions with police, which helps in effective policing and less violent confrontations. Furthermore, trust in law enforcement is essential for upholding the principles of a civilized society, where justice is seen to be done and is carried out fairly. A lack of trust can lead to a breakdown in civil order, an increase in crime and the potential for civil unrest. Trust ensures a collaborative relationship between the community and the police, which is vital for developing strategies that effectively address local crime and safety concerns. To maintain this trust, law enforcement agencies must operate transparently and accountably, demonstrating their commitment to justice and fairness in all their actions. The establishment of independent bodies that can oversee, review and investigate law enforcement practices, such as complaints against police conduct, also plays a pivotal role. These measures not only help to prevent abuses of power but also ensure that the public’s concerns are heard and addressed, thus maintaining the essential trust needed for a harmonious and civilized society. In recent years, public trust in Canadian law enforcement agencies has experienced a noticeable decline. This trend has been influenced by several high-profile incidents involving police misconduct and the broader discussions around systemic racism within law enforcement. These factors have catalyzed public scrutiny and skepticism, prompting calls for greater transparency and accountability. Restoring public confidence remains a significant challenge and an ongoing priority for Canadian authorities. The current status and trends in American law enforcement can influence Canadian attitudes towards our own police forces. The global nature of media and the Internet means that Canadians are often exposed to prominent news stories and discussions about American police practices, especially concerning issues of police brutality, systemic racism and accountability. High-profile incidents in the United States, such as the killing of George Floyd, have sparked international movements like Black Lives Matter, which also resonate strongly in Canada. This exposure can impact how Canadians perceive our own police services, leading to increased calls for transparency, reform and accountability within Canadian law enforcement agencies. Even though policing practices and the legal framework in Canada are distinct from those in the U.S., the widespread media coverage of and societal reactions to American law enforcement issues can heighten public awareness and skepticism in Canada as well. Moreover, similar underlying issues, such as racial profiling and the treatment of indigenous peoples and minorities, are present in both countries, further aligning public concerns. As a result, the debates and reforms happening in the U.S. often act as a catalyst for similar discussions and changes in Canadian policing and public policy. The public complaints and review commission, or PCRC, proposed under this bill would extend its oversight to the Canada Border Services Agency as well as address a long-standing gap in our law enforcement framework. For the first time, both these critical agencies, the RCMP and the CBSA, would be under the same umbrella of independent scrutiny. The government plans to invest $112 million to support the operations of the PCRC. This substantial financial commitment would underscore our dedication to building a robust mechanism that would serve Canadians long into the future. One of the key features of the PCRC would be its enhanced accountability measures. We would introduce codified timelines that would require the RCMP commissioner and the CBSA president to respond to the PCRC's interim reports, reviews and recommendations within specified periods. This would address concerns about delays in responding to oversight findings and ensure actions are timely and transparent. Moreover, the PCRC would play a crucial role in addressing systematic racism within our law enforcement agencies as the PCRC would also have a public education mandate. It would not only oversee and review the agencies but also inform and educate the public about the rights and the mechanisms available for redress. Knowledge is power, and empowering our citizens is a crucial step toward a more engaged and informed community. Another significant aspect of the PCRC would be its responsibilities in handling serious incidents involving CBSA personnel. This would include the ability to send observers to ensure internal investigations were conducted impartially. This measure would enhance the credibility of investigative processes and increase public confidence in the outcomes. Furthermore, the PCRC would operate independently, but not in isolation. It would maintain a collaborative relationship with the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency to ensure that national security-related complaints were handled with the requisite expertise and confidentiality. This legislation is about more than just oversight. It is about reaffirming our commitment to the principles of justice and equity, which Canada holds dear.

1044 words

Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan (Calgary Forest Lawn, CPC)

May/3/24 10:32:09 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member brought up the word “racism”, and it makes me think about some of the things that have transpired under the government after nine years. We see more racism than ever all across the departments after nine years of the government, including in the immigration department. There was a report that came out in 2021, a Polaris report, that showed racism only went up in that department. Since we are on the topic, I would like to get the member's take on the Prime Minister, someone who has done racist blackface. What are the member's thoughts on that and on the rise in racism under the government in all departments?

117 words

Mr. Chandra Arya

May/3/24 10:32:57 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I fully disagree that racism went up during the last nine years in our government. What has happened is that there has been recognition of systemic racism. This has resulted in a higher number of complaints, which have been made public. Those have gone up. That is the reason we see an increase in the statistics.

58 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

May/3/24 10:33:25 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate hearing the comments of my colleague. The reality is that, despite the Conservatives fighting tooth and nail to block this legislation, we are finally getting it through. The problem is that the government has not adequately funded the commission for the work that needs to be done so these complaints can be handled in a timely fashion. This has been an ongoing problem. Repeatedly, at the public safety committee, witnesses came forward to talk about the lack of resources the government has put in. We heard from a wide variety of witnesses who wanted to have a functional commission that did an adequate job. That is not going to be possible if the government does not adequately fund it. My question to my colleague is quite simple: Why will the Liberal government not adequately fund the commission so that it can do the important work it needs to do?

154 words

Mr. Chandra Arya

May/3/24 10:34:25 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, our government has indeed made adequate funding provisions for the public complaints and review commission. We have committed about $112 million. This substantial financial commitment underscores our dedication to building a robust mechanism that would serve Canadians long into the future.

43 words

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval (Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, BQ)

May/3/24 10:34:51 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-20

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague opposite, who seems quite proud of his government's track record. Bill C-20, in particular, talks a lot about the work of customs officers. From the testimony given in committee, something that seemed to crop up quite often was the whole issue of overwork and fatigue among customs officers. Many of us remember the endless airport lineups to get through security and customs. When people are too tired, they sometimes make mistakes. They might go further than they should. Does my colleague think that the lack of resources provided to customs officers could also have played a part in the mistakes they made? If his government had given them proper funding and the resources they needed, there would be fewer problems like the ones we are trying to fix through Bill C‑20.

145 words

Mr. Chandra Arya

May/3/24 10:35:49 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, obviously, the workplace conditions, the working conditions, of all of the men and women in uniform should be included as required. The member mentioned the delays at the airport, but at the same time, we have seen that the process of going through the airport has been smoother. Obviously, from time to time, depending on the season, depending on the particular day, there might be an overwhelming workload and the conditions have to be improved.

77 words

Mrs. Brenda Shanahan (Châteauguay—Lacolle, Lib.)

May/3/24 10:36:23 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciated the comments of my colleague regarding the empowerment of citizens to forward their complaints through this process. I would like to know his thoughts on how this complaints process would help the RCMP and the CBSA to better manage their affairs.

46 words

Mr. Chandra Arya

May/3/24 10:36:47 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important thing. The more complaints that are handled in a transparent way, the more the agencies, the officers and the executives there would feel accountable, and that is how this would work out.

39 words

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval (Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, BQ)

May/3/24 10:37:09 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-20

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating Bill C-20, which deals with changes to the handling of complaints filed in connection with the level of service delivered by customs personnel or their possible misconduct. I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise in the House for a second time this week, since I did have the opportunity to give another speech earlier in the week on the government's budget. I do intend to talk about the government's budget again, because it will bring me to Bill C-20. Members will soon see the connection. The budget presented by the Liberal government this week was in fact historic. I say this because never before has a budget interfered so much in provincial jurisdictions or disregarded provincial powers to such an extent. In my speech, I criticized the government for not looking after its own jurisdictions and instead interfering in areas that are not under its responsibility. I also called out the Prime Minister for acting like the new self-proclaimed king. Perhaps he is inspired in part by his monarchist leanings and his somewhat theological view of Canada. That being said, in the case of Bill C‑20 I must commend the government. That may surprise some people, but instead of always criticizing the government's bills, sometimes we have to acknowledge when they get it right. I am taking this opportunity to do just that. Obviously, once is not a habit and sometimes it is the exception that proves the rule. In this bill, there is certainly an exception. The exception is that the Liberal government is doing its job, it is minding its own business. It feels good to see a government staying within its jurisdiction. We would like to see more of that, I must admit. If that happened more often, this country might be better off. We are not going to deny it. What exactly is Bill C‑20 all about? Sometimes ordinary people have to travel overseas. The vast majority of us have gone to another country. When we want to enter a country, the customs officers ask us all sorts of questions. How long are we staying? Where will we stay? Why are we here? They want to know if the travel is justified. Customs officers work to try to prevent threats to national security. They want to know whether people are entering the country with good intentions, whether they are authorized to enter the country and whether their visit will be positive, rather than dangerous or threatening to the country. Customs officers do extremely important but also extremely sensitive work. That is why they are granted sweeping powers to ask us questions, search our luggage without a warrant or take us aside and detain us for a little longer. These are indeed considerable powers, which ordinary citizens may sometimes find intimidating. When they stand before a customs officer, most people always wonder whether they are guilty of something or whether they put something in their luggage that could be dangerous. Perhaps people do not have the right to bring lead pencils into that country. I am joking, but I think that members know what I mean. We never know the exact rules or all the laws of every country that we visit. It is the same sort of thing for people who come here. Plus, there is an added challenge. People coming here often do not know what recourse they have against any abuses they might experience. They find themselves somewhat powerless in the face of a customs officer's authority. This authority is nonetheless a good thing, since the job of customs officers is ultimately to protect us from security incidents or, at the very least, from people who might break the rules and harm society's overall well-being by transporting dangerous objects. For example, no one wants to see an individual pass through customs only to realize a little later that he is a member of an organized crime group and has come here to commit murder. Perhaps there are foreign agents infiltrating our country to exert undue influence, or people transporting drugs. These are all things we do not want to see happen. For these reasons, it is important that customs officers have the authority they need to do their job. However, situations can arise where these people abuse their power. We hope that such situations are kept to a minimum whenever possible, but we know—considering the many cartoons about it—that some administrations in other parts of the world are less strict than our officers are here. We have almost come to expect to see abuses when we go through customs. That is not what we want to see in the country where we live. We live in a western country, a G7 nation, that theoretically respects people's rights. In fact, ours is a country with a Constitution. Some well-known rights were enshrined in that Constitution by the current Prime Minister's father. Although we may disagree on these rights, or at least parts of them, we nevertheless hope that the people called upon to uphold the Constitution, once it takes effect, will respect it. To digress just a little, that is also why we hope that this government will respect its own Constitution. When the government draws up budgets, it sometimes meddles in matters that are not its concern. In the case of customs officers, these individuals are also government representatives, so they must remain above reproach as much as possible and as needed. When an officer opens someone's luggage and turns everything inside out, as customs officers are entitled to do, they are invading someone's privacy. Officers open people's suitcases and see what they wore the day before, whether they did their laundry and so on. These things can be a little uncomfortable. We always hope these procedures are carried out with respect for human dignity. The same is true when an officer decides to search an individual. For example, a customs officer may decide to strip search someone to see if that individual has hidden prohibited items inside their body. Officers might even inspect that individual's genitals. No one wants customs officers to comment on anything like whether the person showered yesterday or how little they are interested in that person. They also should not say anything about the size, shape or colour of an individual. All of these things would be completely inappropriate in circumstances where the person being searched is in a vulnerable situation. That is what Bill C‑20 tries to fix. Let us hope it is adopted. It is about recognizing that customs officers have rights and they need to enforce the law and protect society and the country. However, this power must also have limits and be regulated. In the past, passengers could file a complaint. That recourse already existed. The problem is that a complaint about a customs officer or service was dealt with internally. It seemed like there was a lack of transparency or like there could sometimes be a certain form of institutional bias. For example, in my riding, we often heard people complaining about the noise and speed of the trains. They had to file their complaint with the company's police service. People felt like they were being jerked around. They file a complaint with CN's police service and CN is the one that is going to look into the complaint. The perception is that the complaint does not get treated the way it should. That is what Bill C‑20 seeks to do. It seeks to ensure that, from now on, an independent body will have the authority to resolve complaints. If people want to go directly to the independent authority, then they can do so. They can also file their complaint the old way by submitting it directly to border services, where it will be addressed internally first. Later on, they can file an appeal with this completely independent authority, which will be run by civilians, not by former customs or RCMP officers. It will be the same authority that already exists and that independently handles complaints against the RCMP, the federal police service. It will do the same work, but with the name change, it will also be able to independently handle complaints about alleged abuse committed by customs officers. I will close by saying that this is a constructive measure that will strengthen the public's confidence in the system. Most importantly, we need to ensure that customs officers, who do an exemplary job of performing very important work for our community, have the resources that they need. Even though this does not excuse inappropriate behaviour, we know that sometimes people can make mistakes when they are burnt out.

1485 words

Mrs. Brenda Shanahan (Châteauguay—Lacolle, Lib.)

May/3/24 10:47:18 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated my colleague's speech. I am very pleased to hear him acknowledge that the federal Parliament can do good things at times. I am also very grateful that the member indicated that the work of customs officers and members of the RCMP is not easy. It is a very demanding job. Does my colleague agree with me that what we really need is a more diverse workforce within both agencies? Does he agree that this will help us improve services to the public?

88 words

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval

May/3/24 10:48:11 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that question caught me a little off guard. I would say that I take it for granted that every customs officer does their job professionally and that, regardless of their skin colour and religion, they are going to do as professional a job as any other customs officer. Would forcing greater diversity among customs officers really bring about change? It seems to me this question actually assumes that someone would have a different way of working or be less professional because of their ethnic background or language. I hope that is not what my colleague is saying.

99 words

Mr. Alex Ruff (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC)

May/3/24 10:48:55 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-20

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-20 is clearly important for building trust and accountability within the RCMP and the CBSA. Unfortunately, the current Liberal government always seems reluctant to prioritize legislation that enhances accountability. Here is another example. The review of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act was supposed to begin in the fall of 2022, but the government has refused to initiate that accountability process. Why does the member think the Liberal government is reluctant to prioritize legislation that enhances accountability?

84 words

M. Xavier Barsalou-Duval

May/3/24 10:49:48 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague on his French. I think it always deserves mention when we see people from other provinces of Canada who choose, out of respect for others and perhaps out of personal interest, to learn the language of people who are part of the same country, at least for now. A lot of Quebeckers are learning English or know it well. We usually see the opposite, I mean, francophones who learn and speak English. We rarely see anglophones learning French. I have to point that out. To answer my colleague's question more specifically, I cannot say that I am surprised by his question about the government's reluctance to do its job. That is generally what I said in my speech. This is a government that rarely shows much interest in its own job. It is usually more interested in things outside its jurisdiction, in jurisdictions that belong to the Government of Quebec, like health and education. It even meddles in our laws, such as our law on secularism. It usually lectures us, yet it does not even look after its borders. The best example is customs. During the pandemic and even up until not so long ago, we saw endless lineups at customs, staff shortages and exasperated travellers speaking out about situations and flight cancellations, sometimes due to a shortage of air traffic controllers. We truly have a federal government that does not do its own job and yet lectures everyone else. If I could make one recommendation to the federal government, it would be to concentrate on its own job.

274 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

May/3/24 10:51:20 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I really liked my colleague's speech. I would like to talk about the request made by several organizations, including the Customs and Immigration Union, both the francophone and anglophone chapters of Amnesty International Canada, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Council for Refugees, and more. All of these well-respected organizations have asked for a standard time frame for processing complaints, especially complaints about systemic problems such as systemic racism. The government rejected these amendments and, what is more, it refused to allocate resources so that the commission could operate properly and meet its objectives. Would my colleague agree that this is a mistake that the government made twice with this bill, which has many positive aspects but could have been better?

126 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 308