44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 6, 2024 10:00AM
- Jun/6/24 6:44:34 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, when my colleague from Joliette asked the member a question about the possibility of putting the Canada Border Services Agency under third party management, his response was not really clear. Do the Conservatives approve of this measure?
Also, how do they envision the right of appeal for people who feel they received abusive or inappropriate treatment at the hands of border services officers? What might that look like?
70 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 6:45:04 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, this bill will enable people to file complaints and report incidents that happen at the Canadian border.
One of my constituents sent me an email a few months ago describing how he was mistreated. He and his wife were coming back from the United States and they felt they were treated inappropriately. In some cases, these incidents are so serious that it will be up to the commission to determine what really happened. In others, they involve service-related problems that can be resolved at a lower level by a director. I do not often see such serious cases. I think this is the first that I have seen in nine years, and it just happened in the last three or four months.
125 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise again today and speak, this time to Bill C-20, the public complaints and review commission act. It is an honour to rise on this important piece of legislation. It would establish the complaints and review commission, and it would be amending certain acts and statutory instruments as well.
I was a member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security for a brief period during clause-by-clause of this bill, so there were many important amendments put forward by all parties to help ensure that we get this bill right. That is the role of committee, and it should be the role of all parliamentarians to get those things right at committee. I appreciate, though we had some hiccups along the way as we always do, the general collaboration to get that completed.
On that note of getting the bill right, it is important that we have a fulsome debate because the bill would help foster public confidence and trust in our federal law enforcement agencies, namely the RCMP and CBSA. Public trust and confidence in all of our institutions is paramount to democracy, but particularly to institutions focused on public safety and national security. It is of the highest importance to ensure that trust is there.
A related issue we are dealing with presently in this chamber is that Conservatives are asking the government to release the names of MPs who are reported to have engaged with hostile foreign nations. However, just this morning, at the public safety and national security committee, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety told us, “Boo hoo, get over it.” Comments like this do the opposite of ensuring that there is trust in public institutions, when legitimate concerns are brought forward on something as serious as foreign interference and the involvement of members of this chamber, and the government says to get over it, to look the other way and that there is nothing to see.
Coming back to Bill C-20, I will note that the bill does not really seem terribly important to the government, despite its claims that it needs to be passed. This is the third attempt the government has made to pass the bill, as has been mentioned by members. It was Bill C-98 in the 42nd Parliament, and it died on the order of paper. In the 43rd Parliament it was Bill C-3, but it died when the Prime Minister called an unnecessary early election for his political gain in the middle of a pandemic. Of course, he called that election despite having voted a couple of months before the election to do just that, and I will come back to that a bit later. Clearly, the government says it cares, and its track record says otherwise. The bill has not been a priority for the government to move through.
I want to take a bit of time to talk about what the bill would actually do. It would rename the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP to the public complaints and review commission, under its new name. The Commission would also be responsible for reviewing civilian complaints against the Canada Border Services Agency, the CBSA.
The bill would also codify timelines for RCMP and CBSA responses to interim reports, reviews and recommendations of the complaints commission. There would be information sharing between the RCMP, the CBSA and the commission. The bill would also require mandatory annual reporting by the RCMP and CBSA on actions taken in response to the commission's recommendations, and it would require mandatory reporting of race-based data by the commission. Lastly, the bill would create a statutory framework to govern CBSA responses to serious incidents.
While there would be many positive changes made, there are still a number of concerns that have been raised. First, one of the concerns is that there was a lack of consultation, something that seems to be a recurring theme, unfortunately, for the government. I spoke about this just yesterday in the chamber in regard to Bill C-61.
The government continues to say that it is consulting with first nations and indigenous peoples across the country and that it has a broad-based bill that is supported and co-developed. However, at the same time, we continue to hear concerns raised by first nation leaders impacted by the bill that their voices have not been heard and that they do not want it move forward as quickly as it has been until they have their say and amendments are brought forward. We need to hear from experts on every piece of legislation.
In the case of Bill C-20, various stakeholders, including indigenous chiefs and the National Police Federation, which represents the RCMP, flagged a number of problems with the bill. Most importantly, they felt the current framework, which relies on the RCMP to investigate itself, is insufficient and does not inspire public trust in the process. One particular concern is having police investigate police. The National Police Federation told the committee:
First, the PCRC should end the practice of the police investigating the police. Under the current CRCC model, members of the RCMP are tasked with investigating most of the public complaints filed. It has been noted many times that our members handle these investigations of their colleagues in a professional and impartial manner. However, this does create a perception of bias and possible conflict of interest.
Grand Chief Abram Benedict of the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne, whom I am looking forward to visiting this weekend with the member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, also expressed concerns about this. He noted that his community makes up 70% of the traffic at a port of entry nearby. He told the committee:
If a traveller complains about a border officer, the likelihood of them having an interaction with that officer again is very minimal, but in my community, it's very high. If somebody complains about an officer's conduct or about the service they received, the likelihood of them encountering that officer again is very high. There's no other border crossing in Canada that would be like that.
Having said that, doing this outside of the agency is definitely helpful in ensuring that it's a fair and independent process and a process where the person who is complaining—and I would argue the officers themselves—can be assured that it's more of an objective process than an internal process.
Bill C-20 would not fully address the issue, as the new complaints commission would still rely on RCMP and CBSA resources, meaning that it would not be truly independent. Conservatives tried to move various amendments at committee stage to increase the independence, but it was clear that there was no will from the other parties.
I want to come back to the issue that I alluded to earlier in my comments, not just about Bill C-20 but also, more broadly, about the government's approach on many bills and topics that it claims to be a priority, though their actions say otherwise. One that is interconnected in some ways to this one is with first nations and Inuit policing. The government has promised for years that first nations and Inuit police services would be designated as essential and would be allocated the proper resources.
The former minister of public safety, who, we know, was rightly turfed from his position, said in 2022 that the legislation would be right around the corner and that he was working around the clock. We have seen nothing but delays and excuses since. To this point, the current public safety minister says many of the very same things, but Conservatives will believe it when we see it.
I hope that the government takes the issues in Bill C-20 on indigenous policing, the issues in Bill C-61 and many other issues seriously, and that we are able to get the important work done.
1352 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 6:55:57 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in 2019, Mary Foster from Solidarity Across Borders said, “We have enough experience to know that making a complaint to the CBSA about the CBSA doesn't really lead anywhere.”
Having the ability to challenge the findings of the CBSA's investigations is essential to maintaining Canadians' trust. That is my first point for my hon. colleague.
Also, I want to know whether he is concerned that the process will be long and complicated, which could result in most individuals giving up before the end of the process and simply throwing in the towel.
98 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 6:56:42 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, if I understood the question correctly, I do believe that I did touch on that a bit in my comments. Of course, we have to ensure that this process is independent and that it is free of any conflicts. It is a process that must be effective and thorough, and on the same point the member mentioned, it has to be one that people would be willing to go through.
I do share similar concerns, as I highlighted, which is why I think it is important that we continue to have these important discussions and debates so that we can ensure that the bill does what it is intended to do and that it is an effective piece of legislation, not one that continues to perpetuate some of the status quo, which is already not working.
138 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 6:57:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the member was talking about how this government operates and how it operates through such poor governance and mismanagement. Of course, even in the last 24 hours, we have had a new Auditor General's report talking about conflicts of interest and really serious allegations. I am wondering if the member could expand on some of the comments that he was making during his intervention on that topic.
70 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from British Columbia is right. The scandals and the mismanagement know no bounds with the government.
However, an important aspect as well is the prioritization of legislation. Everything seems to be a priority for the government, but nothing actually ends up moving. As I alluded to earlier, with Bill C-61 yesterday, the government wanted to rush through to get to committee, and I am happy that we were able to pass a motion from the Conservative side to get that done, but there were 33 sitting days that the government had when it could have brought it forward, and it chose not to. When the clock starts to tick in June, all of a sudden it seems like it is a priority.
Unfortunately, we see that over and over again with legislation that pertains to indigenous and first nations peoples across the country. It is not a priority until time is running out for the government, and then it is scrambling to get it done.
170 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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?
56 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 7:00:00 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would disagree with the characterization the member brought forward. It is important that we bring forward amendments at committee and have those important discussions to improve legislation. As I mentioned, and as my Bloc colleague mentioned, there are concerns with this legislation, and there are things that need to be improved.
Canada's Conservatives are proud to do our work in committee to hold the government to account, and we are going to continue to do that, instead of continuing to blindly support the government, as the NDP has been doing.
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 7:00:41 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to know my colleague's thoughts about setting up an appeal process for inspections that are deemed unfounded.
Also, does he agree with the Bloc Québécois's proposal for oversight at the port of Montreal, that is, temporarily implementing some form of third party management to find out what is going on and why this location has become a conduit for all kinds of illegal goods?
75 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 7:01:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there were a couple of different topics there, but I want to focus on the port of Montreal.
Of course, we have seen a huge spike in crime, and that includes vehicle theft, particularly down in southern Ontario in the GTA. We know that the vehicles are going out through the port of Montreal, but the CBSA does not have the resources to adequately deal with it. I think it is very simple. We need to be searching the port and the containers to ensure that we can take those stolen vehicles out and get them back to their rightful owners. I think that is common sense.
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 7:01:58 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I know that the NDP is bought and paid for, and that is why its members blindly support the Liberals. They do not really feel like they have to put forward amendments.
Have you seen another government be supported so heavily by an opposition party and then have it turn out well for them in the next election?
60 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 7:02:20 p.m.
- Watch
I cannot answer that, but maybe the hon. member for Kenora can.
12 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 7:02:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is a very important question, and I do appreciate it being raised. I have not seen anything like this before. It is very clear that the NDP and the Liberals are one and the same here at the federal level in Canada. It has been an NDP-Liberal government for a couple of years now, formally, but we know the NDP has been supporting the Liberals for the entirety of the nine years that they have been in office.
82 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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.
1249 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 7:12:55 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the member joked a few minutes ago about quoting the CBC. I found that interesting because he is right; Conservatives never quote the CBC. I was surprised to hear him do that.
I know that he happens to be greenlit by the Campaign Life Coalition as an anti-choice member of Parliament, one of their flag-bearers here. I am wondering if he could give me his insight into what he thinks would more likely expel him from his caucus. Would it be his position on a woman's right to choose or the fact that he speaks favourably of the CBC in the House?
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 7:13:39 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, quoting the CBC does not necessarily mean I am speaking in favour of the CBC. It is a journalistic outfit. It puts articles out, and it does some studies. Every once in a while, a blind squirrel will find a nut. There is nothing wrong with quoting things that we find online or quoting journalism when it happens.
When we look at the gross misallocation of funds to the CBC, over $1.6 billion, I can think of a lot of better ways that the money could be spent. With respect to the journalists, the odd ones who actually do good work should be able to do that without getting massive subsidies from the taxpayer in order for them to do their job.
125 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 7:14:41 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I did not speak right away because I was waiting for the light to go on. Likewise, it would be nice to see a light to go on in the brains of some members of the House, especially those making comparisons between squirrels and the CBC.
Let us get back to the matter at hand. We know that the Canada Border Services Agency, the CBSA, has serious governance problems. The ArriveCAN file exposed that, as did the lack of oversight at the port of Montreal, which has become a nexus for vehicle theft. Many whistle-blowers have identified systemic internal problems.
We put forward a proposal. Even though the Bloc Québécois is an opposition party, we are not here to oppose for the sake of opposing. We also want to propose solutions. As we have said before, we believe that the CBSA should be put under third party management until the governance problems are resolved. That is a reasonable proposal. It is a smart proposal. Most of all, it is an actual proposal, something that some other opposition parties very rarely come up with.
Does my colleague agree with this proposal?
197 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 7:15:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, if that is an interim measure that would definitely help provide clarity, then it is something I think we could support. I was not on the committee when it heard some of the recommendations and amendments put forward by the other parties, so I do not know what the witnesses had to say about it, what some of the context around it would be or what that would look like. However, if it is a measure that is going to help provide more certainty and clarity in the short term and allow the commission to do a better job, then it is something we should consider doing and supporting.
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 7:16:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to ask my hon. colleague a question. I was going through some of the documents on the bill. For the most part, Conservatives know that there is a need to fix our porous border. There are way too many illegal firearms coming in, mostly from Michigan, but there are issues across the country. We support any measures that make our border that much more secure.
It is very telling that the Liberals have allotted roughly $20 million a year for this. What is my hon. colleague's view on how small a percentage they have spent on border security versus the billions on going after old Uncle Joe's hunting rifles?
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
