Bill C-20 (Historical)

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.

Motions in Amendment

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

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.

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

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?

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

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.

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

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

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

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

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, 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.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

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.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

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?

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, 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.

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

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?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have not read the specific amendments that my colleague is referring to. However, a problem that sometimes comes up when we talk about systemic racism is a prior assumption that there is a situation involving racism or systemic racism. If the goal of the amendments was to automatically assume that everyone is racist, then, of course, there may be a problem.

For example, one good thing about the bill is that the commission must report to the government and the public on what kind of complaints it normally has to deal with. Even the RCMP and the CBSA will have to report on how they handle the recommendations that they get and on the nature of the complaints that they normally receive.

That means there will already be a way to get an overall picture of what is happening and to look at whether further action needs to be taken in some areas where problems seem to arise more often than in others, such as problems related to racism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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