Public Safety Committee on Nov. 25th, 2025

[Brian Kingston]

Yes, it does.

The CBSA is better placed to answer this. You don't need to inspect every single piece of cargo leaving the country. They use metrics to figure out what's high risk, but they need to have the space, they need to have the equipment and they need to have the officers to intervene when they've determined that something is potentially carrying stolen goods.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you.

I'm sorry for the witnesses to do this right now, but I would like to move a motion that I verbally put on notice at our last meeting. I move:

That the committee undertake a study, pursuant to SO 108(2), on the systemic discrimination and toxic workplace culture within the Canada Border Services Agency; That the study include a minimum of five meetings; That the committee invite the Minister of Public Safety, the President of the Canada Border Services Agency, the President and additional representatives of the Customs and Immigration Union, former and current CBSA employees with lived experience, experts in workplace culture and harassment, and any other witnesses the committee deems appropriate to appear before it; and That the committee report its findings and recommendations to the House.

I believe the clerk has been emailed this motion that I'm moving and will send it out electronically to everyone.

I would like to share why I'm at this stage where I feel that I need to move this motion. It actually started in the late summer. In my riding in Oshawa, I very often have coffee and conversation with my neighbours in Oshawa. I say, “Come and talk to me. Tell me what your concerns are.” One woman addressed me briefly. Her name was Caroline. She had some real deep concerns about her treatment as an officer at the CBSA.

When she shared these concerns with me, she broke down. She said, “I'm sorry to get emotional. I think that when I get emotional, people think I'm crazy.” She gets a reputation.

Women get that sometimes. We're told that we're crazy and that the things we're saying don't make any sense or that they're not really happening. A little gaslighting sometimes happens to try to convince us that this stuff isn't really going on.

I said, “Let me review your file. Let me read what it's all about.” At the time, I assumed that my mode of action would be to simply reach out to the Customs and Immigration Union president and, on behalf of my constituent and my neighbour, share that I would like to see what's going on with her case. It's at the third level. It's my understanding—and I've said this in committee before—that there are 450 cases in the east GTA alone at the third level. It was my friend Caroline's—now my friend, as I've gotten to know her—understanding that the union only had the capacity to review four at a time per month. At that rate, with 450, you can see that we're looking at six to 10 years before something is resolved.

Caroline felt that she needed to leave the toxic workplace and work somewhere else. She has left, but she still hasn't let it go. She still wants to be able to advocate not only for her case but for many others who have now said, “Thank you for having the strength and the courage to come forward. We want to come forward and share what's going on with us.”

I set up a meeting with her. You know how scheduling is; it happened closer to the beginning of October. It was right around the week that we had in our committee here the Customs and Immigration Union president, Mark Weber. We asked a few questions regarding how the government saw its ability to get 1,000 new border agents in a timely manner, based on the promise the Prime Minister made.

Through discovery, I learned that the attrition is very high. Very briefly, Mr. Weber pointed out that the attrition is high because there is a toxic work culture. He touched on it just briefly, but it stayed in the back of my mind, because if attrition is that high, getting 1,000 new border agents is going to be tough.

It's going to make even the topics we're talking about today tougher—auto theft and making sure our border agents have what they need to be able to screen—if we have attrition so high that we can't get this done.

Caroline came into my office days after I'd heard this testimony. I didn't really discuss it with her. I just listened to her story. Her story was quite heartbreaking. Multiple former CBSA employees came forward with serious allegations, but this is about her specifically. She was diagnosed with breast cancer and had to take some time off. She was worried about what it would mean for her position if she took time off and came back. We know that, in Canada in 2025, if you have to leave for illness, you should expect to come back to work and not be demoted or in a lesser position. We expect that person should be able to come back and have the position they were supposed to receive. Her experience was devastating. She was essentially removed from a specialty position.

After she fought and beat cancer, she became pregnant. I learned throughout several instances now that pregnancy is something that is essentially discouraged at the CBSA. Parental leave is discouraged past 90 days for both the father and the mother. Specifically for the mother, we know it's especially important because sometimes there's healing needed. Pregnancy made things worse.

There's something called the National Integrity Centre of Expertise, which she reached out to. However, the problem with this organization is that it's an internal one. You've seen organizations investigating themselves and closing the case. “Nope, nothing to see here—no wrongdoing. Nothing is happening here to change. Look, we've hired all these women in managerial positions. Clearly, there's nothing wrong. This is all in your head. Really, it had nothing to do with your pregnancy and nothing to do with the fact that you decided to start a family.”

It is becoming worse and worse. Another wonderful young woman wanted to start a family, and she did. She was a dog handler with the CBSA. For those of you who don't know this, dog handlers love their dogs. They become such close friends. They train them. They have so much they take part in.

I want to share with you something that she wrote: “I joined the Canada Border Services Agency in December 2014. When I graduated training, I was proud to put on my uniform.”

I'll pause right there because I think that is probably the single most amazing thing I've seen throughout this process. The women I spoke to—a couple of men but mostly women—are very proud to wear the uniform. They love their jobs immensely at the border and with inland security. Caroline, whom I mentioned, was inland security. Jordana was at the border with her dog as a dog handler. They were devastated when they had to give it up because they became pregnant. How is that possible in this country? It's not okay in any way, shape or form.

She had to give it up. She said, “I believed in service and integrity, and in the importance of protecting Canadians. When I first joined, I heard stories about the environment at the Pearson airport.” This is in Toronto, for those of you listening who may not know. The stories that circulated quietly among women in law enforcement were stories about women being passed over for specialized positions in favour of a man or after taking a maternity leave. They were about women being told they were too emotional for enforcement work, or being excluded from participating in special projects. They were about male colleagues being fast-tracked for opportunities that women had to fight twice as hard for. They were about bullying and harassment complaints from women that were quietly disappeared—not the women but the complaints, to be clear.

She said that she had hoped things had changed and that things had progressed. She wanted to believe that if she worked hard, did her job well and kept her head down, she'd be judged on her merit and not on her gender. However, to her disappointment, she eventually started to witness and experience these things herself.

The boys' club that she was hopeful was dismantled long before she started in 2014 was very much still alive. The women who were in charge were installed to protect it. She was warned by other female officers that complaining would effectively blackball her career, and she watched the agency silence women who did have the courage to speak out by labelling them as aggressive or crazy. She was told to develop a thick skin and to go numb to survive.

She was told this in her workplace at the CBSA—to toe the company line. So, she did, she says. In spite of the environment, she found a way to make the most of it.

She says that she spent time on various enforcement teams and eventually was selected to be an agricultural dog handler. After 10 weeks of intensive training in Quebec at the training college, she graduated as a dog handler. She said that it was more than a job to her; it was a calling. She was incredibly passionate about it and was dedicated to her work. She said that she was proud to serve Canadians in this way, to work in partnership with her highly trained canine partner, and to be part of a unique and specialized program. She loved her work. It gave her purpose, pride and identity. She and Faye were extremely successful and intercepted prohibited food items [Technical difficulty—Editor].

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

I'm sorry, Madam Kirkland [Technical difficulty—Editor].

Please go ahead, MP Dandurand.

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Chair, I doubt we'll get back to the witnesses soon. They've been very patient, and they may have other things to do. I therefore move that we release the witnesses, so that Ms. Kirkland can continue her arguments on the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

If the witnesses wish to leave the meeting, they can do so. We're already past the hour that we had planned for witnesses. We will almost certainly not need their eloquent and informed comments as we continue this discussion.

Thank you for your intervention, Ms. Dandurand.

Mr. McGuinty and Mr. Kingston, thank you for being here and for your hard work. We really appreciate your coming to work with us. Have a good day.

Ms. Kirkland, you have the floor again.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you.

I will take this moment to thank our witnesses. We did get good testimony from you. I'm sorry I did take up the last 10 minutes, but it was a very important motion I needed to make. I appreciate your patience. Thank you.

As I was saying, she and her dog were extremely successful partners and intercepted close to 700 prohibited food items in the nearly three years that she was a handler. She says that when she became pregnant, that pride slowly turned into fear. Pregnancy made her afraid for her job. We heard in testimony at the last meeting from the president of the Customs and Immigration Union. He said that this is not a single-issue situation; this is a culture. He wasn't afraid to say it was a culture, because it was. There are too many examples of this happening for it to be an isolated incident.

She became pregnant. She said, “I became pregnant. That pride slowly turned into fear. Due to an antiquated policy, I was told that if I was away from the field for more than 90 days of leave, my dog would be removed and I would lose my assignment. The rule was absolute. There was no accommodation, no compromise and no exception. This was especially concerning because my husband was also a dog handler with the CBSA, so we both stood to lose our assignments over parental leave. We proposed to split our leave, each taking six months, so I could heal from my scheduled C-section, but this was met with the same rigid, callous resistance by CBSA management. The justification I was given was that a dog's operational skills deteriorate if inactive for longer than 90 days, but there are no scientific studies to support that, none. The agency admitted to me that none existed, and here's where it becomes even more difficult to understand, and the contradiction is glaring. The CBSA canine training college that created this policy also trains handlers and dogs for the Correctional Service of Canada, where handlers can be off for up to a year-long period with their canines and return to their position. Those partnerships and the work environment are maintained. It protects female corrections handlers and their protected leave.

“Why does the Canada Border Services Agency, under the portfolio of Public Safety and the public safety minister, enforce a rule that punishes women for taking maternity leave? We have a federal agency that punishes women for taking maternity leave. How, in Canada, a country with some of the most robust maternity leave provisions, does a policy like this exist with the federal government in 2025,” or ever, I might add.

She said, “I was told my canine was an expensive agency asset that must be reassigned and remain operational. I asked why a dog was given more consideration than my protected rights, my human rights as a woman. During my maternity leave, my dog was removed from me. Being stripped of my assignment at the end of my pregnancy when I was most vulnerable and focused on the well-being of my child left an indelible mark on my professional identity. It signalled to my colleagues and superiors that my commitment and competence was somehow diminished by motherhood.”

The mothers in this room know that your commitment and competence increase with motherhood. Well, there's baby brain maybe for a little while, slight baby brain.

She said, “The resulting damage to my reputation has been deeply painful.”

I don't think I can express that enough. She lost her position because of pregnancy. She lost her dog because of pregnancy.

She said, “I was made to feel as though I did not matter, and all my work invested for the CBSA was erased, replaced instead with the stigma of being unreliable and less dedicated. Why? Because I wanted to exercise my right to maternity leave. At a time when I needed compassion and understanding, I was met with exclusion, not inclusion.

“The worst part was when I questioned it. I was accused by women themselves in senior management positions as being aggressive. I was vilified. I was often dismissed and told that my last name was now a household name in Ottawa as being a troublemaker, that my career was over. How dare I challenge them? I ended up leaving my career with CBSA—a career that I loved—over the discrimination that I faced.

“When I emailed the president, Erin O'Gorman, and two other executives expressing my concerns, I was met with silence. I did not even receive acknowledgement. I transferred to another department within the federal government where the treatment I received is unheard of.

“This doesn't exist elsewhere that I can see in the government to the extent it does at CBSA. My canine that needed to be reassigned so urgently”—remember, so urgent—“sat in a kennel during my leave and was never reassigned.”

That's two losses there.

“She was eventually retired, thankfully to me, after many months, but all of this was for nothing.

“Personally, the emotional impact has been devastating and continues to be. The timing of this action occurred during what should have been a period of bonding, recovery and joy with my child and transformed a profoundly human experience into one of humiliation, anxiety and loss. I struggled and continue to struggle with immense guilt for subjecting my child to the stress of this while she was in my womb. This situation stole every ounce of excitement and joy from my pregnancy and this is something I can never get back.

“At times I question whether I was wrong to prioritize fighting to keep a position I loved instead of focusing on my baby. The harm from this cannot be measured solely in professional setbacks. It extends to my dignity, my identity as both a mother and a capable professional, and my trust in an employer who claims to value women in law enforcement.

“Being penalized for needing time to care for my newborn sent a chilling message, not only to me but to every woman who dares to believe that motherhood and professional ambition can coexist.”

This isn't an operational issue. It is a gender equality issue. It is systematic discrimination embedded in policy and it needs to change.

She says that she is not the only one impacted by this policy and it is only the tip of the iceberg for the systematic discrimination issues that plague the CBSA. Four other people that she is aware of, including her spouse, have been harmed by this policy. Most recently, a female handler in Montreal was asked during her interview process if she planned on having children. It's disgusting and it's unacceptable.

This young woman is asking for leadership. She's asking for that leadership from us. We are members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, which oversees the CBSA. She says that we have oversight, accountability and we need to fight for the reform within the CBSA to ensure that no woman in the CBSA ever again faces this kind of fear and loss during one of the most vulnerable and meaningful times in her life.

She says that no woman should have to choose between her child and her career and no department under our watch should be enforcing policies that make her choose.

As I asked a few more questions of these ladies, it became clear to me—and we heard this from the Customs and Immigration Union president in our last meeting—that we are dealing with a systemic issue. It is my understanding, from talking to several people, that they are aware of at least 50 women with similar stories because they're speaking out.

There are hundreds of young women currently working as officers at the CBSA who are afraid to say something. They are afraid of reprisal. They are afraid they will lose their positions, which they love. It is their life's work. They strove to work for the CBSA. It is something they wanted all of their lives.

Most of these women have spent years trying to get their grievances dealt with. Not only have they have been pushed out of their roles; they've had to leave the CBSA because it became so toxic for them.

The president of the union, in his testimony last week.... This is why I decided it was time to put the notice on motion. I couldn't wait any longer. The president mentioned the name of one person who's come forward in a news article. She's spoken out, and she has been speaking out for quite some time, but people are now paying attention.

Danielle Getzie is her name. There's a timeline of some events for her. She was a CBSA canine handler. She has provided a factual chronology of events and evidence illustrating the coordinated efforts to remove her from her position, the subsequent cover-up and the sustained misconduct that has persisted across multiple levels of CBSA management.

Corruption and deceit within the agency continue to this day, with senior officials consistently withholding information, providing false statements and obstructing fair process, despite clear findings from multiple investigative bodies.

It should be noted that when the union president gave his testimony, he also said there's an issue with too much middle and upper management, which creates a top-down issue that exacerbates the concerns these women have.

There are a few things I want to share from this timeline. They should give a fuller picture of the relentless misconduct, retaliation and mistreatment that Danielle has endured at the hands of the CBSA. The timeline she gives us is drawn from hundreds of pieces of supporting evidence that substantiate every claim contained within it. It forms the foundation for the larger body of documentation. Of course, my goal is to have this pass one day, and she'll be able to come here and share some of this as well. The documentation has been quite exact and quite damning.

Here's a condensed timeline, focusing only on the unjust removal from K-9 that Danielle Getzie experienced. Appreciate that during certain times, there were multiple significant workplace events occurring at the same time as these events that met the definition of workplace violence and bullying.

Many managers were interviewed in one sitting and asked questions regarding the unjust removal of canine handlers, but also other significant events. The managers had to navigate these interviews, attempting to cover up their culpable actions and often changed their answers from investigation to investigation, depending on the nature and scope of that investigation.

What is consistent is that the managers especially refused to tell the truth about their actions and knowledge of the said events. I'm going to name them from the documents from Danielle herself: Superintendent Duffy, Chief Charlton, Director Linde and Superintendent Wakita.

In October 2018, the director of the detector dog service, DDS, was notified that Danielle Getzie was pregnant and removed her from evaluations without notifying her. This was done because the DDS wanted to remove her from the program in anticipation of her maternity leave—which is sex-based discrimination, based on family status. Getzie found out about the unjust removal and through her manager, Superintendent Wakita, confronted DDS about it and notified DDS that she would not take maternity leave longer than 90 days—so she was already making concessions to keep her position, which is already unacceptable. DDS, however, still refused to put her back on evaluations.

Getzie suffered a medical emergency as a result of the stress and was hospitalized until she delivered her baby prematurely at seven months. She then filed a grievance over the 90-day policy.

Just to be clear, this was seven years ago.

Getzie and her baby were released from the hospital in December and she then presented her grievance to the regional director general. In January 2019, a grievance response was issued and the RDG, regional director general changed the grievance from a policy grievance to a personal grievance. Getzie was successful. RDG promised that Getzie could evaluate in January 2019. She came off maternity leave to do so. She was told that she would be able to go back to evaluations and that she would not be removed from the K-9 program and would be allowed to take her full one-year maternity leave. The DDS 90-day leave policy would be changed and she was to be protected from retaliation. RDG instructed the director to protect Getzie from retaliation.

In December 2019 she returned to the CBSA from maternity leave and immediately experienced a more hostile workplace, spearheaded by a manager who was a recent addition to the K-9 program and a customs and immigration local executive. This intensified the frequency of meetings—she had almost 20 with managers—about the hostile work environment, including superintendents, chief superintendents and directors, and the bullying and harassment,. However, management took no action.

Video evaluations are mandated by DDS due to COVID, and in July 2020 Getzie received a call from a whistle-blower who was a trainer in the DDS, who stated that the managers of DDS were failing her and Nova without merit. The whistle-blower didn't want to be named.

By the way, I'm seeing that a lot. Many women have come forward and they do not want to be named. They're afraid, especially those who are still officers. They're deeply afraid. One woman called me from another province a couple of weeks ago, and I happened to be in my community office in Oshawa.

When she called one of my case workers, my receptionist put her on hold, came back to my office and said, “There's a woman calling. She says there's something going on with the CBSA." My ears, of course, perked up, because I was thinking, “Okay, what's going on here?” I guess the first time I asked a question about this in committee, word spread that someone asked. Someone finally said something about this, even though it's been a known issue for a long time. She said that she seemed afraid, that she said, “I'm not even sure if I should call you. I don't know, am I going to get in trouble? Am I allowed to talk to her?” There was that much fear.

I took the phone call.... Yes, I'm diverting. This is a rabbit trail. This woman was an administrator, a trainer for the CBSA. We're not just talking about frontline officers here. We're talking about administrators, trainers, inland officers. She had a medical condition for which she needed a transplant, and she had an organ transplant. During that year, she was accommodated because her work—she administrates the training manuals and things like that—could be done outside the office. She did this work for a year, and everything was fine. Then, she went back for a while and started to get very sick a lot. Her many doctors and specialists wrote many messages to the CBSA, to her managers, to say that, because her immune system was so weak because of the transplant, she needed an accommodation. The simple accommodation requested was that she'd be in an office on her own, with a closed door, or she could work at home, just so she wasn't around too many people all at once because her immune system was so bad from her transplant. She was denied. She was told by people, who were not doctors that, “No, the cubicle is fine. A cubicle will keep you safe. You're going to work there.” She is now in the middle of trying to fight to go back to work but not be in a cubicle. She's afraid, if she says something to anybody above and beyond her management or her union, that she's going to be treated like she's crazy, ostracized...a crazy woman complaining again about the CBSA and the workplace harassment she has had to undergo.

We're talking about a woman who had a transplant. We're not talking just about pregnancies here. I do suspect that there are men, who have health conditions, who are also treated badly in the CBSA, which is why my motion didn't just specifically mention women. However, I also believe, with my whole heart, that women are disproportionately discriminated against in the CBSA. That should be disheartening to everyone sitting at this committee table. That should make you pause and wonder, and make us want to act quickly because there are women suffering, as we speak, in situations that are unacceptable. They would be unacceptable if it were a local restaurant that a waitress or waiter worked at, but, for some reason, it's allowable and acceptable in a federal agency.

To go back to Danielle, I'm getting calls like this all of the time. There are more stories beyond what I could ever share here. If we don't take this seriously, nothing will change, and I think that we want this to change, all of us. The only way we can do that is if we do it at our level. The women and the workers there have tried, for years, to change this culture, and nothing has changed. In July 2020, video evaluations were mandated by the DDS due to COVID. Getzie received a whistle-blower call, which I mentioned. The whistle-blower doesn't want to be named or get involved out of fear for their career, but knows Getzie's failure is a farce.

The whistle-blower stated that the DDS managers are retaliating for the grievance she made in December 2018 over the 90-day policy for maternity leave. That alone should make us disgusted, as we sit here, but that's just the tip of the iceberg.

We can get rid of that 90-day policy, but are women who go on maternity leave still going to be ostracized, demoted or moved from specialty positions into far lesser positions when they've worked—I want to swear—darn hard? They've worked their life for these roles, but the act of motherhood or illness is affecting them in such a horrific way.

Getzie informed a director—who already knew about it, by the way, but didn't let on that he knew—who attempted to get Getzie to name the whistle-blower, of course, and she would not. She audio-recorded that conversation, and after that, the DDS alerted them about Getzie's knowledge of the failure. This director and the DDS communicated on how they needed to find the whistle-blower to, quote, deal with them—not hear them, but deal with them.

In September 2020, a chief and a superintendent offer Danielle a replacement—it's Danielle Getzie and I'm going to use her first name—canine partner, as her dog was set to retire. Danielle accepted, and the chief emailed the entire management team of her acceptance. It was a big to-do because they were afraid of her suggesting—I don't know—that they were doing things that they shouldn't.

One of the directors was made aware of Getzie's replacement canine and got very angry. He had been saying to all BSOs for over a year how he hated Danielle Getzie. He called her a bitch repeatedly and said that he wanted to, quote, take her down. If that is not an example of workplace harassment and bullying to the most extreme, I don't know what is.

The director met with the superintendent, a chief and director, yelled at them, threatened them and told them to remove Danielle from the canine program because she was just such a witch with a capital B, I guess. The director specifically and repeatedly mentioned that Danielle should not be allowed to drive the government K-9 vehicle nor have access to the government credit card, as her canine partner was uncertified. The director wrongfully accused Danielle of committing fraud and was told numerous times that Danielle was not committing fraud, yet this person continued his practice of threatening managers and shopped the idea of fraud to every manager in the workplace.

We see what that is, right? He was going around the workplace, besmirching her name and making it so that no matter where she went, she would not be not able to work in a safe environment.

This director then bragged to everyone about his actions, stating that he got Danielle removed from K-9 and that he would get a policy created to confirm it. At the end of September, at that point, Superintendent Duffy told Getzie to return her K-9 vehicle, government-issued credit card and clean out her K-9 office locker. Superintendent Duffy signalled that Getzie was now removed from K-9. This was clearly as a result of Lassie's interference.

There's an organization—I mentioned it briefly—called NICE and I'm just going to refer back to it briefly here because it's important.

I do want to go back to Danielle's story, but I feel like I need to add some clarity to the issues.

I would say the three main issues are as follows.

There's, of course, systematic discrimination against pregnant employees and mothers.

There's also manipulation and misuse of internal HR systems to justify that manipulation.

Also, in regard to the National Integrity Centre of Expertise, NICE, which I've referred to before, their internal investigative processes and breach of confidentiality in investigations needs to be reviewed.

It's been very clear that the systematic discrimination against pregnant employees and mothers has gone beyond what it ever should.... I can't understand, as a new parliamentarian, how it got here. I've been a member of Parliament since April 28 of this year, so what is that now, seven months? I can't understand how years of this discrimination has gotten to where it is, where pregnant women feel like they have to choose between being a mother and their career. The Customs and Immigration Union president stated here last Thursday that this is exactly the case, they have to choose. If they become pregnant, they are highly at risk of their career being destroyed, and that is not okay.

There have been multiple women removed from acting roles or specialty positions immediately upon pregnancy or maternity leave; human rights protections are being ignored. Pregnancy continues to be treated as a disqualifying factor rather than a protected condition. Testimony last Thursday confirmed that it is a disqualifying factor and not a protected condition. The practice has become normalized, with some managers even acknowledging it happens often, and that women should simply be grateful for the lesser placements, rather than equitable treatment.

Senior leaders knowingly allow this behaviour to persist under the guise of business decisions. Women who report discrimination are labelled as aggressive or difficult, while those responsible for misconduct are promoted.

Employees and even labour relations officers fear reprisal for speaking up, leading to a culture of silence. They've been silenced.

Then we have the manipulation and misuse of internal HR systems to justify discrimination. CBSA managers have falsified or misrepresented position numbers in HR databases, is the claim, to retroactively justify decisions to terminate acting roles. Senior officials knowingly provided false information during internal investigations, creating an administrative paper trail to protect management decisions. Despite multiple complaints, no senior CBSA leader has been held accountable, even when evidence of misconduct or deception exists.

To clarify that, as these level three grievances go through the slow, agonizing process of being heard, the persons responsible for the harassment or the discrimination have then gone on to be promoted, moved and protected. We're seeing a pattern here that is so disgusting and unacceptable. I'm happy to see other members here at this table because it's such an important issue and it's an emotional one. As a mother of two, by all rights, if we behaved the way the CBSA does, I should not be here now as a member of Parliament representing my community, because a pregnancy obviously makes me unable to fulfill my role.

Being a single mother clearly makes me unable to possibly be here as a member of Parliament advocating for these women, but it's exactly why I'm doing it. If their voice can't be heard, then I would like to be their voice. I hope that everyone around this committee table will start this challenge and this advocacy, and will continue to be their voice until something changes. People who've known me all my life know that if I find something unjust, I'm probably not going to let it go, and neither should any of you.

Despite multiple complaints, again, I'll say that no senior CBSA leader has been held accountable, even where evidence of misconduct or deception exists. Internal reporting obscures real outcomes by marking cases as resolved once they're closed administratively but not substantively.

On ATIP review specifics, internal emails revealed that officials who raised concerns about misconduct were ignored, while managers implicated in wrongdoing faced no discipline. Recently obtained ATIP documents further confirmed that CBSA's internal accountability mechanisms are compromised by dishonesty and internal contradiction.

On falsified records, labour relations acknowledges in writing that the employee was never under the position number that management cited as justification for ending her acting role, a claim repeated for three years to defend discriminatory actions.

Also, there were false budget claims. The same report confirms that there were no budgetary constraints in the department, contradicting CBSA's long-standing excuse for terminating a pregnant employee's assignment.

Also, there were ignored warnings. Labour relations questioned management's inability to accommodate for only a few additional weeks and noticed that the external investigation failed to address serious concerns, yet the CBSA told the employee in writing that due diligence was complete, and the case was closed.

“It's closed. There's nothing more to see here—nothing more.”

These contradictions show that the CBSA knowingly misled both the employee and the investigators, reinforcing the need for external oversight and the independent verification of internal investigation outcomes.

Then we come to NICE—sounds good; sounds nice, but it's not that great. The National Integrity Centre of Expertise...internal investigative processes and breach of confidentiality in investigations. NICE has been described as procedurally unfair, biased and prioritizing case closure over truth.

“Let's just...oh, case closed. Again, nothing to see here.”

Reports are often factually incorrect, dismissive or influenced by management pressure. NICE staff have privately admitted that investigations are actually directed by superiors. ATIP records confirm that the CBSA's National Integrity Centre of Expertise, NICE, improperly shared a confidential harassment report with labour relations, the same group responsible for defending management in grievance proceedings.

Labour relations officials directed NICE's communications, approved responses and even drafted decisions, effectively controlling both the investigation and the grievance outcomes.

So, they control the outcome. It gets better.

This represents a serious conflict of interest and violates confidentiality standards, of course, under the workplace harassment and violence prevention regulations. There are several news articles, which I suggest that this committee go ahead and take a look at, including one from Global News entitled “Former CBSA dog handler calls out 90-day 'discriminatory' parental leave policy”, and CBC reported on the dog handler's maternity harassment on two separate occasions.

In the most recent article from June 2025, the CBSA claims to have revised the policy, but the revised policy is very similar to the old one. It's on a case-by-case basis, when maternity leave should be non-discretionary.

One thing Caroline said to me was that, for a lot of these things, they've talked about putting them in the collective agreement for bargaining for the unions, and she asked why human rights should be part of a collective agreement. We shouldn't have to have an agreement on whether or not people are simply treated correctly.

I'll make these quick follow-up points. Then I'm sure others may want to spend time debating this as well or may have some comments to make on this before we vote on this motion—because this must be studied.

There are approximately 450 grievances in level three. That doesn't include level one and level two, and this is just the GTA. I suspect we have that many and more in the border areas of British Columbia and perhaps in Montreal, Halifax and more. They've been told that they're only hearing four grievances per month at level three, which would make it an approximate eight-year to 10-year wait. Meanwhile, these people are in this toxic environment, trying to survive or deciding that they're going to go.

The union receives the grievance submission and then passes it to labour relations at the CBSA, where it gets tied up.

The women whom I've spoken to mostly have level three grievances that are still outstanding. They know 30 to 50 other women dealing with similar situations. A lot of women can't come forward for fear of losing their job, as they still work for the CBSA.

As I said, the ones coming forward are women who have left, so they feel.... What do they have to lose now? They've already lost the job they loved so much. The best they can do now is try to protect women and men in the future non-toxic environment that hopefully the CBSA becomes.

They're afraid to come forward. Often women are told to take a lesser maternity leave. Labour relations have shared their personal confidential information without consent, as if it were gossip.

I can't thank enough these beautiful, resilient, strong mothers, these women who brought integrity and who brought their experience and their expertise to the CBSA, and who have been sidelined and shoved aside.

I'm going to jump ahead quickly in Danielle's story to see what outcomes we're looking at, where we are now.

In February of this year, NICE—remember that really nice unit?—closed the file, citing that all regulations had been complied with, including a joint meeting of the employer and the OHS committee, with the institution of recommendations per the WPHV final report.

Danielle discovered in June this year that the RDG email and statements in January regarding compliance with the regulations and the meeting with the OHS committee, were lies. No meeting and no presentation of the final report ever occurred.

When Danielle confronted the NICE unit staff, who attempted to explain their own feelings and those of the directors, they were unable to do so. NICE then was forced to reopen the file after Danielle made her sixth complaint to the Canada labour program regarding the handling of the file.

I know I shared a ton of information. I just truly felt that I needed to. When I read these messages and when I had these women sitting in front of me, telling me these stories, I couldn't not be moved by them. I really felt that it was necessary that I share them, in moving this motion, and that we study the toxic work culture.

I know I took a long time, but I will end it there and see if anyone else would like to add their comments.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Ms. Kirkland.

According to my list, the next person to speak is Ms. Dandurand. Then it will be Mr. Lloyd's turn.

Ms. Dandurand, you have the floor.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

I have a point of order.

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to acknowledge the remarks made by my colleague Ms. Kirkland, which we found to be very emotional and deeply sincere—

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Wait a moment, Ms. Dandurand. Mr. Lloyd has a point of order.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Mr. Chair, I think you'll find, if you consult the clerk, that I was on the list before Ms. Dandurand.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

I saw Madame Dandurand first and saw you second. Then there might be MP Lawton and MP Caputo.

Go ahead, Ms. Dandurand.

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I was saying, I want to acknowledge the intervention of my colleague Ms. Kirkland, which we found to be very emotional and very sincere. The subject she raised is really very important, and it really deserves all the attention and time it takes to be properly discussed—

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

I'm sorry to interrupt you, Ms. Dandurand.

Mr. Caputo, go ahead.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

I asked you to consult the clerk on the list. There is a list right beside you as to the order of who asked to speak first. There are far too many times that we as Conservatives are not allowed to speak. Please, look at that list, and tell us the order of that list.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

As I just said, I looked at the MPs and also looked at the list. I saw Madame Dandurand first, and then—

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Well then, that's very convenient.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

—I saw Mr. Lloyd, and then, the list also includes you, Mr. Caputo, after MP Lawton.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Lloyd is first on the list.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

I'm sorry for that.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Lloyd was first on the list. He should have been acknowledged. He had his hand up first. This is not a matter of the chair picking and choosing who they think should go first.

This is a matter of MPs stating, “I want to speak.” We follow an order. I look forward to hearing from Madame Dandurand in due course, but we have to follow rules here. We don't get to adjourn meetings because we feel like it. We don't get to pick which MPs go first because we feel like it. Mr. Lloyd should have been recognized. He should be recognized now.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Mr. Caputo. I already shared my thoughts on that.

Ms. Dandurand, you have the floor.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

I have a point of order.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

On a point of order, I would like to challenge the chair's ruling on that point of order.