Debates of Jan. 29th, 2020

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, as always it is a privilege to rise in the House and speak to an important issue, the protection of Canadians in our communities. That is the top priority of this House, something I have said for several years, and I am happy to hear the new public safety minister beginning to echo those same sentiments.

Bill C-98 from the previous Parliament session, renamed Bill C-3 in this session, proposes to repurpose and rename the RCMP's civilian complaints commission to the “public complaints and review commission” and expand its mandate to review both the RCMP and the CBSA.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the RCMP and CBSA members for the incredible work and service they provide to Canadians.

I am privileged to be the first to rise on behalf of the official opposition and say that our team is cautiously optimistic of this legislation. Our Conservative team supports that all governments, employees and elected officials should be accountable to the people and the taxpayer. Public servants across the country must be held to the standards expected of Canadians, which is to uphold the integrity of people who are visiting or passing through our country, while ensuring our laws and international laws are upheld. For those reasons, a properly implemented oversight agency, as is used by police services across the country, including the RCMP, seems to be a sound policy and certainly long overdue.

In 2016, Ralph Goodale, the previous public safety minister, testified he was already working on the issue and prevented legislation from others to proceed.

In 2017, Mel Cappe provided his advice, which is captured in this bill, to create a civilian oversight body. Unfortunately, it took until the last days of the previous Parliament session for the Liberals to move ahead. Hopefully, the retabling of the bill three months into this new session suggests the Liberals are certainly taking this issue seriously.

Canadians expect federal law enforcement to act to uphold our laws and to be held accountable if it does not. This bill will align well with the values of many Canadians and the values of the Conservative team. However, it would not have been my top priority. Rather, I would have liked to talk about issues that at this time are of top priority to Canadians, such as the 134,000 people from across this country who have signed e-petition 2341. Currently, it is the largest e-petition in Canadian history and is the third largest in all of Canadian petition history, only behind the 1949, 625,000 hard-copy petition for the Canadian Bill of Rights and the 1975 petition on not proceeding with the abortion law. Of course, I am thrilled to be the sponsor of that petition. It highlights the flaws in the Liberal plan to target law-abiding Canadian gun owners for the actions of criminals and gangs.

I would have also liked to talk about the issue of rural crime and how it impacts all rural communities, especially those where the RCMP are left short-handed, and about the lack of a Liberal plan to deal with the skyrocketing opioid crisis in our communities, all the deaths that are occurring and the public safety concerns of gangs, shootings and illegal firearms. We should be talking about the erosion of our border security under the current Liberal government, not just with respect to the crisis of illegal border crossers, but also with drugs, handgun smuggling, human trafficking by many of the gangs running drugs, and the massive backlogs in the monitoring and deportation of known terrorists, criminals and national security risks.

However, we are here today to talk about Bill C-3, an oversight bill. Oversight is good. It ensures that people know that there is someone who will look into actions that are not in keeping with our laws. This bill should provide investigative powers, an ability to review situations, provide feedback and determine the course of action on scope and scale with anyone who violates our laws and principles.

Bill C-3 proposes to repurpose and rename the RCMP civilian complaints commission to the “public complaints and review commission” and expand its mandate to both the RCMP and the CBSA.

Since coming into government, the Liberals have added numerous layers of oversight, bureaucracy and process into national security and public safety with very little action that actually protects Canadians.

The Liberals have added the parliamentary National Security and Intelligence oversight committee, the new National Security and Intelligence review committee, the expanded Intelligence Commissioner and now the expanded role of the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP.

This is on top of the existing reviews that include the Minister of Public Safety, the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the national security advisor and now the newly appointed Deputy Prime Minister.

I certainly hope we do not have investigations by seven or eight federal agencies with respect to this one complaint and what this act is supposed to do.

Over the last five years, the Liberals have committed $150 million on boosting oversight. In contrast, between 2015 and 2019, they promised $400 million to policing and gangs, but delivered next to nothing.

Members will stand and say that oversight is the right way to go and that this bill, with some edits, as has already been mentioned in a previous question, could actually benefit Canadians. It will be important to ensure the right amendments are in place.

The bill would create a mechanism to complain about inappropriate actions by border officers. Police agencies have had civilian oversight and review for decades, and it is common practice around the world for law enforcement. It seems logical that a large enforcement agency, like CBSA, should have the same checks and balances. This will help officers who are wrongly accused to show that they acted appropriately, if they did, and it will remind officers that they are not above the law, which is something we all need.

However, the bill is silent on holding people accountable. The public complaints and review committee can examine evidence, call witnesses and write a report, but the bill seems silent on how officers who violate the law, code or principle can be held accountable.

I have not been in Parliament as long as some, but anyone who has paid attention to the Auditor General or other parliamentary officers can see a pattern: programs, services and reviews designed to look like they address issues, but lack any kind of accountability or powers to hold people accountable.

The Liberals are repeating the same thing over and over again. They gave us a new agency, a new commission, a new committee or another new bureaucracy, but refuse to put in place any measures that would take steps to correct the problems the commission or committee was there to deal with in the first place.

Let me use Vice-Admiral Norman as an example. The Prime Minister personally pointed the finger at Vice-Admiral Norman. The vice-admiral was fired and charged with serious offences. The Prime Minister said that he supported the RCMP in its investigations, but made no effort to provide full evidence to support its investigations or refute that investigation. It is only when Vice-Admiral Norman's attorney interviewed former Conservative ministers from the Harper administration that suddenly the case fell apart and the vice-admiral was completely exonerated.

A report into this civilian oversight committee, and I can only speculate since the Prime Minister continues to use cabinet confidence to cover up his trail, would probably reveal a use of select evidence, a plan to railroad and to blame a decorated officer in an attempt by the Prime Minister to hold the truth from Canadians.

Under this model, it should stop there. There would be no actions or recourse to address the issue to stop it from happening again, as is the case with Vice-Admiral Norman. There is no punishment for a corrupt politician to attack and railroad an honoured and decorated officer in the Canadian Armed Forces.

The House and the committee can and should give this bill proper scrutiny. While the idea seems sound and the model certainly better than in other legislation, I am very wary of anything the government does on borders. It has not managed our borders well and have not been upfront with the House of Commons or Canadians about those issues.

In 2017, the Liberals told us there was nothing to worry about with the tens of thousands of people crossing illegally into Canada. They told us they did not need new resources, security was going well and everything was just fine.

In reality, security was being cut in other areas to deal with the volumes of illegal border crossers, provinces and cities were drowning in costs and overflowed shelters, border and RCMP agencies were stretched and refugee screenings were backing up. According to the ministers at the time, everything was fine.

Then, three budgets delivered new funding and changes and a promise to deal with issues facing our border. Billions were spent on this issue, another example of mismanagement for the taxpayer to clean up, and things are no better. However, we still continue to pay millions to deal with the issue without any reduction in the problem.

What should we scrutinize?

First, we should ensure we hear from those people impacted by the decision, such as groups like front-line RCMP and CBSA officers who would be subjected to the evaluations this oversight committee would have. We were shocked in the last session that neither the RCMP or the CBSA unions were involved. However, again, that is not necessarily new in the consultation policies of the government.

A news article stated, “The union representing border officers has heard little about the proposal and was not consulted on the bill”, that being the former Bill C-98, an nearly identical bill to this one. It went on to say, “Jean-Pierre Fortin, national president of the Customs and Immigration Union (CIU), said the president of the CBSA also was left in the dark and could not inform the union of any details of the legislation.”

My hope is that this has been taken care of, or will be taken of. However, in speaking with those two bodies, with the National Police Federation, on the previous bill, I am left with the impression that the Liberals did not consult them either.

As members heard earlier, I had ask the minister if the government had corrected it this time. I guess we will find out once it gets to committee, and my colleagues will hear from those individuals who I just mentioned.

We will want to hear from impacted Canadians on this matter. There should not be a need to get high-priced lobbyists involved to get the minister's attention.

We should also ensure that Canadians do not need to hire lawyers to get access to the Complaints Commission and its processes, which is critical for those who might be impacted by any impropriety during a border crossing.

Further, we need to ensure that the minister and his staff, and other leaders across the public safety spectrum, cannot get their hands on the processes and decisions of these oversight bodies.

Finally, I want to mention the issue of the Liberals using their majority to ram things through despite serious issues in the last Parliament.

I call on and expect all members of the public safety and emergency preparedness committee to abide by their own judgment of the testimony of experts and witnesses and not the will of the minister's staff or demands of the political arm of the PMO. Also, timelines are constructed by the committee not the Minister of Public Safety or his staff. Knowing that the current and the former chair of the public safety committee is a scrupulous and honoured individual, I trust he will not suggest that legislation needs to be finished by a certain deadline to make a minister or staff happy before members can hear appropriate testimony.

There is a lot of trust and faith needed, obviously, for the House to work well together on any legislation, and certainly this one is no exception. Trust is built through honest answers and legitimate questions. Trust is reinforced by following integrity and the need to get it right rather than just to be right.

I hope the minister will be clear with committee members on spending, resources, his proposed plans and the areas where we can all improve, or certainly the government can improve on the track record from the past. Perhaps with new legislation in this new session, we can see the government try to broker such trust, starting with Bill C-3. We will wait to see if that to happen.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I was encouraged by the member's comments. Again, we will go back to Bill C-98, and take ideas from it. I believe the member was the critic of his party for Ralph Goodale. I do appreciate the concerns he has raised.

However, I would ask the member if the Conservative Party has some amendments to the bill they would specifically like to bring forward and if he is able to share that with us well in advance of the bill going to committee. Could he provide his thoughts on any suggestions the Conservatives might have, given that we have had the legislation now for quite a while if we factor in Bill C-98?

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, I put my earpiece in, but I should have realized that I do not need it to hear the hon. member when he speaks in the House, as he is usually very vocal.

The spirit and intent of the legislation speaks for itself. As the official opposition, we are prepared to consider the legislation seriously and support it, with the opportunity given at committee to look at some of the amendments that are necessary.

We will work with the opposition and the government to ensure the true intent of the legislation is met, and that is to ensure that a very large organization, which has a huge front-line impact on many Canadians and foreigners who travel through and into our country, has an oversight mechanism, just like in all matters of enforcement, to provide credibility to the organization. We certainly want to be part of ensuring the process is done well, such as how that committee goes about it business and how the oversight is managed in a way in which we can all be proud.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, I was interested in the comments of the member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner on this issue, particularly on the issue of the management of committees. I do not think he was here then, but during the years of 2008 to 2015 when I was here, the management of committees was particularly egregious, with things called one day and demanded to be passed on a particular evening. I am glad to hear there is a bit of change of heart on the other side about how committees should conduct their business.

I understand that the hon. member welcomes the legislation. However, it was resisted by parliamentarians in two former Parliaments, when the NDP Party called upon this type of oversight to be brought forward. The British Columbia Civil Liberties Federation, the Canadian Bar Association and other groups were calling on the need for independent oversight.

Why did the former Conservative government resist this?

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is correct. I was not in the former Parliament during the years to which he referred. I have no way of responding as to why things were done the way they were at that time. What I can say is that it is absolutely critical.

I am just guessing at this stage, but is it possible that sometimes in a desire to have oversight on some of these bodies, people get involved in the operational aspects of oversight, rather than the behavioural aspects and the process in which members conduct themselves when they interact with the public?

I am pleased with what I see in the legislation compared to what I have been told had existed in previous proposals, where the focus was more on the members, their conduct and interactions with the public as opposed to conducting an investigation, or getting into the operational aspects of agencies as opposed to the acts, behaviours or omissions of members of those organizations.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, there is a Yiddish proverb that says “Ask and you won't get lost”. I had a great love for Yiddish proverbs in the last Parliament, so I will use them again in this Parliament. Someday I will learn enough Yiddish to be able to say it in that language, so fair warning to the interpreters.

However, I want to ask the hon. member this since he had a very long police career in his past life, prior to becoming a parliamentarian, and is a returning parliamentarian. What kinds of things would he like to see change at the committee level with this legislation? He went into it in his speech. As a professional and former law enforcement official, what kinds of changes would he like to see or what kinds of changes have other members of Parliament told him they would like to see in the law?

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am glad my colleague did not give us a Yiddish proverb, or maybe I did not hear it.

I want to focus on one aspect of the question the member asked. Quite honestly, I came to Parliament a bit naive. I came to Parliament thinking that when we go to committee and have these conversations, there is a genuine understanding that we are all here for one purpose, and that is to make life better, and in this case safer and more appropriate, for all Canadians. It was evident from many of the committees I was involved in that the agenda of a majority government sometimes supersedes the common sense of what Canadians expect from us as parliamentarians.

Therefore, what I am excited about in this minority Parliament is that the minority government has to ensure that all aspects of legislation are taken into consideration and all witnesses and amendments are considered, because in this case no committee has a majority of government members but the opposition does. That really opens up an opportunity for Canadians to have their voices heard better than in a majority government, in some cases. In this circumstance, I am looking forward to that being the case with this legislation.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and to the Minister of Digital Government]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner for his speech and his suggestions.

I would like to learn more about what he just proposed. He said that we need better oversight of CBSA officers.

Could the member tell me what he envisions? I am interested in hearing his suggestions.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, there are a couple of things we need to look at. First, as I see the bill, there are really no clear mechanisms allowing valid complaints. We can hear a valid complaint and the committee can see it, but what actions are then going to take place? Who directs them? The current act as written might be void in some of those areas.

There are questions that many people have. Where is the line between who can complain about what? Is there a clear delineation for the CBSA? Can an asylum claimant who is ordered to be deported make a complaint through this? Obviously I would say no because it is an operational issue, but there is not necessarily clarity.

For the committee itself, what assurances do we have that it is properly prepared to expand into CBSA issues? Will members receive additional training? Will they receive an orientation? Will they add to the number of people there? How many complaints are they expected to hear, and how will they manage that in addition to what they have already? We would like some clarity around some of those things, but again, that is just the beginning.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Bow River, Natural Resources; the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan, Natural Resources.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is very happy that this bill has been introduced. We were taken for a ride in the previous Parliament. Bill C-98 was introduced too late and unfortunately died on the order paper. I hope that we will have time to pass Bill C-3 before the next election, which is looming over our heads like the sword of Damocles.

The Bloc Québécois plans to vote in favour of Bill C-3, as it did with Bill C-98. There is no surprise there.

The current situation is untenable. The statistics are alarming. From 2016 to 2018, there were 1,200 complaints, including 59 allegations of harassment, 38 allegations of criminal association and five allegations of sexual assault. Those are striking figures. The Canada Border Services Agency is short-staffed. Complaints may not always be given the attention they deserve. We think that an independent commissioner should be appointed.

It is also not right that the CBSA itself hears complaints about its own services. That obviously does not meet the minimum legal requirements, whether under natural law or in accordance with the rights set out in our charters regarding an impartial hearing before those concerned. Since the commissioner would be a third party, we believe that he could deal with any complaints filed with his office in a serious, impartial, fair and independent manner—at least that is what we hope. We believe that creating the commissioner's office would make this possible.

This is nothing new. I looked at the statistics on the various complaints that were filed. In 2017-18 alone, just two years ago, there were reports of racist and rude comments. Officers allegedly searched cellphones without putting them in airplane mode, which is illegal. Searches can be conducted legally if the phone is in airplane mode, but not otherwise. In some situations, officers allegedly took photos of the information contained in cellphones. They also allegedly forced someone to open their banking app. All of these things are unacceptable.

Some people complained about rude treatment. Apparently an officer shouted and insulted travellers. In another case, people who had dealings with the CBSA were told there was no interpretation service available, which meant that they were unable to communicate with the officer. One officer was racist and told a client he was ugly. That is unconscionable. This is not a banana republic.

We think complaints should be treated with respect, as should all CBSA clients, whether they are right or wrong, which is a different story. At a bare minimum, these requests should be handled respectfully and attentively.

Last year, the member for Vancouver East quoted something Justice O'Connor said over 10 years ago. He recommended introducing a CBSA oversight mechanism. More recently, an immigration lawyer named Joel Sandaluk said this on CBC: “CBSA, for many years, has been a law unto itself. It's hard to imagine an organization with the size and the complexity and the amount of responsibility and authority of an agency like this would be completely without any kind of oversight.”

He added that the statistics may have been skewed, but temporary residents of or visitors to Canada were in fact not here long enough to file a complaint. Obviously, he did not even mention those who do not file complaints out of fear of reprisal. It is a troubling situation and according to Mr. Sandaluk, this is likely only the tip of the iceberg.

CBC mentioned the case of a woman deported to Guatemala who was allegedly pushed to the ground by an officer, who is alleged to have kicked her and dug his knee into her back. That is outrageous. When we read these reports, these statistics, we do not get the impression that this is a professional border services agency that serves a country like Canada and serves the people and the visitors of Quebec who have to deal with them.

More recently, just a few weeks ago, the Canadian Press reported some statistics. The International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group of Toronto said that the definition of a founded complaint in the CBSA reports was too vague to allow adequate changes or adjustments to be made. This is just another situation that does not help to improve the services provided by the agency.

The Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Daniel Therrien, told Radio-Canada that the agency and its customs officers had not followed acceptable practices for handling the personal information of Canadian citizens re-entering the country. It is not your ordinary Joe saying it, it is the commissioner himself. He added that the line had been crossed.

It is ridiculous. It is about time that we acknowledge and address this issue.

According to other information made public by Radio Canada, a CBSA officer apparently shredded his handwritten notes three days after receiving a call from one of the commissioner's investigators.

For all these reasons, we believe that Bill C-3 must be implemented as quickly as possible. Once again, they must not play the same trick on us that they did with Bill C-98, which was introduced before this bill. We believe that Bill C-3 should be referred to a committee right away.

In closing, I want to make it clear that the Bloc Québécois is not blaming the officers or the agency. That is up to the commissioner, if warranted, and if designated.

We believe that the Canada Border Services Agency has not had the benefit of adequate oversight, which it should have received from the proper authorities. Respectfully, the responsibility lies with the current Liberal government and its predecessor, the Conservative government. We believe that the time has come to address this issue and we are grateful for Bill C-3.

I would also like to add that the union representing the CBSA officers should appear before the committee when it studies the bill. We hope that the bill will be referred to a committee as soon as possible. The committee should make every effort to hear from experts, immigration lawyers who have worked with the CBSA and the officers' union. I am convinced that the union has important things to tell the committee about this issue.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Rivière-du-Nord for his conditional support of the bill. I am very gratified to hear his acknowledgement that the legislation would improve the situation of accountability and trust for those who serve us at our borders. I also want to acknowledge the many anecdotes he shared with us about people who have made allegations of misconduct against CBSA officers or questioned the services provided.

Does the member for Rivière-du-Nord think this legislation would give all Canadians, including of course Canadians from Quebec, confidence that the CBSA is an accountable organization and that its members are there to serve them? I hope he does.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, obviously I cannot be sure whether the process that will be put in place will be completely satisfactory to everyone, but I hope it will. That is what the Bloc Québécois hopes. We want to trust in the goodwill of the people across the way. It is time to establish this commission and put it to work. Should it ever fail to do its job, we will be the first to inform the House.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, would the member agree, in looking at the nature of the oversight being provided by this bill, that as the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association suggests, two separate accountability mechanisms should be available? One would provide real-time oversight of the policies and practices of the Canada Border Services Agency and the other an accountability mechanism for conducting investigations and resolving specific complaints, as we are talking about, such as specific incidents of potential misbehaviour.

One mechanism would look at the policies and practices, while the other would deal with individual complaints related to a particular incident. Would the member's party support the notion that there really is a need for two kinds of oversight, even though this arrangement may not be contained in the bill?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will not be able to comment on the specific mechanisms today.

The idea mentioned by my colleague across the way is an interesting one. It might be worth studying in committee. Would the solution be to have two different methods of handling investigations? Maybe yes, maybe no.

I would love to attend a commission meeting and hear the experts and their proposals. Every member in the House has an opinion on this issue, as well as on many other issues underlying the passage of Bill C-3. I would love for us to hear from the experts and then adopt the most efficient procedure.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, like the minister, I do recognize that the Bloc Québécois is supporting the legislation. I see that as very encouraging.

The member made reference to the number of complaints and cited some specific examples of the numbers. Again, I want to look at the overall numbers. Earlier the minister made reference to the millions of clientele, if I can put it that way, going through and being served by Canada Border Services Agency officers.

Upon reflection, it is safe to say that the work these officers are doing for us as a whole should be applauded, recognizing that of course there are going to be complaints. All in all, it is a relatively small number of complaints compared to the overall numbers that come through, but they are important complaints that need to be addressed, and that is what this legislation will assist with. Would the member agree?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I said earlier, at the end of my remarks, I do not think we should be blaming the officers. As for the agency, we will have to see. The commissioner will deal with that.

There have been a good number of complaints, as I said. Many of them have been found to be valid, others not, but these are just the tip of the iceberg. That is how things are across all government services. The people who file complaints are just a fraction of those who could.

Many people are frustrated because their rights are being violated or because they are being mistreated by all types of government officials. However, those people will not necessarily file a complaint. It does not really matter whether half, three-quarters or one-quarter of CBSA officers have done something wrong. I am just saying that there have been many complaints and those complaints are just the tip of the iceberg.

This is therefore a glaring problem that Parliament needs to address. We must find a solution. Bill C-3 gives us that opportunity, which is great. I do not have here at my fingertips the figures or the percentage of clients being well served and poorly served. We do not need to count them to be able to bring in effective provisions that uphold everyone's rights.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to Bill C-3, an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and the Canada Border Services Agency Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts. I appreciate the introduction by the minister responsible.

I would like to say, first of all, that the Canada Border Services Agency carries on very important work for the safety of Canada and its citizens, and it enforces some 70 different regulations and pieces of legislation that have been passed by Parliament or enacted through proper processes. It is an important piece of work that the agency does. There are at least 7,000 agents, and they operate at 130 different border points, so the work they do is very important.

They also, in conducting this work, have pretty extraordinary powers, probably greater than many police and law enforcement agencies. They can arrest and detain people who they believe are in Canada illegally. They can arrest with or without warrant. They can arrest people who they suspect are in violation of the act and detain them for, in some cases, indefinite periods.

As has been pointed out, with 96 million travellers in and out of the country, we do not have 96 million complaints, obviously, so it is pretty clear that the work that they are doing is, for the most part, not subject to complaint.

I appreciate that when we talk about the complaints that are made, we are talking about exceptions to proper behaviour, potentially. The complaints may not end up being found to be valid in some cases, but we know that there are sufficient numbers of valid complaints to have a cause for concern that this enforcement agency is not immune to bad behaviour and improper conduct. We know that this has happened, because complaints have been founded by investigations conducted by the CBSA itself.

There has, for a long period of time, been cause for concern that there was a lack of oversight of this body. Justice O'Connor in 2010 recommended that this oversight take place, but it did not take place. We raised this issue as a party in the Conservative years, in 2010, after Justice O'Connor and before, and up until we joined the last Parliament as well. I was not here, but I know my colleagues have done so, and they were not the only ones. Recognized and respected public bodies, such as the Canadian Bar Association, Amnesty International, the B.C. Civil Liberties Association and others, have recognized and pointed out significant deficiencies in the activities and behaviour of the CBSA in the enforcement of its legislation.

It is kind of a given that this should happen. “Long overdue” are the words that have been used by the minister himself, recognizing that this legislation, or something like it, should have been brought forward a lot sooner than it was. It is unfortunate that this gap has not been addressed before this date, but we are heartened by the fact that it is here today.

I must say it was a half-hearted attempt by the Liberal government in the last Parliament to bring this legislation forward in the dying days of Parliament, several weeks before Parliament was to rise. It was passed over to the Senate on the 19th of June, the day before they were to rise, with no hope of any particular consideration there. The Liberal government deserves some blame for not bringing this legislation forward earlier to provide an opportunity for full discussion and debate.

There are some changes that have now been made. I did not get the sense from the minister's remarks, when he was asked about consultations, that any significant consultation has taken place with the union that was involved. Its members appeared before the committee. The customs and immigration union does have something to say about this. I think the union is generally supportive of the idea that there ought to be accountability, because it also provides an opportunity for officers who may be the subject of a complaint to be exonerated if the complaint is not founded, and it can be done in a public way.

All that being said, we do have to look carefully at some of the provisions of this legislation. Is it going to simply be a review of internal complaints or internal investigations that have been made? To what extent is it going to provide for an independent investigation? The power exists there. The practice is something that we have to be concerned about.

Are we going to be in a backlog situation, as we have seen with the RCMP civilian review system? Additional monies have been provided, and I see provisions for standards of performance in terms of dealing with complaints. Whether those standards can be met by just establishing standards of performance and whether the government is committed to being responsive to requests by the agency for sufficient funds or more staff as needed to meet those standards is the problem sometimes with agencies that have this kind of oversight. We want to have a good look at that to see what is going on when these things take place.

The NDP supports this legislation in principle and we will certainly be supporting it at second reading. We will look to see whether the minister is willing to consider amendments during consideration in committee. I am not proposing any here today, but I do want to see that the minister is prepared to consider arguments that may be made to bring about changes that would enhance the legislation and make it more effective.

We have heard specific concerns as well from the legal community in terms of how the practices of the agency have affected solicitor-client privilege, and there are concerns about solicitor-client privilege. We want to make sure that these concerns are addressed if they have not been addressed already, and I am not sure they have been addressed.

We would also want to see the opportunity, and I raised this with the member for Saint-Jean, to be involved in the policy and practices side of it. I note that in the legislation there is an opportunity for the committee itself to initiate reviews of specific practices. Whether it is going to be a robust effort on the part of the committee interests me. I suspect it may depend on who the committee members are.

I would want to see an opportunity for those kinds of reviews to take place through the initiative of someone else. For example, the Canadian Bar Association might want to see a review of a particular practice as it might affect a problem area, whether having to do with solicitor-client privilege or having to do with incidents that have come forward on a number of occasions. Other outside bodies as well might come to this body and ask it to conduct a review. I note that reviews can be done at the direction of the minister as well. That is something that may answer some of the concerns.

I am pretty sure this is not a perfect instrument, and I do not think it has been suggested that it is. It is a way forward, though, and NDP members supported it in the last Parliament because it was a step forward from what was in existence up until right now. There is no form of civilian oversight of this organization, and the lack of that kind of oversight has been noted for many years.

Enforcement officers have enormous powers, and they are a necessity. Officers deal in many cases with people in vulnerable circumstances, people who are refugees. Forty-one thousand refugees crossed into Canada during the last Parliament. These people are vulnerable. They are susceptible to being unable to complain or to feeling that complaining would potentially cause them problems, so vigorous oversight is needed there. It is important for us to ensure that this oversight takes place. There may be a need for third parties to approach the committee to make sure that the policies and practices that are in place adequately meet the required standards when enforcement officers are dealing with civilians whom they are entrusted to look after while also ensuring that the law is enforced.

Those are some of the concerns that New Democrats will be looking at carefully in committee. I am disturbed to hear that the examination of what happens in detention is excluded from this bill, but I am going to be looking very carefully at that. We do note, as was noted before in one of the speeches, that since the year 2000 there have been at least 14 deaths of people while in detention. I am not suggesting that these deaths were the result of negligence or improper behaviour, but the question remains. These were not able to be investigated by any outside agency specifically in relation to the behaviour toward and treatment of individuals who may have had ill treatment in custody. Whether or not there was in these individual cases, I am obviously not in a position to say.

However, the public must have confidence, ultimately, that there is a sufficient degree of transparency and oversight in order to believe that CBSA officers are acting not only in the public interest and for the safety of Canada, but also in a proper way when they are dealing with individuals, and that they are not abusing their position of power and trust. People must know they have recourse with a proper, independent, robust and accessible process that will make sure justice is done following any violation of proper and appropriate behaviour.

As was mentioned earlier, this is not something the union of the employees involved rejects. This is something it regards as proper and appropriate as well.

Having said all of that, New Democrats support this legislation being brought forward at second reading. We look forward to having an appropriate period of time to consider it and bring forward witnesses who can help with the analysis of it and offer their recommendations and opinions.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Madam Speaker, I have more of a comment than a question. I want to respond to some of the things my friend from St. John's East mentioned in his remarks and thank him for his support for this bill at this point.

I want to assure him and other members of the House that the perspective and opinions of the union representing the members of the CBSA are important to this discussion. I value and respect those very much. I have made arrangements to meet with union leadership and that will take place in the coming weeks. This legislation will certainly be canvassed extensively in that conversation. I also took very careful note of comments that they made in previous committee appearances and in previous discussions with my predecessor in the public safety portfolio. Those opinions are important and valued.

I also want to assure the member that although I would never presume to make suggestions or interfere in any way with the decisions of the committee as to what witnesses it will call, I am very open to considering the important work that the committee will undertake and give appropriate consideration to any recommendations it may bring forward.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the minister's expression of willingness to meet with the representatives of the workers and not only hear from them in committee but also meet with them in person to hear what they have to say. That is encouraging.

There is also the openness to hear what is said in committee. We had a situation in the previous Conservative government. My experience then was that there was a resistance to amendments of any kind, even ones that the Conservatives finally had to make themselves when they realized that if they did not make them, the legislation would not work. I hope we will see a spirit of co-operation in committee when we have recommendations from good sources so we can see some changes.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, one of the major concerns that is often raised with me regarding the existing RCMP complaints process is that even when complaints are made, it takes too long to investigate and measures are not taken right away to address some very serious concerns with the conduct of an officer or a detachment. I am wondering if my colleague could speak to the importance of not just oversight but swift action and adequate measures being taken when people, whether they are RCMP officers or those working at the CBSA, are seen to be out of line.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's question is an important one because there was a significant backlog in the RCMP complaints procedure. There was a backlog of 2,000 complaints, which is awful. If someone makes a complaint and it takes two, three or more years to deal with it, that is totally inadequate.

There were some performance standards mentioned in the bill, and we will have to look carefully at them to see whether they are talking about what the board does when it has a complaint finished, or whether there is actually a timeline that says that when someone makes a complaint there has to be a response to that individual. We should look into that carefully, and I plan to do that. I am looking forward to seeing what can be done to make sure that complainants have a response time that is adequate and reasonable.

I want to thank the hon. member for bringing that to the attention of the House.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Oakville North—Burlington.

I rise today to speak to the important debate about Bill C-3, which would entrench civilian oversight of the Canada Border Services Agency.

In following the debate thus far, I am very encouraged by the comments I have heard from the other side with respect to the importance of this kind of legislation, and its connection to the previous legislation that came forward in the last Parliament, notably Bill C-98.

Canadians know that the CBSA is an entity and an agency that ensures Canada's security and Canadians' prosperity by facilitating and overseeing international travel and trade across our border. What is important is that it ensures the free flow of goods and people across that border.

What is critical to understand is how vast the CBSA is in its scope. It has a staff of approximately 14,000 individuals operating a wide range of integrated border services. It operates in 1,000 locations at 117 land border crossings and 13 international airports, as well as in 39 international offices. It interacts with literally thousands of Canadians daily and millions of people yearly. In 2017-18, the statistics are quite staggering: 96 million travellers were processed in total during that one calendar year. That gives us a sense of the size and scope of the CBSA.

I am rising here today on behalf of my constituents in Parkdale—High Park, because there are extensive powers granted to CBSA officials, and that is for good reason. The agency needs extensive powers in order to operate and function effectively and carry out these important functions, but with extensive powers has to come extensive accountability.

This is what we would call a sine qua non, a critical component of what is required for any law enforcement agency in the country. What was lacking up until the introduction of this bill and eventual, hopefully, passage of the bill is that accountability piece.

Let us talk about those extensive powers. When they are protecting Canadians, CBSA officials have the authority to arrest, detain, search and seize, as well as the authority to use reasonable force when required. At the border, as many Canadians know, officers have the power to stop travellers for questioning, to take breath and blood samples, and to search, detain and arrest non-citizens without a warrant. These are very critical powers. These are very broad powers.

The list of powers I have just provided to the chamber underscores the critical need for oversight. The powers of detention, search and seizure and the use of force are important to the work that CBSA does. However, that work, which we want to ensure is successful, would be jeopardized if the Canadian public does not have the confidence that those extensive powers are being used legitimately and appropriately in conformity with the rights that are protected in this country.

There is a simple way to ensure that public confidence. In legal parlance, we talk about the administration of justice, or the administration of the regime, being held up to wide repute. That is to ensure that there is a transparent public oversight mechanism done by a civilian body.

That is what I hear about from my constituents in Parkdale—High Park. That is what I hear about in my role as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice. People believe in entrenching law enforcement with certain powers because they understand the necessity of it, but there needs to be a counterbalance, which is a check on the illegitimate or inappropriate use of such powers which may occur in any policing body.

There is a cliché that applies to virtually everything that is done in law enforcement: The police should not be policing themselves. The investigators should not be investigating themselves. A body needs to be seen to be overseen by an external third party in order to ensure a measure of independence and a measure of neutrality. That is what we have critically with other law enforcement agencies in this country. That is what makes it so puzzling that we do not have it yet with the CBSA.

Let us turn to the RCMP, CSIS and Correctional Service Canada. They all have this independent form of review for their activities. It is critical. They have public trust in their institutions because of that oversight.

It is important that this bill would entrench that type of oversight, but is also important to think about who is supporting this kind of initiative. The B.C. Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Council for Refugees and the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers have pointed out in numerous situations the need for independent investigation. They have cited examples. They are few but they are important, because of the scope of that work. They interact with 96 million travellers within a given year. That is staggering in terms of numbers.

Nevertheless, incidents have arisen over the last 10 to 15 years which bear dramatic scrutiny and highlight the need for this kind of civilian oversight.

In 2010, Kevon Philip was beaten to death in Toronto's Don Jail while being held in immigration detention. In 2013, Lucia Vega Jimenez was taken into custody at the Vancouver International Airport. She was found hanging in a shower stall at the airport's immigration holding centre. Abdurahman Ibrahim Hassan, a 39-year-old Toronto man, was granted refugee status in Canada after coming from Somalia in 1993. He died in June 2015 in a Peterborough hospital where he had been taken under police escort. He had spent four years at the Central East Correctional Centre in Lindsay after serving a jail term for a criminal conviction and was issued a deportation order in 2005.

All told, since 2000, at least 15 people have died while in CBSA custody, including a 50-year-old woman who died in a maximum security prison in 2017. That track record has prompted Amnesty International, a well-known organization that all of us respect in this chamber, to call for an independent review body. That call has been echoed by my constituents and others that I have interacted with, not just in Parkdale—High Park but throughout the country. The call is simple: Let us pull back the curtain. Let us assure Canadians that the significant powers that have, of necessity, been granted to the CBSA to do its important work are at all times exercised appropriately, in accordance with the charter and with Canadians' fundamental rights.

Let us look at some comparisons with other law enforcement agencies in Canada. Independent civilian oversight ensures public confidence. Let us look at border services agencies in other allied countries that we want to compare ourselves to.

In the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and France, the border services agencies are all subject to civilian external oversight. In fact, Canada is one of the few developed countries that does not have an independent review body for complaints made about the conduct of border agency staff. When we look at the Five Eyes allies, the United States, Britain, Australia and New Zealand, again, Canada is the only member right now without an independent review body.

The rationale is simple: Given the extraordinary powers granted to CBSA officers compared to all of the other public safety portfolio agencies as well as the Five Eyes international border agencies, there is currently a significant gap. It is a gap we had committed to close in the 2019 election after our previous attempts to do so in the last Parliament, as has been articulated by previous speakers, under Bill C-98, as it then was, were unsuccessful. However, the bill did receive widespread support in this House in the last Parliament, and I am very hopeful that it will continue to receive widespread support, because the simplicity of the rationale of this bill is there for everyone to recognize, understand and to get behind. It is a gap that needs to be closed, and a gap that we would close today.

I would like to outline how this is a user-friendly mechanism. This mechanism would ensure oversight in a manner that addresses things like the recommendations that were made by Justice Dennis O'Connor in 2006 under the Maher Arar inquiry, when he called for independent oversight of border services agencies, including the CBSA and the RCMP. It would have the ability to investigate complaints received from both the public and public interest bodies and have the power to self-initiate reviews, which is something that Justice O'Connor mentioned specifically in his Arar inquiry report.

Currently, people's complaints about the CBSA are handled entirely internally. We know that, all told, about 2,500 complaints are received by the CBSA on an annual basis, which is a significant number. However, the fundamental point to understand in this chamber for today's debate is that handling those complaints internally is one mechanism, but it is not the most robust mechanism, and it is certainly not the mechanism that is applied to other law enforcement agencies in this country.

It is critical that members of the public be able to take complaints to an external body. However, this external body, this new public complaints mechanism, should be able to initiate reviews of its own volition. Therefore, it would not require a complaint to be filed in order to pursue a matter.

Regarding the examples I listed at the start of my comments, it is critical that there be a serious incident protocol or a serious incident definition entrenched in this proposed legislation. This would include the actions of a CBSA officer that constitute an assault as well as serious injury or death, including death of a person in detention.

When we are dealing with those grave circumstances, it obviously goes without saying that the Canadian public and we, as parliamentarians, require a measure of accountability to be put in place.

That is the measure of accountability that is forthcoming with this legislation. That is why I am standing in support of it. I hope all of my parliamentarian colleagues will do the same.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech the parliamentary secretary indicated, and very rightly, that the police should not be policing the police. I am curious to know, if that is the position of the government, how Bill C-71 happened in the last Parliament. The member voted for it, where Bill C-71 allows the RCMP to classify firearms without any oversight, and allows it to reclassify firearms without any oversight.

I am curious to know the parliamentary secretary's perspective on police not policing the police.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, while I am thankful for the question, I do not think it is particularly germane to this bill. There is no contradiction whatsoever.

That initiative was put in place to avoid the politicization of a specific issue about the classification of firearms. Removing it from political consideration and entrenching it with a neutral civil service is entirely appropriate in that context.

What we are dealing with here is a situation where someone lodges a complaint about police action, and whether that police action should be handled by other police officials who may not be perceived to be, or actually be, neutral.

The two are entirely disconnected and not at all analogous.