House of Commons Hansard #16 of the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was aluminum.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could provide his thoughts regarding the types of border crossings we have. Many people assume that we have a wonderful, long U.S.-Canada border, but this is about a lot more than just the U.S. border. I will let the member fill in some of the the blanks on that.
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North always finds the details we need to cover.
I was talking about the ground border agencies and thinking of those who drive to the United States. Of course, we can get to the United States in other ways, such as through the airports in our communities or the airports we travel to. We have shipping ports as well, which are important in ensuring the whole package works together.
We need an integrated transportation strategy, especially in southwest Ontario, that will take us from rail to ship or rail to plane, or will get the trucks off of Highway 401 so we can move goods in a more efficient way. That would also require us to keep those in the CBSA in mind, because they would have to do the clearances. Whether it is rail, boats or on the road, they are there to serve us.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I think we are all keen to get the bill passed in this session, and I am pleased that it has come up early.
Is the member worried at all? I wonder if he heard my concerns earlier. We should not exclude so many aspects of our Canadian Border Services Agency activities such that rather serious incidents fall through some cracks between a review agency at a global level and the specific complaints of individual incidents. Things could fall through the cracks with so many exclusions in the bill.
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Mr. Speaker, I was listening very carefully to what the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands was saying, and it brought to mind Arnold Chan. When he was in the House, he said that we need to listen to each other, not talk over each other. He said that as members of Parliament, we should respect what others are saying.
There is a balance between members of Parliament debating the operations of facilities to give them the right tools to do their jobs and their use of those tools. If there is a gap in policy that we can fix to help them do their jobs, then we can play that role. However, in terms of their professionalism and how they operate within their agencies, they need to identify any shortcomings and use the tools at their disposal. I am very confident they are doing this in most cases. If they are not, we now have a way for them to report in and a way for us to look at policy to see how we can fill those gaps together.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I must first compliment the member for Guelph. I respect it immensely when members come across as being very strong nationalists, thinking in terms of the nation first and foremost while having a love for the province they represent and not forgetting about our other provinces.
I appreciated his comments in regard to Manitoba's 150th anniversary of joining Confederation in 1870, much like my other colleagues who are enthusiastically getting behind members of Parliament from Manitoba. We recognize the importance of that event, as I said in a statement earlier today. We should be very proud of all the different regions of this great country.
To get to Bill C-3, I will try to emphasize the numbers. We are talking about oversight for our border control officers, and I want to emphasize how important those civil servants are to our communities. We often talk about the complaints, and there are complaints, as I will say right away. However, the vast majority of the work conducted by these civil servants is overwhelmingly positive. They do fantastic service to our country with the fine work that they do. I want to extend my compliments to them, and I know members of this House would echo those comments in regard to the outstanding work that they do day in and day out, seven days a week and 24 hours a day.
Let us think in terms of the number of transactions that take place, or of face-to-face encounters. This is what really took me aback when I was doing a bit of research on the issue. Think of 2018-2019 alone; CBSA employees interacted with over 96 million travellers, conducted four million traveller examinations and processed over 19 million commercial shipments and 54 million courier shipments.
Those are incredible numbers. Earlier today, we voted on the free trade agreement between Canada, the United States and Mexico. In speaking to that legislation, we heard that in trade alone, we see $2 billion a day across that land border. I expect some of that is flown in and possibly even arrives by ship, but I repeat that it is over $2 billion a day in trade.
We have huge expectations for our border control officers. We expect them to be consistent and fair and to provide equal treatment. I suspect that it can be a challenge at times to provide that service, yet over 99% of the time, that is the type of service that they are providing. We need to feel comfortable about that organization, and confident in it.
The legislation before us was introduced by the Minister of Public Safety, and I compliment him and his department for the fine work they have done in ensuring that there was consultation over the last number of years. It is only because we had such a busy legislative agenda dealing with public safety in the previous run between 2015 and 2019 that this legislation unfortunately did not make it completely across the finish line. We are reintroducing it now, and it is a priority for this government. The Minister of Public Safety has done a fantastic job in pulling it together and making sure that we could deal with it it early in the current parliamentary session.
I have listened to a few members across the way who have already spoken on it. It is encouraging to hear that all members, or at least all parties of this House, have recognized the value of ultimately seeing this bill passed.
I understand that some members would like to review it at the committee stage, and I anticipate we will see some amendments. If our record has demonstrated anything over the last number of years, it is that our government, even in a majority situation, is very sympathetic to good amendments. In a minority situation, members can anticipate that we will continue to support good ideas that make legislation better for Canadians. I look forward to seeing the bill go to committee, given the type of support we have already seen at second reading.
Oversight is important. If we were to say there is public oversight for the RCMP, CSIS and our correctional services officers, most people would assume that we already have it for our border control agents. However, that is not the case. In essence, this legislation is meant to provide oversight for our Canada border control officers. As opposed to our creating something independent, this oversight body would also be able to deal with RCMP complaints. It has a name. It will be addressed as the public complaints and review commission, and it will deal with both RCMP and CBSA concerns or complaints that come forward.
As I referenced in one of my questions, by having oversight we are ensuring there is a higher level of accountability and transparency. In doing so, we are building public confidence in the system, and if not directly, then indirectly.
If we were to talk with stakeholders or individual Canadians, we would likely hear stories. We have already heard some of those stories in this debate. When we were debating Bill C-98, stories were brought forward as well, one about a border officer who had an issue and dealt with it in an inappropriate fashion.
We know that unfortunately things of that nature will occur. Members of the public need to feel that there is a sense of justice so that when they do occur, there is a place they can go to lodge a complaint. That is really what Bill C-3 would do. I see that as a win in many different ways. I suspect that if we were to talk to the civil servants who work for CBSA, they too would recognize the true value of oversight.
Our borders need to be safe. They need to be secure and open and provide for the efficient flow of travel and trade. As I referenced in my question to the member for Guelph, we have border officers not only along the Canada-U.S. border but also at the international airport in Winnipeg, and it is not alone. I believe we have 12, 13 or possibly 14 international airports in Canada. These points of entry and departure must have border officers in order to allow for the efficient flow of travellers and trade.
I am glad to see that we will finally have an oversight committee to build upon that confidence. I suspect and hope that members will see the benefits of moving the bill to committee, where we can give it a final review to see if there are ways to improve it.
Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK
Mr. Speaker, last year the member's city was one of the worst cities for murders. If I recall, it was a record 44.
The last public safety minister is no longer in the House. My province of Saskatchewan took care of that. The minister representing the riding of Regina—Wascana failed to do what was in his mandate letter in 2015, and that was to bring forward legislation like this. This could have been brought forward in the last Parliament. Now we are in a minority situation. How can Canadians have confidence in a minority situation and in a minister who has a lot on his plate, with illegal firearms and a rise in the number of shootings by gangs, which we have talked about in the House? How can we be confident that Bill C-3 will proceed any further than it did in the last Parliament?
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of wonderful things in Winnipeg. I would invite the member to come to Winnipeg and see for himself.
With respect to his comments, I would not be so hard on Premier Brian Pallister. The province is trying very hard. We are working with his provincial government to deal with some of those outstanding things. This is an example of Progressive Conservatives and the Liberals working together to ensure all communities are safe, not only those in Manitoba but across the country.
In regard to prioritizing the legislation, it bodes well in the sense that it is Bill C-3. After listening to the debate thus far, I can tell there is good support for it. It would be nice, given its history, to pass it relatively quickly and send it to committee. The standing committee would be able to get a better assessment of it and look at possible amendments if necessary. Then we could see the legislation go to the Senate.
It seems to me that there is good, solid support for the legislation. It might need a bit of tweaking, and we will find that out once it gets to the standing committee.
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Madam Speaker, I am delighted with the enthusiasm of both the Liberals and the Conservatives with a proposal I made more than six years ago in this place. The Conservatives complain about the Liberals' tardiness, but they had plenty of time to do this when they were government.
My question for the member has to do with a topic that was raised by my hon. colleague from Hamilton Centre.
In the member's newfound enthusiasm for accountability for CBSA agents, he is also part of a government that passed the new Preclearance Act, Bill C-23, in the last Parliament, which gives extraordinary powers to U.S. officials on Canadian soil. The U.S. border agency will be able to detain Canadians, question them without representation and prevent them from withdrawing from the pre-clearance area.
I wonder why his enthusiasm for accountability of those working at borders does not extend to those U.S. border agents working in the pre-clearance areas.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Madam Speaker, with the little time I have to provide an answer, I would suggest the member read what then Minister Ralph Goodale put on the record in regard to the bill. He will find that a vast majority of individuals welcome having pre-clearance because it is a more efficient way of travelling into the United States.
I do not fully understand all the details. I would have to look into it. Generally speaking, I have never had a complaint in all my years as a parliamentarian on that issue, but that does not necessarily mean they do not exist. However, I value the importance of pre-clearance when I go into the United States.
Pat Finnigan Liberal Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB
Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague if there are any concerns that have already been raised about the security or speed with which people and goods will be able to cross our borders when the provisions of the bill are implemented. Is he aware of any concerns that have been raised in that regard?
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada does have a priority and a focus on ensuring trade gets through the borders as quickly as possible. We always want to deal with the issue of safety. It really helps Canada's middle class and our economy to be as efficient as possible.
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Madam Speaker, in theory, my speech should last about 20 minutes, but it might be a little shorter. I want to give some notice to the speaker coming after me. If he or she is listening and is not already in the House, he or she can come a little earlier.
Today we are debating the role of the Canada Border Services Agency. It might be a good idea to remind everyone that the Canada Border Services Agency is a massive organization. It is responsible for enforcing no fewer than 90 laws and regulations, which is a lot. This is a very important organization.
One of the main laws that the Canada Border Services Agency is responsible for enforcing is the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, or IRPA. Immigration experts and lawyers often say that if Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, is the judicial branch that handles immigration, the CBSA is its enforcer. This metaphor comes up often in the immigration world.
IRCC follows the judicial process. If a claim is filed, it is made in writing. The claimant is then heard by a panel, which must render a written decision. There are several ways to challenge the decision, either by review or appeal.
There is a transparent, substantive and reasoned process for challenging decisions that fall within the legal branch. However, at the enforcement level, there is no system in place to challenge what is being done, such as how CBSA officers may deal with individuals who, for example, are subject to deportation orders or with immigrants detained in detention centres for identification purposes.
There may be gaps in several places, but there is no way to find out what those gaps are, other than through an access to information request. There is no open complaint system, there is no open process, and there are certainly no guidelines for handling these complaints.
That is exactly what Bill C-3 is trying to correct. We need to ensure that there is a transparent system in place to monitor and track complaints, and perhaps even facilitate filing them.
The subject has attracted media attention in recent years. CBC filed access to information requests to get a better idea of what was going on and what kind of complaints were being received internally. It is possible to file complaints, but they have to be submitted to the CBSA and are handled by the agency, not by an external third party.
CBC filed an access to information request and got some information. From January 2016 through half of 2018, the CBSA received no fewer than 1,200 complaints about its employees. In some cases, the complaints were about harassment and grave misconduct. CBC noted that the number of complaints ruled credible was not made public and there was no information about measures taken to address complaints found to be credible. There is no accountability. Nobody follows up on the complaints. There is no system to remedy complaints deemed admissible.
The subject of the complaints was interesting too. It was not until the media got involved that we found out what was going on. Of the 1,200 complaints received, 59 were about allegations of harassment, five were about allegations of sexual assault, and 38 were about statements alleging criminal association.
In connection with the lack of a complaint handling system that was uncovered by the CBC, we are seeing another problem, namely that people who are in Canada temporarily have less access to this complaints system. We are talking about temporary residents and visitors who may also have to deal with CBSA officers. Some examples were reported by the CBC. A woman who was supposed to be deported to Guatemala claimed that CBSA officers seriously injured her by pushing her to the ground and kneeling on her back. She said, “They pulled [my arm] backwards and kept kicking my back with their knees”.
In that specific case, there is nothing in writing on that woman's file to indicate whether there had really been any excessive use of force. There was no follow up to the complaint because there is no complaint tracking mechanism. However, Nazila Bettache, a Montreal doctor who later saw the woman, said that she had suffered a traumatic injury that damaged the nerves in her cervical spine. Nevertheless, as there is no complaint tracking system, no one could ever shed light on what really happened.
A year and a half ago, La Presse filed an access to information request to get a better idea of what happens to complaints that are received and handled internally by the CBSA. La Presse found that about 100 of the approximately 900 complaints that were received were deemed to be founded. About one in 10 complaints is considered to be founded by the CBSA. Once again, that is problematic because we do not know what criteria are used to determine whether a complaint is founded or credible. The complainant does not necessarily receive a decision with reasons, as would be the case with a complaint received and handled by independent organizations with clear guidelines.
The report noted that some complaints were about CBSA officers who made racist or crude comments about travellers. There is no way to see the details of these complaints or how they were received, assessed and handled, as the case may be.
The Canadian Press also looked into this matter. For 2017-18, it identified 105 complaints that were deemed to be founded, which represented about 12% of the complaints received. It analyzed 875 complaints in total. Once again, we have to wonder about the proportion of complaints that are received and deemed to be founded. Perhaps a more detailed analysis with clear criteria would reveal that more complaints should have been deemed credible and accepted and analyzed. These complaints could have led to follow-up and hopefully to corrective action.
In this case, the Canadian Press looked at the type of complaints made. It mentioned one traveller who stated that a CBSA officer was rude and yelled at her until she passed out. Apprently, the officers only reported that she was found to be in medical distress and received appropriate care. There seems to be a discrepancy between the content of the complaint and the manner in which it was analyzed by the CBSA. However, an external investigation is not necessarily carried out in such cases.
Another complaint came from a traveller who reported that the officers were insulting other travellers and lacked respect. Radio-Canada also looked into this. It raised an issue that is a bit different but that also deserves to be analyzed by the committee that examines Bill C-3. The Radio-Canada articles state that border officers have the right to search the contents of electronic devices but that they have to put the device in airplane mode. It seems that, in many of the cases that were reported, the CBSA officers did not abide by that directive and there was not necessarily any follow up. I will give a few examples.
One person was asked for access to her online bank accounts. The person had her phone with her, and the CBSA officers asked for access to her bank account without giving any reason to justify it. We have to wonder whether it was legitimate to ask the person to give them access to her bank accounts.
Another traveller gave the following example. At the Montreal-Trudeau Airport, returning from a trip to Cuba, he was asked by border officers to open his luggage so they could inspect the contents. The traveller said that he had been to Cuba 15 times and never had any problems. That evening, he was clearly targeted.
In his luggage, he had a cellphone, a tablet and two USB keys, which contained his lesson plans and his students' files. The officers asked him whether they could inspect all of the contents of his USB keys and tablet. The next day, the man received warning messages informing him that an unidentified person had tried to access his Hotmail and Facebook accounts.
This raises questions that are very interesting to me as a lawyer. When those articles were published, I remember that they got people in the legal field talking, particularly my colleagues in immigration law.
Like my colleagues, I wondered what I, as a lawyer, would do if I arrived at customs and a CBSA officer asked me to unlock my phone to verify the contents.
As I am bound by solicitor-client privilege, it is possible that my phone might contain confidential information. I might be an immigration lawyer, and my phone might contain information from my clients that might end up in the hands of the CBSA. Do I cancel my trip? Do I hand over my phone to the officer? Later, if I want to file a complaint, the system does not allow me to do so properly.
There are some gaps when it comes to privacy protection. How do we know if limits have been exceeded when those limits are not yet clearly established? They cannot even be corrected through a process where a complaint is deemed acceptable after being analyzed, detailed and justified, or challenged in court and referred to higher courts to set precedent, because such a system simply does not exist.
The Bloc Québécois will support Bill C-3, just as we supported its previous iteration in the last Parliament, although it may have been introduced a bit too late, unfortunately causing it to die on the Order Paper.
However, we hope the bill will benefit from many thoughtful comments, but not only from CBSA staff. It is important to remember that our support for this bill does not mean we are in any way criticizing CBSA officers. No large organization has a monopoly on problems, nor is any organization immune to them.
The main objective is to give CBSA a chance to develop a good system for analyzing complaints so it can put best practices in place and, if necessary, be able to dismiss people who do not apply best practices when complaints are considered valid.
We hope the committee that studies Bill C-3 will hear from many experts, especially immigration lawyers and representatives of the union representing CBSA employees. This will ensure that the final version of the bill will give CBSA the best possible system for processing complaints and that complaints are then processed in a way that ensures CBSA officers are given clearer guidance.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary 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, in listening to the member opposite, it seems as if there is qualified support for the legislation, which is a good thing.
Does the Bloc already have a sense of some of the amendments it would like to propose, and if so, has it shared that with the department yet? It seems as if the member has done a great deal of homework in looking over the bill. Can she enlighten us as to some of the specific amendments she would like to see?
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite for his remarks regarding the work we have already done on this file. I am not the only one who has been looking closely at this matter. We have worked together, as a team.
I do not have any suggestions to make at this time, especially since I am not a member of the committee. I will leave that to my colleagues who will be tasked with studying the bill. I would not want to put any words in their mouths, and I do not want them to feel tied down by my recommendations, which they might not necessarily agree with. I will therefore refrain from speaking on their behalf.
Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.
She raised issues related to cybersecurity. She also talked about the different types of complaints. As my party's status of women critic, any time sexual assault or harassment comes up, that is in my wheelhouse.
In this day and age, with women being encouraged to file complaints and speak out about these situations, I would like to know if an independent agency can help encourage them to do just that.
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Shefford for her question.
Simply having an external agency makes things seem legitimate. For example, if the police is investigating the police, that gives people the impression that cases will not be treated fairly.
If an external organization is responsible for reviewing complaints, that will encourage people to file complaints. It is harder to complain about an organization that is also responsible for reviewing complaints made against it.
I hope this will be an incentive for people to file complaints and that it will come to include specific measures for complaints related to sexual assault.
Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
Madam Speaker, regarding the commission that will be created, who does the member think should be on the newly created commission, how does she think they should be selected and what kinds of qualifications should they have?
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question. It raises important issues that will need to be addressed when the time comes to decide who will sit on this commission. Unfortunately, I cannot give him an answer.
I would not be surprised if people responsible for immigration and national security files were chosen. As I mentioned, the Canada Border Services Agency is a huge organization with many services. The CBSA administers 90 acts and regulations. In some cases, even foods may fall under its purview. There may be complaints about this as well.
I believe that a commission that is as eclectic as possible could be a good thing and would make compelling recommendations.
Emmanuella Lambropoulos Liberal Saint-Laurent, QC
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Sherbrooke.
I appreciate the opportunity to rise today and speak to Bill C-3, our proposed accountability legislation for the Canada Border Services Agency.
Specifically, this bill would establish an independent, arm's-length public complaints and review body for the CBSA. This is important and overdue.
This bill follows the efforts of Wilfred Moore, who proposed Bill S-222 and Bill S-205 to provide oversight for the actions of CBSA employees. This bill has been reintroduced in the House after its former iteration, Bill C-98, received all-party support during third reading in the last Parliament.
As we all know, the CBSA has repeatedly been singled out for the lack of independent oversight over some of its activities. Filling that accountability gap is the right thing to do in any democracy. It would also improve the public's trust and confidence in an agency that not only helps to keep the public safe but also deals with the public on a daily basis.
Many of our constituents travel for work or leisure. They expect and deserve a relatively uneventful experience when receiving border services.
Let me be clear: The CBSA does excellent work while operating in a complex and challenging environment. As I followed the debate with great interest, I was pleased to hear praise and recognition from members of this House for the agency and its dedicated employees.
More than 14,000 people work for the CBSA. Some employees have behind-the-scenes jobs, working on investigations of suspected criminals, national security cases and organized crime groups. Others have a more visible role, including the more than 6,500 uniformed CBSA officers. Many of these officers engage with the public at various ports of entry to Canada.
The CBSA manages 117 land border crossings, more than half of which operate on a 24-hour basis, seven days a week. The agency also operates at 13 international airports, and its officers perform operations at 27 rail sites. In addition to this, CBSA officers carry out marine operations at the ports of Halifax, Montreal and Vancouver, among others, and at numerous marinas and reporting stations.
The CBSA's work goes well beyond its presence at our ports of entry. For example, it processes and examines international mail at three processing centres. Its officers enforce laws and regulations that involve nearly every sector of Canadian society, including our agriculture, manufacturing and service sectors. It has a very broad and wide-ranging mandate.
In fulfilling that mandate, CBSA employees engage with large numbers of Canadian citizens, permanent residents and foreign nationals. In 2018-19 alone, they engaged with more than 96 million travellers. That is in addition to the over 19 million commercial shipments and more than 54 million courier shipments they processed last year. It is a world-class agency.
These numbers are a testament to the CBSA's diligent, hard-working employees. In almost all cases, the services they provide to the public are beyond reproach, but, as with any organization of its size and scope, incidents do arise from time to time. The CBSA has procedures in place to handle complaints about the public's experiences in dealing with the agency. Currently, these complaints about service or employee conduct are handled internally. If there is dissatisfaction with the results of an internal CBSA investigation, there is no mechanism for the public to request an independent review of a complaint.
That is where Bill C-3 comes in. It proposes to establish a strong and independent review mechanism for the CBSA called the public complaints and review commission, or the PCRC. We would not be starting from scratch with the PCRC, because it would incorporate and build on the existing Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP. The new PCRC would handle complaints from the public about its interactions with and the services provided by both the CBSA and the RCMP.
Here is a brief overview of how the proposed PCRC would work. The PCRC would notify the CBSA of any complaint it receives from the public. The CBSA would likewise inform the PCRC of any complaint it receives directly from the public. In most cases the CBSA would conduct an initial investigation of the complaint.
Of course, it is possible that someone making a complaint would not be satisfied with the way the initial complaint investigation was handled by the CBSA. Bill C-3 accounts for this. It would allow those filing complaints to submit a request to the PCRC for a complaint review. This request would need to be submitted within 60 days of receiving notice from the CBSA of the outcome of the complaint.
This bill would also give the PCRC the power to conduct its own investigation of a complaint. It could choose to do so if it receives or is notified of a complaint received by the CBSA and believes a PCRC investigation would be in the public interest.
In these cases, the CBSA would not begin an investigation into the complaint. If an investigation had already been launched, it would be terminated. As its name suggests, the PCRC would also play an important review role for the CBSA. The PCRC would be able to review any of the CBSA's activities, with the exception of those involving national security matters. That is to avoid duplication of work with the new National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, as well as the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians.
All other areas of CBSA activity would be subject to the PCRC review. The PCRC would be free to make its own decisions about what to review. A request for review could also come from the Minister of Public Safety.
I am proud to stand with a government that is committed to ensuring all of its departments and agencies are held accountable. It has been clear for quite some time that an accountability gap exists when it comes to some of the core functions of the CBSA. Right now the CBSA investigates complaints about its own conduct and service. That system certainly cannot be expected to inspire trust and confidence among Canadians.
Bill C-3 would make things right by creating a public complaints and review commission. This would be a body that people could turn to if they have comments or complaints about their experiences with the CBSA, and crucially, it would be completely independent.
That is why I wholeheartedly endorse this important piece of legislation and look forward to seeing it move through the parliamentary process during this session. I encourage hon. members of the House to join me in supporting this bill.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary 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, we have these oversight committees to ensure there is a higher sense of accountability and transparency and also to help build public confidence in the institution, in this case the Canada Border Services Agency.
Could the member provide her thoughts on why it is important we continue to support and build people's confidence in the border control agents, the RCMP or correctional officers? These are all groups with oversight committees.
Emmanuella Lambropoulos Liberal Saint-Laurent, QC
Madam Speaker, it is important that all Canadians have confidence in their government and institutions, which is why it is important to make sure these bodies are there to help support them and provide a place they would be able to complain to.
When an agency oversees its own complaints, we never know what the outcome is and we never know exactly who is checking the complaints. Having a second body able to do this is important to help gain the confidence of Canadians. Canadians need to know these services are there to protect them, first and foremost, and if they do not have good experiences with agencies, such as the CBSA or other agencies, it is important they have a place to make that complaint.
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
Madam Speaker, one of the concerns I have around this bill, and I am hoping we will be able to fix it at committee stage, is it explicitly says that reviews cannot be conducted if resources are not available to do so. That worries me.
Could the member let the House know what kind of resources the government is planning to commit to ensure the PCRC has the resources it needs to carry out its review function?
Emmanuella Lambropoulos Liberal Saint-Laurent, QC
Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows that the budget has not yet come out. We do not necessarily know where funding will be placed and how much money will be going into these programs. I do trust that if this is legislation we are moving forward on, there will be money available to make sure this is something that can happen.
Bernard Généreux Conservative Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question. How will this new type of commission deal with the increased workload?
I gather that civilians who currently file a complaint with the commission can wait months or even years before receiving a response.
Does the government have a plan to increase the commission's capacity?
Emmanuella Lambropoulos Liberal Saint-Laurent, QC
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
The commission has not yet been created. We are not at that point yet, so I cannot answer my colleague's question.