Debates of Nov. 22nd, 2022

Public Complaints and Review Commission Act

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, yes, I want to see this go to committee, and I will be voting in favour. I am assuming that our whole caucus will be. However, we often hear this from the member: If we are all in agreement, why do we not just accelerate it through the whole process?

The process is important. It was important for me to give a speech today. Even if the member did not think it contributed a lot, members of my community think it does. They want to hear me talking about things that are important to them, and this is important to them. Therefore, I do not think we should be accelerating this needlessly. We need to debate it. That is why we are here.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on what my Conservative colleague was saying. His excellent speech shows that, when there are good-quality, well-thought-out bills that people can agree on, then Parliament works very well, and the long series of gag orders supported by NDP are often unnecessary. I would like to hear his comments on that.

As my colleague said, this bill needs to go to committee because it is quite ambitious and very detailed. In committee, we should hear from many stakeholders who will be affected by this bill, including unions. Who does my colleague think we should call as witnesses?

How useful will the committee be in ensuring that this bill is the best it can be when it gets to third reading?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am looking forward to seeing this bill go to committee for a deep dive, line by line, and yes, we have to hear from experts in the field.

The study we conducted at the public safety committee last year gives a good indication of who should be called as witnesses: people who work with indigenous communities, for example. We definitely need to hear from them. People who work in law enforcement, right from one end of the country to the other, should be called, as we need to hear from them.

We should probably hear from history, Justice Bastarache, who wrote the “Broken Dreams, Broken Lives” report. He would have something very important to say to the committee. He would be a good addition.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, of course the NDP thinks it is a good idea, as I do, that this bill pass. The CBSA is the only major law enforcement agency in Canada without an independent review mechanism to oversee the bulk of its activity. That is an oversight that needs to be changed.

I was interested in my friend's comments about interdiction at the borders, and I have done a bit of research. The port of Vancouver alone, with its four terminals, has 1.5 million containers coming every year. CBSA examines only 50,000 of them. That is about 4%. That means 1,450,000 containers pass through just that one port every year that are not examined by CBSA. The average container ship carries 10,000 containers. If 4% are examined, that means some 9,600 containers per ship are not searched.

Therefore, I am just wondering about the member's party's promotion of interdiction as a preferred method of dealing with guns or drugs. Would he not agree with us that there is just no way the CBSA is ever going to have an effective interdiction policy with figures like those?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, it seems almost impossible. I agree with the member. The task is so large.

Most of the guns that are used in a crime in Canada are smuggled in from the United States, not from China, not in containers coming into the port of Vancouver. Maybe some are, but most, like 80% of handguns, are smuggled in from the U.S.A., so let us focus on them.

I was talking to some border security people in my riding about the ArriveCAN app, and they said it was a waste of time. They were sitting there looking at their computer screens as cars were driving by, instead of doing what they normally do, which is to look at the person who has their window rolled down, using face-to-face contact and body language. That is the way they are going to interdict illegal things being smuggled in, including handguns.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I just want to drill down into the answer the member gave to the member from Winnipeg a couple of questions ago.

Can he explain to the House why it is so important that he speak for 30 minutes on this issue? I heard what he said. He said it is important that he express his position on this, but let us just analyze this for a second. He spoke for 30 minutes. If all 118 Conservatives spoke for 30 minutes on this, that would put us in the position of having to debate this bill for literally weeks, if not months, just to get it to committee.

Is the member basically saying that occupying all this time for him to give his speech is more important than the legislation getting adopted? Is that what he is saying? In theory, that is what he is saying. He is saying, “I need to speak to this for 30 minutes.” If we let everybody do that, it literally will not go anywhere.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would just reiterate that it is important for me to speak to this. It is important to my constituents that I speak to this. I have been involved with the public safety committee, and I am somewhat informed on the issues, so I think it is completely appropriate for me to speak to this. I am sorry if the member thinks it is not important that Conservative members who want to speak to the issue should be able to.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I just want to let members know I will be sharing my time with the member for Milton.

I am rising today to speak to Bill C-20. It is a bill that would establish “an independent body, called the Public Complaints and Review Commission”, which would “review and investigate complaints concerning the conduct and level of service” of the RCMP and the CBSA and “conduct reviews of specified activities” of the RCMP and the CBSA. The bill also:

authorizes the Chairperson of the Public Complaints and Review Commission to recommend the initiation of disciplinary processes or the imposition of disciplinary measures in relation to individuals who have been the subject of complaints;

amends the Canada Border Services Agency Act to provide for the investigation of serious incidents involving officers and employees of the [CBSA];

and

amends the English version of federal statutes and orders, regulations and other instruments to replace references to the “Force” with references to “RCMP”

This is not the first time I have risen to speak about the importance of oversight for the CBSA. We hear very regularly how important oversight is for open and transparent government, and how important it is for us to ensure that Canadians and everybody within the Canadian border has the ability to be treated fairly, the ability to conduct their affairs within a certain decorum of respect, and the ability to enter our country and not be judged based on their shell.

As much as I respect the work the CBSA has done over the years and decades with its ability to bring in and to recognize and go through hundreds and thousands of people on a regular basis through over 1,000 ports of entry within our country, I wonder what its impact is on people who may look different, who may have different abilities or who may not speak the same language our CBSA officers speak. It is not a question of whether our CBSA officers are able to contribute and support our borders and our entry points across the country. It is a question of how we are maintaining and supporting the integrity of Canadian values in this country. It is a matter of whether we are ensuring that everybody who comes in has that equality of opportunity and has the due process.

As we give discretion to CBSA officers, as they process these intense applications on a day-to-day basis, I ask whether those applications are processed in a manner that is fair, objective and in keeping with the values we hold dear as Canadians. As hundreds and thousands of travellers, permanent residents and citizens cross the border on a daily basis, I wonder about how CBSA officers are ensuring the integrity of the process, and I wonder about the cases that have been missed.

I know the news recently has been about a number of refugees from Egypt who came in through the Vancouver port. They were intercepted by CBSA officers and are now alleging that they have been discriminated against. As Muslims who have come in from Egypt, they have been linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, and they have no means of recourse from the CBSA officer who took them in. They do not know what their refugee applications could and would have looked like.

They have spent years trying to find a home, having really wanted Canada as their home, and are now in a situation in which they do not know where they belong. Had we installed this legislation at the moment when it was first introduced a couple of years ago, I wonder if they would still be in that same situation.

This legislation would give people the opportunity to really delve deep into whether or not their claim, and the way they are treated as they enter into or exit Canada, is fair. It is a way that we, with our Canadian values, would feel respected and proud.

I can tell members that I doubt those refugee claimants out of Vancouver who have had dealings with the CBSA without any recourse, and with the way that they have been treated by the CBSA out in Vancouver in those specific cases, feel that they have been treated fairly. However, if there were adjudication, an independent complaints system to listen, take in the facts and understand what had transpired in the case, I doubt those people in Vancouver would be feeling the way they do.

I commend each and every member of the CBSA. I know the great work they do in saving lives, going through people day by day, protecting the national security of this country and ensuring that we are secure as Canadians. However, if there is no oversight to the discretionary power given to CBSA officers who are dealing with people on a day-to-day basis, we wonder just how open and transparent we can be. We wonder what equality of opportunity looks like.

Canada is a country that is revered across the world. We take in a lot of people who are looking for homes, and we have become the adopted home for hundreds and thousands of people, including me. I wonder how we can improve that process.

How can we ensure the entry points to this safe haven that is Canada can be improved? How can we ensure the people who are having to deal with those first officers as they try to enter the country are treated with respect, dignity and without bias regardless of where they come from? An independent oversight body would allow us the privilege of providing that oversight and equality of opportunity to everyone who is seeking refuge within our country.

This legislation has been delayed in coming. It is so necessary and important that we include this independent oversight body to ensure our borders are not only protected but also that they are free from the bias, the subjectivity, that our Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects Canadians from on a daily basis.

We have to move forward on this legislation, and I am really looking forward to it going through committee and finally receiving royal assent, because I believe this is how we continue to achieve equality of opportunity in our country.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her very interesting speech, in which she explained how the CBSA's existing complaint management system can result in injustice, especially toward certain minorities that may be targeted.

Just before that, my colleague from Kingston and the Islands said that, every time someone rises to talk about Bill C‑20, they are just wasting time and delaying passage of the bill.

Does my colleague think she wasted our time with her speech?

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Madam Speaker, this chamber, this place, is for debate. It is for expressing the opinions of my constituents, and for each and every one of our constituents. I know for a fact that my constituents want this bill to go forward. I know for a fact that each and every member across the aisle, and I have sat and listened to their speeches, have something to contribute to this bill.

I would like to see this bill sent to committee as soon as possible. I would like for this bill to be implemented into law. I really am looking forward to having an oversight for the CBSA, and I encourage the member to support this bill in its entirety.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was listening to the words of the member today, and I appreciate the words around being treated fairly and with respect. My question for the member is regarding the LGBTQ+ community, which we spoke about in the House today. This relates specifically to respect and being treated fairly for those who have been misgendered by the RCMP.

I would like the member's thoughts on how this would allow persons who have been misgendered to file a complaint, which right now is not available to them.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Madam Speaker, this bill, this proposition of having an oversight body, is really about equality of opportunity. It is about righting wrongs, regardless of what those wrongs are. It is about using our Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a baseline to ensure Canadians are protected within our country. It is about transparency. It is about openness.

I am looking forward to this bill having a positive impact on transgender communities, the LGBTQ2+ communities and all racialized communities and religious minorities.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member's speech, in which she mentioned all the work our border officers do.

We can all agree that the complaint or oversight mechanism is a good thing for those whose rights were violated. Does the member think it is also important to consider the people who work at the border to safeguard our rights? They have been mistreated and are under a lot of pressure because their numbers have declined.

How is the government planning to consult these workers and listen to their perspective to make sure they do not have to bear a greater burden or be put under even more pressure?

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Madam Speaker, our frontline service members, the ones who really get out there and provide those services at the front end, are doing our country a wonderful service. They are to be commended for their wonderful efforts.

What this bill is trying to implement is a way to ensure the services being provided at that front end are objective and fair. Those who feel they have not been properly treated or received those services fairly would have a way to recommence themselves and would be able to find a way to make themselves whole again. I, for one, commend—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport]

Madam Speaker, it is a great privilege for me to rise today in the House to speak to Bill C‑20, a very important bill.

I am glad to be here today, standing on traditional Algonquin territory.

We are debating Bill C-20, which would enact a new stand-alone statute, the public complaints and review commission act, to provide an external review regime for both the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canadian Border Services Agency. When it comes to law enforcement and border protection, nothing is more important to the proper functioning of these systems than trust and accountability. Canadians are watching and indeed the world is watching.

The RCMP and the CBSA provide world-class services to keep Canadians safe, and Canadians rightly expect nothing less than consistent, fair and equal treatment. It is about balance. Public safety is of course paramount, but so too are human rights. To ensure our system remains balanced in this way and to maintain public respect for the rule of law, it is essential we pass Bill C-20 and establish a robust civilian review system.

Under this new PCRC, enhanced reporting requirements would apply, as would an independent review mechanism for the CBSA. By establishing these mechanisms independent from the enabling statutes of the RCMP and CBSA, we are walking the talk. We are demonstrating the importance of the very independence we seek to enshrine in law, distinct from the organizations in question.

I would like to use my time today to delve into some of the details of this bill.

First, Bill C-20 would add specific new accountability and transparency mechanisms. These would entail codified timelines for the RCMP or CBSA to respond to reports, reviews and recommendations from the PCRC. There would also be timelines for information sharing between the RCMP and the CBSA, as well as the PCRC. For example, the RCMP and the CBSA would have six months to respond to an interim report of the PCRC, and when the PCRC has issued a report after having reviewed specified activities of the RCMP and the CBSA, the latter would have 60 days to respond.

Not only must these bodies report back to the chairperson of the PCRC within these codified timelines, but the bill would also obligate the RCMP commissioner and the CBSA president each to submit an annual report to the Minister of Public Safety. These reports would detail the actions the RCMP and the CBSA have taken within the year to respond to PCRC recommendations.

I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the RCMP for its efforts to improve the timeliness of responses to the CRCC over the past year. The provisions of this bill would ensure this timeliness continues.

Another highly important aspect of Bill C-20 is the provision compelling the PCRC to report on disaggregated race-based data. Canadians have said it loud and clear, and we agree, that eradicating systemic racism in law enforcement is an urgent priority. Collecting, establishing and publishing race-based data on complainants is one of the ways that knowledge gaps around systemic racism would be filled.

In addition, Bill C-20 directs the PCRC to implement public education and information programs to increase knowledge and awareness of the new commission's mandate. With increased public information and engagement through such mechanisms, the bill aims to earn the trust of Black, indigenous and all racialized Canadians. Of course, this all builds on the work done by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security and its report entitled “Systemic Racism in Policing in Canada”. We are following through on that report's recommendation that the government clarify and strengthen the mandate, independence and efficacy of the CRCC.

What this bill also does, on top of improving RCMP review, is to close a long-standing gap regarding review of the CBSA. Currently, public complaints are handled through internal CBSA processes and there are no independent mechanisms available to review public complaints regarding CBSA employee conduct or service.

Make no mistake; this is a very ambitious and truly important bill. However, as we have had multiple opportunities to introduce such legislation, with both Bill C-98 and Bill C-3 dying on the Order Paper in 2019 and 2020 respectively, we have also seized the chance to continue building out this bill.

This work has been accomplished through extensive consultations with stakeholders, the broader public and governance experts like Mel Cappe, and particularly with the CRCC itself. I must single out the CRCC chairperson, Michelaine Lahaie, for her dedication. Many of her thoughtful and thorough recommendations have shaped this bill into a framework for accountability and transparency, and that is why we are here today.

I began my time today by asserting that Canada's new law enforcement and border services organizations are world class, and I stand by that statement. It is exactly why this legislation is so critical. To remain world class and to uphold Canada's hard-won reputation for equity and fairness on the international stage, we must keep up with our international counterparts.

This bill would do exactly that, aligning our border agency review function with that of countries like the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. Internally, Bill C-20 would also align the new PCRC's review functions with other public safety accountability bodies, such as the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians and the newly created National Security and Intelligence Review Agency.

To sum up, Bill C-20 is much needed and long overdue. Without it, the CRCC does not have all the tools it needs to uphold civilian review of the law enforcement system, and the Canadian public does not have the tools it needs to continue trusting, or indeed rebuild trust in many cases, in the services that the system provides. This bill responds to the urgent priorities that date back years and those that have more recently come to the forefront, such as systemic racism.

I know my hon. colleagues share our concern for both public safety and the right of all Canadians to live free from discrimination, and I urge everyone in the House to join me in supporting the expeditious passage of this legislation.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, one of the worries I often have when legislation is brought forward or things are announced in the House is that resources will not be available to do the work that needs to be done. For example, with our sanctions regime, we do not have the resources for CBSA to do what it needs to do. With regard to forced labour, only one shipment relating to force labour was identified by CBSA and it was returned. My worry is that when we put this legislation in place, there will not be resources to make sure it is effective.

What steps will the government take to ensure that there are adequate resources for this work?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, resources come in various shapes and forms. There are human resources and financial resources. Indeed, the latter will be available. We will ensure that all the money necessary will be available to build up a new organization of accountability. That is a commitment that I know this government has already made.

On the issue of human resources and making sure there is enough personnel, for example, to fill all the important positions within the CBSA, the RCMP and this new accountability measure, we are going to rely largely on immigration in this country to fill a lot of those positions. Canadians these days are simply not having as many children as the economy requires if we would like it to grow, and this is one of those important areas where we need to rely on immigration for our workforce and the human resource capital that Canada so desperately needs.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, there are five CBSA crossings in my riding, and over my seven years as a member of Parliament, I have heard many times from my constituents about both positive and negative issues with the CBSA, and even more so lately with COVID and the shutdown of borders. In particular, the issue right now is when they are going to go back to their regular hours, but that is another conversation. It is not the conversation today.

The Liberals have been saying for the past seven years that this is going to happen, yet it has taken this long just to get here. Why has it taken so long to get the bill to this stage, and why is it being rushed at this point?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I stated in my speech today, this bill has indeed died on the Order Paper twice now, and we do not want that to ever happen again. This bill has been debated over and over. It was also modified on those two occasions to fit more current studies being done at various committees and to fit things that we review and decide on collectively as priorities.

Why is this important now? It is because time is of the essence on the bill. I do believe, as it has died twice on the Order Paper, that it is important to act expeditiously. I do not suspect there is an election on the horizon, but at the same time, the House has important work to do, and this is one of the opportunities we all have to come together and collectively make some progress happen before the holiday break.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. It was clear and precise. My colleague alluded to the fact that we have been wanting to do this for seven years. I would like to remind him that this was deferred in 2019 or in 2020, it does not matter. In 2004, in other words, 18 years ago, Justice O'Connor recommended creating this type of process.

That being said, I will just pick up on the question from the NDP member. I have absolutely no clue what kind of an investment this represents. Are we talking about millions of dollars? My colleague proposes relying on immigration to fill the positions; that would be about 10 to 50 positions. What would enacting the bill mean, both financially and in terms of human resources?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and his attention to this very important bill.

I do not have the funding details associated with this bill right now. It is not yet entirely clear. I believe that every member in the House understands that this bill is very important. It is not a question of funding or money, it is a question of addressing systemic racism and dealing with the other concerns of our constituents.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak to Bill C-20, an act establishing the Public Complaints and Review Commission and amending certain acts and statutory instruments.

I would like to begin by saying that the Bloc Québécois supports this bill at second reading. This bill would give citizens recourse against the Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, which can, on occasion, abuse its authority.

There is currently an independent oversight mechanism in place, but its mandate covers only matters of national security, so it needs to be expanded. Citizens who wish to file a complaint must do so directly to the CBSA, but the information is not public and, because the mechanism is internal, it is not totally neutral and objective.

As a result, there is no external review body to deal with public complaints against the CBSA, and that is what this bill seeks to correct. The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C‑20 at second reading because we believe that an independent complaint process is both necessary and good for the public. As my colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles said, it was in 2004, 18 years ago, that Justice O'Connor recommended that an independent process be put in place to handle public complaints against the CBSA.

For example, in early January 2020, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada found significant flaws concerning searches of travellers' electronic devices, which demonstrated the importance of having an independent body to review complaints. The bill must be referred to a committee quickly so that it can be studied and the concerns of different groups, including unions, can be heard. I will come back to this later to explain what this will change, and I will speak about the perspective of unions and victims.

First, this bill seeks to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and the Canada Border Services Agency Act to change the complaints process for citizens and provide the opportunity for travellers to file complaints against CBSA officers.

This bill is similar to Bill C‑3, which was introduced in the 43rd Parliament, and Bill C‑98, which was introduced in the 42nd Parliament. Both died on the Order Paper for the sole reason that they were never a priority for the government. All parties supported Bill C-98, but we never voted on Bill C‑3. We are wondering if this bill will now be a priority.

Bill C‑20 contains a number of things. It replaces the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police with a new body called the public complaints and review commission, or PCRC. This new body will be mandated to review and investigate complaints concerning the conduct and level of service of RCMP and Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, personnel. It will also conduct reviews of specified activities of the RCMP and the CBSA.

The bill authorizes the chairperson of the PCRC to recommend the initiation of disciplinary processes or the imposition of disciplinary measures in relation to individuals who have been the subject of complaints. It amends the Canada Border Services Agency Act to provide for the investigation of serious incidents involving officers and employees of the CBSA.

The most important point of this bill is that it enables this new body to review the CBSA's activities and to investigate public complaints involving both officers and employees. Under Bill C-20, the public complaints and review commission can receive complaints from the public about the RCMP or the CBSA, but the complaints will generally be sent directly to the RCMP and the CBSA first for an initial investigation. If the complainant is not satisfied with the investigation of the RCMP or the CBSA, then they can ask the PCRC to look into it. Basically, here is what that means.

In such a case, the PCRC could present its findings and make recommendations. The RCMP or the CBSA would have to respond in writing to the PCRC reports by the deadlines set out in the acts and regulations. An external mechanism will therefore be put in place.

What is more, complaints related to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages or the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada will not be dealt with by the PCRC. However, the PCRC will forward any such complaints to the appropriate organizations.

The PCRC will be made up of civilians who are not former members of the RCMP or the CBSA. This is an independent external process. Another thing about this bill is that the response timelines for the RCMP will be codified, because many felt that the RCMP responded too slowly to the reports of the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or CRCC. The bill will therefore replace the CRCC with the PCRC and a deadline will be imposed.

The bill also requires the commissioner of the RCMP and the president of the CBSA to submit an annual report to the Minister of Public Safety outlining what the organizations have done during the year to address the PCRC's recommendations. The minister will be required to share the report with the House of Commons and the Senate within 15 days.

There will also be a more targeted collection of information to determine whether racism against certain groups is an issue. It will be documented. The bill also calls for a public education and information campaign to inform travellers of their rights.

The PCRC will be responsible for tracking serious incidents—such as a death, serious injury or violation of laws—and making them public. It may send an observer to ensure that CBSA and RCMP investigations are conducted impartially. The PCRC may review, on its own initiative or at the request of the Minister of Public Safety, any RCMP and CBSA activity that is not related to national security. The reports would include findings or recommendations on RCMP and CBSA compliance with legislation and directives, and the adequacy, appropriateness, sufficiency or clarity of RCMP and CBSA policies, procedures and guidelines.

One difference from Bill C-3, which was a similar bill introduced in the 43rd Parliament, is that the PCRC will be established by a specific piece of legislation, whereas in the previous version, it was established by amendments to existing laws.

The PCRC will not be able to compel the CBSA and the RCMP to take disciplinary action, but both agencies will be required to report to the minister to justify their response to the recommendations, and these reports will be made public 15 days after the minister receives them.

The bill aims to create an independent process for reviewing complaints and the work of the Canada Border Services Agency. This new entity, the public complaints and review commission, will also replace the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. This new commission, the PCRC, will deal with both the RCMP and the CBSA.

The new entity created by Bill C-20 will make it possible to file complaints directly with the CBSA and directly with the PCRC, depending on the complainant's preference. The complainant decides. If an individual is not satisfied with the response they get from the CBSA or the RCMP, they can ask the PCRC to review a complaint that has already been filed.

The process is nevertheless long and complicated. There is a good chance that most individuals will give up before the end of the process. For example, if an officer makes a sexist or racist comment towards a traveller, filing a complaint with the CBSA, waiting for a response and then sending the complaint to the PCRC could be more complicated and demanding for most travellers than just ignoring the comment, which is quite sad. The committee will have to examine whether the process proposed by Bill C‑20 is adequate or if it should be revised.

Creating this new external body is necessary, according to Mary Foster, from Solidarity Across Borders. In 2019, she said that “making a complaint to the CBSA about the CBSA doesn't really lead anywhere”. Having the option of challenging the findings of an investigation is therefore essential to maintaining public trust.

All parties supported Bill C‑98 in the 42nd Parliament, but, as I said earlier, a vote was never held on Bill C‑3.

Now we are once again discussing a bill that is good for the public because the existing system does not include an adequate complaint mechanism for people. Civil liberties groups have long called for the creation of an independent complaint-handling body like the one for the police.

For example, under the Access to Information Act, the Canadian Press obtained a list of complaints that travellers submitted directly to the CBSA.

According to the documents, in 2017-18, nearly 900 complaints were filed, about 100 of which were deemed founded, including cases of travellers being on the receiving end of border officers' racist or rude comments. Complaints against the CBSA are currently handled internally, with little transparency. That is the problem Bill C‑20 may fix.

Second, from the union's perspective, the Customs and Immigration Union's national president, Mark Weber, is concerned that Bill C‑20 could put more pressure on the labour-management relationship, which the union says is already strained. We have to keep that in mind.

He says that officers are placed on leave without pay, sometimes for a year or more, pending the outcome of investigations. He also notes that customs officers frequently work overtime and can be exhausted, which does not help. We need to ensure that customs officers have adequate resources, which the Bloc Québécois often asks for, considering the government's lack of interest in our borders. We have been asking for this frequently and for a long time. The Bloc Québécois would like the union to be involved in the process that leads to passing Bill C‑20, particularly in committee.

The staffing shortage at the CBSA is a well-known problem. This is causing delays and tension between officers and travellers. The government will also have to address this problem.

The CBSA has a great deal of power, including the power to detain and search Canadians and to deport people. It is therefore incomprehensible that the CBSA still has no external investigation mechanism.

In its legislative summary, the Library of Parliament cites the case of Maher Arar, a Syrian-Canadian citizen who was arrested during a layover in New York on his way home to Canada.

In 2004, a commission of inquiry into the Arar case led by Justice Dennis O'Connor suggested creating a new civilian agency to oversee the activities of both the RCMP and the CBSA, as I said earlier.

In other words, 18 years later, the CBSA still does not have one. Only the RCMP has this external oversight mechanism. However, the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency is already responsible for overseeing national security activities, and only national security activities.

I want to make it clear that the Bloc Québécois is not putting the blame on CBSA or RCMP officers as a whole, nor is it putting the CBSA on trial. Rather, we feel the government is responsible for the lack of oversight over the CBSA and the lack of transparency, which is inappropriate for such an important agency. We think the Liberals and the Conservatives should be held to account for tolerating all this for so long.

As I said—

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

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I absolutely have to make an announcement before five o'clock.

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 Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Foreign Affairs; the hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, Public Safety; the hon. member for Spadina—Fort York, Cannabis.

The hon. member for Shefford may continue.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I understand that that is part of the work of Parliament, and I will pick up where I left off.

I repeat that the lack of resources allocated to the agencies does not help. Some customs officers might be exhausted, which can lead to tenser situations with certain travellers. A recent CBC article talked about how the number of complaints against CBSA officers has been growing over the past two years and about how a new complaints commission is in the works.

Bill C-20 will replace the oversight body that deals with public complaints against the RCMP with a civilian review and complaints commission that will handle complaints against the RCMP and the CBSA. If Bill C‑20 is passed, the new civilian review and complaints commission will be able to look into any CBSA activities that are not related to national security, either on its own initiative or at the request of the minister.

Mr. Weber, the union president, said that he would like the new organization to deal with managerial misconduct as well. That is important to note. He also mentioned that if a complaint points to a systemic issue, the commission should tackle that issue rather than focusing on the one person the traveller interacted with. He stated that CBSA officers are often stuck working mandatory overtime and process hundreds of people a day.

The number of misconduct investigations of border officers grew last year, despite a dramatic reduction in international travel due to the pandemic. The misconduct primarily involved granting permits or disrespecting travellers, to name just a couple of examples. The Canada Border Services Agency reported 215 founded investigations of its officers last year, compared to 171 in 2019. We can see that there was an increase. However, that increase came after border restrictions were put in place to control the pandemic. The number of trips into and out of Canada dropped significantly, yet the number of complaints increased.

Last year, the total number of recorded trips in and out of the country by air and land was just over 25 million, a far cry from the nearly 94 million trips logged in 2019. The agency noted, however, that not all of the misconduct cases involved travel. The case numbers vary year by year, and it is important to note that not all misconduct is connected to public complaints or international travel, according to CBSA spokesperson Rebecca Purdy. Jean-Pierre Fortin, former national president of the Customs and Immigration Union, also pointed out that some ports of entry still had high amounts of traffic over the past year.

Third, looking at it from the complainants' perspective, the 200 or so investigations conducted last year resulted in 170 officers being reprimanded, largely with temporary suspensions. Just eight CBSA officers have been fired since 2018, according to an access to information request obtained by CBC News. One officer was let go for interfering in the immigration process. The internal investigation revealed that he had tried to help an immigration lawyer by illegally removing material from a client's file that would have raised questions and issuing a temporary residence permit. Other officers have been let go for belittling clients, making inappropriate comments towards co-workers, abusing their authority and sharing private CBSA information.

The border agency, which employs about 14,000 people, said discipline is managed on a case-by-case basis and is based on the severity of the allegations coupled with mitigating and aggravating factors. The CBSA's statements have done very little to convince Janet Dench of the Canadian Council for Refugees. She believes that there is a need for independent oversight and that there are probably more cases of abuse that we are not currently aware of. This is just the tip of the iceberg, if you will. Ms. Dench is pushing for outside, independent oversight of the CBSA, which is the only public safety agency in Canada without an independent oversight body. She calls the current set-up ineffective.

A bill that would have expanded the mandate of the civilian body that handles public complaints about the RCMP to also cover the CBSA failed to clear the Senate before the end of the last parliamentary session. The federal government has yet to reintroduce the bill, but the CBSA said that, so far this year, it has opened 41 founded investigations, resulting in three terminations.

Documents obtained by CBC through an access to information request showed that, over a two-year period from January 2016 to mid-2018, the CBSA received 1,200 complaints about its own employees, including potential cases of harassment and misconduct. The number of complaints deemed founded was not disclosed, nor was information provided about measures taken to resolve the founded complaints, which included 59 allegations of harassment, 38 allegations of criminal association and five allegations of sexual assault. As the status of women critic, this really concerns me.

A woman deported to Guatemala alleged that CBSA officers seriously injured her by pushing her to the ground and kneeling on her back. The CBSA did not confirm whether its agents used force to arrest the woman in this specific case.

Data provided to The Canadian Press through the Access to Information Act show that between 2017 and 2018, 105 cases of complaints of officer misconduct were deemed founded, representing about 12% of the 875 misconduct complaints filed in that time.

The International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group says the definition of “founded” is far too vague to help lead to changes within the agency's culture or for the public to be properly informed and that the limited information shows cause for concern, particularly the allegations of racism and name-calling.

According to one of the reports, a female traveller said that a CBSA officer was rude and yelled at her until she passed out. The officers reported that she was found to be in medical distress and received appropriate care. According to the findings of the investigation, the officer did not play a role in the traveller's medical distress. Other travellers filed complaints because interpretation services were not available and they were denied an interpreter. The government is using the example of a Privacy Commissioner report to illustrate why Bill C‑20 is necessary.

In conclusion, all of these stories are very familiar to me, since I worked for a member of Parliament from a riding on the border. I took a lot of interest in the fact that governments, both Liberal and Conservative, have cut back on investing in border crossings over the years, creating resource shortages and placing a tremendous amount of additional pressure on staff. When I was working for that member of Parliament, the issue was hours of operation and staffing reductions.

I would like to say one last thing. There needs to be a neutral space to independently analyze the complaints and abuses that could occur in the two agencies affected by the bill we are talking about today. We must also keep in mind that this agency and these officers need to see money being reinvested. We should be concerned about the workers who give their time to this very important agency. We need to restore public confidence because everyone will benefit.