Honourable senators, I rise today at third reading to speak on Bill C-20, An Act establishing the Public Complaints and Review Commission and amending certain Acts and statutory instruments.

Before I start, I would like to acknowledge the sponsor of the bill, Senator Omidvar. Senator Omidvar, our very able deputy leader stepped in for me doing a tribute to you, so I wasn’t able to do that. I want to pay tribute to you now for the work you have done. I believe this is your last sitting day, and so I wish you well. When I see people like you or Senator Cordy, who has announced she is leaving us, it starts getting a little close, because I’m coming awfully close. I’m right behind you.

Colleagues, Bill C-20 proposes to create a new independent body to address public complaints against the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or RCMP, and the Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA. This new body, also referred to as “the Commission,” will replace the former one, which only handled complaints against the RCMP.

Currently, there is no independent body to handle public complaints about CBSA officers’ behaviour or conduct. Complaints are directed to the CBSA itself, which is responsible for examining them internally.

This process obviously raises concerns regarding an apparent conflict of interest, as CBSA officers investigate their colleagues. This approach can erode public trust in our federal law enforcement agencies. I support this important measure because it is undeniable that the CBSA, which plays a critical role in protecting our borders, must be accountable to an independent body when its officers engage in misconduct or fail to uphold Canada’s ethical standards.

There are complex situations where asylum seekers and refugees come to Canada to escape war or oppression, hoping to provide a better life for their families. These situations often involve significant human suffering, and it is essential that Canada, a remarkable country that upholds safety, equality under the law and freedom of expression, lives up to its democratic principles.

The initial contact with immigrants should be conducted with respect and dignity, making it essential that border service officers be subject to transparent and independent investigations when they fail to demonstrate respect or professionalism.

Honourable senators, I want to highlight that Bill C-20 stems from a promise made by Justin Trudeau and his Liberal Party in 2015.

The other day we rightly heard from Senator McCallum that her bill had taken 15 months and still wasn’t across the finish line.

This is a promise made by Justin Trudeau nine years ago. For nine years, the Liberals have dragged their feet on advancing this legislation, despite the opposition always voting in favour of previous versions. Much as Senator Gold and company would like to blame the Conservatives for holding this up, I’m sure we always voted in favour of previous versions.

Bill C-20 was introduced on May 19, 2022, over two years ago, and there was a seven-month delay between the end of committee study and the report stage. It is indeed disappointing to see the Liberal government act so slowly despite their 2015 promise.

I would like to share with you what Kate Webster, Vice‑President of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, stated on this matter before the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs:

By international standards, Canada is behind. We have an enormous law enforcement body that has no oversight. We are out of step with our international partners or competitors — however you want to define them. . . .

It is a shame that we have not managed to act on that recommendation before.

What is also disappointing is that Liberal inaction has allowed unacceptable situations to persist since 2015. A 2019 Auditor General’s report entitled Respect in the Workplace highlighted serious issues of harassment, discrimination and violence within the CBSA and Correctional Service Canada workplaces. Interviewed employees shared grave concerns about the agency’s organizational culture and their fear of retaliation from management if they filed complaints. I would like to cite a passage from the press release issued by the Auditor General’s Office on this matter:

The audit found shortcomings in the way the organizations managed complaints, including inconsistencies in the handling of files and instances where employees were not told of informal recourses that might bring a faster resolution and restore working relationships more quickly.

The audit also found that in about a third of cases, CBSA and CSC dismissed complaints of workplace violence without an initial assessment of the complaint. When the Labour Program was called upon to review these complaints, it directed the organizations to go back and investigate them. With respect to harassment or discrimination grievance, the organizations provided a decision without analyzing the grievance in 10 to 25% of cases. Such decisions are unlikely to help foster employees’ trust in the process.

These incidents within the CBSA have not appeared to decrease over the past five years, if we are to believe the Senate testimony of Mr. Weber, National President of the Customs and Immigration Union, who said:

. . . the agency is well known among its employees for letting gross abuse by management run unchecked, and it is difficult for CBSA employees to see complaints about managers go addressed through existing channels. In fact, CBSA managers often promote the very atmosphere that allows bad behaviour to flourish. Thanks to the ArriveCAN debacle, the lack of accountability within the agency’s management is now infamous, and it is clear that CBSA’s reporting and internal investigative structure badly needs to be overhauled.

It is concerning and unacceptable that employees who suffer from violence, harassment and discrimination within our federal agencies should have serious fears of retaliation when they want to file a complaint. This discourages victims from speaking up and further entrenches the toxic atmosphere within the CBSA. The Trudeau government was very well aware of these incidents and did nothing to expedite the adoption of this bill.

It is the responsibility of the Minister of Public Safety to act quickly when it comes to ensuring the safety and protecting the integrity of the agencies under his responsibility.

These are not the only incidents that have impacted the CBSA in recent years. The agency has been flagged several times by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada for failing to comply with the Privacy Act. For example, in 2019, the commissioner released an investigation report following a significant number of complaints received against CBSA on digital device examinations at the border. The report focused on six complaints and concluded as follows:

More generally, our review has identified failings in the CBSA’s practices, pointing to chronic issues, which in turn directly affects the CBSA’s accountability to the public – both in the exercise of the powers conferred upon it, and also in terms of meeting the requirements of the Act.

To this end, it is our conclusion that the Policy on its own has not proven an effective means of ensuring that examinations and searches of digital devices respect individuals’ privacy rights. There are insufficient training and accountability mechanisms in place to ensure that CBSA officers are meeting the necessary requirements established by the Policy.

We therefore consider all six of the complaints to be well-founded.

In recent years, the media has reported several concerning incidents within the CBSA. Among the reported incidents, one officer allegedly stole thousands of dollars and luxury items from a CBSA safe. Another officer inappropriately accessed the CBSA’s computer system to delete indicators in an individual’s file. More troubling still, some officers had proven ties to drug traffickers and members of the Hells Angels. In parallel, cases of sexual harassment have also been documented, including the sexual assault of a colleague off duty, humiliating behaviours like spraying insecticide on a colleague and sending sexually explicit messages.

In a 2020 article, Radio-Canada reported on a CBSA officer who forced individuals to perform inappropriate actions on his genitals during an intervention.

Misconduct investigations within the CBSA are increasing. In 2014, the CBSA reported 146 misconduct investigations, 106 of which were founded. In 2023, this number had risen to 477, with 341 founded cases.

Canada remains the only Five Eyes country without an independent review body to handle complaints against its border services agency. This is not my claim; it was stated by Mary-Liz Power, former spokesperson for federal public safety minister Bill Blair in 2020. This statement is particularly curious, coming from those responsible for correcting the situation. If this gap was acknowledged by the minister’s office, one may wonder why the government did not act faster to resolve it.

The government leader here will say there was a pandemic and a subsequent federal election. However, why did the government wait seven months to proceed to the report stage in the House of Commons?

Just for instance and a comparison, Bill C-21 on firearms, a highly controversial bill far from reaching consensus across the country, was introduced on May 30, 2022 — 11 days after Bill C-20 — and it was passed on December 15, 2023, a year and a half later. How does the government justify prolonged delays on Bill C-20 while it moves quickly on partisan and controversial bills? Meanwhile, incidents have occurred over recent years, and the Trudeau government has no excuse for this delay.

Honourable senators, I would now like to address my significant concerns about how Bill C-20 has been drafted. In her speech at third reading, the bill’s sponsor herself admitted that this bill is far from perfect. Bill C-20 does not introduce substantial changes to the existing process for handling complaints and investigations.

This approach closely mirrors that of the current independent commission handling RCMP complaints. To file a complaint, complainants have two options: They can submit their complaint directly to the RCMP or the CBSA, or they can refer it to the commission, which has the authority to investigate under clause 50 of the bill.

However, I want to clarify an essential point in the bill’s proposed process: The commission’s role is primarily to investigate complaints already addressed by the RCMP and CBSA. The bill also imposes obligations on the RCMP and CBSA to respond to the commission’s interim reports on complaints within six months. Concerning reports on specific activities, the RCMP and CBSA will have 60 days to provide observations before the commission publishes a report summary. Finally, the bill requires the RCMP and CBSA to submit an annual report to the Minister of Public Safety on the implementation of the commission’s recommendations.

Moreover, the bill grants the new commission additional powers, including the ability to recommend disciplinary processes and measures to the RCMP and CBSA heads, as well as to conduct joint investigations, reviews or hearings with authorities from other jurisdictions.

This leads me to a significant issue raised by the National Police Federation regarding the bill. The federation believes that the complaints process is not yet fully transparent and independent, as many complaints filed with the commission are redirected to the RCMP, which is responsible for its investigations. As I explained earlier, the fact that officers investigate officers can be perceived by the public as a threat to the impartiality of the process, even if, in reality, officers act with honesty and professionalism. Perception often overshadows objective reality.

The union also highlights the resources that the RCMP must mobilize to process these complaints, resources that could otherwise be used to fight crime or ensure public safety. I would like to cite a passage from what Brian Sauvé, the President of the RCMP union, said on this matter:

Estimating an average of 1,500 files per year that require a 40-hour investigation each, we’re talking about approximately 60,000 work hours taken from communities in which our members could be engaging in core policing duties. That equates to about 30 full-time RCMP officers. . . .

This brings me to another point that I believe deserves particular attention. The National Police Federation raised the issue of the additional workload that the new commission will face in handling both RCMP and CBSA complaints simultaneously, along with the increase in delays if adequate resources are not provided.

Again, these concerns were expressed by Mark Weber, the National President of the Customs and Immigration Union, who stated in a House of Commons committee:

In fact, under this new legislation, it’s likely that investigations could take years to be completed, which is fair neither for the complainant nor for the party under investigation.

This observation is also highlighted by the Canadian Bar Association, which notes in its submission, “It seems inevitable that as the Commission’s workload increases, delays will grow.”

These concerns must be taken seriously, colleagues, as they could lead to the failure of this new commission. We can observe the lack of resources within other federal entities, such as the Office of the Information Commissioner. I would like to share what Commissioner Caroline Maynard said regarding her office’s Main Estimates before the Senate Committee on National Finance on September 17:

Unfortunately, that progress and my office’s ability to fulfill my independent legislative mandate is now at risk. This is because the additional financial resources that I received this fiscal year to cover negotiated collective agreement increases are not sufficient, resulting in a structural deficit. . . .

For a small organization like mine, this is a significant strain. Every employee plays a vital role, and losing even a few could deeply impact our ability to fulfill our mandate. Ultimately, this budget shortfall will spell longer delays for those seeking information from federal government institutions.

Colleagues, Harriet Solloway, the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada, also expressed concerns about the lack of resources for her agency, and I would like to share what she said on the same day:

There is a mounting backlog of files that cannot be addressed with current resources. As of August 31, 2024, 140 files are pending admissibility analysis, and another 47 investigations have yet to be completed. Without an injection of resources, there is a risk that investigations will not be completed in a timely manner. The risk includes the erosion of the availability and quality of documentary evidence and witness accounts. If we cannot effectively investigate and expose wrongdoing, that will diminish accountability and eliminate a vital component of checks and balances that enhance confidence in public institutions. In addition, the inability to investigate complaints of reprisal in a timely manner would leave public servants vulnerable and exposed to hostile workplaces and possibly impact their employment.

She continued:

The impact of this financial crisis cannot be overstated. Without additional funding, there is a significant risk of breaching the obligations established under the very act that governs our work.

Colleagues, the problem with this bill is that the government has no clear idea of how many complaints will be addressed to this new commission. In her testimony on Bill C-20, President Lahaie of the current Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP stated the following:

One of the things we don’t know with this bill before you is how many complaints we’ll get about the CBSA. That’s an unknown. They already have an internal process, but when there’s an outside agency looking into these complaints, it gives the general public more confidence. When you open the doors — because they’re already open — you change.

At the end of its study, the National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs Committee unanimously recognized that the issue of resources was crucial. I would like to read an observation included in the report on Bill C-20:

Regarding concerns raised by witnesses about resources, your committee is of the view that the Government of Canada should provide the proposed Commission with the personnel and financial resources that it requires to accomplish its mandate effectively.

Honourable senators, as the Canadian Bar Association mentioned, the increase in workload will lead to increased delays in processing complaints. Pending complaints can have repercussions on the careers of the affected officers. Officers under investigation risk having their career progression suspended. This situation can also heavily impact their morale and well-being, leaving them in a prolonged state of uncertainty. One potential solution would be to impose fixed deadlines for processing complaints. The Customs and Immigration Union highlighted in its submission the importance of setting clear timelines at each stage of the process. However, the study of the bill in the House and the Senate did not provide a clear answer on this matter.

I will not revisit the various issues of the bill, but I would like to focus on two amendments made in the House of Commons that, in my view, will exacerbate the issues I described earlier. Bloc Québécois MP Kristina Michaud moved an amendment that was passed with the support of the Liberals and the NDP, allowing a third party to file a complaint. This amendment permits advocacy groups or non-profit organizations to file complaints on behalf of an individual, even without that person’s consent, which was not allowed prior to this amendment, where a third party could file a complaint only with prior authorization. This change could lead to a significant volume of claims and clog up the process. RCMP Assistant Commissioner Alfredo Bangloy made the following statement during the House committee debate on this amendment:

. . . a YouTube video and a complaint of actions on YouTube, where they’re not directly involved or implicated or have no connection to that incident, potentially could create an increase in complaints in which the individuals themselves who are impacted aren’t complaining but other people are. It could lead to a rise in overall complaints and resources to be drawn to investigate and deal with those.

This concern was also echoed by the RCMP union at the Senate committee. Here is what Mr. Sauvé from the RCMP said on this matter:

The current amendments to subclause 33(1) and clause 35 allow “third parties” to file complaints and receive assistance. However, the term “third party” is not clearly defined. It is unclear who qualifies as a “third party,” the circumstances under which they can receive assistance or what it means to be “directly concerned” with a complaint. This ambiguity could lead to resource misuse, with the commission receiving frivolous complaints, worsening its already-strained resources.

Under clause 38 of the bill, the commission has the right to refuse a complaint from a third party if it is not directly concerned with the complaint. This is not sufficient, and this amendment creates a loophole in the bill. First, the commission will need to mobilize resources to open all complaints that are transmitted to it. If an advocacy group decides to file 1,000 complaints that are deemed frivolous or vexatious, the commission will have to undertake the laborious task of opening and reviewing each of them. Second, because there is no definition of a “third party,” this broadens the bill’s scope considerably.

Finally, as Mr. Sauvé mentioned, we do not know exactly what it means to be “. . . not directly concerned with the subject of the complaint.” Therefore, the bill leaves an ambiguity that could lead to a large volume of complaints and increased processing delays, as well as strain the commission’s resources. As if that were not enough, an amendment by NDP MP Peter Julian extended the time limit for filing a complaint from one to two years, now allowing an individual or third party to file a complaint up to two years after an incident.

This amendment could increase the workload for the RCMP or the Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, officers, who would have to investigate incidents from up to two years ago. Currently, it is possible to file a complaint after one year with the RCMP or the CBSA. They have the discretionary power to review these complaints on a case-by-case basis, considering the nature of the complaint and the ability to investigate. This amendment received strong disapproval from the RCMP and CBSA unions in committee.

Here is what Mr. Weber said on this matter:

We also have pressing concerns around time limits, notably when it comes to the initial time frame for filing a complaint. Under the latest version of the bill, complaints could be made up to two years after an incident allegedly occurred. Given that CBSA officers often interact with hundreds of travellers a day — and that these interactions can be extremely brief — exceedingly long delays would put officers subject to a complaint at a tremendous disadvantage, as recalling a seconds-long interaction that occurred months ago is often near impossible.

Here’s what Mr. Sauvé added on the matter:

Given the commission’s current resource challenges, this extension could delay investigations and make it harder to gather accurate information due to memory degradation. The current process already allows for extensions in exceptional cases.

Colleagues, these amendments could negatively impact this bill, which already raises concerns about the commission’s ability to carry out its new mandate effectively.

I will conclude my speech by sharing my fundamental thoughts on the matter before us today. It would be dishonest to assert that law enforcement agencies need stringent oversight without considering the other side of the coin. RCMP officers and CBSA agents are dedicated professionals who remain committed to their missions despite facing increasingly complex situations.

Over the past nine years, Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government has contributed, through the legislation it has passed, to a significant rise in crime in Canada.

For example, with the measures introduced by Bill C-75 in 2019 concerning the bail system or Bill C-5 in 2022, which abolished mandatory minimum sentences for firearm-related crimes and increased the use of conditional sentences.

Crime statistics speak for themselves. I would like to quote a passage from Statistic Canada’s report on police-reported crime in 2022:

The Violent CSI rose 5% in 2022, following a 6% increase the previous year. Compared with 2021, the increase in the Violent CSI in 2022 included higher rates of robbery (+15%), extortion (+39%), homicide (+8%) and level 1 sexual assault (+3%).

Looking at vehicle theft, I note that it has risen by 34% after nine years under Justin Trudeau, with increases of 300% in Toronto and more than 100% in Montreal.

What about borders? For years, our immigration flows have been steadily increasing, placing growing demands on our Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, agents, who perform monumental work to manage these new arrivals.

There have also been ill-considered decisions by the Liberal government on immigration, such as the decision to lift the visa requirement for Mexican citizens in 2016, thereby opening the door to organized criminal groups. Le Journal de Montréal reported in 2019 that 400 criminals entered Canada, with an 80% rise in Mexican drug seizures and a 500% increase in inadmissibility cases just one year after this decision.

This year, under pressure, the Liberal government ultimately reversed its position by reintroducing the visa requirement for Mexicans with certain exceptions. It would, therefore, be unfair not to acknowledge that the Trudeau government is placing increasing pressure on our Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or RCMP, and CBSA officers, who must handle more situations with fewer resources all while adhering to high ethical standards.

But, here, colleagues, is the good news. We are less than one year away from an election in which a common-sense Conservative government under the able and capable leadership of Pierre Poilievre will be elected. It will restore Canada back to a country that used to be — colleagues, used to be — the envy of all law-abiding citizens anywhere rather than the envy of every criminal element in the world.

In closing, colleagues, I want to again express my gratitude to our RCMP and CBSA officers for the remarkable work they do every day for our country and our safety. Thank you.