Bill C-20

Public Complaints and Review Commission Act

An Act establishing the Public Complaints and Review Commission and amending certain Acts and statutory instruments

This enactment, among other things,
(a) establishes, as a replacement of the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, an independent body, called the Public Complaints and Review Commission, to
(i) review and investigate complaints concerning the conduct and level of service of Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Canada Border Services Agency personnel, and
(ii) conduct reviews of specified activities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canada Border Services Agency;
(b) 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;
(c) amends the Canada Border Services Agency Act to provide for the investigation of serious incidents involving officers and employees of the Canada Border Services Agency;
(d) amends the English version of federal statutes and orders, regulations and other instruments to replace references to the “Force” with references to “RCMP”; and
(e) makes consequential amendments to other Acts.

[Lesley McCoy, General Counsel, Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

In practice the commission does verify whether there is consent, and in most cases there is, or perhaps in every case thus far. There are some situations in which it wouldn't necessarily be appropriate to ensure that there is consent, but as my colleague Ms. Gibb indicated, there are provisions currently in the act but also in Bill C-20 that provide discretion to the commission to refuse to deal with the complaint for various different reasons.

As well, the RCMP and the CBSA have similar provisions to refuse to investigate or to cease an investigation if there isn't a sufficient nexus with the individual directly affected.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 79 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Friday, November 25, 2022, the committee continues its consideration of Bill C-20, an act establishing the public complaints and review commission and amending certain acts and statutory instruments. Today the committee resumes clause-by-clause consideration.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. Pursuant to the Standing Orders, members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of officials and members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. That's a little flexible. As long as we're being friends, we can loosen that up a bit.

Although this room is equipped with a powerful audio system, feedback events can occur. These can be extremely harmful to interpreters and cause serious injuries. The most common cause of sound feedback is an earpiece worn too close to a microphone. In order to prevent incidents and safeguard the hearing health of the interpreters, I invite participants to ensure that they speak into the microphone into which their headset is plugged and to avoid manipulating the earbuds by placing them on the table away from the microphone when they are not in use.

Finally, I'm reminding you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

We'll now welcome, once again, the officials who are with us. They are available for questions regarding the bill, but they will not deliver opening statements.

From the Canada Border Services Agency, we have Cathy Maltais, director, recourse directorate. From the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we have Joanne Gibb, senior director, strategic operations and policy directorate, and Lesley McCoy, general counsel. From the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, we have Randall Koops, director general, international border policy; Martin Leuchs, manager, border policy; and Deidre Pollard-Bussey, director, policing policy. From the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we have Kathleen Clarkin, director, national recruiting program; and Alfredo Bangloy, assistant commissioner and professional responsibility officer.

Thank you for joining us today.

(On clause 35)

We first have BQ-6.

Go ahead, Ms. Michaud.

[Lesley McCoy]

Yes. In Bill C-20 there's already the discretion for the PCRC to refuse to deal with complaints if the individual making the complaint, as I indicated, doesn't have a sufficient connection to the incident.

As well, there's also a provision for the commission to refuse to deal if the complaint is considered frivolous, trivial, vexatious or made in bad faith.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate everyone's patience as we move through these amendments. We've gotten them from all parties, though, so I may be speaking on them more often today, but in coming days that will switch as we move through this bill.

I'm very happy that we are all working together to improve aspects of this bill. There is no doubt that Bill C-20 will be much better coming out of committee than it was going in. That's really what we are paid to do.

I want to move NDP-13. This would delete the ability for the commissioner or president to refuse access to privileged information sought by the commission under this section. It would basically delete subclause 17(6), which requires the commissioner or president to indicate why they're not giving the information. This gives the complaints commission the ability to access that information, which is fundamentally important.

This would delete subclause 17(6) of the bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 78 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Friday, November 25, 2022, the committee continues its consideration of Bill C-20, an act establishing the public complaints and review commission and amending certain acts and statutory instruments. Today the committee resumes clause-by-clause consideration.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. Just as a reminder, all comments should be addressed through the chair.

We have a budget for this study. We need to amend the budget. I believe everyone has a copy of the budget.

Can we quickly get approval to go ahead with this budget?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

In this case I would like to argue against the subamendment by Mr. Gaheer. I think the reality is that—and we saw this in our hearings on Bill C-20—the complaints commission hasn't been adequately funded and resourced in the past. This is a problem. We see an underfunding of our courts system, and we see an underfunding of our complaint process as well. To put this framework in place, we need to have minimum service standards that have some flexibility.

Subclause 8(3), which Mr. Gaheer is seeking to remove from the amendment, gives the opportunity to the commission to make it a longer period if that is appropriate. The reality is that it's a question of resourcing that makes the difference. Currently, when we look at our judicial system and complaint process, they're not adequately resourced.

I would point out, for folks who say that might cost money, that we give over $30 billion a year to overseas tax havens. That's tax money, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. There are resources that should be allocated to this. If we want a complaints commission that works effectively for the public, for CBSA and for RCMP employees, we need to establish some meaningful minimum service standards. A one-year period is a long period of time, but it is by no means exaggerated, and the commission does have the opportunity to prolong that if it chooses to.

I would argue against a subamendment. I think the reality is that a one-year service standard is something that should absolutely be contemplated and resourced. The reality is that if this bill passes without that service standard, I think we are going to see these complaints prolonged unduly. Again, I will cite that justice delayed is justice denied.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

I would like to move that Bill C-20, in clause 6, be amended by adding after line 39 on page 5 the following:

(a.1) in prescribed circumstances and in relation to a specific complaint made under this Act, engage, on a temporary basis, the services of a person having technical or specialized knowledge of any matter relating to the work of the Commission or those of a member, as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, to advise and assist the Commission in the exercise of its powers or the performance of its duties and functions under this Act; and

and by replacing, in the English version, line 2 on page 6 with the following:

sons engaged under paragraph (a) or (a.1).

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Yes, I will move that Bill C-20, in clause 6, be amended by adding, after line 31 on page 5, the following:

(3.1) While an officer or employee under subsection (3) may have investigative experience, the officer or employee is not eligible to be appointed if the officer or employee

(a) is or was a member, as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act;

(b) is or was an officer, as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Customs Act, or is or was a person designated by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness as an officer under subsection 6(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, who, in performing their normal duties, is or was required to interact with the public; or

(c) is not a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident, as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Shipley.

The chair's ruling on this is that Bill C-20 establishes the public complaints and review commission and amends other acts and statutory instruments. The bill states that some powers are given to the commission and that the chairperson of the commission has the rank and all the power of a deputy head of a department. The amendment seeks to give the chairperson all the powers of a peace officer, which is a new concept that goes beyond the scope of the bill as adopted by the House at second reading.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”

In the opinion of the chair and for the above-stated reason, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

Shall clause 5 carry?

(Clause 5 agreed to on division)

(On clause 6)

This brings us to clause 6 and CPC‑3.

Mr. Shipley, did you wish to move this?

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I will move CPC‑2. It is that Bill C-20, in clause 5, be amended by adding after line 30 on page 4 the following:

(1.1) For the purposes of this Act and the regulations, the Chairperson has all the powers of a peace officer conferred under an Act of Parliament or the common law.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Yes, Chair. I will be moving this. We've gotten through only two so far. Hopefully we can get through this one a little more quickly, but we'll see.

This amendment is that Bill C-20, in clause 3, be amended by replacing line 21 on page 3 with the following:

mission, including the Chairperson or the Vice-chairperson, if that person

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

I'd like to go back to this point.

We are currently grappling with an enormous problem, which are trying to resolve with the bill. But if the wording says that only certain factors be taken into consideration, it will not achieve the objective, which was mentioned several times. Given all the current problems, adopting an approach that provides for the opportunity rather than the obligation to appoint specific individuals or groups, would in my view not be as effective as an amendment that does provide for this representation.C-20

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Shipley.

Seeing no more speakers, I suggest that we go to a vote.

(Motion agreed to)

That was carried. Congratulations.

We'll now welcome the officials who are with us. They are available for questions regarding the bill, but will not deliver any opening statements.

With the Canada Border Services Agency, we Cathy Maltais, director, recourse directorate. From the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we have Joanne Gibb, senior director, strategic operations and policy directorate; and Lesley McCoy, general counsel. From the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, we have Randall Koops, director general, international and border policy; Martin Leuchs, manager, border policy division; and Deidre Pollard-Bussey, director, policing policy; and from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we have Kathleen Clarkin, director, national recruiting program; and Alfredo Bangloy, assistant commissioner and professional responsibility officer.

Thank you all for joining us today.

I would like to provide the members of the committee with a few comments on how committees proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of a bill. Many of us have gone through this before, but some of us are new to the process.

I'm not going to read this whole thing. I'll just sketch out some points.

This is an examination of all the clauses that appear in the bill, in order. I will call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and a vote. If there are amendments to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing it, who may explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on. Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the package that each member has received from the clerk. If there are amendments that are consequential to each other, they will be voted on together.

In addition to having to be properly drafted, in a legal sense, amendments must also be procedurally admissible. The chair may be called upon to rule amendments inadmissible if they go against the principle of the bill or beyond the scope of the bill, both of which were adopted by the House when it agreed to the bill at second reading, or if they offend the financial prerogative of the Crown.

If you wish to eliminate a clause of the bill altogether, the proper course of action is to vote against that clause when the time comes, not to propose an amendment to delete it.

Since this is the first exercise for many new members, the chair will go slowly to allow all members to follow proceedings properly. If during the process the committee decides not to vote on a clause, that clause can be put aside by the committee so that we visit it later in the process.

Amendments have been given a number in the top right-hand corner to indicate which party submitted them. There is no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once your amendment has been moved, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw it.

During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time. That subamendment cannot be amended.

Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the title of the bill itself. An order to reprint the bill may be required, and so on.

I thank members for their attention and wish everyone a productive clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-20.

All right, pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, the short title, is postponed.

(On clause 2)

On clause 2, first up is CPC-0.1.

Mr. Lloyd, do you wish to speak to this?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I do apologize. I did not know that Dr. Ellis could hear any of my reaction to his speech, because I thought I was back on mute.

I just want to clarify again that my comments about things being oppressive and discriminatory do not relate to the rules of the House of Commons. Under the rules of the House of Commons, under the Standing Orders, I would have the right to present these amendments at report stage in front of the House of Commons as a whole.

It's because of the motion passed by this committee, with wording identical to the one passed by every other committee, that I am presenting amendments to your committee this morning and I am simultaneously also trying to present amendments to Bill C-20 before the security committee. Only a person in my position could possibly be required, under motions passed by committees, to show up in two places at the same time. Even on Zoom it is not possible, so my priority here is for this bill. I may have to exit to try to get into the security committee under Chairman McKinnon to present amendments in clause-by-clause on a different bill.

I do maintain that the motion passed by this committee was passed without a full understanding of the impact it would have on members of Parliament.

I appreciate the deference that I am senior. I do feel more senior some days than others, and I apologize and will end there.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank my colleagues.

As I mentioned, the theft and subsequent export of vehicles is a growing problem in Canada, and the Port of Montreal is where it's happening most, and not only for vehicles being stolen in Quebec. Indeed, 60% of the vehicles that end up at the Port of Montreal were stolen in Ontario. They are put in sealed containers and then shipped to countries in Africa, the Middle East and Europe.

Last year, the number of thefts doubled in Quebec, with approximately 1,000 every month. Last year, insurance companies paid consumers nearly $1 billion in compensation. It's becoming a problem that affects everyone. I would venture to say that every one of us here knows at least someone who has had a car stolen.

The government has some responsibility in this area, because the Canada Border Services Agency is a government agency which, according to its employees, is not making this problem a priority. It is in fact at the bottom of its priority list.

There are only five officers at the Port of Montreal responsible for searching over 580,000 containers a year. The x-ray scanner used for the containers only works about half of the time. There is an obvious shortage of staff and equipment, and not enough commitment and co-operation.

I am mentioning co-operation because a joint unit was set up in March 2022. The unit is made up of the Montreal and Longueuil police departments, the Sûreté du Québec, the RCMP, and Équité Association, an organization that focuses mainly on stopping the export of stolen vehicles. The Agency refused to join this unit even though it is the only body authorized to open and search container contents if there are suspicions. It doesn't always do so, even when certain high-risk containers are reported to them.

The Agency and the Government of Canada are clearly responsible. There were media reports about this issue last week and over the weekend, and both the Canada Border Services Agency and the government refused to answer questions from the media. If we were to invite them to appear before our committee, that would give us the opportunity to ask some rather difficult questions and to get some answers. The government needs to explain how it intends to deal with the vehicle theft epidemic, which some have called a national crisis.Minister of Public Safety

As I just mentioned, I discussed this with my colleagues earlier. I know that our committee workload is rather heavy, and I'm as keen as anyone to begin discussing the bill. However, it would be great if we could adopt this motion today, because it would enable us to add this study to our to-do list and to address it at an appropriate time. Many Canadians are looking for answers to the problem. C-20

I hope that my colleagues will vote in favour of my motion.