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.

Report Stage

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that most Canadians recognize when they elect people to Parliament is that we come here to make laws. We come here to make laws between elections, and we participate in committees. I know that I have a lot of colleagues with relevant background who were at the committee and who did not feel like their considerations were actually dealt with during the legislative process. At the end, the amendments matter. When we bring people forward, we bring people from different walks of life in Canada to give their expertise in making amendments.

I would like to ask the member whether she would consider some of the amendments brought forth by some of the law enforcement officials now serving in Parliament who had some significant value to add to the bill.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the amendments are so important to the Conservative member and to the Conservatives, then why was the only amendment they brought forward to delete the short title? It is quite embarrassing that the member would stand in this place to say that Conservatives have concerns, despite the Conservatives' moving a fake amendment to delete the short title.

Therefore, my question in return is this: What specifically was wrong with the short title that took precedence over the so-called amendments that the member would support from law enforcement agencies?

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑20 is the second bill that I had the chance to work on at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security since I first joined it in 2020. First there was Bill C‑21, which we talked about a lot here, then there was Bill C‑20.

Many people have talked about the timing of the study of this bill. It has been a long process. The bill was introduced in the House on May 19, 2022, more than two years ago. As some colleagues mentioned, before Bill C‑20, there was Bill C‑3 during the 43rd Parliament, and Bill C‑98 during the 42nd Parliament. Both of those bills died on the Order Paper simply because the government chose not to prioritize them.

That is basically what happened with Bill C‑20 as well. It took a very long time to get to second reading in November 2022, six months after the bill was first introduced. The bill was then referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, where, once again, it took a very long time, another six months, before it could be studied. The government obviously bears some responsibility for these long delays, but the Conservatives also played their favourite game in parliamentary committee, specifically slowing down the work under the pretext of having another priority. There are always other priorities.

The study of Bill C‑20 was therefore delayed by many hours. In fact, we lost several meetings over several weeks. The committee was finally able to begin its study before the summer, so members could hear from the minister, public servants and various witnesses. However, right when the committee was about to begin clause-by-clause consideration, it suspended its work for the summer. When the committee returned in the fall, the same thing happened and parliamentary business was delayed for various reasons. It was not until six months later that the bill came back to the House of Commons, which brings us to third reading today.

I am going over these events to show those who might be following our work that the process of studying and amending a bill can be long and sometimes arduous.

That said, the Bloc Québécois still managed to help improve this bill, and that is what I am going to talk about this evening.

It is worth noting that there is still no external review commission to address public complaints against the Canada Border Services Agency. There is one for the RCMP, but not for the CBSA, which is the only federal security organization that does not yet have a review commission associated with it. However, 20 years ago, Justice O'Connor recommended that an independent process be created to handle public complaints against the CBSA. This issue dates back to 2004.

Bill C‑20 finally corrects this situation. Victims of the CBSA, and they do exist, have been waiting for this bill. As with any organization, abuses of power can happen, and some people have indeed been the victims of such abuses. They have been contacting us and asking to meet with us ever since the bill was introduced two years ago. They want to help us improve the bill. For them, the process has been very long, and I salute them today. As my colleague mentioned earlier, it is a little ironic that this evening's debate is subject to time allocation, as if time is suddenly running out. However, I do hope that we will see the process through to a successful conclusion and pass this bill quickly.

As we know, the CBSA has certain powers. These powers are fairly significant, such as the power to detain and search Canadians or deport people. Cases of misconduct have been reported in recent years. One that comes to mind is the case of Maher Arar, a dual Syrian and Canadian citizen who was arrested during a layover in New York City on his way back to Canada. I have talked about him in this place before.

In January 2020, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada found significant flaws concerning searches of travellers' electronic devices. Documents released around 2017 or 2018 mentioned complaints about racist or rude comments about clients or travellers. They also noted allegations of sexual misconduct. I would remind the House that the number of investigations into misconduct by border officers increased during the pandemic even though the number of international trips had decreased. The misconduct primarily involved giving preferential treatment or showing disrespect toward clients by making inappropriate comments about people, as I was saying. Other border services officers abused their authority and shared private information about the CBSA.

It is not just Canadians and travellers from this country who can be victims of the CBSA. Immigrants and refugees can also be targeted. The Canadian Council for Refugees came to committee to share what it would like to see improved in this bill. It should be noted that people who do not have permanent status in Canada are often extremely reluctant to file a complaint because they fear that it will be used against them and might hurt their chances.

When something goes wrong during a person's removal, it can be difficult for the person to lodge a complaint and go through the process, as it can sometimes be complicated given that they are outside the country. That is why the Canadian Council for Refugees told us that it would be good if organizations could bring forward third party complaints on behalf of people who, for various reasons, are unable to do so.

The government had not included this in the bill. That is why the Bloc Québécois tabled several amendments to this effect, which were fortunately adopted. Thanks to these amendments, third parties will be able to reviews of specified activities, file complaints and help citizens file complaints. Thanks to the Bloc Québécois's additions, they will also be notified if there is a refusal to investigate and will be informed of the reasons for decisions. This is a major improvement over the original bill.

It is important to note that many people who are mistreated by the CBSA are unlikely to file a complaint, as I said, sometimes because their status is not secure or because they fear consequences or reprisals. It may also be because of language barriers or problems accessing a computer or the Internet. In short, non-governmental organizations, such as the Canadian Council for Refugees, are well placed to file complaints on behalf of individuals. Some individuals may simply prefer that the organization with which they have established a relationship of trust file the complaint on their behalf.

Also, given that organizations work in this field and obviously see quite a few situations of this nature, they are well placed to identify and act on problematic patterns. If they have several examples of the same situation, a complaint about a pattern of behaviour may be more viable than an individual complaint about one person. This way, they can provide stronger evidence that there is a problem. Thanks to the Bloc Québécois amendment, organizations will be able to act as third parties, which is extremely valuable.

Essentially, the bill creates the public complaints and review commission. It will be made up of civilians who are not former members of the RCMP or the CBSA. It was very important that this be included in the bill. However, there was nothing in the bill to say that the members of this commission should reflect the diversity of society. We therefore tabled an amendment to ensure that would be the case. It was actually a recommendation from the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP, which already exists and has experience in handling complaints. It said that it was important for the people who sit on the commission to reflect the diversity of society. The Bloc Québécois therefore got this amendment adopted.

Other changes were made. The proposed subsection requiring that the commission be satisfied that sufficient resources exist for conducting the review of a complaint has been removed. There were concerns that the underfunding of the organization would be used as an excuse to avoid reviews. Witnesses told the committee that underfunding is common. This clause was like a loophole in the bill that would allow the commission to refuse to deal with complaints. However, we are confident that the government will properly fund its organizations, including this new commission, and that the commission will not be able to hide behind this aspect in order to avoid handling complaints.

We also added the requirement that a copy of communications be sent to the complainant's legal representative, because that was not the case previously. If the victim was the only person who could file a complaint, there would be no legal representative involved. That part was therefore added, which was a request from the Quebec Immigration Lawyers Association.

Some aspects pertaining to the refusal to investigate were changed thanks to amendments proposed by the Bloc Québécois. We proposed allowing the commission some room to manoeuvre. Now it may refuse to deal with a complaint, instead of being forced to refuse to deal with it, if other recourse is available to the complainant. These are small adjustments, small additions, that may make a big difference for victims of the CBSA.

We hope that these people's voices will be heard, that their complaints will be addressed in the most neutral and objective way possible and that they will get justice. Obviously, we hope that this bill is passed quickly.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, in listening to the member's comments, I can appreciate why the parliamentary secretary responsible indicated that she is very co-operative and helpful, has all sorts of ideas and is, apparently, a delight to work with on the committee, so I commend her on her actions there.

The question I would have for the member in regard to the legislation is with respect to the issue of how the passage of this legislation would assist in building public confidence within the system itself because of the independence of what is being proposed. Could the member just provide some further thought on that aspect?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his kind words.

It is important to point out that there is already a system for handling complaints internally. There is no requirement for public disclosure, however, which allows for the possibility that complaints may not always be handled objectively and without bias.

The union even came to tell us that it would be a good thing. Yes, it is good for the public, but it would also be good if officers themselves could file complaints against their superiors. Apparently it is complicated to do it through the internal process. Obviously, this will promote public trust, or at least, I hope it will.

Earlier on, my colleagues were talking about funding. We need to make sure that the commission is properly funded so that all complaints are processed and people receive a response. Sometimes, the process seems long and arduous, and people might think that a response will never come. If someone has a bad experience, and on top of that, they get no response to their complaint, their trust in the institution will suffer. That does not encourage trust in the CBSA.

I really hope that Bill C‑20 will help improve public trust in the government authorities in charge of public safety.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

The Liberals made this a campaign promise in 2015, yet here we are in 2024, and it is only now being passed. This bill, Bill C-20, seems to have broad support. I just wonder if the member could give her perspective as to the reason that it did not get passed, say, in the 42nd Parliament or in the 43rd Parliament, obviously due to prorogation.

Does the member believe the bill is the priority that the government says it is, given that timeline?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said at the very beginning of my speech, I do not think that this type of bill is a very big priority for the government. This is the third Parliament. This is the third try. I hope the third time is the charm.

The government's neglect explains the delays in studying this bill. However, as I also mentioned before, the Conservatives deserve their share of the blame. We lost many hours of debate in committee. We lost weeks and even months because the Conservative Party wanted us to examine a motion on the transfer of an inmate from a maximum-security prison to a medium-security prison. That is a very important subject, but we were studying Bill C‑20, and this bill stalled because of those delays and the Conservatives' infamous filibustering.

Yes, I would like to say that it is the government's fault that this bill has not yet been passed, but I think that the Conservatives are also to blame.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, knowing that receiving abusive behaviours from law enforcement can be quite traumatizing, sometimes it could take courage and a very long time to be able to submit a complaint. I wonder if the member can share with us the NDP's amendment that was passed, which amended the time to be able submit a complaint from one year to two years and how important that is for those complainants who need to build up the courage to do so.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is indeed an extremely important amendment. Interestingly enough, the Bloc Québécois had drafted the exact same amendment, but the NDP's amendment came up first, so we supported it.

Our intention was to provide the time required, obviously, as well as ensure that victims receive a response within a reasonable timeframe. We can assume that these experiences are trying. That also leads me to mention the fact that the people who sit on the commission must reflect the diversity of society, which could also help them to better understand various situations.

Yes, this is an extremely important amendment that the Bloc Québécois was proud to support. If the NDP had not proposed it, our party would have. We had more or less the same intention here.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the shout-out; the chair of the mighty OGGO is here to witness this.

I am very pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-20, which would establish a public complaints and review commission for the Canada Border Services Agency and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Both the RCMP and the CBSA are critical organizations that protect the security of Canadians. While carrying out their mandates, employees of both organizations are quite literally on the front lines.

The employees work around the clock to ensure Canada's security each and every day, and to achieve this mammoth task, they are entrusted with significant powers. Among others, these powers include the ability to use force, to search and to detain individuals. They are essential to the safety and security of the public. That said, equally essential is the need for independent review of these activities to ensure that the RCMP and the CBSA are transparent, and accountable to the population they serve and to Parliament.

The adoption of Bill C-20 would provide for increased accountability and transparency of the RCMP and the CBSA. This would be done through the establishment of an enhanced mechanism for independent review of these organizations. The RCMP already has an external review body in the form of the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission, CRCC. Bill C-20 would build on the CRCC through the establishment of the public complaints and review commission, PCRC.

The PCRC would serve as the external review body for the RCMP, but would have enhanced power to fulfill this mandate. The bill would, at long last, also provide for independent review for the CBSA, which currently does not have an independent review mechanism. It would do so by giving the PCRC an additional mandate to serve as the review body for the CBSA. The PCRC would do that using the existing knowledge, processes and expertise of the CRCC, and expand them to include the CBSA.

We have been talking about evidence-based steps to get here since 2015. We established the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians that reviews the work of national security and intelligence agencies. As part of that consultation, we examined how well existing oversight and review bodies function. We also sought answers about what sort of independent review would be needed for agencies that do not currently have an independent review, such as the CBSA.

As we know, effective civilian review is central to the rule of law and maintaining public confidence and trust. Bill C-20 embodies that concept. It would respond to a long-lasting need for independent review of the CBSA and improve RCMP review. It seeks to ensure that both the RCMP and the CBSA continue the work to transform their culture, and to enhance transparency and accountability, as well as equity, diversity and inclusivity.

Bill C-20 would provide an avenue to ensure the public is able to have its complaints about the conduct and level of service of RCMP and CBSA employees reviewed by an external body. It would also provide an avenue to identify and investigate systemic issues within Canadian law enforcement.

Today, I wish to concentrate on how this bill would help us as parliamentarians contribute to enhanced accountability and transparency of the RCMP and the CBSA. Bill C-20 does that through the establishment of a series of additional and enhanced reporting requirements, and accountability measures for the PCRC, the RCMP and the CBSA. These measures would ensure that parliamentarians in both chambers are equipped to monitor the state of the complaint and review process, and to hold the Minister of Public Safety to account in relation to complaints and systemic review.

Bill C-20 would do so by enhancing PCRC recommendation-making powers of the PCRC, as well as establishing annual reporting requirements for the RCMP and the CBSA. By clearly showing parliamentarians which PCRC recommendations have and have not been implemented by the RCMP and the CBSA, this would strengthen the accountability to Parliament of the minister, and through the minister, of the RCMP's and CBSA's deputy heads.

As mentioned by my colleagues, the bill would also establish defined timelines to ensure swift responses and decisions throughout the review process. These include codified timelines for the RCMP and the CBSA to respond to PCRC reports, systemic review and recommendations. The PCRC would receive the information it needs promptly and include it in its annual report to Parliament.

The bill would also equip Parliament with an ability to identify allegations of systemic racism and other systemic discrimination in policing by requiring the PCRC to collect and publish demographic and race-based data on complainants. Stakeholders, including police chiefs, have long called for such information to be collected as it is essential to the development of responses to systemic issues in the criminal justice system.

Bill C-20 would also establish a statutory framework for CBSA responses to serious incidents currently provided for in an internal policy only, so that the PCRC would be informed on the nature and responses to serious incidents involving the CBSA, such as death in custody. This would take place through a requirement for the PCRC to report on the number, types and outcomes of serious incidents as part of its annual reporting.

For the first time, parliamentarians and the Canadian public would be informed of serious incidents that involve CBSA officers, including incidents involving immigration and detainees. The PCRC would retrieve this information through requirements for the CBSA to notify and provide information to the PCRC when serious incidents take place and permit the PCRC to send an observer to assess the impartiality of the CBSA's investigations.

Through enhanced reporting to Parliament, Bill C-20 would help to ensure our border services and national law enforcement agencies remain world class and are worthy of the trust of Canadians.

On this note, I also want to thank the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security for its important study of the bill. Its amendments have served to reinforce the reporting requirements I just noted. Among others, I would want to highlight a government-introduced amendment that would set the time period allowed for the PCRC to submit its annual report to Parliament. The extension of this timeline would give the PCRC sufficient time to analyze the annual reports of the RCMP and the CBSA and give the commission the ability to comment on these reports as part of its own annual reporting to Parliament.

SECU also made an amendment that would ensure the PCRC would include the number of complainants it refers to NSIRA in its annual report. This would give parliamentarians and the Canadian public a look into how the work of these two reviewing bodies intertwine. I encourage all members to join me in supporting Bill C-20 today.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the colleague and I worked together on the mighty OGGO, and we were doing a study on the CBSA and also on the whistle-blower act, Bill C-290, which was brought in by the Bloc colleague from Mirabel. We heard from witnesses from the CBSA who were basically persecuted by the management of the CBSA, even to the point of employees being poisoned by their co-workers when they brought issues forward as whistle-blowers.

I want to ask my colleague if he will push for his government to bring in and enact the whistle-blowing legislation and changes that OGGO had recommended.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we heard witness testimony, quite frankly, that was very hard to hear. I commit myself to encourage moving forward as quickly as we can on those recommendations and bringing that forward.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one aspect we can talk about in relation to the bill is the issue of transparency, which is a problem right now with the CBSA. We keep hearing about it. There is the ArriveCAN app, but there is also the lack of surveillance at the port of Montreal, which is a hub for vehicle theft. Canadians are asking questions about these files and really demanding answers.

Many whistle-blowers have raised this issue. I would therefore like to hear the member's comments on how important it is that this bill address those issues and the question of transparency at the CBSA.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, and other members have spoken about, the CBSA was never included in this type of a review, and we are encouraged to see that this transparency will now be brought forward. The CBSA will be included and will have to answer to any incidents that do occur.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is no secret when it comes to law enforcement in the country that there is a disturbing pattern that is particularly identified by those who suffer discrimination, whether it is indigenous or Black Canadians, at a disproportionate rate. We know this from several reports, including Auditor General reports.

So many indigenous organizations have called for a particular level of reform that would include indigenous persons in the actual accountability mechanisms. Can the member speak about whether or not the government would be not just consulting indigenous people in this work, but actually moving to find ways to directly incorporate indigenous ways of knowing, indigenous principles, in oversight and accountability mechanisms here?