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.

[Mark Weber]

Our members have watched a lot of the testimony. They watched me give testimony here. We all really want to know what happened. It is concerning.

One of the big things the union would like to see.... I appeared at another committee for Bill C-20, which is about the public complaints and review commission. One of the things we pushed for there was an ability for members to use it so that when we see wrongdoing, we're able to bring that forward as well. Currently, we're really lacking the protections of the mechanism to do that. That's something we think is important to have in place if we want to see organizational change.

Surely everyone would want to know when things are going wrong at the agency. Right now, the mechanism we have for that is for me to bring it forward to managerial counterparts at CBSA, and as I said earlier, largely speaking, that just seems to disappear after I say it.

Opposition Motion—Auto Theft

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

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to have the opportunity to elaborate on this subject. As I was saying earlier, the Conservatives are finally paying attention. They now realize that this is an important topic and that it might be a good idea to add it to their arsenal of election slogans.

As my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands was saying a little earlier, it is true that investigative journalism brought this problem to our attention a few months ago. There are also organizations that come to Ottawa to tell us about certain issues and raise awareness about them.

Last April, I met with people from the Corporation des concessionnaires automobiles du Québec and the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association and they talked to me about this. It is wrong to say that they do not care about this phenomenon because they make money and they will be able to sell a car if a customer has theirs stolen, since they are reimbursed by the insurance company. It is not true that they do not care, because they are here in Ottawa to talk to us about it. They want the government to do something about this problem.

I first became interested in the subject a few months ago. I met with global car manufacturers, who also spoke to me about it. In October, following the feature story aired in J.E, a television program on TVA, and after the numerous news reports of the Journal de Montréal’s investigations bureau, I announced that I was going to move a motion at the public safety and national security committee. I talked to my colleagues about it, because we often see members of certain parties come totally out of left field with a motion on any given subject, thinking everyone is going to accept it as is. It is important to discuss these things with colleagues first and to make them aware of the issue. That is how I came to talk to my Conservative colleagues about the auto theft problem. They seemed to be very interested. When I moved the motion, all parties voted in favour of it. Everyone had a story to tell, everyone had a friend or colleague who had their vehicle stolen. A Conservative colleague even told me that he personally had his car stolen. There was definitely a consensus that this was something we should look into as soon as possible.

At the public safety and national security committee, we were looking at Bill C-20. That was significantly delayed by the Conservative Party for reasons we may or may not be aware of. The same thing is happening now with Bill C-26. The process has been delayed, and our committee agenda has us looking at the bill on auto theft after that. I do not really understand why the Conservatives are trying to delay this study as much as possible, when they are making it a priority today by talking about it. If it were that important to them, they would be working hard on the public safety and national security committee to finally get it done.

With today’s motion, they may be trying to get material for pre-election, or even election, slogans, because we get the impression that the Conservative Party may already be on the campaign trail. The Bloc Québécois did not get the memo. The Conservatives’ new slogan is in today’s motion, which states, “after eight years of soft on crime policies, this Prime Minister has created the auto theft crisis”. Who knew? The Prime Minister himself created the auto theft crisis. He sure has broad shoulders. I am not saying this to defend him. It is true that the Liberals have not done much in recent years to combat this problem. However, that the Prime Minister single-handedly created the crisis is something we cannot take very seriously.

I would even go so far as to say that the entire argument laid out in the Conservatives’ motion is completely disconnected from reality, despite the fact that the problem is all too real. If one looks at the problem with a minimum of seriousness, it is immediately clear that the COVID 19 pandemic in 2020 caused significant disruptions in the logistics chain around the world. One of the most hard-hit sectors was the industry producing the semiconductors needed for all microprocessors. The microprocessor shortage led to a worldwide reduction in auto manufacturing, which made demand go up. This increased the cost of used vehicles. Crime gangs jumped on the opportunity and quickly specialized in car theft and shipment to other markets. This was already happening on a smaller scale, but the pandemic and the impact it had on supply chains accelerated the phenomenon. Because of its geographical location, Montreal became an auto theft hub.

Why was that? Because Montreal is home to the largest port in eastern Canada that provides access to the rest of the world. Of course other ports are involved as well, such as those in Halifax and Vancouver. However, these ports have not been as affected as the port of Montreal. It is truly a gateway, a hub. As I was saying, the pandemic exacerbated the situation but, on top of that, new technological developments have made auto theft more appealing.

For example, consider the increasingly frequent use of smart keys, which make it easier to steal vehicles. Several news reports have shown how thieves go about it. All they have to do is use a relay to amplify the signal of a smart key inside a house by standing next to the front door. With an accomplice, the thief can then open the car door and start the engine.

They can also connect a computer to the onboard diagnostic port in the car, which enables them to use another key. All they have to do then is force open the door.

It is child’s play for people who know what they are doing.

In Montreal, as in the rest of the country, we have seen people using Denver boots or steering wheel locks to make it harder for thieves to steal their car. I say harder, because thieves have found other ways to remove these devices and leave with a car in no time at all.

This phenomenon is truly becoming a scourge, especially in Quebec and in Montreal. Auto theft has increased over the years. According to Équité Association, roughly 70,000 vehicles were stolen in Canada in 2022. That is huge. Between 2021 and 2022, the number of thefts increased by 50%, or half, in Quebec, by nearly half in Ontario, or 48%, by 34% in Atlantic Canada, and by 18% in Alberta. 2022 was a record year for auto theft. The numbers are not yet known for 2023, but by all indications auto theft has increased yet again.

The reported losses are in the billions of dollars for insurers, and we have seen premiums go up for ordinary people. Le Journal de Montréal reported that between 2012 and 2022, the average car insurance premium increased by 50% as well. This increase is in part tied to auto theft.

Given these facts, one of the questions we need to ask ourselves is why there is this growing interest in auto theft.

It must be said that auto theft is one of the easiest and least risky sources of revenue for gangs, which then use part of the proceeds to finance other criminal activities, such as gun trafficking and human trafficking. Those are the two reasons. It is easy and low-risk.

I explained earlier why it is easy. One reason it is so low-risk is that sentences are so light. In an article in La Presse, Jacques Lamontagne, director of investigations for Quebec and the Atlantic region at Équité Association and a retired Montreal police force criminal investigator, explained—

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

Madam Speaker, I will start again. Unfortunately, I do not think anyone heard me. If the member would put his earpiece in, I think that would work even better.

I am pleased to see that the Conservatives have finally realized that there is an auto theft crisis in Canada. I for one have been talking about it since October. I moved a motion at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to study this issue. The Conservatives agreed to it. They thought it was a good idea, but all they have done since then is hold up the committee's work. That is what they did with Bill C-20 and Bill C-26.

Why are they doing that? The reason is that they do not think that the auto theft crisis is all that important after all.

Why do they want to talk about it today? Is it because it makes for a good campaign slogan? Is it because they want to crack down on crime? Why has this become a priority for the Conservative Party today?

Public Safety and National Security

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 9th report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, in relation to Bill C-20, an act establishing the Public Complaints and Review Commission and amending certain acts and statutory instruments.

The committee has studied the bill and decided to report it back to the House with amendments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Therefore, congratulations, everyone. We are finished Bill C-20.

To our witnesses, thank you for the enormous help and for bearing with us through all this time. We deeply appreciate it.

Thank you to our legislative clerks as well, and to our analysts and clerk and to the interpreters who put up with us as well.

Mr. Shipley, do you have a comment?

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

We move:

That Bill C-20, in Clause 137, be amended by replacing line 5 on page 72 with the following:

and Review Commission Act or under regulations made under subparagraph 87(o.1)(ii) of that Act,”

Basically, this is just a coordinating amendment associated with G-8, which was passed earlier and provides for new regulatory powers. Since there are areas where we've empowered the government to create regulations surrounding information sharing, referral of complaints, joint proceedings and co-operation between federal review bodies, we're just updating the provisions in the NSIRA Act to ensure that it's bound by these future regulations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 81 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 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.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the officials and members. 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 avoid manipulating the earbuds by placing them on the table away from the microphone when they are not in use.

All comments should be addressed through the chair.

I will now welcome the officials who are with us once again. Welcome back.

They are available for questions regarding the bill but will not deliver any opening statements.

With the Canada Border Services Agency, we have Philippe Tremblay, acting director, public complaints and external review division/recourse.

From the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we have Joanne Gibb, senior director, strategic operations and policy directorate. We also have 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 division; and Deidre Pollard-Bussey, director, policing policy.

From the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we have Stéphane Drouin, director general, workplace responsibility branch, professional responsibility sector.

Thank you for joining us today. We are at new clause 96, but I believe Mr. Gaheer has a request for unanimous consent.

Go ahead, sir

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I suspect that we are not going to get back to Bill C-20 tonight.

In that regard, I wonder if it's the will of the committee to invite our witnesses to withdraw.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Once again, as we just discussed this item, I do not intend to move amendments NDP‑49 and NDP‑50.

It's only natural, after having discussed and voted on an amendment, to find that there are other similar amendments on the same topic. I therefore believe that the discussions we held and the questions that were asked were sufficient to enable the committee to reach a decision.

Furthermore, if our goal is to complete the study of Bill C‑20 after having significantly improved it, and as several amendments have already been adopted, I think it's more important to spend our time on important amendments that have not yet been examined and voted on by the committee.

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

Thank you, Chair. We will be moving amendment CPC-25. It is that Bill C-20 be amended by adding after line 17 on page 43 the following new clause:

66.1 If the final report finds that the complaint is unfounded and the RCMP employee or CBSA employee, as the case may be, whose conduct is the subject matter of the complaint was suspended as a result of the complaint, the Commissioner or the President, as the case may be, must ensure that the employee is permitted to return to the duties of their employment and that they are paid compensation in an amount equal to the remuneration that they would have been paid if they had not been suspended.

I'll speak to that just a little. We brought up a similar amendment at the last meeting, or a couple of meetings ago. This is similar, but it is a bit different from our previous amendment on remuneration and back pay. This amendment would automate the back pay process for complaints that are deemed unfounded. As employees who are the subject of a complaint are not paid, we would like to make sure the process to access back pay is automatic, rather than the responsibility of the employee. This would help to protect our frontline workers, who are disproportionately placed on leave without pay as compared to managers.

Hopefully, we'll see support on that around the table. Perhaps someone else has some other comments on this. We'll see where it goes.

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Chair.

We will be moving CPC-24, which is that Bill C-20, in clause 59, be amended by replacing line 32 on page 40 with the following:

(7) The parties and the union representatives for the RCMP employee or CBSA employee, as the case may be, whose conduct is the subject matter of the complaint, and any other person who satisfies the

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 80 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 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, with some flexibility when being questioned by members, of course.

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 avoid manipulating the earbuds by placing them on the table away from the microphone when they're not in use.

Finally, this is a reminder that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

I draw to the attention of the committee—and the witnesses, of course—that we have resources until midnight. This does not mean that we need to sit until midnight.

My hope—and I'm sure it's a hope shared by all—is that we can get through this bill in short order. I think we're yea close to being done.

At the end of a couple of hours, if we want to take a look at where we are and decide whether we want to continue or to resume again the following day, I think that will be up for discussion.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I keep being about to pose questions to the witnesses, but trying to briefly deal with other matters first and then getting interrupted in my attempt to briefly deal with those other matters.

On this legislation, Bill C-20, we have four regular members of the committee who, I think, made clear to the chair that they were not available for the additional time proposed outside of the time slot. Hence, we are here asking questions.

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

I actually agree with you, Mr. Chair. The issues of relevance and repetition are the two key elements here. Mr. Genuis is not being relevant to NDP-34 and Bill C-20.

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

—as you know, you enforce rules around relevance and repetition, and there is no relevance right now to what Mr. Genuis is actually saying. We're discussing NDP-34 as part of Bill C-20. I would ask you to enforce that rule of relevance with Mr. Genuis.