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.

[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.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I think it's quite clear that if we want narrow scope in terms of the commission's refusing, we should adopt NDP-34. If we want a slightly larger scope, as Madame Michaud indicated, we can look to adopt BQ-13, but we actually need to get to a vote.

I am a little perplexed by the filibuster around NDP-34, Mr. Chair, because we had a one-month filibuster, you'll recall, where finally the NDP motion was essentially adopted around the Bernardo transfer and the transfer of offenders.

Now, one party around this table is filibustering Bill C-20. Now they're filibustering NDP-34 and, in doing so, they're stalling the study that they filibustered on for a month. It doesn't make sense. They're filibustering themselves. The Conservatives are now filibustering what they finally agreed to: the NDP motion a few weeks ago. Now they're filibustering the bill and filibustering the study that they said was important to get to.

I'm very perplexed about the filibuster around NDP-34. It doesn't make sense at all.

I've said this many times, Mr. Chair: There are two block parties in the House of Commons. There's the Bloc Québécois and there's the block everything, and the Conservative Party seems to be blocking everything, including Bill C-20, NDP-34 and good legislation that will make a difference in putting in place a public complaints commission, which is something so many people in this country are calling for.

The delay around this, the filibuster around it and filibustering the study around the transfer of offenders within the correctional services make no sense at all, from any standpoint, and I'm just very perplexed about the member for Carleton and his approach to the House of Commons in trying to block everything at all times.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thanks very much, Chair.

It is good to be back at the public safety committee. In the second session of the 43rd Parliament, I had the honour of sitting on this committee.

I think that they are all new faces here, other than Ms. Michaud's. It's good to be back.

Certainly, Bill C-20 is an interesting bill.

I'll note, like Mr. Genuis did, that I believe that at the conclusion of the previous meeting, consent was sought to extend the meeting. It was not granted, yet here we are anyway. It's unfortunate, because for those of us who care a lot about this issue and this bill, we have to dig into some of these things. I think it's very important.

Specifically related to NDP-34, the idea around giving discretion is something that seems to me, from what Ms. Michaud said and in light of the next four amendments as well, that we have a great deal of agreement on.

I always find that one of the challenges when amending legislation is that, when there are similar amendments that are brought forward that deal with substantively the same concern, to deal with one simply because it was submitted first versus taking the time to ensure that we are, in fact, passing the best legislation and the best...what in this case would be changes, to ensure the commission is given the necessary discretion to ensure, as our officials....

I would just thank the officials for coming here as well.

I know that it is important work that we do before these committees.

Ms. Gibb, you mentioned that changing it from a “must” to a “may” would give that necessary discretion. I would, however, like to ask for your opinion.

In BQ-13, the language is a bit different. The reason I ask is to make sure we are doing justice to each amendment, although we can deal with them only sequentially. It allows us to deal with them to make sure we get the right thing passed.

BQ-13, which would be dealt with next, has slightly different language.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

BQ‑13, which comes right after amendment NDP‑34, is very similar. Its purpose is to give the commission a little more discretion to refuse to examine a complaint. So, instead of the wording “The Commission must refuse”, as set out in Bill C‑20, NDP‑34 proposes, “The Commission may refuse…”.

However, it's my opinion that NDP‑34 goes a little further than BQ‑13, which changes the wording a little. In addition, I think it is more beneficial to stick more closely to what is provided for in the bill. I would not go so far as to add, “… if dealing with the complaint would seriously compromise an ongoing investigation”. I think the current wording of the bill is fine the way it is.

I would therefore suggest that my colleagues vote against NDP‑34 and vote in favour of BQ‑13. It's a small change, but it can have an impact.

I would also like to take this opportunity to say that what we're seeing and what we'll be seeing for the next hour is very unfortunate. It's quite clear that we experienced a filibuster by the Conservatives when they wanted to pass their motion on the Paul Bernardo study.

For whatever reason, they want to delay or slow down the study of Bill C‑20, and the permanent members of this committee don't even have the courage to do it themselves. They get subbed in to do that. That's too bad.

I too had something else scheduled for this next hour, but I feel that the study of Bill C‑20 is a priority. It's normal for us to work overtime to study this bill, since the Conservatives filibustered for so many hours before we could begin this study.

I'll just take this opportunity to say that I find this very unfortunate. I invite my colleagues to vote on amendment NDP‑34 if they have no further questions.

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

Mr. Chair, before we get into it—because I don't want to interrupt during clause-by-clause, or at the end if we're rushing over to question period—I have a request. We're making good progress, but at the rate at which we're going, and with all of the other committee work we still have to do before the holiday break, I'm going to humbly request, even though this is never my first suggestion, that the clerk look into additional resources to continue clause-by-clause of Bill C-20, in particular for this Wednesday, if we can't conclude by today. Then, with Wednesday's meeting, we can look at additional resources.

Again, I didn't want to interrupt while we're in the middle of a clause, but I really think, given the timelines and how much we still have left to do, we need to request some additional resources and enable committee members to rearrange their schedules if need be, or find subs.

[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.