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.

[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.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm very pleased that this matter has been settled.

My intent is really not to further delay the study of bill C-20, but there is one important study I would like to propose to the committee. I discussed it with my colleagues prior to the meeting.

I'm going to read the motion that I would like to introduce, Mr. Chair, and then would ask you to determine whether there is unanimous consent for us to debate it here today. I don't think it would take very long, because everyone appears to agree on the issue, but unanimous consent is nevertheless required.

The motion has just now been sent to the clerk. Here it is:

That, in light of the drastic increase in the number of car thefts in Canada and given that the port of Montreal, the largest in Eastern Canada, is a hub for exporting stolen cars, the Committee undertake a study, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), on the growing problem of car thefts in Canada and on the measures the federal government has taken to combat this criminal activity; That the study include six meetings; That the Committee invite the ministers of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to appear, along with other witnesses depending on the Committee’s needs; That the Committee report its recommendations to the House; and That the government provide a response to the Committee after it receives the report.

Mr. Chair, do I need to have unanimous consent before commenting on the motion? What's the procedure to follow?

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

I appreciate Mr. Shipley for basically re-presenting the motion that the NDP presented at the last meeting as a way to get through the impasse we've had over the course of the last month.

Mr. Chair, you talked about “resuming consideration” of Bill C-20, but the reality is that we have yet to consider one clause of Bill C-20, despite the fact we've been working for over a month, because of the Conservative filibuster. I guess I would say, with the exception of some quibbles—and I look forward to what my colleagues have to say about this—that this is essentially the same type of motion I presented weeks ago.

My question for my Conservative colleagues would be this. Why did it take them a month to basically accept the good common sense of what the NDP was offering at that time? That being said, better late than never. If the Conservatives have come around, I think that's good.

Bill C-20, for a whole range of reasons, needs to be properly considered. We've had witnesses that we've had to dismiss repeatedly over the course of the last few weeks, at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars to taxpayers. They all have important work to do, and we've retained them here, basically, to hear a Conservative filibuster.

If it's the consensus of the committee to adopt this motion, then that is a good thing. I just regret that the Conservatives didn't see the light a month ago.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 77 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 will remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

I recognize Mr. Shipley.

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

You were absolutely right to do so, Mr. Chair—I want to compliment you—because we do have from the House of Commons the obligation to do Bill C-20. The fact that this filibuster has killed a month of committee work is not something that any committee chair should countenance.

I think your approach has been very effective. I just wish that the filibuster that has now lasted a month would end.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you for your advice.

I will note that my expectation was informed by the notion that the motions that were before us were fully in keeping with what was being asked for. I had every expectation that we could get through this quickly and get on to Bill C-20.

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

Chair, I hope this is helpful.

You are not under any obligation to bring the witnesses back at subsequent meetings. You may schedule meetings at your discretion. I think many chairs under these circumstances would schedule a meeting of committee business. They might schedule a meeting of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure. You are not under any obligation to schedule clause-by-clause on Bill C-20 and bring witnesses when you expect the discussion to be on another matter.

Out of respect for the witnesses, and also fully in keeping with the rules—I don't need an answer now, but you can consult with the clerk—I think you would be fully within your rights as chair to schedule something else, or to convene the subcommittee on agenda and procedure, or to take other such matters that would potentially focus the discussion where it seems to be going anyway.

I just provide that as hopefully helpful advice, and hopefully it's received in the spirit of that. I don't need a response now. You can certainly consult with the clerk. We'll see in the notice of the next meeting what you decide to do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I am speaking. I have the floor.

I would like to apologize to all for wasting your time yet again. It is a serious matter that we have before us to deal with Bill C-20. We are trying to get it done and we are doing our best. The alternative is to capitulate to matters that are out of our control.

With apologies, I will continue to invite you and continue to schedule this matter. Hopefully, we will get it done sooner rather than later. I do heartily thank you for your time and for having to put up with committee in this way. Thank you to all.

Please feel free to depart, if it is your wish. If you want to stay for the show, you're welcome to do that as well.

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

Yes, of course, Mr. Chair.

In the first case, you rightly explained that this would come after the Bill C‑20 study.

The briefing on trauma-informed questioning at committee is something we included for the Conservatives, who wanted to ask victims about the issue. Those of us on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage found it very helpful to have that education before hearing from victims. The motion doesn't close the door to that at all, but the committee members aren't currently equipped for the appearance of victims.

I feel it's important for the committee to be briefed on how to question victims in a trauma-informed way, and I believe Ms. Rempel Garner was in agreement. We would be more equipped and better educated if, as a committee, we decided to invite victims to appear on this matter or any other down the road. As I said, the heritage committee found the briefing very beneficial. We learned a lot, and it improved how we interacted with victims.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

The clerk has taken notice of the deficiencies and will address them.

I would point out that if we were to pass this motion.... When we finish clause-by-clause on Bill C-20, we still have to ramp up for Bill C-26. We don't know when it is, so this might be an opportunity to fill in between the two studies in an effective, useful way. That's how I think we would approach it if we were to pass this motion.

Mr. Julian, do you wish to respond to those questions?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We have spent more than six and a half hours debating a number of motions that all deal with the same thing. The opinion of every party represented here has been heard. I think the Liberals proposed a motion in good faith at our last meeting, and I think Mr. Julian has in good faith moved a motion that provides a reasonable compromise so as not to further delay the study of Bill C‑20.

I'm not sure whether my fellow committee members feel the same, but I struggle to look witnesses in the eye because I'm embarrassed to bring them before the committee. I know this is costing taxpayers a ton of money. I'm not sure whether you know how much, Mr. Chair. Perhaps the clerk can send us the information. Our constituents need to know what we're doing here. The study of a very important bill is being held up.

People are writing us. Every single member here has gotten emails from people who are very eager for our study of Bill C‑20. I've even met stakeholders who are also worried about the study of Bill C‑26, which we are supposed to deal with after the study on Bill C‑20. That means the Bill C‑26 study is also being delayed. I think it's tremendously unfortunate, not to mention disrespectful to the people here, who surely have better things to do. Their expertise could be helping us in our study of Bill C‑20.

As I said, I think Mr. Julian has put forward an acceptable compromise, but I do have a few minor technical questions. The French version of the motion starts off, “Que le Comité permanent de la sécurité publique et nationale tienne immédiatement une réunion de 3 heures, à la suite de l’étude du projet de loi C‑20”. I was wondering whether “immédiatement” is really what's meant, as opposed to “après”, meaning after the study of Bill C‑20. The English version says, “immediately after”, so the meaning may have gotten lost in translation. I'm not sure whether we can sort that so the French version is clear as well, without necessarily going through a subamendment.

I also have a question about the one-hour in camera meeting being requested so the committee can be briefed on trauma-informed questioning at committee. I'm wondering what purpose that will serve, since the people we hear from are not necessarily victims. Is that additional hour really necessary?

As for Mr. Shipley's amendment, we'll be back to square one if we hold three meetings on this. I think inviting the minister for one three-hour meeting and another two-hour meeting is an acceptable compromise. That is five hours of debate, after all. When it comes to inviting former public safety minister Marco Mendicino, he lost his portfolio, so I think we can leave him out of this. It's not his job to answer these questions. The motion already calls on the committee to invite the current Minister of Public Safety to answer our questions.

I'm ready to vote on the amendment and the motion so we can move on to studying Bill C‑20, but I would appreciate it if Mr. Julian could answer my questions.