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.

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

Thank you.

I move that the committee not proceed with clause-by-clause on Bill C-20 until it has disposed of the motion respecting the Paul Bernardo transfer and the invitation to representatives of the victims' families.

Chair, I am gravely concerned about what has just taken place and what we see happening in this country in general. It would seem at a minimum level of reasonableness that the public safety committee would be able to have one meeting—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Doug Shipley]

The clerk and I discussed this before we were going to go ahead. If we can just have a short recess, we can get set up for Bill C-20.

Take no more than five minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I move that we now proceed to clause-by-clause study of Bill C-20. It's a dilatory motion. There's no debate. We can come back to this later if we have agreement, but we are here for Bill C-20.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is different from what we've spoken about off-line. I think the intention here, hopefully, is to move forward with Bill C-20. We've now had the witnesses here twice, and we thank them very much for coming. It's time to get to this important legislation.

I think there may be the seed of a solution to the filibuster we saw a few days ago, but one of the things I indicated very clearly was that I felt the Minister of Public Safety should be coming before this committee to discuss both this issue and a range of other issues as well. I actually think the subamendment is less helpful, because what we are actually talking about is a three-hour meeting with so many witnesses that we can't have the ability to question the Minister of Public Safety in the way I certainly would like to see, not only on this issue but on a range of public safety issues.

He's a new minister. I know he's eager to come to committee. There's a whole range of questions we're going to be asking him. I had flagged this and I had thought we had some consensus around this idea that the Minister of Public Safety would be invited with his officials as part of a separate meeting.

For the reasons I just mentioned, I can't really support the subamendment as currently worded. In my opinion, the minister should appear before the committee for two hours, along with department officials, to answer all our questions.

I don't know whether we will be able to agree in the next few minutes, but I agree with Ms. Michaud: We don't want to make the legislative clerks wait again while we discuss this motion rather than doing the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C‑20. I hope that we can quickly find a solution to adopt wording written to reflect what I had understood, because what's just been presented to the committee doesn't quite do that.

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

On a point of order, I'd just like to get clarification that this is actually in order and not just a notice of motion, because when we left off, we adjourned the meeting. Therefore, this would be a motion, not a subamendment.

I'd like to get clarification if this is actually in order, given that we adjourned and now this would be the first time it's introduced, which would require notice because it wasn't part of the meeting before we adjourned.

This meeting was called for Bill C-20. That's what the agenda was put out for, so this isn't a continuation of the last meeting. I just question if this is actually in order without notice.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Given that we left off on an amendment and that over the time we had to review this over the weekend there have been discussions, I think we will find support for a subamendment, which I will be reading into the record now and which should be distributed to the committee in both official languages.

I'll read it into the record now. It is that the committee hold a three-hour meeting, immediately after the committee's study of Bill C-20, on the rights of crime victims and the security reclassification and transfer of offenders within federal corrections and the transfer of Paul Bernardo from a maximum-security prison to a medium-security prison; and that the committee invite the Minister of Public Safety; the commissioner of Correctional Service Canada, Anne Kelly; the deputy minister, Shawn Tupper; the corrections investigator; the federal victims ombudsperson; representatives of the victims' families, particularly Tim Danson; and officials of the departments of justice and public safety to appear.

I think we've hit on a good compromise here, Mr. Chair. It's always been the Conservative position that we need to have some sort of representation from victims' perspectives or victim representatives' perspectives in order to see this from all angles so that we can ensure that we can at least recommend some changes so that, hopefully, an event like this doesn't happen again.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I agree that we have some important legislation ahead of us. I do want to remind my colleague that Bill C-20 has twice now died on the Order Paper and has not been brought through. This is the third time we've tried to get that through. It's unfortunate that we're even discussing that again.

I would like to propose a subamendment if I could, Chair, please.

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

I'm sorry.

Through the chair, if some members of the opposition decide that they want this to be a partisan issue to avoid getting through Bill C-20, women will remember. Victims will remember. We will show Canadians the lows that some members will go to for the sake of personal political gain.

If we want to talk about victims' rights, if we want to talk about how transfers in this country happen, if we want to talk about reclassification and if we want to talk about safety, then let's have that conversation.

We'll see, Mr. Chair. I would request a recorded vote on my amendment.

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

I certainly don't want to speak for everyone, but I think the position was that we would look at Bill C-20 today. I know, from the previous committee meeting, that there are motions and studies that members are interested in. For the sake of trying to establish a calendar, it's not the best decision to just leave it open.

There will be four meetings, plus one with the minister. At the time we've exhausted that, the committee or subcommittee can come back and have this conversation. We were certainly not trying to shut that down. We just felt that, for the sake of the calendar, we needed some planning parameters and this would be fairly reasonable. We're certainly open to the conversation, but leaving it open-ended, I think, is just not useful in planning our agenda and other studies.

Small Business

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have received a notice that the chair of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security has unilaterally cancelled the committee's meeting this afternoon. The committee was scheduled to meet to begin a clause-by-clause study of Bill C-20, government legislation regarding a complaints process for the RCMP and the CBSA.

Conservatives have given notice of a motion to call the Minister of Public Safety to appear on the Bernardo transfer travesty. I call on all party whips to manage the resources of the House in a way that reflects the priorities of the House.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for their testimony.

My question is for Dr. Leuprecht. I think you've touched on this already, but I want to give you more time to clarify.

One of the issues we've looked at during this study on Bill C-20 is the interplay of the PCRC and other provincial police review and oversight agencies. Can you talk abut the interplay between these two different jurisdictional reviews and oversight bodies, and how they can actually work together to ensure more police accountability?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the witnesses for being here.

Mr. Leuprecht, you unfortunately ran out of time during your opening statement. You had some proposals for the study of Bill C‑20. I gather you're in favour of it.

You talked a lot about accountability and reporting, as well as how important it is for this future entity to be independent, so it can do the work we're asking of it.

I would like you to tell us more about the proposals you had for us. As I was saying earlier to another witness, we are a bit pressed for time. We are drafting our amendments and will start clause-by-clause study next week.

If you have any proposals to make to improve this bill as much as possible, we will take them. I give you the floor.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here and sharing their expertise. I do have a few opening questions for the two investigative units from Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

As we've been going through this Bill C-20 review process, there has been a bit of a reoccurring question theme about the pros and cons of the current model that the RCMP uses with the complaints commission and of more independent models—as, perhaps, I'll describe them—like your own, which we see at the provincial level. We are looking at whether Bill C-20 is taking the right approach, and those discussions will continue as we move forward.

I'll go Mr. Tessler first, and then Mr. Gudelot can weigh in as well.

In short, can you provide some insight on the pros and cons of the way that your board is set up? What are the benefits of having a more independent model?

[Greg Gudelot, Executive Director, Saskatchewan Serious Incident Response Team]

Thank you.

Thank you to the committee for the opportunity to appear today.

My name is Greg Gudelot. I am appearing as the civilian executive director of the Saskatchewan Public Complaints Commission and Serious Incident Response Team. My role today as a provincial agency head is not to advocate for a specific amendment to the federal legislation but to provide what I hope is helpful information on Saskatchewan's police oversight regime and, hopefully, to answer any questions the committee may have on the basis of my time spent in the justice system and my experience in senior positions at two police oversight organizations in two provinces.

Saskatchewan's police oversight program is built around the Public Complaints Commission or PCC. The PCC was created through amendments to the Saskatchewan Police Act in 2005 as the successor to the office of the police complaints investigator.

The PCC is a five-person, non-police body appointed under the Police Act and is responsible for ensuring that all parties, both the public and police, receive a fair and thorough investigation into the actions of police officers. The act creates a number of requirements for the makeup of the five-person board. At least one person must be a lawyer, one must be of first nations ancestry and one must be of Métis ancestry.

In addition to these composition requirements, there are a number of mandatory consultations prior to appointment to the board. These mandatory consultations include representatives of both police services and members, as well as indigenous organizations.

The PCC provides intake, oversight and review functions to complaints relating to municipal police in Saskatchewan. Once a complaint has been received, the PCC can direct that the complaint be investigated by the originating police service, an external police service, or by the PCC through its investigation unit, the public complaints investigation branch, or PCIB.

Importantly, Saskatchewan prioritizes not just the independent intake or review of complaints, but also the independent investigation of complaints. It ensures that the majority of complaints are investigated by the PCC itself and independently investigated by the PCIB, which maintains offices in Saskatoon and Regina. In addition to police complaints, the PCC's mandate has recently been expanding to include non-police law enforcement, primarily in the form of provincially appointed special constables.

In 2021, the Saskatchewan legislature passed a series of amendments to the Police Act, creating the province's Serious Incident Response Team, or SIRT. SIRT is tasked with investigating incidents when someone may have been killed or seriously injured through the actions or omissions of police, or while in the custody of police, as well as allegations of sexual assault or interpersonal violence involving police.

Like the PCC, SIRT's mandate includes not just police but also certain other non-police law enforcement members appointed as special constables. Unlike the PCC, SIRT's mandate includes not only municipal police but RCMP in Saskatchewan as well. The creation of SIRT was unique in Canada as it was the first time that a serious incident investigation body was created under the same umbrella organization as the provincial police complaints body.

Although PCIB and SIRT are both parts of the PCC, they maintain operationally separate investigative teams and have different statutory decision-makers under the act, with the PCC chair being responsible for determining the outcome of complaints matters, and the civilian executive director responsible for serious incident investigations. This arrangement has allowed for the appropriate separation required by the different evidentiary standards employed by each team, while realizing certain efficiencies through some shared administrative or management resources.

The distinction between these two investigative units is important as it is based on the nature of the investigation conducted. While PCIB may conduct Criminal Code investigations following the receipt of a complaint, the body is primarily focused on disciplinary investigations under Saskatchewan's municipal police discipline regulations. SIRT, on the other hand, conducts exclusively Criminal Code investigations into serious incidents and is notification-based, rather than complaint-based.

With this distinction in mind, I will pause to note that the proposed section 14.3 of Bill C-20 seems to indicate that the CBSA itself would be responsible for conducting serious incident investigations. If the intent is for these investigations to be conducted by what I'll describe primarily as a border enforcement agency, rather than a full-scope police service or an independent investigation body, this would be a non-standard approach, keeping in mind the expectation that these investigations be conducted to a Criminal Code standard.

Overall, SIRT's legislation seeks to assist with our mandate of maintaining public confidence in policing through measures designed to ensure both inclusivity and transparency. The legislation requires the appointment of a community liaison any time the affected person in a serious incident investigation is of first nations or Métis ancestry, and it requires that the public be provided with a report on the investigation within 90 days of the investigation's being concluded.

Thank you. Those are my comments. I'm happy to answer any questions the members may have.

[Zane Tessler, Civilian Director, Independent Investigation Unit of Manitoba]

I'll be very brief.

I am the civilian director of Manitoba's Independent Investigation Unit. I was the inaugural civilian director appointed in 2013.

I'm now just a few weeks shy of the end of my second term, or 10 years, in this position. Our mandate, in Manitoba, is to investigate and involve ourselves, providing an independent overview and oversight of all serious incidents involving the police within the province, including death, serious injuries or breaches of criminal or statutory codes.

In my time, in the last eight years, since we've been operational in June 2015, we have now surpassed some 500 notifications for our unit to become involved in the serious incident investigation process.

Hopefully, my experience can assist in better understanding and developing the proposals under Bill C-20.