Public Safety Committee on Feb. 15th, 2018

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

You mentioned that you are reviewing Justice O'Connor's recommendations.

Will you publish a report once you have completed that review?

[Joanne Gibb]

Yes, a report will be made public at some point.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

I have one final question. I might then give Mr. Picard some speaking time since it is his birthday.

My question pertains to the Canada Border Services Agency. There is a debate going on right now that you are certainly aware of. There is always some tension between police authority and the territory a certain number of kilometres around customs areas. There have been some incidents, in Windsor in particular. As I recall, someone died following a police chase.

One of the questions raised in the debate of Bill C-59 is the review or surveillance of the Canada Border Services Agency.

Does your mandate include the work the CBSA does in co-operation with the RCMP or is it once again a question of following the trail, national security issues, and information sharing?

[Guy Bujold]

I will heed Mr. McKay's warning and limit myself to a few brief remarks.

First, we know full well that the government is considering the need for a body like ours to review complaints about actions by members of that organization.

If such an agency is created, it would be in the public interest for it to have a clear link with the commission to ensure that, in cases where the responsibilities of the RCMP and the CBSA overlap, we can do what we have to do.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

I said that was my last question, but that is not true. I have another one.

I listened to your presentation and looked over your speaking notes. Perhaps I missed something, but do your recommendations include a clear definition of national security?

[Guy Bujold]

No, we do not have a particular definition.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Okay, thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Ms. Dabrusin, you have seven minutes.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Thank you. It's been an interesting conversation.

I'm really interested in the role between the two organizations, with NSIRA coming into place.

When I was asking questions of an earlier witness, I talked about how there can be differential impacts to legislation on different communities and different groups. From your experience as a review organization that's already looked at national security issues, do you have any suggestions as to what we should be looking for when developing NSIRA, how to take into account those differential impacts, and what tools we should have in our tool box so that oversight can balance against the differentials?

[Guy Bujold]

One could spend a fair amount of time—

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

You have six minutes.

[Guy Bujold]

At the heart of it, it would be describing the way we actually do a complaint investigation, what the various processes are that we follow in order to ensure there is consistency in the way we treat it, but also that you have a higher likelihood that the end point of your investigations will be the same when faced with similar situations. We certainly would be more than happy to talk to the people who are setting up NSIRA in order to establish that operational framework around how they do their business.

In terms of the legislative part of it, there are certain elements, again, of our legislation, of the RCMP Act, that could be used, essentially, to model the new agency.

Joanne, do you have any comment?

[Joanne Gibb]

It's procedures and how you do your business.

An example is the workplace harassment review. When we were asked to do that by the minister, we looked at what our task was, and then we decided on the best approach and the best people to do it. We knew we wanted to engage members. We knew it was a really sensitive issue. We sought out a former major crime investigator retired from the Ottawa Police Service, a female, who we knew not only had a lot of knowledge of investigations but also would bring the right approach to speaking with the people and engaging in that way. It was very effective in that regard.

I think it's just more how we do our business as opposed to maybe a legislative change.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

It's something to be mindful of as we organize NSIRA and develop it.

Therefore, you don't see any legislative changes, because there were some suggestions about how the composition may look for that agency, and whether this differential impact should be taken into account. Or it can be something that's completely outside of the legislation. It's just more viewpoints as to how we have our tool box, what we hand them as their procedures and rules on how they operate.

Do you have any question on that, on the composition issue?

[Guy Bujold]

Yes, I have one observation. I think members of the committee and the government would want to be very mindful of the governance structure put in place for this organization. The existence of a chair, a vice-chair, members, and who those members are and where they come from is, in my view, a very important consideration in order to ensure the organization can actually deliver the mandate the government wants it to deliver. It's not just a question of hiring good staff. If you don't have the governance structure.... I am talking to people who do governance here all the time. If you don't have that element right, the chances of success, I think, are quite lower.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

All right. Thank you.

That is all that I have as my questions, but I don't know if Monsieur Picard has any?

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Yes, thank you.

Is there a problem with security clearances as regards the committee that will review complaints involving national security and your commission, in terms of the information you might share since the complaints will be going back and forth between you?

[Guy Bujold]

No, the commission's employees, myself included, have high security clearances that already give us access to the information.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

When you receive and investigate a civil complaint and when it is clearly recommended to send it to national security, who makes that decision? Does national security let you know that something is its responsibility or do you decide who will take care of the issue in light of facts?

[Guy Bujold]

As far as we understand the bill, once a complaint is read, our organization would decide whether to send it to the new agency.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Among the challenges that present themselves are lone wolves who make their crime seem like an act of terrorism and a threat to national security. We talked about this with the first panel of witnesses.

When someone commits a crime and decides to shout, “Allah Akbar”, it does not mean it's a matter of national security. How should we deal with that?

My colleague Mr. Spengemann gave several examples of cases that are not really related to terrorism and have no political overtones, but are indeed crimes.

What acts should be considered as national security problems?

[Guy Bujold]

I just want to remind you that the commission does not concern itself with crimes. When a crime is committed, and a victim feels that the RCMP or one of its members misused it powers, a complaint should be sent to us.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

My question is incomplete; I should have gone further.

An officer who is speaking to a Canadian about the nature of their behaviour or because they have information that leads them to handle the case more or less delicately—we hope more delicately—could come to that conclusion. That is the issue of lone wolves.

[Guy Bujold]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Calkins, please, for five minutes.