Public Safety Committee on June 2nd, 2023

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

Thank you, both.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Dancho.

We'll go now to Mr. Noormohamed.

Go ahead, please. You have six minutes.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all of you for joining us today.

I want to begin by digging into something all three of you have touched on in different ways, and that is the importance of oversight.

I'd like to start, Mr. Weber, with you.

One of the concerns that have been raised repeatedly is that there is very, very limited recourse when it comes to complaints regarding people's experiences with CBSA. We've heard this from racialized communities. We've heard this from the Muslim community quite widely.

Of course we acknowledge all the challenges. I want to be clear. We acknowledge the challenges about needing more people. This is something we need to address. I think we all accept that.

With that baseline in mind, I would like to hear what your understanding is of the nature of these complaints and how you think people can best feel confident that there is recourse for the individuals who have these challenges when they are interacting with certain folks at CBSA.

[Mark Weber]

What Bill C-20 is proposing is important, and an oversight body is not something the union is against. The data we're looking at collecting is very important. Our concern is that the data be used to address systemic issues, that it be used to provide officers training, that it be used to make real change and not that we simply use it to identify an officer who acted inappropriately and have him suspended him for five days and then that's the end of it. It takes real change, and we see it. We acknowledge that there are issues. Racism exists everywhere. It's something we need to combat. It's something we need to work on, but to make real change, it has to be holistic.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you.

Ms. Campbell, I'm going to turn to you. You sit on one of these oversight bodies.

[Heather Campbell]

That's correct.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

You've just heard Mr. Weber's comments, which I think are very important. What he talks about in terms of making real change is critical to our getting all of this right. In the time you've spent in Calgary on that oversight body, what have been some of the things you have learned that might be helpful to us to inform how we respond to some of the concerns that have been raised by Mr. Weber? Also, how can communities feel confident that we're getting to a good outcome on this in terms of appropriate oversight, dealing with the real change and addressing the systemic issues that many people feel exist in the RCMP and CBSA?

[Heather Campbell]

Thank you very much, Mr. Noormohamed. Maybe I'll switch to our comments around data and data sharing, because those things are fundamental and they are some of the things actually articulated in Bill C-20. A transformation is required. One of the many lessons learned from the mass casualty report is that there needs to be a naming and countering of the operation of misogyny, racism, homophobia and other non-egalitarian attitudes within policing, and that needs to be placed at the heart of the strategies to improve everyday policing. That's what I think Mr. Weber was indicating with respect to real change. To improve everyday policing in an effective way, you need good data; you need demographically segmented data, and you need to be brave enough to actually address the challenges when you have that demographically segmented data.

In Calgary the racial demographics are wonderfully and increasingly diverse. Calgary is approaching 44% people of colour, according to the most recent data. Realistically, in less than three years the term “visible minority” won't make statistical or mathematical sense, but it's still used in data collection and in policing. Frankly, no one wants to be referred to by that fairly terrible, archaic and socially diminishing term.

Training and approaches need to be developed to train police services in the collection of demographically disaggregated data in a credible and consistent fashion. It's police, after all, who actually need to ask people in Canada for that information. Data collection currently occurs using a method called officer perception—basically, where the presenting police services member decides, based on their lived experience and knowledge—or lack thereof, quite frankly—a person's demographic characteristics for collection.

Data collection processes and approaches need to be established for credible data collection, consistent data collection and national data collection across Canada. Collected data must be analyzed with effective interpretation. Policing bodies need to be accountable for addressing the results the analysis demonstrates within a defined time frame. We can't have this ongoing, “Well, we've learned this,” and three years later there's another report and, “We've still learned this,” and nothing has happened. When the Ontario Human Rights Commission required the Toronto Police Service to collect race-based data, those data merely reflected what in certain cases Black people had said and known for decades. The finding of note in the Toronto report was the section on the use of force. Here, Black people were 2.3 times more likely than white people to have firearms pointed at them by the police when no other weapons were perceived.

No longer can—

Go ahead. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Noormohamed.

Ms. Michaud, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here today.

We are beginning our study of Bill C‑20, and I am still trying to understand all of its ins and outs.

Mr. Sauvé, you made three concrete recommendations, and I thank you for that. First, you said we need to put an end to situations where the police investigate the police, and I'd like to understand how the new commission will work.

In the legislative summary prepared by our analysts, there is talk of two options that would be available to complainants. They could either file the complaint directly with the RCMP or the Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, or address it directly to the new commission. As for the people who will make up this commission, they would be civilians who have never worked for the RCMP or CBSA.

Will Bill C‑20 put an end to the practice of the police investigating the police, in your view, or is there more work to be done?

[Brian Sauvé]

I think, as tabled, there is still work to be done. That is why we are making some recommendations. In our submission, we have sections within the RCMP Act presently. When the commission receives a complaint, it expressly states that it will be downloaded to the RCMP to investigate. The RCMP will investigate and report back to the complainant and the commission. Those should be amended if we're going to end the practice of having the RCMP investigate the RCMP when it comes to public complaints, under this new act.

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

If I understand you correctly, complainants should not have the option of filing the complaint directly with the RCMP. It should be addressed directly to the new commission.

Is that correct?

[Brian Sauvé]

Well, I don't think a member of the public.... We should encourage the wide scope of abilities to file complaints, whether it be online, at your local detachment, even at your local border crossing or through the mail to the CRCC. However, once that complaint is received, how it is actioned is where we have to make modifications.

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

Thank you.

You've made a recommendation on the funding and resources required. We're talking about ten million dollars over the first six years to set up the new commission. This is similar to the funding provided to the RCMP Civilian Review and Complaints Commission, or CCRC, which is currently in place.

You mentioned several hundred complaints, which is the same for the CBSA.

Is the proposed amount enough to deal with all these complaints? Do you think people will have to face delays that are too long? Given the cumbersome process and possible delays, isn't there a risk that they might decide to withdraw their complaint?

[Brian Sauvé]

I don't think that's enough.

If you look at the processes that exist today, obviously, once a complaint is received and sent for investigation, there's a general ballpark figure of about 60,000 man-hours, or person-hours, that is used to investigate them. Most of those are done within the 30-day statutory time frame and referred back to the CRCC and the complainant.

Out of those, there are about 300 to 320 cases in which the complainant may ask for a review and further investigation. That comes back to the RCMP. If they're again not satisfied, then the chair of the CRCC can institute a further investigation. That happens in about 100 to 150 of those files annually. That's when they have their dedicated staff of about 80 or 85 across the country, who take on the file.

I don't think the amount proposed is enough. I don't know how much it should be, but we're just bringing it up and sounding the warning bells. We have seen numerous civilian oversight bodies across the country that have tried to operate on a wing and a prayer and then ended up with considerable delays, which is not good for the public. It's not good for the members of the agency, and it's not good for civilian oversight generally.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Weber, thank you for joining us. I also want to thank you for what you said to the media, and what you said a little earlier today.

You raised the fact that problems are often a bit bigger, such as systemic problems. You said it would be unfortunate if an officer who is the subject of a complaint were to be dismissed or reprimanded when the problem came from higher up in the hierarchy.

Can you expand on that? How should we deal with this?

How should Bill C‑20 address systemic issues, which can have repercussions that go beyond the officer who is the subject of the complaint?

[Mark Weber]

Thank you.

Yes, I believe that what we need is an overall culture change.

I think we need more education. We need more than just identifying one bad actor and disciplining them for x number of days and then moving on as though that has corrected anything. I think that in the CBSA as a whole, and in upper management especially, the culture has to change. As a union, we've brought forward numerous really disturbing complaints about managerial behaviour, and we may as well have not. They disappear. Essentially, if you're a manager and a complaint goes in, absolutely nothing is happening.

We have the example of the chief of operations in 2011, who ordered the strip search of a busload full of students after the officers had released them and were confident that they were clear to go. Was there any discipline? There was none. That's one case. I could think of many that are much worse than that. Simply nothing happens. That has to change.

I think that giving officers the ability to use Bill C-20 to bring forward issues they see every day is something that under the current proposal is not there. We cannot use the process to bring forward the concerns we have and the events we witness. I think that would make a big change. Overall, mismanaged policies, application of policies and, again, the staffing levels: Those are things that are not the officer's fault. That's a culture. That's upper management at CBSA.

Again, when we're dealing only with complaints coming in from the public, well, the public interacts with the officer, who is the one there when they've been waiting three hours to get to the border to finally make their declaration and, like I said, arrive quite furious. Our officers, again.... I think it's overall. I could call it a mental health crisis. They are exhausted. They are working almost unlimited overtime, with no ability to get leave. The summer is going to be even worse as we go through it. This happened last year and the year before, and I don't see any kind of help coming. Our numbers never go up. It's a desperate situation.

It takes overall cultural and total change within the agency.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Michaud.

We go now to Mr. Julian.

Go ahead, please, sir. You have six minutes.

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

Thanks to all of our witnesses for their very rich testimony.

I'm going to start with you, Mr. Weber. I have two things.

First off, you've very clearly identified that in Bill C-20, implicitly, CBSA employees are recognized as public safety officers. What are the other things the government should be doing to fully recognize CBSA border officers as public safety officers?

What are the changes to the Public Service Superannuation Act, regulatory changes or any changes to the Income Tax Act that would clarify this, so that we no longer have this weird situation in which the federal government pretends border officers are not public safety officers in some circumstances, and in others acknowledges that? That's my first question.

On my second question, I think you've been very eloquent in saying you support Bill C-20's aspect of making CBSA employees accountable, but what I hear you saying is that CBSA management is not accountable. That is fundamental to putting in place civilian oversight in a way that allows systemic reform. That is what I think we're all looking for.

What are the changes we could bring to Bill C-20 that would make sure that CBSA managers are accountable for their actions?

[Mark Weber]

Thank you.

I'll take the first question first.

Legislatively, there are two things that would have to change. Number one would be the Public Service Superannuation Act. Border officers would have to be added as an occupational group, as exists for all other occupational groups, including corrections officers. That would have to change. The associated regulations would have to change accordingly as well.

The second piece of legislation would be the Income Tax Act regulations. There, we would have to start including FB members in the definition of “public safety occupations”. Those two things would go a long way, and they would solidify and codify that we are indeed public safety officers.

Among the things that would have to change in the proposed Bill C-20 to bring about real cultural change—which, for CIU, would be the goal—is an ability for CBSA officers to use the process as well to bring forward incidents and things they know to bring about that kind of change, and for those to be investigated as well through the process.

We work in the milieu all day. We are likely to see a lot more than a traveller who's coming through and whose interaction with the CBSA might be for 10 seconds. Right now, the way it's currently defined, that door is shut to us. Again, a way to ensure that it is followed up on....

Historically at the CBSA, the higher you go in rank, the less accountability there always is. We're very confident in many of the things we bring forward regarding managerial behaviour. If this was one of my members, I would be advising them, “You're probably going to be fired.” There's no follow-up. Absolutely nothing happens in general. It is frustrating at our level to see that happen.

Again, change has to come from above. I would really like us to be able to use what's available to the public here.

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

Thank you very much, and thank you to your members for their service to the country.

Mr. Sauvé, you've been incredibly detailed—much more than the minister was—in terms of what resources are required. You said 60,000 work hours. Does that include the 300 appeals—or where there is a secondary look—and the 150 that you identified that are current cases that are being looked into more specifically? If it doesn't, we're talking about an even greater imposition on the work hours.

By what factor do you think the government has missed the boat in applying resources? If $19.4 million is not sufficient, is it $38 million or $40 million? Is it $50 million? Do you have a ballpark figure for setting this commission up in a way that it can adequately do the job, instead of, as you so eloquently put it, basically taking resources out of community policing?

[Brian Sauvé]

No. When I speak about 60,000 person-hours to investigate those 1,500 complaints as a ballpark, that is just the initial 30-day investigation and returning it to the CRCC and the complainant. Should there be more required, that's not included.

If we are talking about only the status quo today, for 30 members of the RCMP, all in it's about $202,000 per member for training and everything—all that great stuff. You can do the math: 30 x $200,000 is around $6 million. That would be an estimate for the status quo, for just the RCMP.

When you add a completely new public safety agency into the complaints process, I don't think anyone really has an idea of what that is going to do to the PCRC in terms of volume through the next year. What volume are we going to see through the Canadian public? Is it going to be consistent with what it has been with the RCMP? How do you resource it appropriately?

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

What you're saying is that this is seriously under-resourced. Given the figures you've given us, the government is basically short-changing this commission right from the get-go.

[Brian Sauvé]

I would say yes.

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

That's a really important point. Thank you.