Public Safety Committee on June 2nd, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 69 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. We will start by acknowledging that we are meeting on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person in the room, and remotely using the Zoom application.

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.

We have today two panels of witnesses. In the first hour, in person, from the National Police Federation, we have Brian Sauvé, president; by video conference, as an individual, we have Heather Campbell, Calgary police commissioner; and from the Customs and Immigration Union, we have Mark Weber, national president.

You will each have up to five minutes for opening remarks, after which we will proceed with rounds of questions.

Welcome to all of you.

I invite Mr. Sauvé to make an opening statement, please.

[Brian Sauvé, President, National Police Federation]

Good morning, Mr. Chair, and thank you for having us.

My name is Brian Sauvé. I'm the president of the National Police Federation, the certified bargaining agent for members of the RCMP.

Civilian oversight of law enforcement is essential for ensuring public trust and confidence. With nearly 20,000 members of the RCMP handling over three million documents and interactions each year, complaints can be expected. An independent, timely and transparent complaints process is essential.

To that end, the NPF believes that Bill C-20 presents the government with an opportunity to improve oversight and complaints processes across the RCMP and the CBSA. Bill C-20 offers an opportunity to address the issue of the police investigating the police and to make the PCRC a fully independent public complaints body. Amending this bill would meet the government's numerous and consistent mandate commitments and address the public interest in increased civilian oversight and transparency of law enforcement.

To that end, the NPF is making the following three recommendations.

First, the PCRC should end the practice of the police investigating the police. Under the current CRCC model, members of the RCMP are tasked with investigating most of the public complaints filed. It has been noted many times that our members handle these investigations of their colleagues in a professional and impartial manner. However, this does create a perception of bias and possible conflict of interest.

Independent civilian oversight of law enforcement is a critical component of bolstering public and member trust, which the NPF supports. The current system is not fully independent and does not serve to reinforce the government's intent to build public trust in oversight of law enforcement. While there are many advantages to having the police investigating the police, many provincial public complaints bodies have utilized a hybrid investigative model. This model includes the involvement of civilian investigators in the investigative process, with some reliance on experienced police investigators, either retired or serving.

Second, the PCRC should be appropriately resourced to conduct its own investigations, having the authority to make independent decisions and recommendations that are not politically motivated. Currently, the CRCC receives an average of 3,500 public complaints per year. However, most are not investigated, as they are deemed frivolous, vexatious or out of time. Estimating an average of 1,500 files per year that require a 40-hour investigation each, we're talking about approximately 60,000 work hours taken from communities in which our members could be engaging in core policing duties. That equates to about 30 full-time RCMP officers. Unfortunately, there is no cost-recovery mechanism for those communities to regain those hours.

Bill C-20 should be amended to allow the PCRC to conduct its own investigations, using and hiring its own investigators, and stop the downloading onto other resources. Failing this, if members of the RCMP are to continue to conduct investigations, there must be a cost-recovery mechanism established to compensate for the countless hours and overtime that our members are spending on public complaints investigations that take them away from their core policing duties. This is particularly harmful in smaller detachment areas, where all resources are vital to daily operations.

Third, the PCRC, with the addition of the CBSA, needs an increase in funding and staff. The CBSA will create an influx of new complaints, and more resources will be needed to keep pace. The estimated increase in public complaints further emphasizes the need for the PCRC to be established as a truly independent body that is effectively resourced to complete investigations through the hiring of its own investigators, similar to provincial public complaint bodies.

To be effective, the government must enact changes to Bill C-20 to address concerns about transparent, fair and timely investigations while also ensuring that the public interest is being met. These changes must strengthen the ability of the PCRC to be fully independent to conduct evidence-based investigations away from any political agenda of the day, while ensuring it is fully resourced to act and conduct its own investigations.

Thank you. I am subject to any questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, sir.

We'll go now to Ms. Campbell.

I understand that your Internet connection is somewhat unstable. If you need to slow down for that, we will try to make adjustments as well.

Please go ahead for five minutes.

[Heather Campbell, Calgary Police Commissioner, As an Individual]

Thank you very much. Good morning.

I appreciate the invitation to appear as a witness at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. Although I am a commissioner with the Calgary Police Commission, my testimony today is provided as an individual. My comments are exclusively my own and not those of the Calgary Police Commission.

My name is Heather Campbell, and in my work and in my life, I come to you from Calgary, or Mohkinstsis, where I live as a guest on the traditional indigenous lands of Treaty 7 and the Métis Nation of Alberta, Region 3.

I will prioritize countering racism, systemic racism and systemic bias in policing in this presentation. I will address data collection, data management and data sharing in policing, particularly the need for demographically segmented data in complaints, and in all areas of policing, in the question and answer period, time permitting.

Policing in North America, from its creation, has been deeply rooted in racism. When it comes to police reform, it isn't bad apples, and it isn't a bad barrel. It is literally the soil. Success in police reform will come only when, bravely and transparently, the culture and environment—the soil—is modified such that it poisons the landscape in which racism and systemic racism flourish in policing.

A detailed plan is required for the transformation of the culture of a police service that has systemic racism within its walls and its ranks. Cultural transformation is not an overnight action. It took two and a half years for the existence of systemic racism in policing to be accepted and understood by a majority of the police service in Calgary. There are still those who rail against it, and I often personally receive backlash when I identify or note a relapse in the progress made towards anti-racist behaviours.

One of the most challenging things in my life was reading the 1,109-page report called “Missing and Missed”. The report, prepared for the Toronto Police Services Board, was largely prompted by concerns that the McArthur-related investigations in Toronto and Peel Region were damaged by systemic bias.

Many community members felt that the Toronto police “remained uninterested in the disappearances of McArthur's victims until Mr. Andrew Kinsman, who was not a person of colour, was reported missing.” The review of these cases takes into account the presence and the impact of systemic bias, discrimination and differential treatment by Toronto police and in the investigation of missing persons. The Honourable Justice Gloria Epstein, in her executive summary, wrote, “The disappearances of McArthur's murder victims were often given less attention or priority than the cases deserved.”

I will be far more direct and plain-spoken than Justice Epstein. They were brown, and they were Black. They were gay, and they were trans. When they went missing and were eventually murdered, the police didn't look that hard for them.

Accordingly, there should be dedicated resources and resource planning to provide critical attention to missing persons investigations, particularly for cases involving missing and murdered indigenous women, girls and two-spirit persons.

A substantial finding in the mass casualty report from Nova Scotia was:

The perpetrator's pattern of violent and intimidating behaviour was facilitated by the power and privilege he experienced as a white man with professional status and substantial means.

Systemic bias in policing favoured a privileged perpetrator, despite a wealth of red flags that had been reported to the police by members of marginalized communities.

A cisgender, white, male, middle-aged, privileged denturist murdered 22 people, and police missed the signs, partially because of systemic bias. The transformation and cultural change to nullify the training and thinking that contributed to that error is the incredible challenge ahead of a civilian oversight body.

Consideration must be given to the investigative skills and tools of the complaints investigations and professional standards teams. Do the investigators have the skills to investigate a case in which the only complaint is racism? Have the investigators rid themselves of historic systemic biases and of inherent discrimination to evaluate evidence of racism and white supremacy in a case or a complaint? Training and skills improvement may be required, and investigators need to be open and receptive to the training and new skills that are focused on reduction of bias.

Establish the complaints and review commission so that it has an opportunity for success. Complaints and management of complaints are invariably about justice. Justice is more than policing, and if that principle is forgotten in this legislative exercise, there will be a continuation of the rallying cry from Canadian streets: “No justice, no peace.”

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

We go now to Mr. Weber.

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

[Mark Weber, National President, Customs and Immigration Union]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you here today. As the national president of the Customs and Immigration Union, which represents Canada's frontline border officers and other personnel working for the Canada Border Services Agency, it is always a pleasure to assist this committee.

Regarding the proposed legislation, we have a number of concerns that I'd like to highlight, acknowledging that the type of civilian oversight the bill aims to create is something that already exists for most law enforcement bodies, and that we agree it is paramount for our government and its agencies to develop the tools and resources necessary to address issues linked to overreach, systemic discrimination and abuse of authority.

That said, the bill seems to be missing the mark when it comes to addressing systemic issues already present within the agency, which is infamous among its employees for letting gross abuse by management run unchecked. To be candid, I have lost count of the number of times CBSA management has, in one way or another, done everything in its power to minimize, delay or brush aside complaints from employees regarding highly problematic behaviour from managers, choosing rather to use the robust discipline process already in place to punish employees through unfair and heavy-handed disciplinary actions.

I see nothing in this bill that would help curb this, and I'm concerned that the proposed commission would mostly serve as an additional punitive tool to be used toward our public-facing members without really addressing entrenched cultural issues within the CBSA and its management structure. What we're talking about here is an agency that year after year refuses to hire an appropriate number of frontline officers, preferring to invest in automated technology, which, when it fails—and it does fail—only exacerbates existing issues: an automated technology that makes Canada less safe.

It is an agency that claims to be committed to addressing systemic racism but arbitrarily cancels anti-racism and anti-discrimination training developed in large part by its own racialized employees. It is an agency that does everything it can to set itself up for human rights complaints by staffing immigration holding facilities with poorly trained, contracted-out security guards.

All of these aspects play an underlying role in any complaint made to the commission, and they must be addressed.

We also have real concerns with the absence of clear language around an employee's right to procedural fairness and natural justice and to representation during administrative investigations, and around the time limits for investigations as well. In our experience, investigations within CBSA are already lengthy—more often than not, unnecessarily so. Bill C-20 does not address this. In fact, under this new legislation, it's likely that investigations could take years to be completed, which is fair neither for the complainant nor for the party under investigation.

I should point out that this bill is being discussed while more than 8,000 officers and other law enforcement personnel we represent at the CBSA are currently in bargaining with the agency and with Treasury Board. It is concerning that the Government of Canada would seek to pass legislation that could potentially change the nature of employment for our members, which would effectively bypass the bargaining process. At the very least, the union should be afforded the opportunity to address the proposed legislation and its ramifications at the bargaining table. Ultimately, the legislation should also include clear language guaranteeing that collective agreement rights are maintained, especially when it comes to investigations and representations.

I would like to end by pointing out that for many of our members, this latest piece of legislation is likely to be seen as yet another example of the agency and the government treating its border officers as proper law enforcement and public safety personnel only when it suits them.

The role of border officer has changed tremendously over the past 25 years, and our law enforcement members are an integral part of this country's public safety framework. The proposed legislation of this new civilian oversight body implies that the federal government agrees, yet our members are not recognized as public safety personnel under major public service legislation, such as the Public Service Superannuation Act and the Income Tax Act and their associated regulations. The government cannot pick and choose. For Bill C-20 to be coherent, it must be accompanied by language confirming the status of border officers as public safety personnel across federal legislation. Changes to these two acts must happen as well.

I thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, sir.

We'll start our questions with Ms. Dancho.

Ms. Dancho, please go ahead for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all of the witnesses for your testimony and for being with us today.

My first question is for Mr. Sauvé.

Again, for those who aren't familiar, you represent the frontline RCMP officers across the country and others in the RCMP. Is that correct?

[Brian Sauvé]

Yes. They're below the rank of inspector.

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

Thank you very much.

I want to build on some of the remarks you made regarding the independent model your organization is looking for, to further support—from my interpretation of what you said—RCMP officers.

In discussions that we've had, and certainly upon reviewing the policy paper you put forward on this bill, it would seem that there are provincial models like SiRT in Nova Scotia and ASIRT in Alberta. I believe that every province has a similar independent body, which is triggered when officers use lethal force or in other serious circumstances.

My understanding is that those are completely independent bodies. We don't have officers investigating each other. They're fully independently funded, and independent individuals come in to investigate those serious situations.

Is that a correct assessment of the provincial investigation model?

[Brian Sauvé]

Sort of. For example, SiRT in Nova Scotia and ASIRT in Alberta do the hybrid model. They will second serving police officers to work for a time period alongside civilians. The IIO in B.C. is a fully independent civilian body with no police officers in it.

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

Okay, so some of the provincial models utilize some resources of frontline officers, but for the most part they're independently funded. It's not taking budgets from the police resource.

Is that correct?

[Brian Sauvé]

Yes, they're provincially funded.

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

I understand.

In your remarks, you argued in favour of more of that independent model that you see provincially, whether it's hybrid or completely independent, depending on the province. If you were to design Bill C-20, then, that's what you would be looking for, a new oversight body to remove that “officer investigating an officer” model.

Is that correct?

[Brian Sauvé]

That's 100% correct.

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

I have not been a police officer, but I would imagine that particularly in a small detachment, officers investigating each other.... They work quite closely together, and often there's a lot of camaraderie. You mentioned that there could be a perceived conflict. That's a concern.

There's another a concern I find, though, and that's what it does to morale to have officers investigating each other. Would you agree that there's an impact on morale in that regard?

[Brian Sauvé]

I'll reiterate that they do it very well, and it's been well documented that they do it extremely well. However, yes, there is an impact on morale, and obviously it's an added burden to what they're already doing.

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

Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

Certainly it's something that the committee should be looking at and taking seriously.

Thank you for your testimony.

I'm going to go to Mr. Weber with the CBSA.

I am concerned on a number of fronts, and I would appreciate your remarks.

Over the last eight years, we know that the current government has added only about 25 frontline officers to the CBSA. Is that correct?

[Mark Weber]

That's correct, yes.

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

That's at a time when your mandate has been growing. Is that correct?

[Mark Weber]

That's correct.

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

Of course, there is significant public pressure, and I'm sure pressure from government, to crack down on gun smuggling. The current government has announced resources for that, but I was surprised to learn that in fact very few frontline officers have been hired.

I've crossed the border, and certainly folks get upset when border officers have to seize their goods. I'm wondering what impact that has on officers.

There must be a significant number of complaints. How does that work when you're an officer? Do you have to go on leave without pay? How does that work, logistically?

[Mark Weber]

At the CBSA, you're absolutely correct, our frontline numbers are not nearly what we need. We estimate that we need between 2,000 and 3,000 additional officers on the front line. In the time you described, we've added about 2,000 middle managers to the CBSA. It seems to be the only section that is growing.

Our officers are exhausted and under incredible stress. We have summer action plans that have mandatory overtime. The amount of leave we can take is limited. Many officers resort to leave without pay just to get some time off.

Of course, when you look at the lineups and volumes we're dealing with and talk about what's being proposed under Bill C-20, with travellers waiting sometimes two to three hours to get to an officer, we are more and more dealing with people who are arriving to us furious. That is the baseline of what we have to deal with, quite often, when travellers finally get to us.

The solutions being proposed by the CBSA are automated kiosks, e-gates and things like that. In terms of public safety, they are scary, in our opinion. They have done nothing to alleviate the backlog. We're desperate to get more people working at the border, on the front line.

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

Thank you very much.

In my remaining minute, I think everyone agreed in their opening remarks that oversight is very, very important. We know that certainly the frontline officers in both the RCMP and the CBSA wield considerable authority, so it's important that there be oversight. However, I was concerned to learn in my discussions with you that very often, when these investigations happen, which sometimes are serious and sometimes can be frivolous and vexatious—which, I think, is the word that Mr. Sauvé used in the RCMP context—officers are going up to a year without pay, and in order to get that pay back, if the complaint is unfounded, they have to file a grievance.

Can you just update the committee? Is that an accurate description that I provided there? What should be done about it? It just seems very unfair. If it's unfounded and they miss a year of pay.... I don't know a lot of folks who can go a year without a paycheque.

[Mark Weber]

Sadly, that is the process, yes.

The CBSA has the security and professional standards directorate, which investigates more serious cases. If the allegation is deemed to be serious enough, the officer's security clearance will be pulled, meaning that they're not suspended and they're not fired, but they just cannot come into work until the investigation has been completed, which can sometimes take a year or more, meaning they're not getting paid. They're essentially at home on leave without pay until the investigation is done.

When the allegations are not founded and it's found that there was no wrongdoing, we're told to file a grievance to recuperate the lost salary. It's devastating to people. You're right—I really don't know anyone who could go a year with no pay.