Public Safety Committee on June 6th, 2023

[Jenny Jeanes]

It depends on the outcomes we're talking about.

I think that respecting human rights obligations is important for Canadians, as is respecting our own Charter of Rights, and not having intersecting oppressions of the most vulnerable and marginalized communities. I think there's a public interest in protecting the most vulnerable among us.

Also, I think ensuring that officers have clear public codes of conduct and proper training and guidelines serves all of us, whether Canadians, non-Canadians, migrants or refugees. I think it's clearly in the public interest that we clean up, as I said, more than 20 years of an accumulation of systemic issues.

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

I have one more question.

There are provisions in Bill C-20 that give the chairperson of the PCRC the power to recommend that the RCMP and CBSA deputy heads initiate discipline-related processes or impose a disciplinary measure.

Could you comment on these new powers and how they could help us in our process?

[Jenny Jeanes]

I have concerns, along with the other witness, about independence. While it could be beneficial to have greater internal reviews, I think what we need here is independent oversight and for the commission to take on many of these reviews.

We're very concerned about whether the commission will be properly resourced. As I mentioned, the CBSA has been in existence for almost 20 years now, and enforcement powers were in effect before that. The commission will need resources to do a review. It cannot rely on internal reviews, because all we've had for the past 20 years is CBSA examining itself.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Gaheer.

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.

Ms. Jeanes, you made some recommendations. Among other things, you are proposing that a third party be able to file a complaint with the commission on behalf of another person, without necessarily having the consent of that person. I just want to understand the nuance: Are you proposing that complaints always be filed on behalf of an individual, regardless of whether it's an isolated incident or a systemic issue?

[Jenny Jeanes]

We want a variety of solutions.

We're very aware of the privacy issues and the difficulties associated with filing a complaint on behalf of someone without their consent. This would be done primarily when systemic issues are at play. People should be able to point out a tendency without necessarily naming anyone, particularly when a number of individuals see the same thing happening to our members over and over again.

Furthermore, in our brief, we talk about a person filing a complaint themselves or consenting to a third party acting on their behalf. The member agencies could back up the complaint with other examples, without naming the individuals involved, to demonstrate that the problem is widespread and that it's not an isolated incident.

We're proposing various strategies, but they're not reflected in the current bill.

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

Thank you.

It's being suggested more and more that the culture should change in certain agencies, like the Canada Border Services Agency. The president of the CBSA union was also concerned about it, and said the individual doing it isn't the problem, but that it often comes from a little higher up.

It may be easier to predict what to do should an officer abuse someone. On the other hand, when it comes to a systemic issue, what do you expect will happen if we amend the bill so that the proposed review commission can handle those kinds of complaints? What are your expectations in terms of how the commission will react to these types of complaints and the changes that could be made in the agency in question?

[Jenny Jeanes]

Again, there can be a number of ways.

Sometimes, it will be enough to shed light on practices senior management doesn't know about. Take, for example, the spit guard. When we raised the issue with people at headquarters, they were not aware of the circumstances under which this tool is used or how it's used. That's one example.

There has to be redress. We're asking that Bill C‑20 provide for financial compensation. If such actions have a financial impact on the agency, that will certainly lead it to change some of its practices. As other witnesses have said, they need to provide more training and have standards that prohibit certain activities.

As I mentioned, the law need to provide for a possible stay of removal when the complaint is about a serious issue. That's also important, and it could lead to changes at the agency.

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

Thank you.

I'm going to ask you some questions so I can get a better grasp of the reasons for your proposal. I know that you work with migrants and refugees detained at the immigration holding centre in Laval.

From what I read in the media, one thing you said was that refugee claimants often choose to remain silent even if they have been harmed, because they are afraid to compromise their situation. Because they absolutely want their claim to be accepted, some refugees are afraid to file a complaint because it could compromise their case and even their freedom. So I imagine that's one of the reasons why you're proposing this amendment to Bill C‑20.

In your opening remarks, you referred to the situation of two individuals in particular. Can you tell us more about that, why they don't want to file a complaint, and why it would be beneficial for an organization to do so on their behalf?

[Jenny Jeanes]

In the case of a refugee claimant, whether they are detained or not, the Canada Border Services Agency has the power to intervene in the processing of their case to say that they aren't credible, among other things, which really amounts to challenging the substance of the claim. The agency has a lot of powers. People are very scared until they get status, and I know some who were scared until they had their citizenship, which takes years to get.

Let's go back to those at risk of deportation and those I mentioned in my speech. The most serious examples of abuse of power that we hear about from migrants happen just before a removal or when they resist an attempted removal and a removal follows. In many cases, we no longer hear from these individuals. However, if they've experienced issues getting their case processed, they have no real incentive to file a complaint, since they have already left.

If it were possible to obtain financial compensation, perhaps we would have more evidence of abuse of power during deportations from Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Madam.

We go now to Mr. MacGregor.

Go ahead, please, for six minutes.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all of our witnesses for coming and helping us out on the study of Bill C-20.

Mr. Scott, I'd like to start with you. We've just had a fair amount of conversation about the review of “specified activities”. I'm glad you highlighted that the Mass Casualties Commission's report noted that the failures of the RCMP were mostly systemic.

I'm always not so much interested as a parliamentarian in being reactive as in being proactive. When we serve our constituents, we often are reactive, especially when we're dealing with casework. I'm always trying to find opportunities to learn from patterns of complaints about how we can enact systemic change so we're not receiving those complaints in the future.

Under the bill currently, as has been mentioned, reviews of specified activities for both the RCMP and the CBSA can come at the request at the Minister of Public Safety, and the commissioner of this new body can initiate one on their own. There have also been suggestions that we add relevant organizations.

What are your thoughts on adding relevant organizations when doing a review? Do you see Parliament being included in that? Sometimes as parliamentarians, through our various committees and especially at this committee, we become aware of systemic issues that are at play with both the CBSA and the RCMP. Do you think there might be a role for parliamentarians in requesting reviews of specified activities?

[Michael Scott]

I think there certainly is, Mr. MacGregor. The best way to start is to ensure that the PCRC is strong and independent and capable, so that when other agencies or Parliament or anyone else becomes aware of issues, there's a place for them to take them and there's a process by which they can be addressed. The frontline issue is not that there aren't complaints or that there isn't somewhere to take them but that there isn't a mechanism, at least not operationally, to ensure those complaints are investigated properly.

If we use the opportunity of Bill C-20 to create a truly stand-alone organization that can handle these complaints and these reviews, it can be the body that receives them from any number of different places.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

This question goes to Ms. Jeanes from the Canadian Council for Refugees.

I sit on another committee, the agriculture committee, and we've had testimony from representatives from the Migrant Workers Alliance for Change, which often deals with similar issues. Our agricultural industry does rely on lots of migrant workers coming here. That organization is there to defend their rights and to ensure that they also have a voice. Their activities are similar to what your organization does for refugees.

In the case of refugees, sometimes issues concerning national security can arise that involve the CBSA and the RCMP. We have a report from Justice O'Connor, who recommended a commission be established. When it comes to Bill C‑20, there are requirements specifically under clause 31, which specifies that no reviews can happen with this new body under national security, and under clause 52, which says that no complaint can be handled if it comes under national security. Such a complaint has to be referred to NSIRA. What are your thoughts on that?

If we're relying on two different agencies to conduct reviews of the same bodies, namely the CBSA and the RCMP, I guess some of my concern is that we start siloing these things. Do you think there's value in the new PCRC having jurisdiction over the entirety of the RCMP and the entirety of the CBSA, no matter what the nature of the review or complaint is?

[Jenny Jeanes]

Thank you.

I just wanted to say with regard to your first comment that we also deal with quite a lot of issues regarding temporary foreign workers, migrant workers, and we often see the abuse from employers. If people with closed work permits leave an abusive employment situation, they can very easily end up in detention and face deportation with no opportunity to make a complaint. It's something that we've seen too many times.

With regard to your second question, it is a concern, because there have been legislative changes that have added more securitization to some aspects of immigration enforcement, whether it's new mandatory minimums that make certain things that were criminality into serious criminality or questions around organized criminality and to what extent that's a security issue or a criminality issue.

I don't know that I could speak to whether it could all be handled under a single commission. I think that's unlikely to happen. What I think is more important is that the commission very carefully tease out the cases that really should be under its jurisdiction and not bump them to the national security review process just because there's some element of security in there.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Just add a little more specificity to what a national security complaint or review is so that it's a little bit more clear.

[Jenny Jeanes]

We work with vulnerable youth who may be suspected by CBSA of having been involved in gangs. In fact, a lot of people fear gangs, and sometimes these investigations reveal that the person is a victim and not involved.

On things to do with organized criminality, does that meet the threshold of security? I think we have to be very careful in terms of keeping review activities within this commission as much as possible.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. MacGregor.

That ends our first round of questions.

I believe we have time to shoehorn in a shortened second round and to end with Mr. MacGregor once again. In that case, we'll go with Mr. Lloyd for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the witnesses for coming.

Mr. Scott, let's say this new commission gets complaints. They find that the RCMP or CBSA engaged in some sort of wrongdoing or that there was a failure in the process. They make recommendations. Then what happens? Do they have power to force those agencies to make the cultural and process changes needed to address those complaints, in your view?

[Michael Scott]

Well, it's not in my view. They don't, and that's the issue.

They can make recommendations, and unfortunately the process, as it stands, puts the CRCC in the unfortunate position of not really knowing what happened, because, for example, in an RCMP investigation, it's the RCMP that has handled that investigation and it's the RCMP that has put forward their recommendation for a disposition. That very much puts even a well-intentioned chair of the review committee in the position of having to rely entirely on what they're being told.

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

Professor Cappe was a witness who came to our last meeting, and he believed—and I hope I'm not misconstruing his words—that just the presence of this commission would create accountability with the RCMP and CBSA. Do you think that will be the result of the creation of this commission?

[Michael Scott]

If done correctly, I think that's absolutely true and I think it would go a long way to encouraging public confidence in the RCMP and CBSA.

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

How would you define “done correctly”?

[Michael Scott]

It would be ensuring that the review committee is independent in more than in name only, ensuring that we're putting a body in place that has the ability to subpoena the information they need and hold the parties accountable and ensuring in an unbiased way that there is transparency and accountability for law enforcement.