Public Safety Committee on June 9th, 2023

[Janet Merlo]

Absolutely. It creates a tormented workplace when you have people who are committed police officers and want to do the right job, yet they're having to investigate their superior or their colleague. It puts everybody in a very bad conflict of interest.

I think the pressure is on from within to find things that are unfounded because even the investigators fear some sort of retaliation. It puts them in a very awkward position. I would never have wanted to investigate someone for whom I had received a complaint...and I was directed to investigate a harassment complaint. The pressure is on to find a certain conclusion, let's just say.

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

Certainly. Not only does it impact perhaps the morale between officers—having to investigate a buddy or something like that—but also, I would imagine, the experience from the complainant internally on whether they can trust that investigation.

I'm hearing that, in your case in particular, you felt very much that you could not trust the finding, and that 3,200 women came out saying similar things to you after they said that yours was unfounded. I'm very sorry, ma'am, that you had to deal with that.

Just to conclude, I want to commend you both very much for what you've done. It's bravery like this—although it probably seems very slow—that really does spark a conversation that is desperately needed. It takes those first ladies to come forward to do that. I can understand on a personal level how difficult that must have been. I really appreciate your courage. Thank you very much.

I have about 25 seconds left. If there's anything concluding on this in terms of the importance of RCMP officers not investigating themselves when it comes to things like this and the point that Bill C-20 needs to have a mechanism to allow external review on not only public complaints but internal complaints, do you want to give your last few thoughts on that to wrap it up?

[Janet Merlo]

From the membership and from my own personal experience, I think there's a lot of institutional betrayal there, where you feel that it's no good going within to make a complaint because you're just going to be blacklisted as a problem child or you're not going to get a promotion or courses that you wanted because now you have a big mouth. It's that type of thing.

I think it's very important that it's all done by an independent set of eyes because for those within who still have complaints who want to complain, there's no faith in the system. That's what we want to see restored.

Independent eyes, which is the same thing that's recommended year after year and decade after decade and never been done, are the solution. This is your chance to do that and get it right.

We would appreciate that.

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

Thank you for the mandate. I appreciate that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Dancho.

We'll go now to Mr. Noormohamed.

You have six minutes.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank you all for being here with us today, as well as Mr. Bellegarde, who is here remotely.

All of what you're sharing with us is incredibly helpful and insightful in making sure that we are able to get to a good outcome on Bill C-20 and the whole question of oversight.

I'd like to start with you, Ms. Webster and Ms. Basman.

For the work that you are doing, thank you. You speak for a lot of folks who don't have a voice and folks who have, in many cases, never had a place where they can go to try to address some of the issues that they have dealt with, particularly with CBSA.

As I look at this whole question of oversight for CBSA, there are really two things that come to mind. One is the need for institutional, systemic, cultural change to occur in the organization. We've all heard stories. Some of us with names like mine have experienced those things at the border. I think we have to figure out how we address this.

I'm also very conscious of the fact that you are bringing transformative change, hopefully though this legislation, to an organization that has never had this type oversight before.

What do you think needs to happen to ensure that the organization, particularly those on the front lines who may never have had this type of oversight before, comes along in a way that is positive? I don't believe you can get to a good outcome by trying to beat people over the head with a hammer. I think you have to do this in a way that ensures people understand their obligations and responsibilities and that you give them the tools to be successful in that.

What are some things you would like to see happen from an implementation perspective going forward?

[Kate Webster]

We certainly agree that the question of culture change at CBSA is something critical. That does relate to our first and second recommendations, really, in terms of the need for the commission to be able to receive systemic complaints and for those complaints to come from third parties. That is one mechanism whereby broad issues that are arising across a number of cases and perhaps impacting the most vulnerable, who may not feel comfortable bringing a complaint.... If there's a pattern of behaviour that becomes apparent to a third party, I think that mechanism is critical.

The other way, I would say, that we could tweak Bill C-20 relates to the data collection and publication. We are certainly happy to see the inclusion of the collection of disaggregated race-based data. We do note, however, that the way in which that data proposes to be collected is going to inherently give a partial picture. Not only is it partial in terms of the demographic data, but it's just collecting data based on race. We certainly have heard at our organization and among partner organizations a lot of complaints regarding discrimination according to religious background, nationality, language and individuals with mental health issues facing disproportionate enforcement action by CBSA, so we think that there's an important element of collecting a broader demographic set of data.

Also, collecting data solely from individuals who make complaints doesn't tell us who isn't making the complaints. We miss the most vulnerable individuals, who still face barriers in bringing complaints to the commission. We would suggest that it's important that CBSA and the RCMP be empowered to collect data regarding who they interact with on a more regular basis so we have a broader picture of what that population looks like. Who is complaining and who isn't? What systemic issues are coming through third parties that give us the evidence and the facts upon which to make policy recommendations to see that change?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

I'd like to build on the answer you just gave and reflect a question that my colleague Mr. Shipley asked Chair Lahaie when she was here, which was the whole issue of language and the capacity to engage with the complaints process.

Obviously, making sure that all of the types of data you've just talked about are collected is important. It's essential to being able to do it right. I do think there's a broader conversation on the type and the nature of the intersectional data that people are collecting, and how it's collected is important.

How important do you think it is to use that data but also some of the experience folks have to ensure that language does not become a barrier to people? How do third party organizations become actively engaged in ensuring that isn't the case? How do we make sure that this has provisions in it such that language and third party engagement is something that can happen with the consent of individuals who may have had these situations happen to them?

[Kate Webster]

I will say that I believe we can learn something from the experience of the RCMP and the CRCC in terms of its efforts to engage publicly with different linguistic communities across the country and ensure that they feel the commission is accessible to receiving complaints from them. I note, however, that the population that CBSA deals with in particular is significantly more diverse; there are many non-Canadians and many individuals who do not have status. Oftentimes, their very first interaction on Canadian soil is with a CBSA officer. They may be detained at that point. They may never have an opportunity to engage with a community group.

It's critical that interpretation services are readily available. Again, so much of this comes back to the ability of third parties to bring complaints, because the members of our organization are refugee and immigration lawyers. We have a lot of partners who are service providers, whether they are service providers in the detention facilities who provide settlement services, who provide English classes and who assist in enrolling newcomer children in school. It's through those interactions where issues can come to light and patterns of behaviour can emerge. Those relationships are significantly more trusted often than relationships with law enforcement. It's critical that that type of systemic access be given to ensure that different communities feel that the commission is accessible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Noormohamed.

Go ahead, Ms. Michaud. You have six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Merlo and Ms. Jarvis. I won't repeat what Ms. Dancho said, but I completely agree. Thank you for your bravery. You have no doubt helped hundreds of women. It's a shame that the changes we want to see still aren't coming. Nevertheless, I am certain that you will help us arrive at those changes eventually.

You talked about how important it was to get rid of non-disclosure agreements, stressing that they allow for victims to be silenced. It also raises questions from a financial standpoint, as you point out on your website, if I'm not mistaken. You said that hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars are being used to compensate victims of RCMP misconduct or crimes, but that neither the RCMP nor the federal government is doing anything to fix the problem. Just think of all the things that could be done if Canadian communities had that money to invest in law enforcement.

I'd like you to talk specifically about the importance of banning the use of non-disclosure agreements, both for victims and for law enforcement, as you mentioned. I don't know how that might fit into Bill C‑20, but I'd be happy to hear any suggestions you have.

[Janet Merlo]

I think one thing that has made the problems in the RCMP so bad is that the people who've complained along the way and the settlements they've had have rendered those people then voiceless. In order to settle their complaint, they are forced to sign off on these agreements. Part of the reason we all got so sick and got to the point we did was that no one could talk about it. I think if people's voices weren't taken away in these non-disclosures, if people could speak publicly, it would help their journey to get better after they've gone through these issues.

There seems to be a groundswell of movement right now to deal with non-disclosure issues as well as whistle-blower legislation that needs to be made better in Canada. We're one of the worst countries in the world for whistle-blower protection laws. I think those non-disclosure agreements just need to go. They're something of the past. In order to heal and move forward, everybody needs to be able to talk.

It needs to be transparent. The whole process needs to be transparent. By doing that, I think that's how you restore public faith, because 90% to 95% of the RCMP are good, honest, hard-working police officers. It's just that potent minority that needs to be dealt with. If everyone is rendered silent and forced to sign these agreements, then, as we have seen, it just continues.

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

Thank you.

I imagine that when someone goes to the trouble of bringing forward a complaint, they have experienced something traumatic. They certainly relive that trauma as they go through the complaint process, so it's understandable why someone wouldn't want to keep going and take the complaint to the commission.

I heard Ms. Lahaie say earlier that, in some cases, the commission would like to have the ability to initiate reviews on its own, without a complainant first submitting a complaint or requesting a review of their file. What do you think of the idea? Do you feel the commission should be able to initiate a review of a case on its own initiative?

[Janet Merlo]

That's very important, because a lot of us have ended up with anxiety issues, depression and PTSD. There are times when we can engage and take on this issue, and there are times when, for our own mental health, we just have to back away for a bit. If someone lays a complaint and then goes silent for a little bit, I think it's very important that the commission has the power to reach out to that person or keep something going while they regroup and re-engage.

Yes, I think that's very important.

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

Thank you.

You recommended four changes to Bill C‑20. They related to internal misconduct and non-disclosure agreements, but I didn't catch what the other two were. I would appreciate it if you could go over those again.

[Cheryl Jarvis]

We feel that no RCMP officer can be involved in either the commission or investigating complaints that come to the commission. The complaints need to be independently investigated. They cannot go back to the RCMP to investigate, which unfortunately is what happens.

As well, all the decisions made by the commission need to be binding. As was brought up earlier, when they determine that an officer has broken the rules and has created misconduct or whatever, they send their recommendations off to the RCMP. They never hear what happens. Unfortunately, what happens is that nothing happens, usually.

If the commission comes back and says that an officer needs to be terminated, it does not matter if they are a friend of the commissioner or a high-ranking officer: They are terminated. Unfortunately, though, what happens a lot of times is that if you have friends, nothing happens.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

We go now to Mr. Julian.

Go ahead, sir. You have six minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank our witnesses for their very, very powerful testimony.

Ms. Jarvis and Ms. Merlo, my colleagues have already spoken about your courage in coming forward. There is no doubt that your testimony...which I found profoundly disturbing. Many of the facts we were aware of, but it's unbelievable when you think about crimes being committed within the RCMP that have happened with impunity. Be assured that your testimony has an impact. Everyone around the table takes this very, very seriously as we look forward to the next step, to actually making Bill C-20 respond to the issues you are raising.

I wanted to ask you both two questions. First, a toxic workplace is so often a symptom of what can be a very toxic approach by an organization. In other words, we can't pull apart how the public may be treated in certain situations from what is happening internally. You've spoken to that toxic workplace. Is that essentially your message, that if we're taking a complaint process seriously, we need to make sure that the institution is functioning at the highest possible level, with respect for both police officers and the public at all levels?

[Cheryl Jarvis]

That is one of the most important things we've said. If you look at it, if an RCMP officer can assault another female RCMP officer or intimidate them or harass them, in a way, how do you think they are behaving towards the general public? If they will do that internally, what are they doing externally? That is what we're saying. You need to fix that toxic workplace so that it is not acceptable.

All people must be treated fair and equally before you ever get the type of service you want in the communities. If you don't deal with the bad actors internally, unfortunately, those are the individuals who are going out to police your streets and trying to keep the general public safe.

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

Thank you very much.

Muzzling victims, which is what happens with non-disclosure agreements, is very much part of that. That keeps the toxic workplace hidden. It sweeps it under the carpet. Is that not your point?

[Cheryl Jarvis]

It is 100% my point. Because so many victims can't speak about what happened to them, they can't disclose that millions of dollars have gone missing in the RCMP and that nothing has ever happened to the individuals responsible for that.

Unfortunately, when the victim comes forward, they become the one who's considered to be the bad actor. They're the one who has to retire. The other individual continues along with a great career. Nothing happens to them. That's the problem. The victim is always the one who signs the non-disclosure agreement and the perpetrator continues their career. Nothing happens to them. That needs to change. By getting rid of the non-disclosure agreement, the victim can actually come out and say publicly what happened.

If these things come out publicly, there will be an incredible outcry about what's actually going on. Lots of times we feel that people think we talk about conspiracy theories. If they only knew what was really going on in the organization, they would be horrified.

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

Thank you very much.

I would like to move on to Ms. Webster and Mr. Bellegarde.

We had testimony, just before you came on, from Madam Lahaie, the chairperson of the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission. She's raised broad concerns about the lack of resourcing.

Given what you, Ms. Webster, pointed to in terms of treating new Canadians and non-Canadians, and responding to some of the horrific cases within the CBSA, and your comments, Mr. Bellegarde, about some of the appalling treatment of indigenous peoples, is it not fundamentally important that we get the resourcing right?

Ms. Lahaie spoke about how the most reasonable likelihood is that this commission could be resourced at about 50% on the dollar of what is actually needed. Are those concerns that both of you have?

[Aviva Basman, President, Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers]

Thank you for that question.

The Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers absolutely agrees it is important to get the resourcing right. We feel strongly and agree with what Ms. Lahaie testified, that there is equal importance in investigating individual complaints as well as systemic issues. It's critical, therefore, that the commission be able to do both and not be prevented from either conducting specified activity reviews or, as we are also suggesting, investigating systemic complaints, because it might take resources away from investigations of individual complaints.

We agree with the various witnesses before you who have emphasized the critical importance of systemic issues in order to effect culture change and tackle, for example, systemic racism. We see, as my colleague testified earlier, the types of regular abuses of authority through our members and our own clients in their engagement with the CBSA, particularly in the removals context and in the entry to Canada context. Those need to be investigated.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

That wraps up our first round. That's actually the only round we can have today. We're out of time.

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

I have a point of order.