Public Safety Committee on June 13th, 2023

[Paul Chiang, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you so much, Mrs. Anderson-Pyrz.

I'm going back to Dr. Hasan.

Would you support a requirement that the annual PCRC report include a line on how many cases a year the commission refers to NSIRA and from which agency the complaint originated from?

[Dr. Nadia Hasan]

Yes. I think that's a common-sense thing to include in the report.

[Paul Chiang, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Do you feel like it should be an annual thing? How far back should it go?

[Dr. Nadia Hasan]

I can get back to you on that. I'll consult with our team.

I do think a routine establishment of that information would be important.

[Paul Chiang, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Is this something that, in your opinion, would need to be an amendment to the legislation, something that could be worked out through regulation or simply just a best practice?

[Dr. Nadia Hasan]

Again, I can get back to your office on that. I'd be happy to.

[Paul Chiang, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you so much for your time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

You have half a minute.

[Paul Chiang, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Okay.

If I can go back to Mrs. Anderson-Pyrz, through Bill C-20, there are new reporting provisions that require the CBSA and the RCMP to update the minister and, in turn, the House of Commons and all Canadians on their efforts to implement the recommendation made by PCRC.

Will this additional accountability mechanism be useful in holding the RCMP and CBSA accountable for the progress update they provide Canadians?

[Hilda Anderson-Pyrz]

I think that, to a certain degree, it will be helpful and it will be useful. I really stress the importance of having a completely independent mechanism to be able to hold agencies and institutions accountable, to take corrective action and to implement mitigation strategies to prevent the same occurrence from happening ever again.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Chiang.

Ms. Michaud, you now have the floor for two and half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Anderson‑Pyrz, you specifically represent women from various Indigenous communities who survived gender- and race-based violence. We can understand that, given their experiences, some people hesitate to file a complaint. In some cases, they're afraid their complaints won't be sent, or that they won't lead to any results. They don't want to relive a traumatic experience that thrusts them back into memories they don't want to go through again.

What do you think of the idea of allowing third parties, specifically organizations like yours, to file complaints on behalf of some people? It could even just be filing a complaint about a systemic problem that women may have told you about, such as the behaviour of Canada Border Services Agency or Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers.

Do you agree with this proposal, which some organizations made a few times? We're trying to see how we could include it in the bill. From what I heard, comments about it are rather positive.

What do you think of this proposal?

[Hilda Anderson-Pyrz]

Yes, absolutely. I think it's critically important to ensure that.... We talk about accessibility and, from an indigenous lens, we understand that as victims of gender- and race-based violence, we often have multiple layers of trauma. It's very difficult for us to be able to file a complaint against systems that have perpetuated the systemic and race-based violence against us.

I fully support having an organization support filing complaints collectively or individually. I think this is an important step toward ensuring that voices that are impacted have the opportunity to share their experience and look for corrective action as well.

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Mr. Julian, you have two minutes and a half, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of our witnesses. You've given us very valuable, wise counsel. I know we'll take this into consideration as we move through clause-by-clause in the coming days.

Dr. Hasan, you didn't have a chance to respond to my question earlier about systemic racism, zero tolerance against racism and discrimination, and how to integrate that into the bill. I also wanted to raise the concerns we've had about a lack of resources and indications that the federal government is financing perhaps about half the level that is really needed to adequately respond to complaints both through the RCMP and CBSA.

If you could take a moment now to answer those two questions, I'd appreciate it.

[Dr. Nadia Hasan]

Thank you.

I'm sorry that I missed answering that last question last time.

In terms of the zero-tolerance policies, it's a pretty basic idea. If a border service agent is found to be in violation of the CHRA—there's discrimination that has taken place on the basis of protected grounds, the rights that are protected in our Constitution—that person does not deserve the power that a border services agent has. We recommend disciplinary measures that are proportionate to the severity of that act.

Second, in terms of resourcing, one concern around the PCRC is, of course, that in order for it to be effective, it needs to be functional and it needs to be resourced properly. That's not only to meet the timelines, but also to take on the kinds of cases we are hoping the PCRC will be able to take on, including the national security cases I was talking about earlier.

Absolutely, I think resourcing is a key question here. If it's not properly resourced, we're going to have the same problems we had with other oversight bodies that became backlogged very quickly. It's simply not fair to make people who are already in vulnerable and precarious positions suffer any longer because of our lack of foresight in terms of the resourcing required to deal with a very big problem in Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

Thank you, all.

That brings this panel to a close. We appreciate your time and your expertise. It will be most helpful to us in our study of this bill.

We will now suspend briefly and bring in the next panel.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

This meeting is resumed.

We're once again in meeting number 72 on Bill C-20.

Today, we have, as an individual, Dr. Christian Leuprecht, professor, Royal Military College of Canada. From the Independent Investigation Unit of Manitoba, we have Zane Tessler, civilian director, and Roxanne Gagné, incoming civilian director, by video conference. Finally, from the Saskatchewan Serious Incident Response Team, we have Greg Gudelot, executive director, by video conference as well.

Welcome, everyone.

Let's start with Dr. Leuprecht.

I invite you to make an opening statement of up to five minutes. Please go ahead, sir.

[Dr. Christian Leuprecht, Professor, Royal Military College of Canada, As an Individual]

Thank you for your invitation.

I will make my opening remarks in English, but I will be happy to answer your questions in both official languages.

I've written, as many of your know, at length about the CBSA and the RCMP on accountability and governance within the intelligence community. I sit on a police services board, and I lecture on police governance, so this is something that's dear to my heart.

I believe this is the third time this bill has been reintroduced. It's important this bill pass, not just for the sake of accountability but because there's growing awareness of inherent institutional bias and the importance of independent review bodies and publicly transparent follow-ons. The bill also offers an opportunity to remedy known shortcomings in the design of the current Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP.

The PCRC mirrors comparable changes in some provinces. In Ontario, Justice Tulloch's “Report of the Independent Police Oversight Review” was the first and only independent systemic review in Canada of the police oversight system to tackle how complaints against police officers and discipline are handled. Justice Tulloch's report has 129 recommendation aimed at enhancing the public's trust in the system. In addition, Justice Murray Sinclair tabled a comprehensive report on the Thunder Bay police. I commend both reports to this committee as they directly inform the committee's work on this bill. Justice Tulloch and Senator Sinclair pulled back the veil and exposed inherent bias in systems and organizations.

Ontario recently established the new inspector general of policing, as well as the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency. LECA was intended to mitigate biases and, in so doing, bolster public confidence in investigative processes.

The rule of law is foundational to democracy. In line with the growing and evolving public expectations and scrutiny of law enforcement, the PCRC will provide an important mechanism to shore up public legitimacy by ensuring compliance and propriety among Canada's two largest law enforcement agencies, which together field about 26,000 uniformed members who are tasked with investigating many of the most important threats to Canada's national security and public safety. While compliance and propriety are the sine qua non, independent review should also assess for proportionality, necessity, reasonableness and efficacy.

Specifically, I recommend the following with regard to subclause 28(8):

One, that the legislation enshrine a six-month limit for the RCMP or CBSA to provide written comment on the findings of a complaint or public interest investigation unless there is genuine ongoing litigation or other court proceedings that such disclosures might compromise. Absent timely input from the RCMP or CBSA, the PCRC should have explicit authority in statute to release the public findings of an investigation. This is to avoid an agency needlessly delaying the public release of findings as is currently the case with the RCMP, as public reporting has shown that some CRCC reports have been languishing for up to four years.

Two, as I explained in my book, the actual concepts that inform a review should be written into the legislation, including but not necessarily limited to compliance, propriety, proportionality, necessity, reasonableness and efficacy. The point of independent review is not just to ensure compliance. Rather think of it as peer review that has as its objective to make the agency better at what it does instead of being reduced to a mere discipline instrument. Complaints and review thus aim to become a process of continuous institutional improvement and transparency about those efforts as a key feature of democracy.

Three, the public needs to have confidence that findings and recommendations are actually being implemented. Therefore, agencies should be required to report back annually on plans and progress in implementing the PCRC findings and recommendations.

Four, the bill currently lacks explicit wording to deconflict its mandate from that of the ERC, NSIRA and NSICOP. For public interest investigations only, the PCRC should be required to deconflict with these other mechanisms. Reviews are time-consuming and resource-intensive for agencies. Therefore, the RCMP and CBSA should not have to commit resources to answering the same queries from different agencies.

Finally, five, the RCMP and CBSA should receive financial compensation for the resources they need to expend on responding to PCRC complaints and reviews. Otherwise, additional onus of review comes at a net cost to operations for an agency.

Thank you.

I have more proposals, but I only had five minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

We'll go now to the Independent Investigation Unit of Manitoba.

Mr. Tessler, you have five minutes.

[Zane Tessler, Civilian Director, Independent Investigation Unit of Manitoba]

I'll be very brief.

I am the civilian director of Manitoba's Independent Investigation Unit. I was the inaugural civilian director appointed in 2013.

I'm now just a few weeks shy of the end of my second term, or 10 years, in this position. Our mandate, in Manitoba, is to investigate and involve ourselves, providing an independent overview and oversight of all serious incidents involving the police within the province, including death, serious injuries or breaches of criminal or statutory codes.

In my time, in the last eight years, since we've been operational in June 2015, we have now surpassed some 500 notifications for our unit to become involved in the serious incident investigation process.

Hopefully, my experience can assist in better understanding and developing the proposals under Bill C-20.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, sir.

We'll now go to the Saskatchewan Serious Incident Response Team.

Mr. Gudelot, you have five minutes.

[Greg Gudelot, Executive Director, Saskatchewan Serious Incident Response Team]

Thank you.

Thank you to the committee for the opportunity to appear today.

My name is Greg Gudelot. I am appearing as the civilian executive director of the Saskatchewan Public Complaints Commission and Serious Incident Response Team. My role today as a provincial agency head is not to advocate for a specific amendment to the federal legislation but to provide what I hope is helpful information on Saskatchewan's police oversight regime and, hopefully, to answer any questions the committee may have on the basis of my time spent in the justice system and my experience in senior positions at two police oversight organizations in two provinces.

Saskatchewan's police oversight program is built around the Public Complaints Commission or PCC. The PCC was created through amendments to the Saskatchewan Police Act in 2005 as the successor to the office of the police complaints investigator.

The PCC is a five-person, non-police body appointed under the Police Act and is responsible for ensuring that all parties, both the public and police, receive a fair and thorough investigation into the actions of police officers. The act creates a number of requirements for the makeup of the five-person board. At least one person must be a lawyer, one must be of first nations ancestry and one must be of Métis ancestry.

In addition to these composition requirements, there are a number of mandatory consultations prior to appointment to the board. These mandatory consultations include representatives of both police services and members, as well as indigenous organizations.

The PCC provides intake, oversight and review functions to complaints relating to municipal police in Saskatchewan. Once a complaint has been received, the PCC can direct that the complaint be investigated by the originating police service, an external police service, or by the PCC through its investigation unit, the public complaints investigation branch, or PCIB.

Importantly, Saskatchewan prioritizes not just the independent intake or review of complaints, but also the independent investigation of complaints. It ensures that the majority of complaints are investigated by the PCC itself and independently investigated by the PCIB, which maintains offices in Saskatoon and Regina. In addition to police complaints, the PCC's mandate has recently been expanding to include non-police law enforcement, primarily in the form of provincially appointed special constables.

In 2021, the Saskatchewan legislature passed a series of amendments to the Police Act, creating the province's Serious Incident Response Team, or SIRT. SIRT is tasked with investigating incidents when someone may have been killed or seriously injured through the actions or omissions of police, or while in the custody of police, as well as allegations of sexual assault or interpersonal violence involving police.

Like the PCC, SIRT's mandate includes not just police but also certain other non-police law enforcement members appointed as special constables. Unlike the PCC, SIRT's mandate includes not only municipal police but RCMP in Saskatchewan as well. The creation of SIRT was unique in Canada as it was the first time that a serious incident investigation body was created under the same umbrella organization as the provincial police complaints body.

Although PCIB and SIRT are both parts of the PCC, they maintain operationally separate investigative teams and have different statutory decision-makers under the act, with the PCC chair being responsible for determining the outcome of complaints matters, and the civilian executive director responsible for serious incident investigations. This arrangement has allowed for the appropriate separation required by the different evidentiary standards employed by each team, while realizing certain efficiencies through some shared administrative or management resources.

The distinction between these two investigative units is important as it is based on the nature of the investigation conducted. While PCIB may conduct Criminal Code investigations following the receipt of a complaint, the body is primarily focused on disciplinary investigations under Saskatchewan's municipal police discipline regulations. SIRT, on the other hand, conducts exclusively Criminal Code investigations into serious incidents and is notification-based, rather than complaint-based.

With this distinction in mind, I will pause to note that the proposed section 14.3 of Bill C-20 seems to indicate that the CBSA itself would be responsible for conducting serious incident investigations. If the intent is for these investigations to be conducted by what I'll describe primarily as a border enforcement agency, rather than a full-scope police service or an independent investigation body, this would be a non-standard approach, keeping in mind the expectation that these investigations be conducted to a Criminal Code standard.

Overall, SIRT's legislation seeks to assist with our mandate of maintaining public confidence in policing through measures designed to ensure both inclusivity and transparency. The legislation requires the appointment of a community liaison any time the affected person in a serious incident investigation is of first nations or Métis ancestry, and it requires that the public be provided with a report on the investigation within 90 days of the investigation's being concluded.

Thank you. Those are my comments. I'm happy to answer any questions the members may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

We'll start our round of questions now with Ms. Dancho.

Ms. Dancho, please go ahead for six minutes.