Public Safety Committee on June 13th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 72 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. Therefore, 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.

Before we get started, I'd like to advise the committee members that we need to approve a budget for this study. I think everyone received a copy of the budget in their email yesterday. I'm wondering if we can get a motion to approve this budget.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Okay. I would also note to the committee members that today is our last witness meeting. On Friday we had tried to schedule estimates, but the minister is not available, so my thinking is that we will cancel that meeting and we will be able to get up to speed on all the amendments that are coming.

It's up to the committee. Are we all okay to cancel that meeting?

Ms. Dancho.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just so I'm clear, we will not be getting the minister for the estimates...?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

That's correct.

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

That's a bit abnormal.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

We asked. We invite, and it's really up to them to accept or not. We haven't had that many opportunities to do so.

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

Mr. Chair, I'm just concerned about accountability. It's a big budget. There's lots in there, and I'm just voicing my concern and disappointment that he was not able to come on Friday. It is important that this committee question him on his very large budget with billions of taxpayers' dollars.

It is disappointing, but I appreciate that you tried, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

That all having been said, we have quite a number of amendments that have come in. We should get the bulk of them by close of business, let's say, today, and they'll be able to be put into a package. We're not exactly sure but maybe by Thursday or Friday, you might see that package.

Other amendments may come in over the course of that time. If they're few and far between, we can probably easily incorporate them into the package but, of course, we're all able to submit amendments from the floor when the time comes in any event.

That all having been said, welcome to our witnesses. Thank you. Today we have—

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

I have a point of order.

We had spoken about having an extended meeting next Tuesday, and I just wanted to make sure that everything is in place for that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Yes, I've asked the clerk to scrounge around and see what we can find. At the moment the terrain is a little bit uncertain for next week. We don't know which committees are meeting and which ones aren't. We have certainly asked for more time for Tuesday and possibly Monday afternoon, and maybe even Wednesday. My thinking is that the longer we wait in the week, the less likely we're going to have a House sitting, so we're doing what we can to get more time.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

It looks like we will not be sitting on Friday.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

We will not be sitting on Friday.

Okay. We have two panels of witnesses. First, let us welcome today in person, from Faces of Advocacy, Dr. David Edward-Ooi Poon, founder, and John McCall, member. From the National Council of Canadian Muslims, we have Fatema Abdalla, communications coordinator, and Nadia Hasan, chief operating officer. With us by video conference, from the National Family and Survivors Circle, we have Hilda Anderson-Pyrz, chair.

Welcome, everyone. We will start by inviting Mr. Poon to make an opening statement of up to five minutes.

[Dr. David Edward-Ooi Poon, Founder, Faces of Advocacy]

Hello. My name is Dr. David Edward-Ooi Poon. Please call me David.

I am the founder of Faces of Advocacy, a grassroots Canadian organization that was responsible for federal immigration policy changes for the safe reunification of multinational families during the COVID-19 pandemic-related travel restrictions.

I have the sincerest gratitude for many parliamentarians, including many here today, who helped bring together Canadian families in a responsible way by listening to the experience and pain of so many first-hand. I hope we can do that again today.

I want to begin by telling you why I founded Faces of Advocacy.

Early in the pandemic, the government completely ignored multinational Canadian families, Canadian families who had partners, children or parents of different citizenships. The rules at the time were vague enough, however, that they could be interpreted to mean that the international family members of Canadian citizens could come into Canada, and there were multiple reports of CBSA agents allowing that.

My partner is an Irish national. She had contacted the CBSA, the IRCC and the embassy, even receiving a letter from the consulate in Europe attesting to our relationship status. She was told that she could come to Canada. Upon landing in Toronto, the CBSA agent did not allow her to enter, outright lying to her that there was no way to speak to a supervisor, denying her the time to read any forms before she was forced to sign them and intimidating her by calling her a liar.

That same agent admitted to her later that day that he knew she was not a liar, but still he used these aggressive intimidation tactics alongside outright falsehoods. We later submitted an ATIP on the interaction where the CBSA agent did not record his unprofessional behaviour nor the misinformation he presented to my partner. He faced no consequences.

Members of the committee, I am the face of a national organization of over 10,000 people who caused the government to change federal policy. Whenever I enter the country with my partner, I am still scared. Imagine that I was a person without a platform just wanting to be with their family.

John McCall is such a person. He is an American citizen who fell in love and married a Canadian woman, Donna, 40 years ago. While their children have a right to Canadian citizenship, they were Americans in the eyes of the CBSA. When Donna became ill early in the pandemic, the McCall children pleaded with the CBSA for a compassionate exemption to allow them to be with their mother before she passed. They were given a form letter response that a Canadian passport was needed. We know that different CBSA agents at the time interpreted the pandemic-related border restrictions to allow family reunification, but with unclear rules and CBSA agents unwilling to help the McCall family find a solution or even escalate them to someone who could, the McCall children said goodbye to their mother over FaceTime.

John and I connected. We worked with Faces of Advocacy. We changed federal policy with Public Safety's help much later. Despite these seeming victories, there were those who were still denied entry into Canada or treated like liars, despite well-documented compliance with entry exemption requirements, simply due to the whims or unwillingness to listen of individual CBSA agents. Immigrants quickly learned that they had no recourse to challenge the decisions made by CBSA agents under the authority or discretion afforded to them without oversight.

It is for those reasons that Faces of Advocacy is pleased to support Bill C-20, which seeks to level the imbalance of power between the complainants and the CBSA. We are in strong support of the proposed empowerment of the public complaints and review commission to impose disciplinary measures upon the CBSA and the requirement for the commission to produce an annual report that must include disaggregated race-based data.

There are three areas of Bill C-20 we wish for the committee to refine.

The first, in part 1, is about the joint time limit service standards established between the commission and the CBSA. The PCRC has been made necessary by the inability and, at times, outright obstruction of the CBSA to investigate good-faith complaints. Our organization has heard many complaints from immigrants to Canada who have been told that there's no access to a CBSA agent supervisor and that the agent's decision is final. These people have essentially been threatened if they dare to question the agent.

We fear a requirement to “jointly establish” service standards will be viewed by the CBSA as an opportunity to delay investigation and, therefore, delay justice. We ask that the committee replace the existing directives as they are written and develop reasonable service standards, particularly in urgent cases.

The second is in clause 9 of part 1, which speaks to education and information about the commission. We agree that the commission's existence and purpose need to be well known. It is our belief, though, that the mandate and processes of the PCRC must be specifically and clearly promoted at key points of individual contact with the CBSA and that the onus must be placed on the CBSA to satisfy this promotion requirement.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I'm sorry, but could you wrap up?

[Dr. David Edward-Ooi Poon]

Yes.

All public CBSA stations should be required to post these rules. A CBSA agent cannot be allowed to outright misinform.

Finally, the appointed members should include not only indigenous representation but representation of international families as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

I'll now invite Ms. Hasan and Ms. Abdalla to make their opening statements for up to five minutes.

[Dr. Nadia Hasan, Chief Operating Officer, National Council of Canadian Muslims]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for providing us with the opportunity to offer our thoughts on the committee's study of Bill C-20.

My name is Nadia Hasan and I'm a Ph.D. by training and the COO of the National Council of Canadian Muslims. I'm joined today by Fatema Abdalla, the communications coordinator for the council. I will be sharing time with Ms. Abdalla.

I would also like to acknowledge the work of our summer students Zena and Hasna, who have significantly helped in the preparation of the submissions that we'll present before you today.

At the outset I just want to say that we at the National Council of Canadian Muslims have been advocating for many years for CBSA oversight legislation. NCCM has heard countless stories over the last two decades about the challenges that Muslims face at the border. That is why one of our key battles over the last two decades has been in calling for oversight of the Canada Border Services Agency.

While we support the passage of this bill, we would like to see three key amendments, without which we have grave concerns that the impact of this bill will be a very limited first step rather than the kind of comprehensive reform we need to see now.

First, we suggest that the definition of national security in Bill C-20 needs further clarification. We believe the current language of the bill means that there could be an unforeseen consequence arising from subclause 31(2). As the bill is currently drafted, this subclause suggests that all national security matters should be referred to the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency or NSIRA.

Let me give you an example. There's a well-publicized case about an Egyptian human rights activist, Abdelrahman Elmady, who was deemed a security threat by a CBSA officer in Vancouver, where he was also subjected to detention and was not given medical support that he needed. For example, they took away his hearing aids.

If CBSA oversight legislation still required Mr. Elmady to go to NSIRA, we know that it would take years until Abdelrahman received a review of the alleged impugned conduct. More importantly, it would mean that Bill C-20 would not at all help Mr. Elmady and other Muslims allegedly unfairly targeted by CBSA agents for supposed “national security reasons” to get appropriate oversight and would simply add to the administrative burden NSIRA currently faces.

We agree with other voices before you that the commission should have jurisdiction to conduct reviews of activities that are in relation to national security in certain cases. We recommend, amongst other potential solutions, that an amendment to clause 31 be made to clarify that only complaints that require complex top secret clearance or documentation should go to NSIRA. All other matters around national security complaints arising from alleged CBSA misconduct should be dealt with by the commission.

Second, we recommend that clear timelines be enshrined. As you have heard from a number of other colleagues, there should be strict timelines for the CBSA and the commission to investigate and report on complaints. On the same point, regarding concern about delayed review, our concern is that without the installation of a set timeline in legislation, this new oversight body could take a lot of time to process and initiate reviews.

We recommend an amendment to subclause 8(1) to require a timeline of three months for the oversight body to deal with the first step of a review process for a complaint, rather than leaving it to the commission and the RCMP to establish the time limits.

I'll turn it over to my colleague Fatema to continue.

[Fatema Abdalla, Communications Coordinator, National Council of Canadian Muslims]

Finally, although the bill identifies the need to protect against unreasonable searches and seizures, we recommend a zero tolerance for racial discrimination provision. We have seen a number of Muslim clients mistreated with Islamophobic or racist conduct by the CBSA, whose misconduct has historically gone unchecked. Recently, research conducted in March 2020 found that over 75% of CBSA officers surveyed said they witnessed a colleague discriminating against travellers based on their national or ethnic origin.

To put it in clearer terms, we are aware that in one instance, a CBSA officer cited sources in a decision that drew on well-known Islamophobes like Daniel Pipes, and in one instance, cited information that linked to hateful accusations levelled against NCCM and other prominent Canadian Muslim organizations.

To the best of our knowledge, the CBSA has never publicly apologized for relying on such nonsense. As such, considering the history of the CBSA and the clear presence of Islamophobic prejudice in its work culture, a zero tolerance for hate clause should be instituted.

Thank you.

I note in closing that we will expand significantly on the submissions before you today in a follow-up brief to be submitted. Subject to your questions, that concludes our submissions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

I now invite Ms. Anderson-Pyrz to make an opening statement of up to five minutes.

Please, go ahead.

[Hilda Anderson-Pyrz, Chair, National Family and Survivors Circle]

Thank you so much for the opportunity to present today.

Good afternoon. My name is Hilda Anderson-Pyrz. I'm the chair of the National Family and Survivors Circle, and I'm joining you today from Winnipeg, Manitoba, located in Treaty 1 territory in the traditional lands of the Anishinabe, Ininew, Anishininew, Dene and Dakota, and the heart of the homeland of the Métis nation.

The National Family and Survivors Circle is composed of indigenous women and 2SLGBTQQIA+ individuals of diverse distinctions from across Canada who are directly impacted family members or the survivors of gender-based violence. We utilize our lived experience, expertise and self-determination as individual rights holders to advocate for ending gender-based violence against indigenous women, girls and two-spirit and gender-diverse people, and for the implementation of the 231 calls for justice.

Bill C-20 and all subsequent federal legislation must be drafted, studied, adopted, implemented and monitored with a view to its contribution to achieving the “transformative change” this government promised in “Federal Pathway to Address Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women, Girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ People”.

It is recognized that, pursuant to subsection 4.2(1) of the Department of Justice Act, in June 21, 2022, the Minister of Justice tabled a charter statement regarding Bill C-20 to identify and examine legislation for inconsistency with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Today, I remind this committee that the 231 calls for justice are legal imperatives that arise from international and domestic human and indigenous rights laws, including the charter, the Constitution and the honour of the Crown. As such, Canada has the legal obligation to fully implement these calls for justice from the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls final report.

Bill C-20 can be a step forward in fulfilling its legal obligations by aligning itself with call for justice 5.7. It states:

We call upon federal and provincial governments to establish robust and well-funded Indigenous civilian police oversight bodies (or branches within established reputable civilian oversight bodies within a jurisdiction) in all jurisdictions, which must include representation of Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA people, inclusive of diverse Indigenous cultural backgrounds, with the power to:

i. Observe and oversee investigations in relation to police negligence or misconduct, including but not limited to rape and other sexual offences.

ii. Observe and oversee investigations of cases involving Indigenous Peoples.

iii. Publicly report on police progress in addressing findings and recommendations at least annually.

While Bill C-20 replaces a “civilian” for a “public” complaints and review commission and expands to include the Canada Border Services Agency, the spirit of call for justice 5.7 is the same: the legal imperative to establish a robust and well-funded independent oversight body that is representative and inclusive, involves consequential accountability mechanisms and is transparent. In its contribution to the national action plan, the National Family and Survivors Circle identified call for justice 5.7 as an immediate action for implementation.

Due to my limited time in this presentation, I will only highlight high-level concerns related to Bill C-20 in the areas of representativeness and inclusivity, trauma-informed approaches and accountability mechanisms.

In 2021, Minister Lametti stated:

We are confident that this Federal Pathway provides the needed principles and foundation to build a fairer, stronger, and more inclusive and representative justice system that respects the rights of Indigenous Peoples, and protects Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people.... We are committed to implementing new actions and policies that address those inequities....

This is from the “Federal Pathway to Address Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women, Girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ People”.

When it comes to Bill C-20, indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people must be represented and included as decision-makers and investigators. The indigenous gender lens is a specialized skill and expertise that can only be obtained through lived experience involving daily navigation of, and confrontation with, systems that have historically harmed us and continue to do so today. We possess critical insight into solutions for our safety, protection and dignity that no one who is not in our situations or circumstances can fully know and therefore fully address.

Proposed subclause 33(3) indicates that complaints against the conduct of an RCMP officer or CBSA employee must be made “within one year after the day on which the conduct is alleged to have occurred”.

This could be extended by the commission or the commissioner per proposed subclause 33(4), or the commission or the president per proposed subclause 33(5), if either “is of the opinion that there are good reasons for doing so and that it is not contrary to the public interest.”

The terms “good reasons” and “public interest” are not defined in the bill and would place the onus on indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people and other complainants to demonstrate they have “good reasons”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I'm sorry, but are you able to wrap up now?

[Hilda Anderson-Pyrz]

Yes. Basically, we want to ensure there are spaces for indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people to be involved in this process with equity, equality and decision-making and to ensure that the 231 calls for justice are included in this process.

I have more to say, but unfortunately, due to the time constraints.... Hopefully, I can share additional information through the questions that may be asked. Thank you for the opportunity.

This document is also shared.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Thank you, all of you, for your statements.

We'll start our questions now. We'll start with Mr. Shipley.

Mr. Shipley, go ahead, please, for six minutes.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to all of our witnesses for being here today.

Chair, if you'll indulge me, I have a quick question for the clerk, if he confirm that Dr. David Edward....

You want to go by “David”, but I'll struggle with that a little bit.

He was invited by which group to be a witness...?