Public Safety Committee on Oct. 23rd, 2023

[Joanne Gibb]

All complaints come to the commission. We're the point of intake. They can be made at a detachment, but the RCMP will then send that complaint to us. We do the intake, and the chairperson has the discretion to decide whether the RCMP will investigate or we will investigate.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Let's say the commission gives it back to the RCMP to deal with. Are the timelines in this act, then...? Is it incumbent upon the RCMP to follow them, or does it have its own timelines inside its own act?

[Joanne Gibb]

There are no timelines currently in the RCMP Act for the amount of time it takes to investigate a complaint.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

That's part of the problem.

[Joanne Gibb]

That's correct. There are internal service standards, and we have an MOU with the RCMP, but it's not a statute.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

I see.

Go ahead, Mr. Bangloy.

[Assistant Commissioner Alfredo Bangloy, Professional Responsibility Officer, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

There are no legislated timelines within which we have to complete the public complaint investigation, but we have internal established timelines of 90 days to complete a complaint. Following that, a letter of disposition is issued to the complainant. If they're not satisfied with how the RCMP dealt with the complaint, they can seek a review from the CRCC, and then that takes time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Mr. Julian, go ahead.

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

Thanks to our witnesses.

Remind me of the current average time. I know there are internal service standards, but what's the average time for treating a complaint? This comes from our hearings a few months ago, so I'd be interested in knowing what the current average complaint treatment time is.

[A/Commr Alfredo Bangloy]

Currently, the average time to complete a complaint over the past five years has been 128 days, so it's beyond our 90-day service standard.

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

Thank you for that.

I would suggest that 365 days is still very much an appropriate service standard to set, given the average treatment at this point. As I mentioned earlier, and as it states in proposed subclause 8(3), which Mr. Gaheer has proposed to take out of the amendment, it talks about 365 days. I think it makes sense for us to set in place those service standards, with the ability of the commission, of course, to prolong that if it chooses to.

However, putting in place a service standard makes sense and obliges the government, in my opinion, to put in the resources. This was a big part of the hearings last spring—the fact that it is under-resourced. What the government has set aside will not get the job done. I think, as legislators, we have to say to the government, very clearly, that this needs to be adequately resourced in order to ensure that the complaints commission does the job, in terms of RCMP officers, CBSA officers and—just as importantly, if not more so—the general public.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

The discussion continues on Mr. Gaheer's subamendment.

We'll go to Mr. Lloyd, followed by Mr. Motz.

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

Thank you.

To start, I'll say that I agree we need to have some service standards in this. However, I have some questions about this to pass on.

My first question is this: Concerning the language “the Commission, the RCMP and the Agency must deal with”.... Is that standard parliamentary language—“must deal with” something?

The second is concerned with the definition of “resolve”. When we're talking about resolving a complaint.... There are instances, I'm sure, where you can't resolve a complaint. Does that mean the complainant is satisfied with the resolution, or does that just mean you've completed the process?

My third and final question is this. There's a second page here, which says the complaint must be resolved “within a year”, or “within any longer period the Commission considers appropriate.” Is it even a legislated standard to say, “Yes, you should do it in one year, but if the Commission thinks it appropriate to go longer, then it can go longer.”

Those are my three questions. Thank you.

[Joanne Gibb]

I won't speak to the standard parliamentary language. I'll let Public Safety deal with that one.

In terms of resolution, it means it's completed, in my mind. It doesn't mean the individual may be satisfied. A lot of times, I'm sure, they are not satisfied, but it has come to its full conclusion. Therefore, it's resolved.

To your point, it's giving the commission discretion, certainly. How that's defined and operationalized.... As it is right now, we know it takes longer than even the 90 days. I'm thinking that in most instances, right off the bat, it's never going to meet this one-year service standard when a complaint goes through to the review process and an interim report. It's not a lot of them. There are about 350 a year.

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

In the parliamentary language, is “deal with” a term we use in legislation?

[Randall Koops]

I'm not sure. That might be a better question for the legislative clerk. As my colleague pointed out, the operative term there seems to be “resolve”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Okay. We'll go to Mr. Motz now.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Thank you.

I want to clarify again, Assistant Commissioner Bangloy. You said 128 days is your five-year average for resolving complaints, generally, or for having them dealt with.

[A/Commr Alfredo Bangloy]

It's a five-year average for the complaint investigation to be completed.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

That's right, but if it goes to the commission, then you have to add the commission's time onto it, because you reinvestigate in some circumstances.

To get to Mr. Julian's point, sometimes the reality—and I can speak to this from experience—is that you are not going to complete an investigation inside of six months, and 128 days is your four-month mark. However, if the commission gets a hold of it then and follows through, which is what this legislation is about, it could go on for another six months, eight months, 10 months, a year or more following that.

When you came to the committee, Ms. Gibb, there was conversation about what your service standards were, what your averages were once you got a complaint—not what the RCMP had. What would you think is reasonable, from a commission's perspective, with regard to having a regulated service standard on investigation completion?

Resolution is a different story. To me, when you have a complaint, have investigated it and have passed on your findings to the complainant, if you will, many times there's a process after that, a follow-up, and some sort of a resolution beyond that. You've completed your investigation, and the complainant knows what your investigation result is. Should we be separating those two? It does extend the timeline for resolution. If we're using that word, if we're saying that we're going to “resolve” it, an investigation is one thing. Letting the complainant know at the end of an investigation is another thing. Then, having the complaint resolved completely.... The complainant doesn't have to be satisfied, as you said, but having it resolved completely can mean another extension of the timeline.

What would you suggest the language should be that meets the expectations of the community that we're here to serve on these issues of complaints with the commission?

[Joanne Gibb]

I think that having a service standard for the investigation of a complaint by the agency—so, by the RCMP or the CBSA—in that first instance would be helpful.

The commission has its own service standard. Once we get the complaint on review, we have our service standards. We have to report annually to Parliament on whether we meet those service standards. The process is already well established. We don't always meet our service standards, but we certainly strive to.

I think that, a lot of times, it's that first-instance investigation that is the challenge, that takes quite a while. There's a multitude of reasons for why it can take a long time, including complainants who don't make themselves available sometimes when the RCMP wants to interview them and discuss their complaints, so it can go much longer than the 90 days.

With regard to my earlier point, the language here appears to say that it's from the time a person complains to the time it's resolved, which could be upon review. If we were to go with resolving it in one year, by my math the commission would have about one month to get information from the RCMP, review it and write its report to the commissioner if it wasn't satisfied. However, if you parsed it out and perhaps excluded complaints that are on review, just that initial investigation to get the complainant the initial response might be helpful.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

We've talked about the RCMP mostly. We haven't mentioned a lot about the CBSA, although this act now includes the CBSA. Is it reasonable to expect that the CBSA has the mechanism in place, like the RCMP does, to handle the complaints that it has internally, to meet those same service standards? I know you guys look after your complaints, but you don't have a commission that oversees you just yet.

What is your service standard? Can you remind us again of what the CBSA investigative service standards are, and can you meet something similar to what the expectation is of a service standard for the entire resolution of a complaint?

[Cathy Maltais, Director, Recourse Directorate, Canada Border Services Agency]

Currently, the service standard that we try to meet is 40 days; 90%, I believe, is our service standard to the public. There are two service standards. There's a 14-day service standard for first contact with our complainant, and then there's a 40-day service standard for completion of the investigation and, I'm going to say, the resolution. Again, it's not necessarily a satisfactory resolution, but it's the resolution of the complaint—the complaint is finished.

In the case that there would be a commission, the complainants would be advised that if they're not satisfied with the responses, they can then go on to the CRCC, and their calculation would start from there.

I'm just going to give a caveat. That service standard is with current levels, current volumes. Obviously, with a commission—with marketing and everything—those numbers would probably go up.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Would those numbers go up for you guys or for the commission?

[Cathy Maltais]

It's for complaints to the CBSA. Currently, with our levels, we're able to meet that standard 90% of the time, generally. If we double those complaints or up the volumes, then I can't confirm that we would still be able to meet those same standards.