Public Safety Committee on Oct. 30th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 79 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Friday, November 25, 2022, the committee continues its consideration of Bill C-20, an act establishing the public complaints and review commission and amending certain acts and statutory instruments. Today the committee resumes clause-by-clause consideration.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. Pursuant to the Standing Orders, members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of officials and members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. That's a little flexible. As long as we're being friends, we can loosen that up a bit.

Although this room is equipped with a powerful audio system, feedback events can occur. These can be extremely harmful to interpreters and cause serious injuries. The most common cause of sound feedback is an earpiece worn too close to a microphone. In order to prevent incidents and safeguard the hearing health of the interpreters, I invite participants to ensure that they speak into the microphone into which their headset is plugged and to avoid manipulating the earbuds by placing them on the table away from the microphone when they are not in use.

Finally, I'm reminding you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

We'll now welcome, once again, the officials who are with us. They are available for questions regarding the bill, but they will not deliver opening statements.

From the Canada Border Services Agency, we have Cathy Maltais, director, recourse directorate. From the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we have Joanne Gibb, senior director, strategic operations and policy directorate, and Lesley McCoy, general counsel. From the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, we have Randall Koops, director general, international border policy; Martin Leuchs, manager, border policy; and Deidre Pollard-Bussey, director, policing policy. From the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we have Kathleen Clarkin, director, national recruiting program; and Alfredo Bangloy, assistant commissioner and professional responsibility officer.

Thank you for joining us today.

(On clause 35)

We first have BQ-6.

Go ahead, Ms. Michaud.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

BQ‑6 is quite simple. This is a consequential amendment, simply to ensure consistency in the wording to be used in the amendments adopted a little earlier, which added the possibility for third parties to file a complaint.

Again, as with the previous amendment, it says “non-governmental organization”. If someone wants to amend my amendment to read “third party” instead, I would be in favour of that type of change.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Ms. O'Connell.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We support this amendment, with the same changes as in earlier clauses.

I would move a subamendment to change “non-governmental organization” to “third party”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Is there any discussion on BQ-6 as subamended?

Mr. Julian, go ahead.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to ask our witnesses, whom we deeply appreciate for being here, for their sense of the difference between “third party” and “non-governmental organization”. I know we had a bit of this discussion at the last meeting. I think the distinction between the two would be important as a refresher.

Who is included in “third party”? How would “non-governmental organization” be restrictive?

[Randall Koops, Director General, International Border Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As with the previous amendments, we see no problem with the intent.

It is perhaps preferable for the committee to consider “third party” instead of “non-governmental”, since it is slightly broader in its application. Many third parties would not fall under the rubric of a non-governmental organization. Some could, in fact, even be governmental in nature, or individual in nature.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I support the subamendment, and I will be supporting the amendment as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

We go now to Mr. Motz.

Go ahead, please.

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

Thank you very much.

To the witnesses, can you clarify for me something from last week? Did we need language in here that added the fact that a third party could come but that we would need to have the complainant actually give that authorization? Do you remember that we had that conversation? I don't remember how we finished it off.

[Joanne Gibb, Senior Director, Strategic Operations and Policy Directorate, Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

For privacy reasons we might, but I would suggest that it depends on the nature of the third party. As it's written, we don't need it.

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

That's concerning to me. As it is written, they don't need it. You could have somebody who saw, as was explained last week, an episode of Border Security on TV, or who heard about some friend who had an issue with the RCMP, and before you know it, even though they don't even know or have never spoken to the actual victim or the complainant in a matter, they can go ahead and make a complaint on their behalf. That's what I'm getting at.

[Joanne Gibb]

The commission still has the discretion to refuse. A third party can make the complaint, but we would still have the discretion to refuse.

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

Before it gets to the commission, does each agency have the right of refusal on a complaint that comes in without authorization from a victim?

CBSA says yes.

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

Today I'm saying yes. On the legislation, I'd have to turn to my Public Safety colleagues. We've made a few amendments. I'm not sure whether we still have that right or not, because today we do require third party authorization.

[Joanne Gibb]

The commission remains the point of intake, even if the complaint is filed at a detachment or it's from CBSA. It would still come to us to deal with, so we could refuse to deal with a complaint if there was no connection to that third party. The agencies have the discretion to refuse to investigate.

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

That isn't in legislation anymore, though, is it?

[Joanne Gibb]

Yes, it is.

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

Specifically, yes, you have right of refusal, but wouldn't you save yourselves a lot of steps—given the fact that there is a significant amount of underfunding for the expansion of the commission—if you had it right in legislation, “without authorization from a person who's been aggrieved” or, based on this subamendment, if a third party could actually make this sort of complaint with authorization from an aggrieved individual? Would that not clarify it a lot better?

It would save you guys a lot of “Yes, we can”, and “How come...?”, and “No, we're not” and “How come you're not?”, and having that battle back and forth, if right in the legislation it said you had to have authorization from the person who is alleged to have been aggrieved in order to pursue this particular matter on their behalf.

[Lesley McCoy, General Counsel, Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

In practice the commission does verify whether there is consent, and in most cases there is, or perhaps in every case thus far. There are some situations in which it wouldn't necessarily be appropriate to ensure that there is consent, but as my colleague Ms. Gibb indicated, there are provisions currently in the act but also in Bill C-20 that provide discretion to the commission to refuse to deal with the complaint for various different reasons.

As well, the RCMP and the CBSA have similar provisions to refuse to investigate or to cease an investigation if there isn't a sufficient nexus with the individual directly affected.

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

I appreciate all that, but we're at a stage now at which we can strengthen the bill. That's the purpose of clause-by-clause.

I'm asking you as witnesses whether it would not be better, whether the act would not be stronger, if it had some legislative language that would suggest that in order for a third party to make a complaint, there would have to be the nexus, as you call it, between the agencies—that there would have to be some sort of connection between the two. You said in some circumstances. I'd be interested in knowing what circumstances those might be.

[Lesley McCoy]

I'm trying to recall certain situations.

They would be, perhaps, cases in which the individual who was affected by the conduct is deceased, or in a situation in which the individual cannot be located. These are two situations that come to me off the top of my head. There are situations in which it's more appropriate for the commission, the RCMP or CBSA to exercise their discretion as to whether or not the matter should be investigated.

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

That's fair enough.

I'm going to go to Mr. Koops for a second.

We support the intent behind this legislation. We've talked before at this committee about how to make it stronger to ensure that a complainant is properly looked after.

We have to look at both sides of the coin. We have to look at the organizations that are tasked with investigating these, and we have to look at the victim, or the alleged aggrieved individual or individuals who might have a complaint against the CBSA, the RCMP or the commission, for that matter. We have to clarify language in this act at this stage to ensure there's no ambiguity as to when, where and how a third party can actually launch an investigation.

I know the language is in there currently, and in some of your cases, I know that the act.... Currently, you have the ability to not investigate, but having done these, to go through and explain it, and the energy it takes to explain it.... When you say the act is very clear.... Unless you have, you don't get—isn't that right? It's only a matter of adding “with authorization from the aggrieved individual”, or something along that line.

Mr. Koops, I'm looking for your opinion on that. Given each organization's acts that they work under for complaints, and now expanding this to include the CBSA, would it not improve our legislation to have that in there?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I would caution, Mr. Motz, that the witnesses are not able to speak to policy decisions, I think. They have to limit their responses to their roles as officials of the department.

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

Yes, I appreciate that, but we're also talking about ensuring that we get some.... Anyway, they understand what I'm asking. If they can answer, that's great. If they can't, I guess I got my answer.