THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, September 23, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs met with videoconference this day at 4:32 p.m. [ET] to study bill C-20, An Act establishing the Public Complaints and Review Commission and amending certain Acts and statutory instruments.
Senator Tony Dean (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Before we begin, I would like to ask all senators and other in-person participants to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. Please make sure to keep your earpieces away from all microphones at all times. When you are not using your earpiece, please place it face down on the sticker placed on the table for this purpose. Thank you all for your cooperation.
Welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs. I’m Tony Dean, a senator from Ontario and chair of the committee. I’m joined today by a number of our fellow committee members. I welcome them to introduce themselves, beginning with our deputy chair.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Jean-Guy Dagenais from Quebec.
Senator Carignan: Good afternoon. Claude Carignan from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Richards: Dave Richards from New Brunswick.
Senator Patterson: Rebecca Patterson from Ontario.
Senator M. Deacon: Welcome. Marty Deacon, Ontario.
Senator Cotter: Brent Cotter, a senator for Saskatchewan. I’m not officially a member of the committee but officially very interested in this bill.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: Pierre Dalphond from the De Lorimier division of Quebec.
Senator Cardozo: Andrew Cardozo from Ontario.
[English]
Senator Omidvar: Ratna Omidvar, Ontario. I’m not a regular member of this committee, but I am the sponsor of this bill.
Senator McNair: John McNair from the province of New Brunswick. I’m replacing Senator Kutcher today.
Senator Yussuff: Hassan Yussuff, Ontario.
The Chair: I am joined to my left by Ericka Paajanen, our steadfast clerk, and to my right, Mr. Ariel Shapiro and Anne‑Marie Therrien-Tremblay, who serve us so capably as our Library of Parliament analysts.
Today we begin our consideration of Bill C-20, An Act establishing the Public Complaints and Review Commission and amending certain Acts and statutory instruments.
Before we proceed, I have a declaration of private interest. Senators, I’d like to inform you that Senator Anderson has made a written declaration of a private interest regarding Bill C-20. The retraction shall be recorded in the minutes of proceedings of the committee.
I’d also like to share that, in 2015, our committee produced a report entitled Vigilance, Accountability and Security at Canada’s Borders. The second recommendation called for an independent civilian review and complaints body for the Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, which is exactly what this bill intends to do. I thank my colleagues to the right for reminding us of this.
To kick off this work, I’m pleased to welcome the Honourable Dominic LeBlanc, Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs. Minister LeBlanc is accompanied by the following officials. From Public Safety Canada, we have Randall Koops, Director General, International and Border Policy, Portfolio Affairs and Communications Branch; and Philippe Roseberry, Director, Border Policy, Portfolio Affairs and Communications Branch. From the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we have Bryan Larkin, Acting Commissioner, Specialized Policing Services; and Alfredo Bangloy, Assistant Commissioner, Professional Responsibility Sector. From the Canada Border Services Agency, we have Cathy Maltais, Director, Finance and Corporate Management Branch, Recourse Directorate.
Thank you all for joining us today. Many of you are with us again as returning witnesses, and we thank you for that.
Minister LeBlanc, I now invite you to provide your opening remarks. You can begin whenever you are ready.
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc, P.C., M.P., Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs: Senator, thank you. I’m like the Boy Scouts; I’m always ready.
Thank you, senators, for having me here again. Thank you for introducing my colleagues from the portfolio who are with us. I’ve prepared about a 45-minute introductory set of comments and look forward to the conversation and exchange with senators.
[Translation]
As I was saying earlier, I am pleased to be with you today to speak to Bill C-20.
This bill fulfills a long-standing commitment to improve the RCMP’s complaints and review mechanism, and establishes for the first time a civilian review body for the Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, through the creation of the Public Complaints and Review Commission, or PCRC.
As some of you will recall — and you mentioned it yourself, Mr. Chair — efforts to establish an external review body for the CBSA began in the Senate, with the introduction of two bills in 2014 and 2015.
Our government then introduced bills in 2019 and 2020, which died on the Order Paper and would have made changes similar to those in the bill before us.
[English]
This bill builds on the government’s previous legislative proposals and has been refined by the House of Commons committee process into the bill that is before you now.
Bill C-20 will increase the diversity of the Public Complaints and Review Commission, or PCRC, members to ensure the commission reflects the population it serves; increase transparency and accountability through additional reporting requirements to Parliament; extend the PCRC mandate to RCMP reservists; reinforce the autonomy of the PCRC — that’s the new public complaints and review commission — by providing it with more discretion within its mandate; provide the first statutory basis for the reporting of race and demographic disaggregated data about complaints; and increase accessibility to the complaints and review process.
The bill reflects what we’ve heard from reports, experts — including, as you mentioned, Mr. Chair, the work done by this chamber for over more than a decade — and communities that have had significant interactions with both the RCMP and the CBSA.
Moreover, as senators know, our government has budgeted an additional $112.3 million to ensure that the PCRC has the resources it needs to fulfill its important mandate.
[Translation]
The bill responds to a long-standing call by academics, civil society organizations, the Senate, as I mentioned, and Indigenous groups for the creation of an independent review body for the CBSA.
It integrates recommendations made by the chairperson of the current Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP.
It also reflects the recommendations of the Nova Scotia Mass Casualty Commission report.
It responds to a 2022 Federal Court decision that imposed stricter deadlines for the RCMP to respond to the commission.
It also responds to the recommendations made by the jury of the Office of the Chief Coroner of Ontario in the inquest into the death of an immigrant detained by the CBSA.
[English]
Honourable senators, this is a thoughtful, carefully crafted bill. A long time ago, I lost the illusion that we should claim legislative perfection, but we think it is an important piece of legislation that has existed in various iterations for a long time now. It fills the remaining gaps in our law enforcement civilian review framework. After the incorporation of some amendments, as I said, from the House standing committee, this bill received unanimous support in the House of Commons.
Civilian review is an essential element of public trust and confidence in the rule of law. As I look around the table, many senators have considerably more experience in understanding the nuance of something as important as that than I would, but I hope you’ll agree with me that this civilian independent review function is very much critical to a healthy democracy and to the confidence that Canadians have in their police forces and the Canada Border Services Agency. I’ve said, including recently at a depot with senior members of the RCMP, that if you think about countries in the world where the public doesn’t have confidence in the national police or in law enforcement organizations as important as border services, those aren’t countries, I think, that any of us would want to live in. Canadians expect and deserve consistent, fair and equal treatment when interacting with the RCMP and CBSA, and they expect an effective accountability mechanism when this treatment is questioned.
I hope, senators, through this conversation, we can discuss ways that this legislation will improve the current circumstance. Of course, I look forward to working — as do my colleagues in the government — with members of this committee and with your chamber. Some of my colleagues from the department are here all evening. I think you’ve ordered supper for them around six o’clock. It’s very nice that on a Monday evening you’re able to have so many of them here for so long. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, minister.
We will now proceed to questions. There will be four minutes for each question, including the answer, so I ask my colleagues to keep your questions short in an effort to allow as many interventions as possible. I offer the first question to our deputy chair, Senator Dagenais.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Looking at the proposed operation of the commission, there are procedures similar to a judicial process. We are talking about access to information, time limits for obtaining information, possible challenges, and so on. For the citizen who files a complaint, can you tell us what the reasonable time is to obtain a decision? Will that person embark on a process that will take years and perhaps cost a fortune in legal fees to face the machine and make a point?
Mr. LeBlanc: Thank you for the question, Senator Dagenais. You’re absolutely right. We see circumstances across the country where legal processes can be very costly and often result in delays. If we are thinking of a complainant before the court, you are absolutely right to raise this concern, which will have to prompt discussion among you regarding the commission.
Mr. Koops or others will be able to give more technical details, but one of the things I found when I read the bill is that it gives the commission a way to hold more informal hearings. It is up to the commissioners to decide, while protecting the right of the person who will file a complaint, to ensure that the process undertaken is consistent with the commission’s decision and doesn’t result in that kind of delay or cost. However, there may be other circumstances that are more technical, where the person will arrive with lawyers to begin a process that is more important than an informal hearing. However, in terms of the time frame, I don’t know if there are specific time requirements for processing an application.
Mr. Koops, would you like to add anything?
Randall Koops, Director General, International and Border Policy, Portfolio Affairs and Communications Branch, Public Safety Canada: For processing a request in the first instance, there are deadlines that are now included for the RCMP or the agency to respond to the commission. As the minister said, the commission will always have the right to follow less formal processes. My understanding is that most complaints handled by the commission are dealt with through a fairly informal process, but the commission will have at its disposal powers equal to those of the federal courts. This includes the laws of evidence and the privacy regulations of complainants where necessary.
Senator Dagenais: Mr. Minister, we know that your government sometimes makes small deviations from budget projections, which aren’t always very accurate. Can you tell us what the total budget will be for this new organization? How many people will it need to be effective?
Mr. LeBlanc: Thank you for the question. I don’t share your surprising criticism of our government’s budget process. It’s enormously surprising that you believe this to be the case.
I can tell you that we have allocated $112 million for the current fiscal year. I think it’s $19 million on a recurring basis. We’ve been working with the current RCMP commission. We believe, based on a conversation the department had, that this is an appropriate amount to give important tools while respecting the importance of taxpayer dollars. That’s a key priority for our government as well, Senator.
Senator Dagenais: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.
[English]
Senator Cardozo: Thank you, minister, for being here.
I want to take a moment to thank you for the last time you were here when we were dealing with Bill C-21. One of the things we had raised — my colleague Senator Anderson had raised it — was the absence of Chief Firearms Officers in the three territories. We talked to you then, we talked to the officials after, and then we kept in touch with your offices — myself, Senator Anderson, Senator Yussuff and others. I’m pleased to say that outside the legislative process, you still responded to those and made those three changes. I’d like to chalk that up as a job well done for the Senate in some sense that it was a point that the House had missed, we caught it and you responded. I thank you for that.
I have two questions on the bill. First, does it cover contracted services? I’m thinking particularly of GardaWorld and others who provide a fair amount of service. Are they under this, or are they still free of oversight?
Second, there are stories every now and then that come out. I’m thinking of the atrocious report just from the last few days — I believe it was in B.C. — of dreadful things that happened within the force of the RCMP. At the end of the day, you think, what’s the purpose of a complaints mechanism when this kind of thing is so flagrant and atrocious? Does it even matter?
Mr. LeBlanc: Senator, thank you for the question, and thank you for the compliment. You’re right, and I thought that was a positive exercise between our government and this chamber. Thank you for identifying that.
With respect to GardaWorld or some contractor — and Randall will correct me. I don’t want to mislead you because it is technical. I see your colleague to your right is nodding, so I hope I have this right. My understanding is that any agent employed by the CBSA — for example, one of those private contractors — would also be covered by this process, and for the RCMP, not in terms of civilian members, as that’s more in terms of the police function. If I got that wrong, Acting Commissioner Larkin can correct me. I take your point, senator, that there shouldn’t be a way to do indirectly what you can’t do directly in terms of ensuring that transparency, accountability and reliability in terms of a process would also apply to agents contracted by the Canada Border Services Agency in particular.
I took note of your comments, senator, and of the comments of my friend, the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General of the Province of British Columbia. Mike Farnworth had some comments that I took note of with regard to that particular circumstance in British Columbia. You will understand I’m loath, when a process like that is under the appropriate investigations — and to your point, having a robust civilian independent complaints commission should provide Canadians with the confidence that the remarkable men and women who step forward to represent the RCMP and the CBSA do so in a way that respects the values and ethics of the organization.
I have a lot of confidence in the work that the RCMP and CBSA do, and the leadership of these organizations is here with me to tell you that they too think that the confidence of Canadians is enhanced by this exact kind of legislative measure before the Parliament, and now before the Senate. In my conversations with them, I have been encouraged by how they welcome this appropriate, statutory, stand-alone legislative measure — they will certainly speak for themselves later in your proceedings — recognizing the importance of what you said, senator, and recognizing the importance of allowing a circumstance as we saw in British Columbia to be appropriately investigated and the facts to be determined. This kind of review agency is very much part of that conversation.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: As you know, Mr. Minister, I had the privilege of replacing our mutual friend Senator Mockler as chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. Last week, we studied the votes of certain commissioners, namely the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner and the Information Commissioner of Canada. Both commissioners complained about a lack of budget, which has resulted in a delay in law enforcement, delays in investigations and a loss of confidence in access to information for public servants and the public. They weren’t kind to your government; I could send you the blues for some weekend reading, but they were pretty frank comments.
We also heard some concerns about this particular bill, and I have to believe that they are valid. The National Police Federation, the Canadian Bar Association and the Customs and Immigration Union have all expressed concerns about the impact of this increased workload, about the delays and about the financial resources that will accompany it all. With the experience we have had with these commissioners who serve the public and who lack the funds to do their job, what guarantee do we have that this organization will have the funds it needs? If I understand correctly, you did a cursory evaluation, but this organization may have a multitude of complaints and a greater workload. What guarantee do we have that individuals and commissioners will have the money available to do their job properly?
Mr. LeBlanc: Thank you for your question, Senator Carignan. I completely share your concern, which you expressed quite logically and appropriately. I wouldn’t be happy, nor would anyone around the table, if we found ourselves in this situation with the new commission, with all the goodwill and all the promises offered by this independent organization established in accordance with the legislation.
You referred to certain officers of Parliament, and I took note of that as well. These officers often complain that the demand for their interventions and services is not represented in the form of a budget allocation. I will take note of that comment.
I have great confidence in the briefings I’ve had with my department, the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency. The current chair of the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, which currently exists, has indicated that its operating budget between fiscal year 2023-24 and 2026 has increased by almost 50%, namely by 49%. That’s a 50% increase for the current organization.
In an ideal world, there would be no complaints. The hope is always that the number of complaints will decrease. We agree with it in that context, but there’s a need, for the reasons already stated, to have this function established. The additional $112.3 million in the fiscal horizon was added because of the new bill. In addition, as I mentioned, there is a recurring amount of $19 million. If, unfortunately, we see that the number of complaints and the workload are increasing, it will be up to another government, perhaps our government once we’re re‑elected — Senator Carignan, I know that this is what you very much want — it may be up to us, three years from now, to find that more resources are needed. I’m sure that we and other governments will take these needs into consideration.
Senator Carignan: We’ll have to go to church to light the same votives, but not with the same wishes, I can assure you.
[English]
Senator Omidvar: I find myself in the unfortunate position of having to be at two committees at one point, so thank you for your indulgence.
Minister, this bill has been promised to Canadians for, I would say, nine years. This is the third kick at the can. What’s at stake for this bill at this current time, in this Parliament, in this political context?
Mr. LeBlanc: Senator, thank you for the question, and thank you for the work you’ve done in this place to support Canadians and to improve legislation. You’ve served honourably in a way that has improved the legislative process in the country. I think it’s important to acknowledge that. I’m happy to do so. Your work with my department, with me and with my predecessors on this piece of legislation is also very important.
You’ve identified, senator, what I tried to say in my opening remarks, conscious of the respect that we should have for the legislative process. We don’t know how long this particular Parliament will last. I’m certainly hoping — I know Senator Carignan must share that as well — that we are here until a fixed election date in October of next year. In the very unfortunate circumstance that that wouldn’t be the case and this Parliament would be dissolved, we would miss, senator, as you said, an opportunity, and this is on our government. We had a piece of legislation that died on the Order Paper when the 2019 election was called and then when the subsequent Parliament was dissolved as well. Perhaps that Parliament, in the context of COVID, was more complicated, but the legislation did die a second time on the Order Paper.
I think Canadians, for the reasons I said and that your colleagues expressed very well, would benefit from the confidence of knowing that there is a modern, stand-alone, statutorily created independent commission that can receive these complaints from the national police force and, for the first time, the Canada Border Services Agency. I don’t think Canadians understand the important national security and law enforcement role that the CBSA plays every day in every part of our country. I’ve learned a lot about the great work that the CBSA is doing and has done. I think we don’t understand instinctively the importance of this organization and the very broad powers they have in protecting Canadians, but also, therefore, the obligation to have the appropriate independent civilian review, as the RCMP has had for a long time. It is a gap, and I hope this legislation will correct that. The genesis of that started in this place over a decade ago in 2014 and 2015 in your Senate public bills, which I think are our private members’ bills.
Senator Omidvar: It was former senator Wilfred Moore who did that.
Mr. LeBlanc: A great Nova Scotian and former deputy mayor of Halifax.
Senator Omidvar: I hope he is listening.
You spoke about perfection and imperfection. That is the nature of legislation. This bill has been improved considerably in the other place. Amendments have been voted on and approved in the House of Commons. What would your response be to improvements made by the Senate?
Mr. LeBlanc: I certainly understand the spirit of the question.
From my colleagues that worked on the committee in the other place and, certainly, from the conversations of the Cabinet Committee on Operations that I chair and where Senator Gold is a standing invited guest at all the meetings, we tried, on our side of the process, to incorporate the reports of this committee and other Senate work that had been done. We tried to — Senator Gold can speak to this more than I could — have a collaborative and inclusive process.
Senator, I wouldn’t purport to try to tell this place how to handle legislation, but we have to be honest with ourselves. Who is responsible for this circumstance? There’s probably enough blame to go around everywhere. However, we are facing a potentially short runway with a unique opportunity to make a very significant improvement in this area. To make perfection the enemy of the possible at this particular moment, in my judgment, though I don’t suppose to substitute that judgment for yours, would be unfortunate. A subsequent Parliament could look at this legislation and improve it at some other moment as well. We seem to have a small window, and it is certainly my hope that collectively we’ll find a way to make it work. Thank you for raising that.
The Chair: Thank you, minister.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you, everybody, for joining us today. This is greatly appreciated. I am paring down questions because I do want my colleagues who are guests to get their questions in also.
This new commission has the power to ask for documents and records in their investigations, though the law enforcement agencies can deny these requests as long as they give reason. It is my understanding that, at this moment, that under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, a refusal to disclose privileged information may be referred to a former judge for independent review.
I have two questions on this. Will this remain unchanged in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act if this bill passes? Will a similar provision exist for the CBSA if they refuse to disclose documents?
Mr. LeBlanc: A very good question, senator.
I’m learning something at this committee that, perhaps, I hadn’t understood before, but I think the most appropriate person to answer would be the acting commissioner, Bryan Larkin, and if Ms. Maltais wants to add something from the CBSA with your permission, Mr. Chair. Bryan has been looking forward to answering questions, and it would be a shame if we couldn’t hear his booming voice at the table.
Bryan Larkin, Acting Commissioner, Specialized Policing Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: Thank you, Mr. Minister.
Through you, Mr. Chair, to Senator Deacon, yes, you are correct. It would remain. However, our perspective on this is that our philosophy, and quite frankly our belief, is that the public complaints system actually works well and serves the public well when the RCMP cooperates. There would be very unique opportunities where perhaps there is an operational privilege or an investigative privilege where the release of the documents would either be prejudicial to the outcome of the investigation or an ongoing investigation or to ensure procedural fairness in an ongoing matter.
That being said, I want to reiterate that the RCMP welcomes Bill C-20. We embrace it. We believe it will strengthen democracy and civilian oversight of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. In short, there are still some gaps and challenges there. However, it is our belief that we’re much better served when we cooperate. We have a positive, ongoing relationship with the review commission.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you.
For the Canada Border Services Agency, will that provision carry on moving forward? You don’t have it right now?
Mr. Koops: The bill is constructed to provide a balance between the greatest possible access for the commission to information and protections regarding places where the commission should not have access, such as cabinet confidences, national security or some type of solicitor-client privilege. Ultimately, if the commission is not given access to information, the commissioner of the RCMP or the president of the CBSA must provide written reasons for that, and ultimately, the minister could direct the deputy head of either of the agencies, if necessary, to comply.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you.
Just quickly, you touched on the words “national security” just in the end of that answer. Thank you for that, because I wanted to ask you about that. The bill says in clause 52(8):
The Commission must refuse to deal with a complaint if it concerns an activity that is closely related to national security . . .
Can you give me more teeth on the words “closely related to national security” and what that might mean in the way of parameters? If you can’t, fair enough, but I really wondered what that term meant.
Mr. LeBlanc: It is, again, an important question. I’ll offer up what I think might be a partial answer, and my colleagues Randall or Bryan might want to add something else.
In this context, you have the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, as senators know very well, chaired by a former Supreme Court Justice, and the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians as well. There was a recognition of that in the briefings I had and in the conversations around certain sensitive national security operations. I was updated by Deputy Commissioner Larkin on some of the very successful operations in recent weeks in this national security space of the RCMP that their partners did. I think there is a concern in terms of opening that up or tripping over other review agencies.
Do Randall or Bryan want to add something?
The Chair: We’ll go to them later, so we can get through the list. Sorry to interrupt.
Senator Richards: Thank you for being here.
I have some of the same concerns that Senator Deacon has, but I’ll ask maybe this question to Mr. Larkin or Minister LeBlanc, whoever wishes to take it on.
Of course, we all know the revelations of the RCMP in B.C. last week and the utterly odious conversations they had in a chatroom about people, some of whom were asking for their aid, which is kind of deplorable. Because of the very job they do, I am wondering how much of this over the years could be part of the reason for this display of utter callousness and if it’s a symptom of anger and PTSD. If it is, will this commission ever be able to insist upon and review psychological aid for these RCMP officers or police? Having seven people in my family who are either law officers or judges, I am very interested in getting this bill right. Thank you.
Mr. LeBlanc: Senator, thank you. I know your sister was the Associate Chief Justice of the provincial court in our province and served in a remarkable capacity there.
I know from work that I have seen in the National Police Federation and the leadership of the RCMP — you talked about psychological services and mental health services — that it is an extraordinary challenge for the RCMP and other law enforcement organizations. There has been, I think, a very important investment both in services and in the appropriate way to support the women and men doing these jobs, but also in the understanding and the acceptance that this has to be part of a modern law enforcement agency. I am reassured by a focus on some of those mental health supports that you identified.
With respect to the particular circumstances, and I share your very real concern, senator, about what we saw, perhaps Bryan could provide a perspective from the RCMP itself.
Mr. Larkin: Thank you, Mr. Minister.
Through you, chair, thank you for the question.
Let me begin by reiterating a discussion that the commissioner and all senior executives had on Friday when the 2019 story became public. It is simply unacceptable. The comments are abhorrent. They are upsetting. The reality is that, obviously, our members do difficult work and in difficult circumstances; however, such behaviour is inexcusable. I want to recognize that there is procedural fairness, and this matter actually does return to a code of conduct hearing in February of 2025. You are aware that our organization is seeking dismissal. We take these matters extremely seriously. Since that time, we have done a lot of work internally around our culture, managing wellness and supporting our members, dealing with staffing and other challenges. The comments are simply undefendable. We take these matters very seriously.
One of the things this bill will allow for is systemic reviews. As you allude to around whether or not there are different challenges coming out of public complaints, or a nexus or reference to the challenges of the workplace and the issues our members see, that would potentially be an opportunity to look at systemic reviews of our organization.
I reiterate that it is concerning, to the point that, on Friday, Commissioner Duheme issued a complete broadcast across the organization denouncing and supporting the ongoing work we’re doing culturally, reminding all of our members of the code of ethics, our commitment and ethic values we have been recommitting to and reaffirming in partnership with the entire Government of Canada over the last 12 months.
Again, sincere apologies to all Canadians. However, I want to also recognize in this particular case that our code of conduct and discipline process is working. We’re holding these members accountable. That being said, there is procedural fairness. I’ll stop my comments there. Thank you.
Senator Richards: Thank you.
Senator Yussuff: Thank you, minister, and all of you, for being here.
Under clause 65 of Bill C-20:
All of the findings and recommendations that are contained in the Commission’s final report . . . are final and are not subject to appeal to or review by any court.
The question I have is: Should the bill be amended to allow for judicial review or appeal proposed by the PCRC and, if not, why not?
Mr. LeBlanc: Senator, thank you for the question. It is an important one.
I, too, took note of that particular provision. Again, these are technical elements of administrative law. Who is the final decision maker? Randall can provide you with a precise answer on that.
Mr. Koops: It is part of the design principle. It flows from the design principle that the commission is not a final decision maker. The commission makes recommendations to the minister. The commission makes recommendations to the president of CBSA and the commissioner of the RCMP. The deputy heads of the organizations ultimately make and implement decisions on the basis of those recommendations. In the interests of building a review system that is rapid and as flat as possible, if you will, interposing a layer of potential judicial review on a recommendation that is not the final determination of the matter is inconsistent with the principle of speedy review and with the idea that it should be the final decision maker in the form of the deputy head or, on certain occasions, the minister, who are subject to judicial review, rather than a body that simply reviews the matter and has the authority to make a recommendation but has no authority to make binding decisions.
Senator Yussuff: Let me continue with that.
Essentially, given the time we have waited for this piece of legislation in regard to holding these two institutions accountable for actions and behaviour, now we have a commission whose only job is to make recommendations. Somehow you think that is adequate, rather than to ultimately say this is the finding and what we expect you to do.
Ultimately, what Canadians want to see is that we have a mechanism that will hold these two agencies to account. For the most part, both CBSA and the RCMP, the majority of staff, do an exemplary job. We don’t need to have any complaints. There is time and again where you have seen the behaviour of a small group of people within the organization that has breached some of the most fundamental principles of fairness in our democracy and under our Charter.
Now, we are expecting a commission which we are layering here with responsibility, but its only responsibility is to make a recommendation. How are we supposed to have confidence this will give Canadians what they are expecting after such a long time waiting for this piece of legislation to happen?
Mr. LeBlanc: Senator Yussuff, thank you for that question.
You acknowledged some of the alarming examples that we have seen. I was reassured by Deputy Commissioner Larkin’s answer in respect to Senator Richards’ question. We should all take comfort from the acting commissioner of the RCMP addressing that one example that came up earlier. That, to me, was important.
My understanding, senator, is it is a fundamental principle of accountability, that we’re not seeking — first of all, in the current RCMP civilian complaints commission process, last year, 88% of the recommendations were enacted. I don’t think we should leave the impression that the commission in the case of the current RCMP civilian complaints commission — there is a circumstance, again, where the commissioner is accountable to me in terms of his work leading the organization. There is a public accountability.
As I said, the notion that the public supports the national police or the Border Services Agency is something I hear from the leadership of those organizations all the time, and the importance of maintaining that public trust. Obviously, if you have a circumstance where an independent commission with significant resources and robust procedural protections comes to recommendations that are then not implemented by the executive responsible for holding those people to account, then the trust of Canadians they want to honour wouldn’t be validated.
I understand your question, senator. I have confidence, first of all, that the recommendations and the work this commission does will be robust and important. I would think the people who head the Border Services Agency or the RCMP would be well advised to take the work seriously. I have every confidence that is the case being done.
Ultimately, the president of the CBSA or the commissioner of the RCMP would be accountable in terms of their own discipline process. We wouldn’t want, inadvertently, to delegate that to an independent commission without understanding the administrative law requirements that would be uncovered by making that change.
Senator Boehm: Thank you, minister.
I would like for you to extrapolate on Senator Yussuff’s last question. As a former bureaucrat, I know it takes a long time when you have a machinery change, or any change, to really get organizations working together. As I recall, serving in Washington at the time of 9/11, our own CBSA was set up quickly because the Americans had set up a parallel department at that time, Homeland Security. What are your expectations as the minister in terms of the level of collaboration and cooperation that you would want to see now that a complaints commission is going to be set up? I know lots goes on. This adds another level of urgency, and I would say accountability, to both the RCMP and Public Safety.
Mr. LeBlanc: Senator Boehm, thank you for the question. I’m happy to see you this afternoon.
When you say “collaboration,” you are talking about as between the agencies, or between the agencies and the commission itself?
Senator Boehm: Three ways.
Mr. LeBlanc: With the commission being one of the three‑way partners.
Senator Boehm: Yes.
Mr. LeBlanc: A fundamental question, and you are right.
I reflected. The Border Services Agency creation was very much as a result of the Homeland Security Department created following 9/11 and the congressional commission. I had a conversation with Secretary Mayorkas, who is responsible for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and it is certainly an issue that is occupying some attention in the United States now. He was telling me the origin of that in his own context in the United States. I am pleased you raised that. I thought that was interesting.
My instructions to the president of the CBSA and to the commissioner of the RCMP, assuming this legislation gets to Royal Assent, will be to collaborate very quickly and very efficiently, recognizing exactly the challenge, Senator Boehm, you identified in terms of creating a new organization and the machinery changes. The good news is that there is a continuity built into the legislation where the current chair in the RCMP civilian complaints process will serve until the new commission is appointed.
I’m also a minister assigned to the Privy Council Office in another function. The deputy minister there who handles governance is someone I see regularly. I want to ensure they are working with the leadership of the RCMP and CBSA in as efficient a context as possible.
Assuming this legislation is able to get to Royal Assent, Canadians would not understand why, “X” number of months or years later, either the government hasn’t appointed the commissioners — that’s on us, the GIC process — but the agencies, as you heard from the deputy commissioner, are anxious to have this legislation in place. I will be relentless in encouraging them to be as efficient as possible. It is in all of our collective interests to get this stood up as quickly as possible.
Senator Boehm: Thank you.
Senator Patterson: I’m going to follow up on Senator Deacon’s and Senator Richards’ questions in terms of privileged information and particularly subparagraphs 17(f) and (g) as it relates to medical information. You have other departments out there that have people who work in very unique environments like this. When we have wholesale access to the medical information, because they go down to access, in whole or in part, a full medical file, meaning clinical files, particularly about mental health, I have to be curious as to how the Privacy Act is going to change to do that and how CBSA and the RCMP are going to be able to monitor it. We have examples where that wholesale access to someone’s medical files by a commission, without constraints clearly stated, can be a deterrent for members to seek mental health care.
Mr. LeBlanc: Senator, thank you for raising that.
That would be, as you say, a very sad irony for members or the people who work for CBSA that I have met, as I said in an earlier answer, and who understand the importance of being able to do their important work in a healthy way if we directly or indirectly created a disincentive for them to seek the help they need, the professional medical help. It is a medical circumstance like any other medical circumstance, and you don’t want to create, for a bunch of historical reasons, some of the hesitation in that regard. That would make them unsafe, it would make their colleagues unsafe, and it would make the country less safe if that were perpetuated.
In terms of the protections around specific sensitive medical information, Randall can perhaps provide you some detailed answers, and if not, Bryan looked like he was looking for some notes too, so maybe he could as well.
Mr. Koops: Senator, protection of personal information and protection of medical information and the robust framework to do that were very much among the initial design principles. If you would permit us, we can come back with the specific provisions for you after the minister has left the table, if you would like, and discuss them in more detail then.
Senator Cotter: Thank you, minister, for being here.
I support the bill, and I am pleased to see the expansion, refocus and modernization of the approach, but I have a question that I think it is a big question of philosophy that I want to put to you, and I want to put it in two parts. It is not a trap so much as an explanation for the bigger question.
The bill presently empowers the commission to continue to perform primarily a review function, reviewing RCMP and CBSA investigations of complaints, as opposed to primarily an investigative function by an independent agency. This puts significant demands on the RCMP and will on border services people. My first question is, how many person years has the RCMP had to dedicate to investigating its own members, and how many person years will that be the case for border security people?
The reason I ask that question first is that this review approach in relation to policing and border services is increasingly at odds with the approaches being taken across the country with respect to oversight of police-based agencies. Michael Tulloch did an extensive review in Ontario — he is now the Chief Justice of the Ontario Court of Appeal — that endorsed and validated more of a model of independent investigators. The chiefs of police of Saskatchewan lobbied me, when I was in a different capacity, and the Government of Saskatchewan to establish an independent agency with respect to serious matters because they were being overburdened by the needs of serious investigations. Also, investigators tend to be less expensive than RCMP officers person for person, so you get lower costs, firstly; secondly, you enable RCMP officers and border security professionals to do what they are trained to do, not investigating other police people but doing the work of policing and keeping the peace; and thirdly, by that model you get away from the concern widely held that the police are investigating the police. Why wouldn’t we have gone with a model that is heavily investigative rather than so heavily a review approach?
Mr. LeBlanc: Senator, those are very important questions.
With respect to the number of officers at CBSA or RCMP, person hours or the way one measures that work, we don’t have that information here, but I will absolutely undertake to get that quickly to the committee in terms of current amount of RCMP resources, or even CBSA, as they currently internally investigate these matters. I would be happy to have that shared with the committee as soon as possible.
Senator, your question, I thought, was very thoughtful in terms of the different philosophy between a review agency and an independent investigative agency. You summarized it in a way that I wouldn’t have been able to do. I have noted from some of the recent tragic circumstances that the RCMP has had, including in your province and others — obviously, in the case of a death of someone at the hands of police, there is, and appropriately so, a whole independent review. That has been for a long time an investigation conducted by an external police force. I think that is an important comment or important distinction.
Randall, do you want to take a crack at the senator’s question in terms of a review agency versus an initiator with an investigative function? Maybe Bryan could as well. It’s a very good question, and I want to ensure you get the right answer. I don’t want to improvise one.
Mr. Koops: It goes very much to the first design principles of the body as presented in the bill, and that was that the body was not intended to undertake criminal investigations and was not intended to present matters to the Crown. It is not intended to be a substitute for provincial SIU, ASIRT or one of the types of bodies that —
Senator Cotter: I don’t mean to interrupt, Mr. Koops, but I’m talking about complaint investigations. The model and trend in Canada is toward independent agencies doing complaints investigations, not solely criminal ones. That philosophy seems to run counter to the trends that were recommended by, for example, the Chief Justice of Ontario.
Mr. Koops: This body would have the authority to undertake complaints investigations. It could undertake them in the first instance if it were in the public interest to do that. That discretion rests with the commission.
In the case of matters that involve a potentially criminal offence, serious bodily harm or death, the agency against which the complaint is brought would be obliged to refer those matters to the local police and to put that properly into the hands of the police of the jurisdiction. That serious incident framework is contained in this bill for CBSA. It mirrors the serious incident framework that is already contained in the RCMP Act with the one distinction that CBSA are never the police of local jurisdiction, so it is not necessary to deconflict a hierarchy of police jurisdictions.
Mr. LeBlanc: Bryan wanted to add one other example in terms of sexual assault.
Mr. Larkin: Thank you, Mr. Minister.
Through you, Mr. Chair, I think the notion of independence is extremely important. In certain ways, our findings do go to the current CRCC that reviews our findings and recommendations. I think that about 80% of the time they agree with our investigation. There is an element of independence.
Your comments are well undertaken. As Randall alluded to, that wasn’t the thrust of this dialogue and discussion, but I want to reiterate for everybody that in every province, any criminal incident or allegations of sexual assault are investigated by an independent body. From there, depending on the findings, that would actually result in an RCMP code of conduct investigation. We would await the determination of that investigation, those findings, and we would undertake it. But your premise, Senator Cotter, is well understood.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: I will conclude with another bill that has to do with the Canada Border Services Agency and the Consumer Privacy Act and the treatment that Canadians may receive when crossing the border into Canada. It’s Bill S-7, which was introduced in the Senate in March 2022 and referred to the House of Commons in October 2022, and has been at first reading ever since. Is the government really interested in protecting the privacy of Canadians?
Mr. LeBlanc: Again, I don’t know all the details. I know that there was a court decision, but I don’t want to make things up.
Senator Dalphond: There are two, in Alberta and Ontario —
Mr. LeBlanc: Absolutely.
Senator Dalphond: — that have invalidated the current system.
Mr. LeBlanc: I’ve sat in on some of the discussions in cabinet committees, so my colleague, the Attorney General and Minister of Justice, could answer your question.
I’ll be happy to make sure you get this information; I don’t want to improvise an answer.
Mr. Koops, do you have anything to add?
[English]
Mr. Koops: As you said, senator, the bill was sent to the other place. In the meantime, there has been a series of litigation on the point and some recent decisions that the government will take into consideration about how to proceed.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: Doesn’t it make it urgent for the government to pass legislation that would have national standards that would apply across the country, instead of having a fragmented system, where there’s Alberta, Ontario and the other provinces?
Mr. LeBlanc: It’s a challenge, to be sure, with the current Bill S-7. The challenge isn’t unique to this jurisdiction. “Patchwork quilt,” “fragmented system,” pick the words you want, it’s often your province that insists on these differences.
I understand, in the context of a bill on privacy in criminal law, that this is exactly what you don’t want.
I’ll make sure you get a fuller answer than I could improvise here.
I see that your chair is telling us that we’re moving on to another phase and that you’ll have to hear from my colleagues, who will be at the table for a long time.
[English]
The Chair: Very well read, minister. Thank you very much.
Colleagues, this brings us to the end of our time with the minister. Minister, thank you for spending the time with us and for your forthright answers to some very testing questions. You carry big and impactful portfolios on behalf of us and Canadians across the country. You’ve alluded to just another one today, and we thank you for that and for the work you do. On behalf of my fellow committee members, I would like to thank you for that and wish you all the best going forward. We look forward to seeing you next time at committee.
Mr. LeBlanc: Senator, thank you for your kind words. Perhaps the next time could be more of an informal nature. I’m doing something in half an hour with colleagues from the House of Commons committee. I’ve invited them to come and have beer and pizza at my departmental office on Laurier Street. It’s not like your Speaker’s dining room or the food that might be served there. Senator Dean, I would welcome an opportunity in the coming weeks to be able to have an informal conversation. I’d be happy to host you for beer and pizza at Public Safety Canada. I’d also be happy to accept an invitation from your Speaker to come and have dinner with any of you who would be interested in an informal occasion. I hope we might find an opportunity in the coming weeks before we get too far into this session. I’m doing it with some colleagues from the other place, but it might be an interesting opportunity to be able to do it with interested colleagues from this place. I’d be happy to work with your office on an appropriate way to do that.
The Chair: Minister, thank you.
Senators, officials from the CBSA, RCMP and Public Safety Canada have agreed to stay and answer your questions. In the past hour, we have heard from the Honourable Dominic LeBlanc, Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs. We will continue our question period with officials from Public Safety Canada, the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency.
Senator M. Deacon: I’m going to jump back to what I was talking about earlier to give you the opportunity to elaborate on the term “closely related.” We were talking about dealing with a complaint if it concerns an activity that is closely related to national security and the parameters that may shift around that. I got a sense that there was perhaps a little more commentary to offer.
Mr. Koops: Thank you for the indulgence of a few moments so that we could go and check that we have all the elements complete for an answer.
The overarching design principle of the bill is that the commission will not operate in the national security realm because Parliament has recently put two other bodies in place to do that in the form of NSIRA and NSICOP. The bill provides that the commission does not have access to national security information, but it also provides that there can be no overlap between it and NSIRA and provides that there is no gap between them. That means, in effect, that the bill then provides that the two bodies must take all reasonable measures to cooperate with each other. The PCRC must refer national security matters to NSIRA. As Bryan said, the review machinery works best when organizations work together. Ultimately, on those principles, it would be expected they would deconflict.
There is no definition — you’re correct — of national security information in the bill. There are different types of national security information that appear in the bill and different classes of information, but those are not defined in the NSIRA Act either. In large measure, they come down to practice and experience. It would be difficult to define them given the delicate and changing nature of those kinds of information.
The bill provides that the commission and either agency or the commission and all three may enter into MOUs on how to deal with this type of information, again, consistent with the principle that it is best when they do this on their own volition. Ultimately, the Governor in Council also has the authority to make regulations to delineate the referral of complaints between them and delineate the treatment of information that comes into the hands of one that is best dealt with by the other.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you.
I have just one more question. I think it’s nice when we have Canadians asking us questions and are interested in bills and different scenarios. The question I’m asking is in response to a conversation I had.
Clauses 52 and 38 put a number of restrictions on who can file a complaint and what kind of complaint can be filed. It’s my understanding that third parties could file a complaint, but, for instance, clause 52(1)(b) lists a gauntlet of exceptions to this. A simple hypothetical question was asked: If I am on a sidewalk and I see an RCMP officer dealing with someone on the street in what I thought was maybe a rough or an unsafe manner, would I be able to file a complaint on their behalf?
Mr. Koops: Anyone could file the complaint. The discretion would rest with the commission as to whether it would take the complaint. The discretion that has been given to the commission is to ensure that the commissioner is not inundated with complaints from persons who are not directly involved, who may not have a stake in the outcome, who may have observed something on television, heard something third hand or drawn a conclusion from something that was seen in social media. Ultimately, though, when it is within the jurisdiction of the commission, the commission has the discretion to determine if it wishes to proceed with a complaint or not — full discretion within its mandate, tightened discretion around the limits of the mandate.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you for answering that on the record. I appreciate that.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: My question is for Mr. Larkin.
We know that Canada is a big place. Complaints can come from anywhere. Let me repeat your question. How many people within the RCMP will it take to cooperate in responding to complaints? What will the budget be? Do you think that the expenditures will be made only internally within the RCMP, or do you have to budget for external experts, such as lawyers to defend your police officers?
Mr. Larkin: Thank you, Senator Dagenais. Mr. Bangloy is responsible for everything related to our force. I’ll pass the question on to him. He will make the request today. The timeline will also change from one year to two years. We don’t know the impact of this.
Mr. Bangloy, do you have any information on the service demand?
[English]
Alfredo Bangloy, Assistant Commissioner, Professional Responsibility Sector, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: Thank you for the question.
As I understand it, the question was with respect to whether we would require further resources to conduct the investigations.
Under the current process, my understanding is that they would continue with the new agency. The majority of the complaints are investigated by front-line RCMP police officers in the various provinces, and that would continue under the new legislation. There may be an increase in resource requirements, given the extension of time for filing a complaint from one year to two years, so we would have to assess that as things develop. However, one would imagine that most people who want to complain would likely complain within that one-year time frame, so we’re not sure whether or not that would have an impact as far as the increase in the number of complaints. I hope that answers your question.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: My next question is for Ms. Maltais.
Ms. Maltais, the Canada Border Services Agency isn’t covered by the current Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP, but that surely doesn’t prevent citizens from challenging some of your actions.
Could you tell us what internal changes your inclusion in this new complaints process will bring about?
Will you have to refresh your staff training to accommodate this new complaints commission? Will you need to provide additional training for your staff?
Cathy Maltais, Director, Recourse, Canada Border Services Agency: Thank you for the question, Senator Dagenais.
We have a complaint-processing system at the Canada Border Services Agency that’s been in place since 2011, with standards that we believe are quite robust. The client is contacted within 14 days, and the investigation is completed within 40 days 80% of the time, when possible.
As with the RCMP, it’s the front-line management people who will do the training — when that’s where it happens. There will definitely be more training with the changes to the act, because there will be exchanges with the commission. Right now, it’s just done at CBSA. We respond to the client, and that’s it. In the context, there will be the commissioner, and people will have the opportunity to go to the commission and say, “No, I’m not satisfied.” There are things in the act that are changing, such as notifications.
There’s no doubt that an adjustment needs to be made. The 14 days and the 40 days will obviously change, because there’s something else involved. However, managing complaints is in the job description of all management within the Canada Border Services Agency; it’s nothing new.
It will be enough to adjust the techniques to ensure that we really respect all the points. I’ve been working on this for five years; I’m working with the commission and the RCMP to take advantage of what they’ve already put in place. We’ve already improved our procedures and built systems to be ready to work when the bill is passed.
Senator Dagenais: Thank you very much, Ms. Maltais.
Senator Carignan: My question pertains to the minister’s ability to ask a former judge to review the national security considerations.
Currently, if the RCMP refuses to disclose information on the basis of national security, the minister may ask a former judge to review the matter and issue recommendations, under section 45.41 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act. Under this process, that option is gone. If the RCMP or CBSA is of the view that the information would have an effect on security, such that it would hinder or compromise national security, the information is not disclosed. A mechanism like the one currently in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act has not been provided for in the bill. Why has it been removed?
Mr. Koops: You’re right, senator, it’s not part of this bill.
The legislation is based on the principle that the agency deputy heads will have the ability to make their own decisions as to whether the privileged information is made available to the commission, instead of the matter being referred to a judge in a similar situation.
The deputy head of the agency is required to provide the reasons for their decision. The commission can follow up with the agency or the minister. However, it is true that the bill currently before you does not include another layer of review involving a judge or other oversight mechanism for such decisions.
Senator Carignan: Why did it exist before, and why is it being removed here? Was the judge review mechanism removed because it didn’t work well?
As I see it, limiting the options available to the commission or complainant is the opposite of transparency.
Mr. Koops: To my knowledge, the mechanism was never used, so it wasn’t necessary, and my colleagues are confirming that. As my colleague explained, the relationship with the complaint review ecosystem works much better when it is based on cooperation and collaboration.
However, I do want to point out, senator, that the Governor-in-Council always has the ability to make regulations related to the disclosure of information. If need be, the Governor-in-Council can make regulations establishing rules for the sharing of information by law enforcement agencies with the complaints body.
Senator Carignan: My other question is about clause 69, which reads as follows:
The Chairperson must, in determining whether to make a recommendation under section 67 or 68, take into account the prescribed factors.
That refers to disciplinary measures. What are the prescribed factors? Where are they?
Mr. Koops: The prescribed factors will appear in regulations made by the Governor-in-Council, in accordance with clause 80. They aren’t in the bill currently. It’s one of the areas where the Governor-in-Council has the ability to make regulations to establish a level playing field, so to speak. In doing so, the Governor-in-Council will have the flexibility needed to respond to changes in the operational environment linking the commission and the agencies.
[English]
Senator Patterson: I would like to follow up on my question about how you plan to manage medical information, particularly because the Privacy Act is quite restrictive in those terms.
Secondly, it talks about the access to information in full or in part. I need to understand what a commission of non-medical people would do with a whole medical file, knowing that, according to how it’s written, they would have access to that. How do you protect the privacy of the people? This is in connection with procedural fairness for officers of the RCMP and the CBSA. How is this going to impact on the Privacy Act? I ask because there would have to be changes.
Mr. Koops: The design of the regime around privileged information is consistent with the protections that are afforded that information under the Privacy Act, but in this case they are tailored with additional protection and specificity.
Medical information is, as you pointed out, identified specifically as a form of a class of privileged information. Privileged information is the most protected information in the complaints process. The House of Commons amended in the case of the RCMP specifically that medical information includes mental health information. The process by which that information might be brought to the commission is that the commission would have to request it. The agency deputy head could make a determination as to whether or not to provide, and if not, to provide reasons for that.
The bill provides for MOUs between, again, the agencies and the commission not only on what information will be exchanged, but in the case of privileged information, there is a specific provision for MOUs related to the principles and procedures of protecting that information. It is also subject to regulations in section 87(c).
The protections that are built in around it are found in several places in the bill. In clause 24, you’ll find that there are explicit protections around the use of that information by a third party — explicit prohibitions, rather. At 26, there are limits on the use of that information; it must be consistent with the purposes for which it was collected. And at 27, explicit provisions on disclosure. These are all similar to what is found in the Privacy Act for general personal information but in this case are adapted to the specific needs of this context. Finally, I would note that at clause 91, there is a specific criminal offence to disclose privileged information that has been brought to the commission through the course of a complaint.
My colleagues from the commission might be better able to explain to you in the following hour, though, how they use that information when it comes into their possession in the course of an investigation.
Senator Patterson: Thank you.
Senator Richards: Thank you again for being here.
The question that I have is similar to Senator Patterson’s question. I’m wondering whether or not they have information about certain mental conditions of certain police officers. If the police officer’s actions are now in front of a commission, it is rather late to have the body of psychological evidence. The commission has not experienced, let’s say over a ten-year period, how some form of psychological health must be impaired to certain RCMP members because of trauma or PTSD. I’m not taking the side of bad actors in the RCMP, but I am simply saying that a commission that is delegated to handle this might not have any idea of what this RCMP officer has experienced over ten years, and to get his psychological profile after the fact is like closing the barn door after the horse has left. I’m wondering how the commission will handle that, or will they handle that?
Mr. Koops: Senator, with your indulgence, I think that might be better answered by the commission in the subsequent hour with respect to — I don’t have firsthand knowledge of what types of medical information would be disclosed to them. I don’t know if the RCMP has any observations to make about that from their practice in handling complaints from the force’s side.
Mr. Bangloy: Nothing within handling complaints. However, within our discipline process, it may be raised by the subject member’s counsel in his or her defence. Sometimes there is expert testimony as well, as whatever is relevant to the subject member’s defence of whatever actions he is being subject to discipline for.
Mr. Larkin: Through you, Mr. Chair, it is certainly an important comment. I agree with my colleague Mr. Koops that the commission will likely have a greater explanation of how they manage that sensitive information.
I appreciate your comments around the trauma, and some of the behaviour we see at times is often an undercurrent of other challenges and issues and would be a mitigating factor. I think it is about finding the proper balance. As Assistant Commissioner Bangloy alluded to, that would be something we consider as a mitigating factor in all of the decision within the organization, including the way we do work.
Again, we continue to navigate new thresholds as we look at employee wellness and our culture, and it is important that we don’t lose sight of the importance of continuing to support our members. Policing is a very challenging, difficult profession. No doubt, over the course of 30-plus years, it does take its toll on one’s behaviour and/or outlook on society. That doesn’t negate that we do not accept and tolerate certain behaviours, but at times it can be a mitigating factor. I look forward to our organization cooperating with the commission on how we manage and navigate that. As we alluded to, there are opportunities for memoranda of understanding on how we share information.
I want to reaffirm our commitment to seeing the success — if this legislation is successful, the commitment of Commissioner Duheme and the senior executive is to actually embrace and strengthen the ongoing work that we are doing. We feel this will have really good, positive outcomes on the trust of Canadians around the level of service we provide.
Senator Richards: Thank you.
Senator Boehm: I think this question is for Ms. Maltais. Last May, this committee reviewed Division 39 of Part 4 of Bill C-69, the Budget Implementation Act, and it was a very emotional session here. During this review that we undertook, several witnesses raised concerns about the absence of an oversight body in the context of the operation of so-called immigration stations within federal correctional facilities, including for detaining higher-risk individuals for immigration-related reasons.
With the passage of this bill — and, of course, this other provision has been passed and is in effect — would individuals detained for immigration-related reasons be able to file complaints against CBSA officers working in federal correctional facilities? What specific and concrete steps would be taken to ensure that there is timely handling of these complaints? How do you propose to adjust your internal processes? Presumably, you’ve already had the implementation, but would this require an additional adjustment?
Ms. Maltais: They can, definitely. Today, any detainee can complain about CBSA conduct. The same will extend wherever they are. I know there are still discussions ongoing about where that happens, but yes, under Bill C-69, detainees can absolutely complain about CBSA conduct. There is also a requirement in Bill C-20 for CBSA to advise the detainees of their rights of complaint. They would be advised how to do that as it is generally done today where they are detained. Yes, we would be prepared. We do it today. They do complain today when they want. It is also sometimes through the NGOs that they complain. They don’t always complain themselves. That would also be afforded to them, in my understanding, at those immigration stations that we call.
As for the timeliness of it, the complaints, in my understanding of the legislation, would go through the commission, and the commission will then move them over to the CBSA. It would follow the same timelines as it does today. Our timelines today are pretty quick. With the addition of a commission, we’ll have to see the additional steps that are in place.
Senator Boehm: Very good. The only question that you didn’t respond to — and it is probably the most difficult one — will this mean you need more budget and more staff?
Ms. Maltais: I can’t speak to that for Bill C-69 because my bread and butter is Bill C-20 —
Senator Boehm: If and when Bill C-20 is implemented, would that mean that you would need more resources?
Ms. Maltais: To manage complaints? We do today. It is management’s responsibility to manage complaints within their current job descriptions. There is funding attached, as was discussed by the minister earlier, that will help CBSA set up, for example, systems to communicate with the commission. We need to provide training, and we need to oversee reviews and that kind of thing. There will be some funding available. We’ll have to see, when operationalized, how that comes out and if it is enough or not.
Senator Boehm: Thank you very much.
Senator Cardozo: I wonder if you could take us through the transition and the setting up of a new commission. I am looking at Part 8 of the bill, clause 113 and onward, which says the Governor-in-Council will set a date. Let’s assume that the Governor-in-Council sets the date as January 1 of next year. What happens at that point? I understand the commissioners stay in place, and the files that are active are transferred over to the new commission. Of the commissioners who are in place currently, do their terms go beyond, let’s say January 1, and will it be a continued staff, or will there be new commissioners coming in? Do you have to train staff of the commission to deal with the complaints that will come from CBSA? Are they different than what you currently get from the RCMP? Will the RCMP and the CBSA be training people to deal with a new act? Sorry, that is a lot of things. There are a number of details about transition.
Mr. Koops: I’ll fall back again, if I may, on an answer based on the design principles around the bill. They were to provide for the greatest continuity in transition.
In the case of the RCMP, all existing complaints carry on. All existing other procedures carry on. The appointments, the terms of the existing Governor-in-Council appointees to the existing commission, carry over to the new one. The right of people to make a complaint to the commission does not begin or begin anew with the creation of the new commission. It is not extinguished by the demise of the old commission.
It’s a little bit different in the case of CBSA because there is no existing independent review. In the case of CBSA, you will find that complaints can be made retroactively, so once the commission is brought into being, and this is true in the case of the RCMP as well, retroactive complaints can be brought to the attention of the commission. I assume that CBSA requires training for its staff on how to deal with the agency. I assume the agency will require training as well. They are probably best placed to answer that one.
Senator Cardozo: I wonder if Ms. Maltais could talk about the training you are planning for your staff.
Ms. Maltais: Like I mentioned earlier, we already manage complaints, so overall there is already a complaints process at the CBSA. We will have to have more technical training on the different pieces that the legislation adds to our current process and, for us at headquarters, the exchange of information with the commission and the exchange of complaints. There are a number of different steps that will be in play that do not exist today. It is more about, I’m going to say, the information that we will have to disseminate to everybody on how to update the process. We have been updating over the past five years so that we have less and less to do once the legislation does go through.
Senator Cardozo: Another quick question: Is it your view that the commission has more work to do in terms of complaints, especially around systemic racism and systemic sexism that pervades some of these agencies?
Mr. Larkin: Well, certainly from an RCMP perspective, Bill C-20 will allow for those systemic reviews. We welcome the external and independent review. Our organization has been subjected to a number of external reviews. In particular, I think one of the values of this is when you look at the annual reporting and trends in patterns of public complaints, it will provide the commission an undercurrent on which to operate and run a series of systemic reviews which would be of value to the organization in either course-correcting or addressing cultural challenges within the organization or, quite frankly, updating training practices and/or professional development opportunities within the organization. We believe that is one of the bill’s strengths, providing that independent ability for the commission to do such work.
Mr. Koops: If I may, senator, the bill as a tool also includes, as the minister said, the first appearance in the federal statute book of references to disaggregated race and demographic data. It will allow the collection and reporting of information about identities of communities, whether they be racially or otherwise identified, to the minister and to Parliament for the first time in a systematic, organized, consistent way. The entire reporting cycle to Parliament will be enriched with knowledge of the experience of communities in encountering police and law enforcement, particularly those communities that have endured relationships with law enforcement entities that are not founded on trust. It provides a tool that Parliament can use to hold the minister to account and that the minister can use to greater effect to direct the efforts of the agencies to combat systemic racism and to ensure that law enforcement services are responsive to the needs of all communities that they are serving.
The Chair: That is an important addition.
Senator Yussuff: I have two questions. One is to follow up on my colleague Senator Boehm’s question. It’s in regard to Bill C-69 and Division 39 about the housing of detainees for immigration purposes in federal facilities. He asked you specifically about complaints against CBSA officers. Now, we did understand in the studying of that bill that other agencies such as private agencies will also be contracted to provide service, and that could be GardaWorld or other security agencies. Would Bill C-20 also encompass complaints against individuals working for the federal government in those facilities? Would they be subject to complaint by the commission?
Ms. Maltais: There is work ongoing right now between Correctional Service Canada and CBSA to find out which mechanism will be the most appropriate because there are timing issues with Bill C-20. If Bill C-20 is not in before that is in, they’ll need to ensure there is another mechanism in place to cover all those complaints. There will be something in place, 100%. The question right now is: Which mechanism will they use? That’s not my specialty. That’s the Bill C-69 experts that are looking at that. Definitely, it does encompass those complaints, and it does today. We work with GardaWorld employees right now who work for CBSA, and those complaints would be covered under CBSA employees, to be able to complain about them in our current detention centres.
Senator Yussuff: In addition, this bill is going to be relatively new legislation. Obviously, it’s trying to accomplish many things in regard to oversight. What is the ability of Parliament to review this legislation after a reasonable period of time to ensure it is effective and that it is achieving the objective that, again, has been long sought after by many agencies but also individuals who have been arguing that we need this oversight and we needed it a long time ago?
Mr. Koops: Senator, the bill doesn’t specify a period for review. It leaves it open to Parliament to do that as it sees fit. The bill includes many expanded reporting requirements, however. The annual reporting to Parliament by the commission will include an obligation as recommended by the Mass Casualty Commission of Nova Scotia and other expert bodies that it must account for what it has done with the recommendations made to it by the commission. The minister in turn presents that to Parliament, so there will be, annually, a richer, deeper and more detailed reporting to Parliament not only about what the commission has recommended but also what the agencies have done with those recommendations and where they are in implementing them.
Senator Yussuff: As parliamentarians, to ensure that this new agency is going to function in a way that is appropriate and to get the results we are looking for, and I would imagine that we will decide that on the committee, would it be appropriate for us to recommend that, of course, this legislation be reviewed within a reasonable time to ensure it is effective and achieving the objective that has been stated?
Mr. Koops: I wasn’t sure there was a question for me as an official there.
Senator Yussuff: It was a general question, I guess. From our perspective as parliamentarians, we have been hearing about, of course, the need to have an independent review body of this nature for quite some time, and previous colleagues on this committee have done that. We have done that over the period of time I have been on this committee. It would be appropriate for us to assess the need for a review of the legislation after a reasonable time.
Mr. Koops: As an official, senator, I can assure you we take very close note and pay very close attention to the observations that come from Senate committees when they report bills back to the chamber.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Something that was added when the bill was before the House of Commons was to allow a third party to make a complaint, at clause 33. What constitutes a “third party” is not defined. Given that the term isn’t defined, what might the consequences of allowing a third party to make a complaint be, in your view? It could cover a lot of people. The idea of having a particular interest isn’t necessarily addressed. I’d like to hear your thoughts on that.
Mr. Koops: Including third parties and allowing them to make complaints under the provision addresses a specific concern: people wanting to make a complaint, particularly against the RCMP, tend to be in rather vulnerable situations, so they don’t have enough confidence in the system to file a complaint against the police on their own.
For that reason, it was helpful to expand the process to involve civil society groups so they could help potential complainants file complaints.
The commission nevertheless retains its discretion, as per clause 52. The commission still has the ability to decide whether or not to accept the complaint. The clause lists certain factors, including whether the complaint is from an individual who is not the curator of the person at whom the conduct was directed, an individual who did not see or hear the conduct, an individual who is not the person at whom the conduct was directed, an individual who has not been given written permission to make the complaint, or an individual who has not suffered loss or damage as a result of the conduct. Yes, third parties will have the ability to make a complaint, but the commission will still have the ability to refuse to deal with a complaint within the full scope of its jurisdiction.
Senator Carignan: I understand, but clause 33 says that “[a]ny individual or third party may make a complaint.” It doesn’t say that the third party’s role must be as the affected party’s representative. It worries me when you say the commission could refuse a third party’s request on the basis of vested interest. If the third party has such an interest, you’re saying that the commission could… At that point, it’s no longer a third party. It’s a party, period.
Mr. Koops: You’re right, but what the change does is open up the commission’s access a bit. At the same time, the commission’s authority to decide what to do with the complaint remains intact.
Senator Carignan: Shouldn’t there be a definition of a third party?
Mr. Koops: It’s not defined in the bill.
Senator Carignan: I know, but the bill is before us now, and it’s our job to do things like that, to propose amendments to bills.
Mr. Koops: I don’t think it’s necessary since the commission will always have the ability to refuse to examine the complaint if it is of the view that doing so is not in the public interest.
Senator Carignan: All right.
[English]
Senator Patterson: I am going to ask a general question. I am making the assumption that members of CBSA and the RCMP can also make a direct complaint to the commission. But, in reality, I’m aware that you are officials. I would like to know — especially from the RCMP and CBSA — if this bill were to pass, what benefit do you see for Canadians and for members of your respective organizations? How will this improve the environments in which they work and Canadians’ trust?
Mr. Koops: I can take the first one while they reflect on the second one.
The short answer is that yes, members of both organizations can bring a complaint. It is not intended to be the workplace complaints review body, but a member could bring a complaint about conduct that they witnessed by another member or another employee.
Ms. Maltais: What it brings to Canadians is that this is a gap for CBSA, 100%. While we do have a public complaint mechanism in place, we do not have a second level. We do an investigation and we give a disposition to the complainant. If they are not satisfied, it stops there. There is definitely a gap that this will bring to them and not just to Canadians, because at CBSA, we deal with people from across the world. Anybody can complain. If they are not satisfied with the response from CBSA, then they can move on to the commission and be able to have them take a different look at it — a second set of eyes.
For CBSA, I think it supports that as well. Now, we’re doing complaints, but there is no validation to confirm that we are right or wrong. If we have an external review to say that you could do this better or that better, it will provide benefit to all of us. It will give us other recommendations and other sets of eyes on what is happening.
Mr. Larkin: Thank you, Senator Patterson.
This is not unique. We have been operating in a complaint commission relationship for some time. However, we believe that Bill C-20 provides opportunities for increased accountability and transparency, which are the foundations and hallmark of public trust and confidence in institutions, particularly in policing. The RCMP provides police services to a diverse population over a wide stretch of geography across our country, which is very different than larger urban municipalities.
One key fact is that the demographics and race-based data collection coincide very well with the internal work we’re doing on our calls for service and interactions with Canadian citizens on race-based data collection. That provides great opportunities for looking at patterns, trends and different opportunities to increase knowledge about systemic, institutional bias within our organization. That is significant. Allowing for this commission to do independent systemic reviews is also an enhanced opportunity. It is important in the world of policing. The work that we do is involved in risk and conflict with citizens. We don’t arrive on the best days of Canadians, so this creates a system of enhanced accountability within our organization. It aligns nicely with the work that we have been doing, but the value for Canadians is actually in relation to trust in democratic institutions in a time when that is of the utmost importance. Thank you.
Senator Cardozo: I have a quick question with regard to clause 37(2), investigation of complaints by RCMP. It notes that the RCMP or agency must not commence an investigation of the complaint if the commission has notified the commissioner or president that a complaint is under way already. Could you just explain the case and if that is a normal process of operating in these kinds of situations. My concern is that if the new commission takes a long time to review the complaint, might it not be quicker to deal with it in-house? But according to this, in-house will not be possible.
Mr. Bangloy: This provision exists in our current legislation and would allow the commission to conduct the investigation themselves where they may have determined it is in the public interest to conduct it themselves, and there are certain circumstances where the RCMP welcomes that because of the perception of the RCMP investigating itself. It doesn’t occur very often, but it is a provision that would allow that to happen.
Senator Cardozo: It notes that the RCMP would not commence an investigation if the commission was doing it already.
Mr. Bangloy: This would be to avoid a duplicate investigation because they had decided that they would handle the investigation. Sometimes they receive complaints and the RCMP investigates, and that investigation would be subject to review by the CRCC, but in this case, the CRCC would have decided to investigate the complaint themselves, so we would not investigate it.
Senator Omidvar: I have quick clarifying question for Mr. Koops, and it is based on Senator Carignan’s question about the capacity of the commission to refuse complaints from third parties. My understanding, and please correct me if I am wrong, is that the commission can only refuse complaints from third parties when that third party does not have the permission of the complainant who is not able for various reasons to make the complaint.
Mr. Koops: That would be one of the principal grounds. There are others identified in the act as well.
The Chair: Colleagues, this brings us to the end of our time with this panel. We have kept our witnesses here for a long time. I would like to thank our colleagues from Public Safety Canada, the RCMP and the Canadian Border Services Agency. Mr. Koops, Mr. Larkin, Mr. Bangloy and Ms. Maltais, thank you for taking the time to meet with us. I certainly can’t overstate the importance of the work you do for us, for the Senate of Canada and for Canadians across the country. You carry a heavy weight of responsibility, and it’s important that you be recognized for that. I thank you on behalf of all of us for the positive difference you make every day, and on many evenings I understand as well. Thank you for that.
Colleagues, we will welcome our final panel, the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP. From the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP, we have Michelaine Lahaie, Chairperson; Joanne Gibb, Senior Director, Strategic Operations and Policy Directorate; and Lesley McCoy, General Counsel.
Thank you very much for joining us this evening. I understand that Ms. Lahaie will deliver opening remarks on behalf of the CRCC, so please proceed whenever you are ready.
[Translation]
Michelaine Lahaie, Chairperson, Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP: Good evening and thank you for this opportunity to speak to you today.
Bill C-20 will expand the current mandate of the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission — or the CRCC — creating an independent, civilian-led review body for the CBSA and the RCMP.
[English]
As I have previously remarked, the CRCC is well placed to undertake an expanded role based upon our 36 years of experience in civilian review of law enforcement and our expert knowledge of the intake of complaints and review process.
Furthermore, the CRCC has already been conducting systemic investigations of the RCMP for 10 years, leading to significant changes in RCMP policy, training and programs. Some examples include workplace harassment in the RCMP, RCMP policies and procedures regarding strip searches and the RCMP’s bias-free policing model.
[Translation]
The CRCC has also conducted numerous public interest investigations into complaints, such as the RCMP’s investigation into the death of Colten Boushie and, more recently, the dooring incident in Kinngait, Nunavut, involving an RCMP vehicle.
[English]
Since becoming chairperson of the CRCC in 2019, I have increased the transparency of the commission by requiring that summaries of all complaint review reports be posted to the CRCC website.
Reviewing public complaints is a critical aspect of our mandate. It allows the commission to independently examine the complaint and make findings and recommendations to the RCMP, where appropriate.
By building on this experience and expertise, the new public complaints and review commission, or the PCRC, will have a solid foundation in which to take on additional review of the CBSA.
This bill will establish robust enabling legislation for the PCRC through a stand-alone statute, unlike the CRCC’s current mandate which is derived from the RCMP Act.
[Translation]
As chairperson of the CRCC, I welcome the amendments made to Bill C-20 following the study by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.
[English]
These amendments further enhance RCMP and CBSA accountability and reflect some recommendations made by the CRCC, including due consideration by the Minister of Public Safety of diversity and inclusion when recommending appointments of PCRC members; increasing the PCRC’s ability to conduct systemic investigations by providing more discretion; collecting and reporting on demographic data in addition to race‑based data regarding complaints; and the requirement to provide reasons for withdrawing a complaint.
Overall, I believe Bill C-20 is a strong bill. It will provide a much-needed, independent public complaint and review mechanism for the CBSA, including a systemic investigation mandate, while also enhancing RCMP accountability.
Statutory public education on the complaint process, due consideration of diversity in PCRC members and the collection and reporting on demographic data, among other enhancements to the mandate, will serve to strengthen public trust in these two critical institutions.
[Translation]
I am hopeful the Senate will see through the adoption of the bill.
I am pleased to answer any questions. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation, Ms. Lahaie. We have a long list. Senator Dagenais, you’re leading us up.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Thank you, Ms. Lahaie. As you know, I used to be a police officer. I was with the Sûreté du Québec for 40 years. A number of police oversight bodies exist in Quebec: the independent investigations office, the disciplinary committee, the office of the commissioner for police ethics and so on. Your commission is on that list as well, but nobody can be against virtue.
That said, I’d like the benefit of your experience to consider the resources that will be allocated to the new commission. When the process of accessing the information gets complicated, how long on average does it take you to submit your report on a citizen’s complaint, and have you ever run into roadblocks in the course of your investigations?
Ms. Lahaie: Thank you for your question, senator. When we talk about time limits for completing cases, it depends on all the circumstances that may arise. Most of our complaints are sent to the RCMP for investigation, which must be completed within six months. Once the investigation is complete and the report is sent to us, the complainant has the right to request a review. This review should take about 120 days — that’s how our system works right now. We produce our report. If we’re satisfied with the RCMP’s response, it’s a satisfactory report. If we’re not satisfied, we send it to the RCMP Commissioner. It’s up to him to review it to determine whether or not he agrees with our recommendations. He has to send it back to us within six months, and then we produce our final report within 30 days.
When we talk about information, I would tell you that when the commission was born in 1988, there were obstacles to obtaining information, but the commission was brand new. More recently, we haven’t encountered any major obstacles from the RCMP. Often, it’s a matter of how long it takes to find the information. In general, it’s going well at the moment.
Senator Dagenais: When we talk about the information you don’t have access to, we’re establishing benchmarks that didn’t exist and that limit the powers of the new commission. Are you comfortable with what public servants and the government have established as information that cannot be communicated? Is it too restrictive for you? Finally, to what extent do access-to-information bans limit your investigative work, which must be complete and transparent?
Ms. Lahaie: At the moment, I don’t have any concerns about the bill in terms of access to information. As the last panel mentioned, what’s in the RCMP Act hasn’t been used to date. I’m not worried about that. We’ll manage to get access. If not, there are other ways to get this information.
Senator Dagenais: Thank you very much, madam.
Senator Carignan: I was reading in your annual report that only 38% of final or interim reports were produced within the 120-day deadline, and a number even exceeded six months, 94%. In 2020-21, it was 28 months. We’re creating a new organization, adding to its mandate, and its mandate will probably be more public, so this will generate complaints. We see this at the Senate: there are sometimes mass movements, we receive industrial quantities of letters and these are organized movements. Certain movements could file complaints to bog down the commission. At the very least, you’ll have to study them to see if they’re frivolous. Are you concerned about the risk of concluding investigations and providing findings within a reasonable timeframe of 120 days or six months?
Ms. Lahaie: In fact, this is one of my constant concerns. It’s the reality of what we’re going through. It’s about looking at our processes to see if we can make changes to speed things up. One of the things we don’t know with this bill before you is how many complaints we’ll get about the CBSA. That’s an unknown. They already have an internal process, but when there’s an outside agency looking into these complaints, it gives the general public more confidence. When you open the doors — because they’re already open — you change. When the new commission takes office, we’ll have to look at the number of complaints we receive. If we find we don’t have enough resources, that’s when we’ll have to ask for more.
Senator Carignan: Are you hopeful you will get new resources? History tells us that it’s quite difficult. When the new bill was tabled, Ms. Maynard, Canada’s Information Commissioner, was told she would have resources. She said in an interview that she had been naive to believe the government. That’s the word she used. Do you think you have mechanisms in place to ensure adequate funding to prevent this from happening?
Secondly, there are also consequences. I’m a lawyer and a member of the bar. When there’s a complaint to the disciplinary or ethics board, forget about running for judge. You can’t move forward until the complaint is resolved. As a result, in the case of a police officer who is the victim of, or affected by, a complaint, his or her career is on hold while the matter is dealt with. So there are negative consequences. I’d like to hear what you have to say about this.
Ms. Lahaie: As far as resources are concerned, there are already mechanisms in place. As you’ve already heard, in 2022, the commission went looking for more resources, precisely because we didn’t have enough. The number of complaints increases every year, and we didn’t have enough resources. We managed to make ourselves heard. We got what we asked for. The processes are in place. We’ll have to watch very carefully what happens, how many complaints are filed and whether it works. Our processes are corrective. It’s not a process where a police officer is the subject of a public complaint and it will have a negative impact on his or her career. Rather, it’s a negative process aimed at helping the member resolve the situation and making changes to policies, training and procedures. It’s not a process where someone’s life is on pause for a period of time.
[English]
Senator Cardozo: My question is about the transition but let me start by asking, over the last few years, what have been the major challenges in doing the work of the CRCC in terms of dealing with the cases and complaints? Every organization has challenges; I’m sure you’ve had some. What are the areas where you’ve had challenges and have not been able to overcome them? That’s number one.
Number two, I look at this bill, and what it’s doing is doubling the workload of the agency in a sense. How do you go about training for that — hiring and training to get up to speed? When do you think you would be able to fulfill the mandate and deal with the workload that comes with two agencies?
Ms. Lahaie: I would say that over the course of my mandate, one of the biggest issues that I dealt with early on was this concept of a lack of transparency for the commission. We were often called upon for our lack of transparency because we weren’t sharing our information. When you looked at the commission’s website, it appeared as though we were only doing one investigation, not really doing anything else. We fixed that by becoming more transparent. In fact, you’ll see reports in the media talking about our different reports now. That was a big call on us.
Another thing that we encountered was the lack of response from the RCMP, which ultimately led to a case where the BCCLA took the RCMP to court. In the judge’s ruling, it stated that a reasonable time limit for responding to one of the commission’s reports is six months. That was an uphill battle for us because, in some cases, we were issuing final reports of complaints that had been submitted by the complainant—- I think the worst case I saw was seven years earlier because these files were sitting in the cabinet at the RCMP. To the RCMP’s credit, they have rectified that issue now, and every single commissioner’s report comes inside the six-month time limit. If they are not going to make it, they let us know and they indicate why. Those have been the biggest challenges.
In terms of looking forward, we are looking at not quite doubling the size of the commission staff, but it will be close to that. I’m looking at anywhere between 65 and 75 employees. We do have a lot of work to do in terms of recruiting and in terms of training those individuals, particularly because CBSA is a different organization than the RCMP, but we have a plan in place to get there in terms of the things that we need to focus on. We know what the qualifications are of the individuals that we need to recruit, so that is a big piece.
The other piece that I’m sure is of no shock to you is that we’re in the process of trying to do some IT procurement because our current case management system is not fit for this new purpose. We’re trying to procure that. That is a long process, and it can be difficult. We’re working through that.
I would say ideally, once the bill achieves Royal Assent, we need 12 to 18 months before we can truly open our doors and undertake this work.
Senator Cardozo: And will complaints go into two separate sections for the two agencies, or is it going to be an integrated system?
Ms. Lahaie: At the front door, when people are complaining, it will be integrated, but when it comes to reviews or investigations, then we will obviously have individuals that are more specialized to deal with some of those issues, particularly surrounding intricacies dealing with immigration law and those sorts of things.
Senator Cardozo: Right. Thank you.
Senator Boehm: Ms. Lahaie, the questions that Senators Carignan and Cardozo asked were mine. They just had a chance to ask them first. But I wanted to expand on that, and thank you for the candour that you are giving in the answers.
We are not the only country in the world that has a federal police force. In some places, there are subnational entities as well as there are here. CBSA is a relatively new organization. I asked the minister basically the same question, but I’m going to give it a bit of a twist. In your deliberations in terms of how to deal with this legislation when it gets passed, have you looked at other jurisdictions, at other countries that are Five Eyes partners or any other countries in terms of best practices or any lessons that they may have learned? Do you have any equivalence in other countries and jurisdictions that you could talk to?
Ms. Lahaie: We did look around, and to be honest, we didn’t find a great deal that was going to be greatly helpful. You went and looked at that specifically with your team.
Joanne Gibb, Senior Director, Strategic Operations and Policy Directorate, Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP: The thing with oversight of law enforcement, whether it be police or borders, is that it is not standardized across the countries or across provinces, so there are differences.
One thing we noted was when the U.K. Border Agency received an independent complaints body, within five years, the number of complaints they received doubled. That’s certainly something we looked at and something we are contemplating, the tidal wave that may come our way.
In the past, we have spoken with the U.S. Inspectors General to see how they do their investigations to better understand. The takeaway from that was that the model that we currently have and that will be replicated by this bill and improved upon is actually, in my view, way superior to what the Americans have. They don’t take public complaints about a bad attitude. Unless there is a civil rights element, they won’t take it. We look at a lot of other aspects that are more granular and that affect Canadians and travellers on a day-to-day basis than the Americans do. I welcome them to come and study our oversight model.
Senator Boehm: In your planning and modelling, are you anticipating a surge of complaints?
Ms. Gibb: Yes.
Senator Boehm: You are? Okay.
Ms. Gibb: Yes. We are of the view that when the public has trust in a complaints system, they will use it. Although people say, “Well, it would be nice if there were no complaints,” well, actually, then it would be perfect behaviour, and we’re all humans and that is unlikely to happen. If people believe in the system and understand it, they’ll utilize it.
Senator Boehm: How do you plan to publicize the system so that they will believe?
Ms. Lahaie: The new law has provisions in it making public education mandatory. We are currently looking at our public education plan to determine exactly how we’re going to do that.
Senator Boehm: Thank you very much.
Senator Richards: Thank you for being here.
I think Senator Yussuff asked this question earlier to another panel. The complaints may be filed directly with the RCMP, the CBSA or with the commission, and complaints regarding the RCMP can also be filed with the provincial authority responsible for reviewing complaints. I’m just wondering, might this become a bureaucratic boondoggle where the complainants themselves can get lost in all this mirage of authorities? Every province would have its own separate juridical system of control here. Will the commission itself oversee all these other organizations to see that this is being done right and properly?
Ms. Lahaie: At present, about 98% of complaints against the RCMP are filed with the commission and the other 2% are filed with the RCMP.
We have very deep and enduring relationships with all of the provincial police oversight partners. We meet together once a year. The commission hosts a heads of agency meeting where we all come together. We established a no-wrong-door policy amongst us. If one of the public complaint bodies say in Saskatchewan receives a complaint about a member of the RCMP, they know how to get to us, and that can be forwarded along to us.
I wouldn’t say that it is perfect, but the fact that we are working well together and collaborating seems to mean that the complaints ultimately get to us. It sounds like it can be bureaucratic, but really, it is about opening the doors to make it as easy as possible for complainants and to make it accessible.
Senator Richards: Most of the complaints that go through the provincial jurisdiction across the country will end up on your table sooner or later?
Ms. Lahaie: As long as they are complaints about our RCMP members.
Senator Patterson: I’m going to follow up on my questions about protection of medical information and how the commission actually uses that information given the fact that you are not looking to have a medical diagnosis or excuse the behaviour, et cetera. How do you protect the privacy of medical information so it doesn’t unduly prejudice the person under investigation? Do you see enough protections for the actual respondent in a complaint?
Ms. Lahaie: In my almost six years at the commission, I have never sought medical information on a member of the RCMP. My two colleagues who have been at the commission much longer than I have also indicate that they know of no case.
The only time we will see medical information is if, during the course of the public complaint investigation, the member decides to disclose that information in their own statement, because the commission doesn’t go and proactively seek that information. Having said that, we do have systems in place for information that needs to be protected, and we can do that, and we’re very strict about the need to know with regard to these things.
Interestingly enough, more often than not, the medical information we receive is from complainants where they share what impact their encounter with the RCMP has had on them.
Senator Patterson: Thank you.
Senator Cotter: It is a pleasure to see you here, Ms. Lahaie. I should share with fellow senators that Ms. Lahaie and I have an overlapping relationship connected to civilian oversight, and I have had for a number of years. From that perspective, it is fair to say about the CRCC that for the last five years — initially under your predecessor on an acting basis, and you since then — there has been a revitalization of the CRCC. You deserve congratulations for that.
My question is not quite the same as the one I was trying to explore with the minister; it is about the degree to which you have and exercise a kind of independent investigatory jurisdiction. Leaving aside systemic investigations — I’ll ask all three questions, if I may, at once — can you give us an idea of what percentage of the cases you take on yourselves in terms of front-end investigations? Second, will the resources that are being made available to you here under this new regime be adequate for you to make those same kinds of choices of investigating yourselves as opposed to waiting the agency to do the investigation and you conducting reviews? Third, when you do make those choices, can you give us a rough idea of the criteria as to which ones you are happy leaving with the police agency, or in this case, the border security agency, and which ones you would feel that the commission should lead on?
Ms. Lahaie: In terms of your first question, the number of investigations that the commission takes on itself is probably less than 5% of the complaints. To put a finer point on it, we receive over 4,000 complaints a year. I would say that it is less than 5%.
For the resources, as I have indicated before, we really need to see how many complaints we’re going to be receiving about the CBSA and the nature of those complaints. I would suggest that it is not a judicious use of commission resources for the commission to use its own investigators to investigate a complaint about a CBSA member who has a negative attitude. If somebody has a negative experience at the wicket or the CBSA officer is having a bad day, that is not a judicious use of commission resources. Many of the complaints that we receive are of that character.
In terms of what we take on to investigate ourselves at the commission, it is based upon the public interest, but it is not the public interest of the situation; it is whether it is not in the public interest for the RCMP to investigate itself. If you look at the Colten Boushie file, which was a big file for the commission, the commission expanded that investigation, but it was not in the public interest for the RCMP to investigate it so the commission stepped in and did that.
My view is that the commission should be speaking for people who cannot speak for themselves. That has been the approach the commission has adopted over the past few years. I spoke about the investigation we did on a young man getting hit by a door in Kinngait, and it was because that was a young man who was not going to speak for himself. We felt that we could bring something to this investigation. That’s what it is. It is for serious incidents. It is not because somebody has an uncomfortable conversation with a member of the RCMP on the side of the road.
Senator Cotter: I would like to ask a small question. I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but it suggests to me that there would be cases where you don’t have a sense that the RCMP would speak for that person, and therefore, you need to, which, I presume, suggests a degree to which people would perceive the RCMP as not as independent as they should be on those kinds of cases?
Ms. Lahaie: Yes, that could perhaps be the case.
Senator Cotter: Thank you.
Senator Yussuff: I have a couple of questions in regard to disciplinary measures, which is clauses 67 and 72. You spoke earlier about individual actions and systemic actions. In my previous life, I used to be the human rights officer for my union, and I always felt that individual actions can be judged. Obviously, it is subjective and is based on the behaviour of the individual, but sometimes that individual action can be a pattern of systemic behaviour within that structure. How is that evaluated? More importantly, how do you remedy that?
Ms. Lahaie: When the commission receives complaints, we track the subject of the complaints. For example, one of the issues coming up frequently, which the commission had looked at originally in its report on northern B.C., was that we were seeing many issues with respect to strip searches. We were making negative findings against individual members of the RCMP, but we were also seeing that there was an issue with the policies, procedures and training that were supporting them. The public complaint process led to a systemic investigation, which has led to a great deal of change in that we are not seeing as many complaints with respect to strip searches anymore. One of the detachments in that report that we specifically mentioned was the detachment in Iqaluit and the number of issues surrounding strip searches. Ms. Gibb and I had the opportunity to go to Iqaluit for meetings on another matter, and we went into the detachment. They physically showed us the changes that they had made as a result of the commission’s report. They had made large-scale changes, and they were keen to show us that it had the impact that it did. Without a doubt, of all of the detachments that we looked at, it was the worst one, and they had made adjustments, so you can see how the public complaint process can lead to us looking at systemic issues.
Another example is that we’re currently looking at the community industry response group in British Columbia. We have received a lot of complaints about the actions of that unit. We are dealing with those individual complaints and also looking at systematically what is behind that unit.
Senator Yussuff: Would it be fair to say that when individuals engage in action that is an affront to their duty and responsibility, they have lost their job as a result? Or are they still in the system and the recommendation is that we need to educate them to make them more aware of their responsibilities and behaviour?
Ms. Lahaie: I’ll reiterate. The commission’s process is remedial in nature. However, the commission has started tracking. On a biannual basis, we provide the RCMP with what we call our multiple public complaints subject members list, which details the number of complaints that individuals have had against them, and I think our threshold is five and above right now —
Ms. Gibb: Three in a year.
Ms. Lahaie: Three in a year. It sends a signal to the RCMP that these are individuals who are being complained about a lot, and they can put it into their early warning process and integrate that information. That is not something that the commission was doing before, but it was something that we felt was so important because we had data that we needed to share with the RCMP.
Senator Yussuff: Moving forward, obviously, there is much greater responsibility, oversight and expectation. Hiring staff is critical in reflection of the diversity of the country and regions across the country. In the context of recruiting people wanting to come work for you, there is great emphasis in the recruitment on the diversity of regions and the ongoing evolution of our country in terms of demographic shifts. I assume this is a priority in the context of the new agency.
Ms. Lahaie: Yes, absolutely.
Senator Yussuff: Thank you.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you for your answers. Some of our questions, I think, are similar, but we’re building on top of each other.
It is interesting. I have been involved setting up and implementing a commission in a whole different sector and work lane, and we are about a year ahead in time, but the language, issues and challenges are just so common from sector to sector.
In the vein of the questions of my colleague Senator Boehm about being candid, I am interested in how you would define your relationship, as comfortably as possible, with the RCMP. I’m just trying to picture what we’re doing with the bill and this legislation. Is it generally one of collaboration and cooperation that continues to improve, or is there anything you would change in the structure of the CRCC that could improve this relationship, and if so, do we see it or should we see it in legislation?
Ms. Lahaie: I would characterize it as a healthy tension. There needs to be that tension. We can’t be best buddies with the organization we’re overseeing, so there is a healthy tension that is there.
Things have moved forward since signing the operations MOU with the RCMP because we have actually articulated how we’re going to work together. I meet regularly with the commissioner. More importantly, as you look at the staff of the CRCC and the staff at the RCMP, my head of communications would say there has been a “zippering” that has happened. It is not just me talking at the top; it is members of the commission’s staff who are talking. That means that should it ever happen that the relationship at the top of the commission crumbles, down below there will still be that groundswell of support that is going to keep us talking to each other. Ultimately, the Commissioner of the RCMP and the head of the commission have the same goals: excellence in policing.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you.
I know you have been here this afternoon. With the last panel, I touched a little bit on some definitions, and I was just trying to clarify a few things. Another one of these definition stories is in clause 52, which says:
The Commission may refuse to deal with a complaint if, in its opinion,
(a) the complaint is trivial, frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith;
I wonder about the terms because none of them are really defined in the bill. Is there a way to appeal if such a complaint was denied based on those criteria? It sounds like it might be up to the commission to determine if the complaint clears this bar or not. I wonder what your thoughts are on that terminology and if you are comfortable with it.
Ms. Lahaie: I’ll tell you that a lot of administrative tribunals grapple with these concepts of trivial, frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith. The commission actually has a public-facing policy that defines these terms and talks about how we’re going to deal with those things. We use that regularly. I don’t know that defining it in legislation would be necessarily a good idea, because my fear would be the fettering of the discretion of the decision maker there.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you very much.
Senator Omidvar: Ms. Lahaie, I have a couple of questions. I don’t know if we will get through them.
You have been the chair of CRCC and will continue to be the chair of the PCRC. Do you predict that there would be a culture shift in your people or your organization when you move from being inside the RCMP to an independent, arm’s-length institution?
Ms. Lahaie: We’re already operating as an independent, arm’s-length institution, but the fact that we have our own enabling legislation doubles down on that. That’s a really important piece.
There will be a culture change within the organization, but that will be because we’re going to be bringing on so many new staff and we’re going to be looking at a whole other agency. I expect that in itself is going to change the culture of the organization to a certain extent.
I have the privilege to lead a group of extremely professional individuals who know their work well, who take it very seriously and who truly see this as a calling. I see the future of the PCRC being exactly like that.
Senator Omidvar: Could you describe to me how many staff you have right now? With the new agency covering both the CBSA and the RCMP, optimally, how many staff will you have?
Ms. Lahaie: We are sitting at about 95 right now in terms of staff. We’re still running the numbers with the new — the funding was established in 2022, so there has been some adjustments to salaries. I am expecting that it will be somewhere in the neighbourhood of 65 to 75 people that we will hire.
Senator Omidvar: New people.
Ms. Lahaie: Yes, new people. We’re looking at everyone’s roles. We’re spending a lot of time looking at the HR process just to ensure we have gotten it right. Again, it is really going to depend on how many complaints we get with respect to CBSA to determine if we are adequately resourced or not.
Senator Omidvar: Based on what I have heard from your co‑panellists, I suspect you need to more than double. There is no parliamentary review built in, but this committee can choose itself to review the bill. Thank you for that answer.
I’m curious about the provisions in the bill for joint investigations with jurisdictions other than Canada. It is the U.S. that we’re talking about in most cases. How will these joint investigations under the new legislation work? The Canadian legislation oversees the behaviour of all Canadians, in this case the officials, including in relation to human rights and privacy. How will that be respected when you are doing a joint investigation?
Ms. Lahaie: I am not really sure on that piece. It is something that we are going to have to look at in more depth. We currently have legislation that allows us to do joint investigations with our provincial partners because different provinces have different police services. At this point in time, the CRCC is the only one that has that joint legislation. For example, when Senator Cotter was in his last role, we couldn’t have worked together on an investigation because he didn’t have that in his enabling legislation. It would really involve seeing if the U.S. were going to put something in play for us to see if we could work together. It’s wonderful to have it in our legislation, but our partners would need to have that same piece.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: Thank you very much for these very informative presentations. You say that you receive about 4,000 complaints a year and that you will investigate 5% of these complaints. The rest are referred to other organizations. People could have gone to these organizations directly, but they come to you. Is this a sign that they trust you more than these organizations? When you send them back to those organizations, do they lose confidence?
Ms. Lahaie: Maybe so, but you also have to give the RCMP a chance to resolve the situation. If it’s an attitude problem, it’s much better for the supervisor to sit down and say to the member, “Look, this is what happened”. They can come to an agreement before we get involved.
There are Canadians who will expect us to do all the investigating, but I would tell you that, in most cases, it doesn’t make much sense to do that, especially in performance cases and not in conduct cases, because that’s often the case. I would say that most of our complainants are aware of our processes. We spend a lot of time educating them about the process too.
Senator Dalphond: You said that adding the agency will be a new challenge.
Ms. Lahaie: Yes.
Senator Dalphond: Do you think this will bring a lot of volume and a different culture?
Ms. Lahaie: I would say that this will bring a lot of volume, but also that there will be some very complex cases. The complexity of some of the cases will allow us to recruit staff who have the right qualities and the right knowledge to do the job.
Senator Dalphond: What is the particular complexity at the Canada Border Services Agency that does not exist at the RCMP?
Ms. Lahaie: It’s really quite different. When you’re talking about someone who’s in custody and then submits a complaint, that’s something we didn’t look at before. That’s the complexity.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Patterson: First and foremost, I want to thank you for the work that you have done. It is so important for confidence in public institutions, particularly in policing and in the future board of security. We also know that this is a rather evil and nefarious world and that there are other actors outside that are looking to exploit trust in institutions to undermine democracy at home. You can be an anti-vaxxer, but how the mis- and disinformation gets going is pretty extreme; it isn’t that you wish to believe or not. You spoke about 5% of these complaints you get. We are very good-hearted people, and we know that these are legitimate complaints that Canadians or others want to have investigated.
This question is probably to Ms. Gibb. When you spoke about other international organizations that you talked to, it is very easy to put in frivolous, vexatious and nefarious complaints to overwhelm a system. First, did you hear anything from the U.S. trying to overwhelm a system of complaint? Again, it will be out in social media and undermine confidence. Secondly, you must review every complaint. It’s what you should do. Do you have mechanisms to feed back if you’re starting to see trends rise in the types of complaints that are coming? Again, they tend to be more extreme as they move forward. Thank you.
Ms. Gibb: When we met with the Americans, there was no discussion about their system being overwhelmed. Again, it’s quite restrictive on who can complain and under what circumstances you can complain.
When the commission does its own investigations based on a complaint, often we will do a bit of background work. We will contact the RCMP. We will try to get more information before the chairperson makes a decision whether to initiate a public interest investigation for that very reason. We don’t want to initiate something only to find out it was trivial or vexatious.
Ms. Lahaie: I will tell you that, over the last few years, we’ve said no to more complaints on the basis of trivial, frivolous and vexatious. We had one individual who submitted over a thousand complaints on Christmas Day this year. We learned something about CAPTCHA, so we’ve put that in place. We had to adjust our system quickly to deal with that. It is the reality of our world. It is what we’re dealing with, but we’re moving forward.
Senator Patterson: We know that most people believe in their complaint, so, therefore, it’s not frivolous or vexatious. One challenge we have is within organizations about the trust that your reviews have at the rank and file of the people. Frivolous and vexatious, I believe, has a legal threshold that goes with it. Do you publish those numbers as well to show the work that you do can’t be dismissed?
Ms. Lahaie: We put it in this year’s annual report, for sure. We indicate how many we take, how many we refuse and explain the grounds.
Senator Patterson: Again, thank you for the work you do.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I saw in the figures that 575 RCMP members were the subject of at least five complaints. I also saw, in the recommendations that were made by the commission, that a little over 15% — I would say maybe 17% or 18% — of what you asked the RCMP to do is outstanding. They haven’t acted on it.
What is the satisfaction rate for complainants? Do you have any statistics on that? Don’t you think you should have more binding powers, given that 18% of your recommendations are pending with the RCMP? They don’t seem to be in any hurry to resolve them, it seems to me, and 575 RCMP members have been the subject of more than five complaints? They seem to be repeat offenders. Shouldn’t you have more coercive power?
Ms. Lahaie: For the 575 with more than five complaints, this may mean that a complainant has had bad interactions with the same member. It could also be a case where a complainant comes back often. This is part of the business we handle.
As for the satisfaction rate, we don’t do a survey on that. It’s something we’ve looked at many times, but the problem is determining whether we do it when the complaint is submitted to the commission, once the RCMP has done the investigation, or at the end of the investigation. Is the satisfaction rate related to how the complaint was handled? If it is decided that there is no reason to continue the process, will the complainant be satisfied with this decision? This comes into play.
Senator Carignan: Do you do it? I understand the complexity, but in any satisfaction survey, there’s a level of complexity, including some of the elements you’ve just raised. However, just because it’s a little difficult doesn’t mean you can’t do it. Why don’t you do it? Have you ever tried it?
Ms. Lahaie: It’s a matter of resources, but it’s something we’ve been discussing for a long time. Maybe we should consider it again.
Senator Carignan: The budget you tabled for 2024-25, so your current budget, is for $6,522,316.
Ms. Lahaie: I think it’s $16 million. That’s not what’s being asked for.
Senator Carignan: It’s in the government’s spending plan. The $6,465,000 is your annual budget?
Ms. Lahaie: No, our annual budget is around $16 million.
Senator Carignan: So this $6 million is a supplementary budget you’re asking for?
Ms. Lahaie: I think it’s for salary increases.
Senator Carignan: Does this include Bill C-20?
Ms. Lahaie: No.
Senator Carignan: It doesn’t include Bill C-20?
Ms. Lahaie: No.
Senator Carignan: How much do you estimate it will be? When you calculated your scenario for the implementation of Bill C-20, what amount did you anticipate, over and above what the minister gave us a little earlier?
Ms. Lahaie: We considered three scenarios in relation to the number of complaints. I think we were looking at 2,500 —
Ms. Gibb: It was 3,000, 6,000 and 12,000.
Ms. Lahaie: Yes, 3,000, 6,000 and 12,000. Those are the numbers we were looking at. I think the budget was based on what’s being received by CBSA right now, but I can’t tell you that’s the case. Once the doors open, we’ll look at the number of complaints we receive, and if we don’t have enough resources...
Senator Carignan: But you presented your case. You have put together your budget requests under Bill C-20. How much surplus do you need?
Ms. Lahaie: I don’t remember. It happened in 2021-22.
Senator Carignan: It will have to be indexed then?
Ms. Lahaie: That’s right. We hope so.
Senator Carignan: Could you send us the amounts?
Ms. Lahaie: We can try.
Senator Carignan: Will you commit to sending us what you asked the government for and see if it matches what the minister gave you?
Ms. Lahaie: Yes, we can.
Senator Dagenais: I’d like to make a comment, Ms. Lahaie. You mentioned that a police officer who is the subject of a complaint will not have any consequences on his or her advancement or career plan. I was president of the Association des policières et policiers provinciaux du Québec. I saw a lot of files land on my desk. As soon as there’s a complaint, whether it’s well-founded or frivolous, it’s a stain on the file and it’s detrimental to advancement.
Ms. Lahaie: This may be the case in Quebec, but I can tell you that for the RCMP the process is remediable.
Senator Dagenais: Very well.
[English]
The Chair: Colleagues, this brings us to the end of a long and productive meeting. For this, we rely on skilled and experienced witnesses. We have heard from a great many of them today.
I want to thank you, Ms. Lahaie, Ms. Gibb and Ms. McCoy for spending this time with us this evening. It’s been a long period of time for you. Your advice and expertise are greatly appreciated. You’ve been very candid in answering some tough and incisive questions from my colleagues. Furthermore, you do hugely important work, and you’re being asked to take on some new and important responsibilities on which a great many people are going to rely, potentially, anyway. We wish you all the very best without regard to the outcome because we know you’ll do great work, so thank you.
Colleagues, we continue our consideration of Bill C-20 on Monday, October 7 at 4 p.m. Eastern Time here in room C-128 in the Senate of Canada Building. Thank you for your active participation and thoughtful questions because, as you always do, you’ve brought out the very best from our witnesses.
Thank you, everyone. Good night.
(The committee adjourned.)