THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, October 21, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs met with videoconference this day at 4:03 p.m. [ET] to examine 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.
The Chair: Good afternoon, colleagues. Before we begin, I would like to ask all senators and other in-person participants to consult the cards on the table for guidance to prevent audio feedback incidents. 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, senator from Ontario and chair of the committee. I am joined today by my fellow committee members, whom I now welcome to introduce themselves, beginning with our deputy chair.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Jean-Guy Dagenais from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Richards: David Richards, New Brunswick.
Senator Patterson: Rebecca Patterson, Ontario.
Senator Omidvar: Ratna Omidvar, Ontario.
Senator Boehm: Peter Boehm, Ontario.
Senator M. Deacon: Marty Deacon, Ontario.
Senator Cardozo: Andrew Cardozo, Ontario.
Senator Al Zaibak: Mohammad Al Zaibak, Ontario.
Senator McNair: John McNair, New Brunswick.
Senator Kutcher: Stan Kutcher, Nova Scotia.
Senator Yussuff: Hassan Yussuff, Ontario.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. To my left is the committee clerk, Ericka Paajanen, and to my right are Ariel Shapiro and Anne-Marie Therrien-Tremblay, our Library of Parliament analysts.
Today we continue our consideration of Bill C-20, An Act establishing the Public Complaints and Review Commission and amending certain Acts and statutory instruments. We will hear today from three panels of witnesses who will share their insights on this bill and then complete our meeting with clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.
In the first panel, I’m pleased to welcome here in the room Pantea Jafari, who is a lawyer and member of both the Canadian Immigration Lawyers Association and the Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association. Ms. Jafari is here representing both organizations. By videoconference, we welcome Kamaljit Kaur Lehal, Chair, Immigration Law Section, Canadian Bar Association. Thank you for joining us today.
I will now invite you to provide your opening remarks followed by questions from our members. We will begin with Pantea Jafari, who will have extended speaking time today as she speaks on behalf of both the Canadian Immigration Lawyers Association and the Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association.
Pantea Jafari, Member, Canadian Immigration Lawyers Association and Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association: Thank you, senators, for having me. I am honoured to be speaking on behalf of both the Canadian Immigration Lawyers Association and the Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association today. As both organizations are congruent in their testimony before this committee, I will be using the two five-minute blocks as a 10-minute segment to address more of each of their concerns, and I will delineate if any specific comment is particular to an organization.
We want to begin by acknowledging the political context that we find ourselves in with this bill. We do appreciate that any suggested amendments will likely cause it to fail. With that understanding, I acknowledge at the outset that, yes, we do support the bill — both organizations — with its flaws, and we look to the committee and senators for assistance in improving it as much as possible at this juncture. There are two key opportunities for that. The first is the observations back to the Senate, and the second are the informal channels available to everyone. As the minister testified, he’s invited you to dinners, and informal channels have also successfully led to amendments to Bill C-21. We encourage everyone to hopefully heed our testimony and our concerns of multiple organizations.
The two organizations I represent today are part of a coalition that has submitted a joint brief to this committee. This is a coalition of no less than eight organizations that have synthesized our key concerns with the bill. If we were to have at least those addressed, it would be tremendously helpful. The RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, are bodies that police the conduct of vulnerable populations especially marginalized populations — visitors with little to no immigration rights all the way up to citizens — and any improvement would be critically welcomed going forward.
The reasons why we hope the committee can assist with those things are to try to get as many of the concerns addressed at the regulation stage as possible, and also to assist with interpretation of the bill. Where the text doesn’t clearly identify or address some of the concerns that we have, we would hope that you would at least note in your observations the interpretation you understand sections of the bill to have, or hope to have so that it can be helpful in the future and lay the groundwork for changes to come.
One of the key issues that I will start with is third party and systemic complaints, which my colleagues have testified to as well. We see that as one of the most critical systemic problems with the commission to be formed, given that the RCMP and CBSA have an acknowledged systemic racism problem that permeates both institutions. We think that is critically required at the outset to breathe life, effectiveness and the potential for real reform into both institutions through this oversight body, especially given the acknowledgement that both institutions have been overly targeted, and therefore many populations face disproportionate consequences arising from their interactions with the RCMP and the CBSA. So it becomes even more critical.
I will refer you to our written briefs for the specific amendments that we are hopeful will be mentioned in your observations and beyond, but specifically the reference to “directly concerned” in sections 38 and 52 are of critical concern. We would hope that you would note in your observations that those should be amended to clearly allow for third party and systemic complaints without the reservations expressed in the bill, but also to confirm that, in your idea, belief and interpretation, third parties such as NGOs, lawyers’ groups that work with these populations are directly concerned so that if that definition remains, it would be understood to have included those entities from the outset.
Systemic complaints have been proven to be very useful and impactful in the past. The Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP, or CRCC, executive has testified that, through seeing a series of complaints that have been substantiated, they have come to recognize some systemic issues within the RCMP and have worked on that with the institution to achieve some real changes. We would argue that those entities that would be in a position to make a third-party complaint and to file systemic complaints are better positioned to identify those issues and recognize them much sooner than an individual complaint process, the success of which — in aggregate amounts — would bring to light those kinds of concerns.
The clear acceptance and mandate of those two would be tremendously helpful, especially when we consider realities of both institutions. Senators have spoken to the issues with B.C. RCMP coming up in the previous testimony. When we hear officers admit to things like, “I just racially-profiled pulled someone over,” it becomes very clear that an individual complaint will never get to the core of the problem and that these systemic complaints are critical to effective change and also to building trust in the institution when the trust has been eroded by such conduct in the past by both institutions. It’s a critical requirement, in our opinion, especially when you consider that in 2022 an internal report was done by CBSA officers who reported that one in four officers reported seeing what they believed to be discriminatory and racially motivated conduct by their colleagues. Seventy-one per cent of them reported that they believed the concern was based on race and, in most cases, also on national and ethnic origin.
These are problems we are well aware of. Thankfully, our organizations have gone far enough to be able to document them to an acknowledged present reality. For those reasons, we believe these are critically needed amendments.
The second issue relates to independent investigations, which is, for the same reason, a derivative of the same concerns. In past sessions, senators have raised whether there would be enough buy-in into the system, whether people would feel that their concerns are taken seriously when the entity they are complaining about is given the authority to investigate themselves. Both organizations believe that would not be the case, and that trust is eroded further when the persons and entities being complained about have the authority to investigate themselves.
I’ll give you an example of that. Ms. Maltais of the CBSA has testified in past sessions that the CBSA presently has a robust system complaint system. Let me give you an example of that “robust” system. We have a client at our firm, a Caucasian young man, who was travelling to a small port border crossing with his pregnant nine months pregnant wife and suffered mistreatment that he wished to report on. His complaint was investigated by someone who was a witness, a participant and also a supervisor for part of the shifts under question. With that, and there being many deeper concerns arising from that for vulnerable populations who are disproportionately targeted for mistreatment by these entities, is a significant concern.
In the last session, Senator Cotter brought to light the fact that most administrative entities are moving toward a completely independent complaint review system. We encourage that for the reasons that we’ve outlined and because the ingrained racism cannot be addressed with that.
The National Police Federation has also testified in that regard, that from a workload perspective as well, it wouldn’t be efficient for them to be taking on that task.
Enforceable remedies are another key concern. Mr. Koops of Public Safety Canada testified that the commission would have at its disposal powers equal to those of federal courts. With all due respect, that’s concerning, especially since it is contradictory to his own statements that confirm that they merely make recommendations. The more robust remedies identified on page 4 of our brief, such as interim measures and stay of removals, we believe, are critical to ensuring robust investigation of complaints. If complainants are removed during the process or if the commission fails to have access to them to conduct the complaints, we think that would also be of grave concern.
Part and parcel with the powers are the review process. We believe that the commission’s work should be subject to judicial review. Mr. Koops explained that it’s not presently is because the commission is not making final determinations, but merely recommendations based on administrative law principles. We would argue that efficiency shouldn’t trump accountability.
The judicial reviews are required both for transparency in the work of the commission and accountability for whether it’s conducting its investigations in line with all the requirements that most communities would like to see and the law would require.
Because of that, we would either ask for senators to push on that through all channels possible, but, at the very least, to acknowledge interpretations and observations that the decision of the commission should form a part of the head of CBSA, RCMP or the minister’s decision on what to do with that recommendation, so that it would be reviewable as part of that judicial review of the final decision.
The final two comments are to recommend a formal review in three to five years and to seek firmer financial commitments. Thank you so much for your time. I welcome questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Jafari. Colleagues, we will now hear from Kamaljit Kaur Lehal from the Canadian Bar Association.
Please proceed.
Kamaljit Kaur Lehal, Chair, Immigration Law Section, Canadian Bar Association: Thank you. Good afternoon, chair, and members of the committee. My name is Kamaljit Kaur Lehal, and I am pleased to appear before you as the chair of the Canadian Bar Association’s Immigration Law Section.
At the outset, I would like to extend our appreciation to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security for their review of Bill C-20. We are encouraged that some of our previous recommendations were adopted, including extending the complaint submission period to two years and establishing codified response timelines for the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency to commission reports. These changes reflect a commitment to enhancing transparency and accountability within law enforcement. However, some of our key recommendations remain unimplemented, and we believe they are important to ensuring Bill C-20 achieves its intended objectives.
In our view, five clauses of the bill require further attention.
The first is clause 86, the right to be informed. The Canadian Bar Association, or CBA, is pleased to see a provision that obliges CBSA employees and officers to inform people detained and arrested of their right to file a complaint and how to do so. However, detainees in immigration-related circumstances are often not accustomed to being in detention and may not have, in their cultural experience, the ability to appreciate the legal complaint mechanism in the Canadian context. As such, explanatory materials to detainees should include awareness and appreciation of cultural differences. In addition to informing individuals of their right to engage a complaint process, it’s important to ensure they have access to resources such as a computer, interpreter, and resources to facilitate making a complaint.
The second provision is clause 33.3, the complaint submission period. Again, we are pleased that the complaint submission period has been extended to two years. However, we believe the time limit should begin when the complainant becomes aware of the issue, not from when the conduct occurred. Immigration cases in particular often involve complex and delayed revelations of misconduct. Many individuals may not realize that they have grounds for a complaint until much later, and the current framework does not adequately address these realities. This is why we are recommending that the time period start from when the complainant becomes aware of the issue. Such an approach would consider the reality faced by many immigrants and would ensure accountability.
The third provision is clause 38. Under clause 38, the CBSA president is empowered to direct the CBSA not to investigate a complaint if it is deemed to be trivial, frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith. This is an important ground for screening out potential complaints, but there are no definitions included in the bill for these terms. We believe it is critical to provide clear definitions of these terms. The lack of definitions risks arbitrary or inconsistent decision making by the CBSA or the commission, potentially barring legitimate complaints from being heard. Providing clear guidelines would increase fairness and clarify for both complainant and the officers tasked with addressing their concerns.
The fourth provision is clause 84, regarding stay of removal. Clause 84 does not provide for a stay of removal in cases where a complaint is being investigated. The CBA is concerned that this provision will diminish the practical value of the complaints process if a person is removed before having the opportunity to follow through on a complaint, which would be more difficult if the person was already previously detained. The CBA recommends that the commission have the power to suspend removals or, where necessary, permit individuals to return to Canada if their complaints are serious and credible. The absence of such a power significantly undermines the integrity of the complaints process.
The fifth provision is clause 65, prohibition of judicial review. Clause 65 prohibits judicial review of, “All of the findings and recommendations” in the final report of the commission. There is no rationale provided for justifying a ban against judicial review. The CBA strongly believes that judicial oversight is essential to maintaining public trust in the complaints process. Allowing a judicial review of the commission’s final reports would provide an avenue for complainants to challenge findings when necessary. This form of oversight is fundamental to the principles of administrative law and ensures that the commission’s decisions are subject to independent scrutiny. Without this mechanism there is a risk of undermining public confidence in the fairness and thoroughness of the complaints process.
In conclusion, while Bill C-20 represents an important step forward, we need to ensure that the key ingredients of accountability, fairness and transparency are built in throughout. If the foundation is strong, then there will be trust in the oversight process and the ability to make meaningful change where necessary.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide our input and welcome any questions the committee may have. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Lehal. We are moving to questions, three and a half minutes per question including the answer. Please be succinct. I offer my first question to our deputy chair, Senator Dagenais.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: My question is for both witnesses. I’m going to talk about the workload that lies ahead for the RCMP Civilian Review and Complaints Commission (CRCC). In reviewing the files you’re aware of, in light of the fact that this commission will allow complaints to be made, how many complaints per year might we see from immigrants? Can you also tell us the nature of the main complaints the commission should expect to receive? Finally, in your opinion, does the commission have the staff required to respond to complaints within a reasonable time limit? We can start with Ms. Jafari.
[English]
Ms. Jafari: My apologies. The translation came through as: Do we have enough staff to address some of those complaints and statistics on it? I am not in a position to provide that.
The Canadian Immigration Lawyers Association and the Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association are a conglomerate of lawyers who practise in this area, and we would see that in our own practices but not necessarily have aggregate data on that and certainly not regarding staffing.
What I can say is that the complaints are from border interactions from foreign nationals with no status all the way up to citizens. Marginalized and vulnerable, racialized citizens still get treatment that is questionable at the border. The complaints are regarding inadmissibility investigations by CBSA and the RCMP and also detention circumstances. So the complaints, I would imagine, span a wide range of circumstances.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: It would be important to tell me how many complaints you receive annually from immigrants. My question is for both witnesses.
[English]
Ms. Kaur Lehal: Thank you for the question. Given that the complaint process at the CBSA is currently an internal review process, I’m not privy to that information. I don’t think that we have those statistics, unfortunately.
I can speak to the type of complaints that may come forward. I agree with my colleague, Pantea Jafari, that the complaints can range anywhere from the port of entry all the way through to inadmissibility hearings and detention reviews.
I personally do a fair bit of duty counsel work and detention review hearings, and I hear from clients that simple things such as access to their phone to be able to deal with an identity detention review hearing and remaining in detention much longer than they needed to is, for example, one type of situation that seems to be a recurring theme.
Unfortunately, I don’t have statistics today to provide to the senator. The range of complaints will be from coming into the country and dealing with inadmissibility hearings to dealing with detention reviews.
Ms. Jafari: If I could quickly add to that. I do recall from the RCMP testimony that something close to 900 RCMP officers had more than five complaints each. That is a statistic that came up from previous testimony. I imagine that, annually, it would be in the thousands, but there were less than 900 officers who had more than five complaints against them.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Patterson: Ms. Jafari, this is for you, and it is specifically related to what you see as a group of lawyers. You are seeing trends in there, and as you know, within the bill there is an obligatory reporting requirement. But having worked in Gender-based Analysis Plus and women, peace and security, I note it talks about disaggregated demographic and race-based data, but we also know that women and children and girls and boys are more impacted by most types of behaviour when it comes to inappropriate conduct. What would you recommend that we collect? What type of data would you recommend we collect on top of disaggregated demographic and race-based data to capture those people who may be in the refugee category, et cetera?
Ms. Jafari: That’s a very interesting question that I had not turned my mind to. The immigration status of the person would be critical, whether they were represented, had someone waiting for them in the CBSA context at the airport or port of entry on the other side where they were waiting — things in terms of whether they were represented or not. Also, in terms of the disposition, the amount of time that they were in an interaction with the individual and the outcome.
We see a lot, for example, even in the pre-clearance context where people were questioned for hours, sometimes stretching over 12 hours, but, at the end there was no charge, no concern, nothing that came out. The Caucasian couple I was speaking about were held and questioned for nearly 14 hours with a wife nine-months pregnant and not given food and drink, except for a water cooler. So the duration and outcome of what happened would also be helpful.
Senator Patterson: Thank you. I want to go back to sex and gender-based data. Do you see that being of benefit along with other areas you have talked about?
Ms. Jafari: Absolutely, especially when we talk about security concerns both in terms of RCMP and CBSA where the global tensions are increasingly going to lead to more designations of terrorist organizations and admissibility concerns. We would anecdotally imagine more males being the subject of investigations on that front but not necessarily. Data on that front would certainly be helpful as well. Age would be tremendously helpful as well.
Senator Patterson: Thank you.
Senator Boehm: I would like to follow along where Senator Patterson was going on data and comparative data. I think we all agree that Bill C-20 is a beginning. Both witnesses represent organizations, and organizations have reach outside of Canada into other jurisdictions in terms of people that you know. In the United States we know that Customs and Border Protection, or CBP, and the Department of Homeland Security are dealing with these issues as well and the complaints. They go all the way back to the original precursor if you want to use 9/11 as an example.
To what extent are you in touch with people that you might know in the U.S., the U.K. or even Australia, as a large immigrant-receiving country, in terms of comparing notes, setting out the problems of data collection, and, of course, what you can do with the anecdotal evidence that you just mentioned, Ms. Jafari? I would be very happy to hear any comments you have in terms of comparisons with other countries and the same for Ms. Kaur Lehal, if she could.
Ms. Jafari: Thank you for that question. Unfortunately, as I’m not a board member of either organization, I wouldn’t readily have a position on that. It hasn’t been canvassed in our scope of presentations for today. I imagine both organizations representing clients all over the world, we at least are tapped into client communities across jurisdictions especially in terms of their interactions trying to come into Canada and also with security and criminal searches behind the scenes for these visa applications, permanent and temporary.
From there, we potentially have some comparison data as to what is happening in different jurisdictions.
In terms of whether we are connected to and aligned with lawyer organizations in different jurisdictions, I would have to get back to you on that.
Senator Boehm: Thank you. Bear in mind the organizations that are doing the policing and governance have their own networks and connections with these countries too. Comparisons are being made at that level.
I don’t know whether Ms. Kaur Lehal would have some views on that.
Ms. Kaur Lehal: I wish I had more to add. We don’t have that data or information. Our submissions are focused on the ground, what we are seeing with clients that our lawyers are representing and the obstacles and hurdles they have faced when interacting with CBSA here in Canada.
Senator Boehm: Thank you very much.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you very much for joining us today. I’m going to ask you, Ms. Jafari, about something you talked about earlier in your presentation — the concern about a review. For the review to be meaningful, purposeful, deliverable and connected, what questions would you want to make sure are answered in that review?
Ms. Jafari: Are you referring to the three- to five-year review we requested?
Senator M. Deacon: Yes.
Ms. Jafari: That’s also interesting. In terms of the review, we need the aggregate data we are trying to collect as to what is happening. That will be one of the preliminary functions of this commission until some of the other meat and bones and teeth that civil society organizations have asked for come into play.
In terms of the review, some of the things that might be helpful would be timelines as to how long each complaint took; how many were investigated by the commission versus the CBSA and RCMP; outcomes and, most critically, what happened with a recommendation in terms of CBSA, RCMP or the minister’s final decision, as it has been termed, with respect to those recommendations. So the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP, or CRCC, has testified to its recommendations to the RCMP, for example, and I believe something like 18% of their recommendations were left outstanding with the rest having been implemented. That kind of data for this commission and its work with the RCMP and CBSA would be tremendously helpful.
Senator M. Deacon: I’m not sure if you have something to add to that from the review question, but I have another question for Ms. Lehal. Clause 65 talks about prohibiting judicial review. This is a concern, and we need to be thinking about this. Are you able to share a scenario with us that you know of appropriately where that would come into play — had there been a review, the product, thoroughness and information might have been different?
Ms. Kaur Lehal: Do you mean in terms of the complaint process or just generally speaking?
Senator M. Deacon: In terms of the complaint process.
Ms. Kaur Lehal: Currently, we know that it is all internal, and the ability to take something that is done by the CBSA at this point is very difficult. What we are saying in our submission when we are saying that there should be judicial review is that the recommendations of the commission are supposed to be based on fact-finding and are supposed to issue reports and submit recommendations. The way it is characterized is that the recommendations fall short of a binding decision. However, in the Federal Court jurisprudence area, you don’t specifically need a decision per se to review. The judicial review under section 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, or IRPA, permits leave in situations where there has been a determination, order or a measure — anything of that nature is subject to judicial review. As it stands now, Bill C-20 is at variance with that fundamental principle and prohibits judicial review.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you.
Senator Omidvar: It’s very interesting. I have a question around trivial, vexatious or bad faith complaints that are dismissed or would be dismissed. You note the lack of definitions. Do you know what the percentage is of complaints filed with the existing RCMP review commission that are dismissed based on those grounds?
Ms. Jafari: When the CRCC chair testified, I don’t believe she had a percentage on that, but she had testified it was rarely used, or she didn’t need to rely on it too much. But, again, past practice doesn’t necessarily make the basis of good structure building, because with the CRCC, as she testified, the relationship is different. It is conciliatory with a bit of pushback, of course. When we are moving toward a completely independent review commission — hopefully — and that relationship may become slightly more acrimonious or not — you can’t just rely upon that cooperation, which was the nature that she was testifying to. Those provisions were not being used as much because they had such a cooperative relationship with the RCMP, to my understanding.
Whether those provisions have statistically been used to terminate complaints in the past, I don’t think, is necessarily determinative of whether it should be included in this bill. Like I said, especially in terms of the CMLA, we represent extremely marginalized communities that have already been significantly targeted by both of those institutions. That has been proven; it is all over the media. It’s in their own internal acknowledgements and policy systems. In that context, what might seem frivolous to someone, especially when looked at on an individual level instead of the systemic context the person finds themselves in would be a whole different story.
That is a critical concern of both organizations, as we have signed on to in the joint brief.
Ms. Kaur Lehal: Am I able to add to that briefly?
Senator Omidvar: Yes, please.
Ms. Kaur Lehal: My understanding is that the chair of the CRCC acknowledged there is some kind of public-facing document addressing these terms. However, she also said that there will be new complexities with the expansion of scope over CBSA, particularly arising from the detention of immigrants.
Unlike the RCMP, the CBSA handles cases where individuals may be detained throughout their refugee complaints process for lengthy periods, leading to unique, profound losses of liberty, including permanent removal. From that point, the CRCC’s past experience of complaints, if they did dismiss them on a frivolous basis, would be very different from what individuals are experiencing in the CBSA context. Legal counsel for the Assembly of First Nations testified before this committee that many RCMP complaints are inadequately investigated or dismissed as vexatious, discouraging individuals from reporting. That raises concerns that similar issues could arise with the CBSA, which has operated for over 20 years without oversight and where we have recent reports of toxic work environments, discrimination and systemic racism.
So without their guidelines and definitions of these terms, there is a real risk that complaints are from racialized Indigenous persons in the CBSA context will be dismissed as trivial.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: My question is for the Canadian Bar Association representative first. There were two amendments in the House concerning the possibility of a third party filing a complaint and extending the complaint submission period from one year to two years. Prior to those amendments, you had highlighted a phrase in your brief that caught my attention: “it seems inevitable that as the Commission’s workload increases, delays will grow”.
Could you comment on the risks that those two amendments could create, i.e., the possibility of more complaints and a two-year time limit? What will be the consequences for you, on the work of the commission and the inconveniences that could arise?
[English]
Ms. Kaur Lehal: It is difficult to say until things start to unfold how many will come forward, so it is difficult to speak to that. My submissions on behalf of the CBA were that the two years should start when the complainant becomes aware of the abuse.
What we are trying to highlight here — and in our written submissions in January 2023, we provided an example of a case of a detained refugee complaint suffering from mental health and other physical needs navigating a refugee process while detained. I should note that today’s stats are that it is about 24-plus months to get a refugee claim through the process. During that time, individuals are focused on their refugee claim and they might not realize that the conduct they have experienced was misconduct that was warranted to be filed as a complaint. We were trying to underscore, with the example we gave, the need for a complaint mechanism that understood the realities of immigrants on the ground who may not be aware of the abuse, while managing many complexities in their case, imminent removal from the country and other barriers.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: My question has more to do with the commission’s workload. Don’t you think there’s a risk of a heavy workload, with all the consequences that entails? I’m talking here about the failure to respect deadlines, non-compliant investigations or things done badly or improperly with a loss of confidence in the system by people in the system.
[English]
Ms. Kaur Lehal: I would hope not. I would hope that if systems are set up at the outset that they are transparent, accountable and truly wanting to understand what immigrants and vulnerable persons are going through, we would have the allocated manpower to deal with those complaints.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: My question is for the representative of the Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association. You talked about the importance of truly independent investigations. The RCMP police union suggested to us that investigations could be carried out jointly by civilians and RCMP officers so as not to overburden the RCMP, but also to guarantee or project the image of the independence of investigations. I wanted to hear from you on that and get your suggestions on what specific elements you think could improve the independence of investigations.
[English]
Ms. Jafari: The question was …
Senator Carignan: It is about the independence of the investigation.
Ms. Jafari: Yes, and joint investigations.
So long as the commission is the decision maker of who gets to investigate — and at least jointly investigate — I think there could be some trust built into the commission and its function. But where the heads of the RCMP and CBSA get to make that decision and where they get to single-handedly make that investigation, it will run the risk of seeming potentially biased in its investigation and its outcomes, and risk disproportionate outcomes that might favour the institutions that are being complained about instead, which would then further erode trust in the commission being set up.
The Chair: We have to move on.
Senator Richards: Thank you for being here. Following a bit after Senator Omidvar, you talked about frivolous and vexatious complaints, but I didn’t get an understanding when going through the bill what those were, exactly. Would either one of you might consider what a frivolous or vexatious complaint is, or would you feel that every complaint doesn’t fit that guideline — that no complaint would be vexatious or frivolous?
Ms. Jafari: The bill does not have a definition of it. The existing complaints mechanisms, I understand, do not, as well. So we are hopeful that, at least, the regulation could have a clear definition built into it. Hopefully, you will observe the need for that in your report back to the Senate.
In terms of what might be frivolous and vexatious, representing vulnerable people every day, I cannot think of one who would be. It takes a lot for someone to risk filing a complaint against these entities that have such power and control over them, especially vulnerable populations that are marginalized on so many layers, from immigration status, to race, to all levels of rights and privileges in society. For someone to risk making a complaint and face potential consequences — retribution experience — by making that complaint, I would venture a guess that there probably would not be many that are frivolous and vexatious to begin with.
I suppose someone complaining they were not smiled at, or possibly their name mispronounced, might not be as serious unless it is a systemic concern being raised.
Again, I would be hard-pressed —
Senator Richards: Somebody who is a border security guard might inadvertently pronounce someone’s name wrong.
Ms. Jafari: Sure.
Senator Richards: You know what I mean? There can be mistakes on the other side that are completely innocent.
Ms. Jafari: Absolutely, especially where there is an apology or something. “I am sorry, I mispronounced your name.” Again, I can’t imagine —
Senator Richards: Could you comment on that, what would be a frivolous or vexatious complaint, or can you think of any?
Ms. Kaur Lehal: That’s a great question.
Based on the testimony that has already come before the Senate, what you heard from the First Nations was that they were seeing many of their complaints being dismissed on the basis of frivolousness. They felt that the lived experiences of their people were not understood. That is a concern we have to keep in mind when we are now expanding the scope of CBSA, which has tremendous powers. I don’t want to undervalue what they do. What they do is extremely important in terms of protecting our borders and ensuring the Canadian public is safe.
At the same time, in order to fulfill those duties, they have huge powers. They have huge powers of denying admission, detaining or deporting someone. It is in those interactions I would see complaints come about.
I have a hard time as well trying to determine what would be a frivolous matter. What a detainee, an immigrant or a vulnerable person goes through might be, from someone else’s perspective, seen as, well, that was not that bad. But for that person, it may have been overwhelming. It is hard to pinpoint. We have seen concerns.
Senator Richards: Thank you.
Senator Yussuff: Thank you, witnesses, for being here.
I’m trying to wrestle my brain around the challenges of some of the proposed amendments to the bill and the time frame we are looking at.
As you are aware, this issue has been before the Senate and the House for quite some time. On previous occasions, it has failed. Many witnesses who have come before the committee so far, despite the fact the bill is not up to their standard, have recommended we pass the bill because at least we are starting an oversight process for the public to have.
I note that some of the points you raised in your proposal can be covered off by regulation, for instance, the right to be informed; that could be in a pamphlet an individual is given when an officer interacts with them. It could be in different languages.
Are there suggestions you can make to help the committee, given our challenge from what we have heard from some witnesses — and what we are hearing from the two of you today — in regard to specific amendments you feel are necessary to improve the bill?
I do not argue with you in regard to your recommendation. Could you offer some insight that might help us, given our dilemma to try to pass the bill, recognizing we are running against the clock?
Ms. Jafari: My understanding was — and this was hard for all of our organizations to grapple with and come to a decision on — any suggested amendments would tremendously risk the bill dying. We are taking a practical approach and are understanding that reality.
However much we might want certain changes, they are not being recommended as an amendment. We are asking for them to come in terms of observations and the informal channels for sure. Yes, a lot of it can be dealt with in regulations.
A lot of the lack of clarity, specificity, removal of or clarifying, for example, in terms of third party and systemic complaints, frivolous, vexatious, those things can be corrected in the regulations. I hope the committee strongly pushes for them to be made. The judicial reviews not being allowed or being in the bill in that way will not be addressed in the regulations.
In terms of practical recommendations, everything we have outlined in the four-page brief from the joint submissions, that is the absolutely synthesized; if this is all we can get, let’s hope for these kinds of amendments are there. To the extent they can be pushed through on the informal channels, that would be highly appreciated.
Senator Yussuff: Thank you.
The Chair: We have a minute and a half for Senator Cardozo.
Senator Cardozo: With regard to clause 84, Ms. Lehal made the point. In terms of 84, I see that. I look at that and I get your point. If somebody has made a complaint, then they are extradited or moved to another country, it is hard for them to participate in a hearing. I am trying to understand why that was put in there.
The best I can think of is that they assume somebody may use the complaints mechanism as a mechanism to delay their extradition. Does that make sense to you as to why that clause might be there and what a claimant might do instead?
Ms. Kaur Lehal: I cannot speculate. That may be a reason why that provision was put in there.
Again, if we look at the reality on the ground for immigrants, some of them are detained and, within a matter of days, the process starts for removal. Things move pretty fast. They may have a serious complaint that needs to be addressed. It is going to be very difficult, if they are removed from the country.
In order for trust to be restored, we have had a system with no oversight. One way of ensuring trust is to permit individuals to remain or return to Canada while that complaint process is under way.
Senator Cardozo: The bill doesn’t deal with return. It talks more about removal and extradition. You are talking about the ability to return as well?
Ms. Kaur Lehal: Those powers would be hugely important to ensure accountability and trust in this system we are trying to create.
Ms. Jafari: May I add to that for one second? I apologize.
When the CBSA and RCMP testified, they both spoke of things not being or anticipated being different under this new commission. I think that goes to the heart of the problem; they haven’t had the oversight. Without any teeth to this new commission, they are not anticipating it to be any difficulty in their work.
My apologies for interrupting.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
This brings us to the end of this informative panel. Thank you, Ms. Jafari and Ms. Kaur Lehal, for bringing the best of your advice, expertise and good judgment to us. It has been very helpful. You have seen that from the number of questions in the room. I thank you both on behalf of the committee.
Also on behalf of the committee, I thank you for the hard work you do every day on behalf of often vulnerable complainants. I know it is appreciated, so do you. We thank you for that. We wish you well.
For the next panel, we are pleased to welcome from the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, Kate Webster, Vice-President; from the Canadian Council for Refugees, Jenny Jeanes, Vice-President and Gauri Sreenivasan, Co-Executive Director; and from the Canadian Muslim Public Affairs Council, Khaled Al-Qazzaz, Executive Director.
We thank you for meeting with us today. We now invite you to provide your opening remarks to be followed by questions from our members. We begin today with Kate Webster. Welcome.
Kate Webster, Vice-President, Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers: Mr. Chair and honourable senators, I am grateful for the opportunity to appear before this committee today. I represent a national organization engaged in advocacy, strategic litigation and education to promote and defend the rights of refugees and migrants in Canada.
We are, overall, supportive of Bill C-20. We know that members of this committee, Minister Leblanc and others have indicated that any amendments to the bill could defeat it. We support the passage of Bill C-20 as is, even though we could have and should have done better. But even in the absence of further amendments, we ask that this committee play a critical role by adding observations to your report as Bill C-20 moves forward.
Independent oversight for CBSA is desperately needed and long overview. The absence of oversight is especially problematic considering that CBSA police a sometimes vulnerable, non-Canadian population who may lack English skills, who may be traumatized including at the hands of state authorities in their home countries and who may lack secure status in Canada.
The stakes are high. There have been at least 17 deaths in immigration detention in the last 20 years. The Canada Border Services Agency has faced allegations that it engages in racial profiling in carrying out its statutory duties. I will discuss three areas where we welcome questions and encourage the committee to make written observations in its report.
First is the ability of the commission to receive general or systemic complaints. Abuse or mistreatment, especially on issues like racial profiling, is often only apparent when one aggregates cases. Clause 28 of the bill is a valuable tool. It permits review of specified activities at the commission’s own initiative or at the direction of the minister. This has already been amended to allow third parties to request a specified-activities review.
We appreciate the minister’s recognition of the pervasive nature of anti-Black and anti-Indigenous racism in policing and in our justice system. We applaud the intent that the commission be empowered to help in combating this legacy.
Officials from both Public Safety Canada and CBSA have already testified that they understand the current draft of the bill to authorize complaints about systemic issues. Nevertheless, explicit language on this point is absent from the text of the bill. We therefore ask that this committee add an observation in its report highlighting the intent that the commission has the power to investigate and address systemic issues and receive systemic complaints.
The question of who is best positioned to identify and raise systemic issues or policy concerns leads me to our second issue. Because certain things are only apparent when viewed across a number of cases, third parties, such as human rights organizations, are uniquely positioned to bring such issues to the commission. However, as drafted, complaints can still be rejected under clauses 38 and 52 if they are “from a third party that is not directly concerned by the subject matter of the complaint.”
The witness from Public Safety Canada explained that these clauses are meant to weed out those who do not have a stake in the outcome of a complaint. But human rights organizations with experience regarding migrants, detention and law enforcement oversight have a stake in the outcome of systemic complaints brought before the commission. They should be considered directly concerned and should not be excluded from bringing such complaints. We ask that this committee include an observation that third parties can be directly concerned with a complaint. Such an observation would provide important guidance as future regulations on this point are drafted.
Finally, we are concerned by the absence of an explicit provision regarding remedial powers of the commission. As I noted earlier, the population policed by CBSA includes vulnerable persons who lack secure status in Canada. Even with the passage of Bill C-20, those who experience mistreatment at the hands of CBSA can still be deported, despite having filed a well-founded complaint.
In an ideal circumstance, the commission should be able to recommend a stay of removal or other interim remedy. In the absence of such an amendment, however, we ask that this committee include an observation in its report that the filing of a well-founded complaint should be considered by CBSA in assessing a request to defer an individual’s removal from Canada.
I welcome the opportunity to elaborate on these or other issues in questions. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We now go to the Canadian Council for Refugees.
Gauri Sreenivasan, Co-Executive Director, Canadian Council for Refugees: Good afternoon and thank you. The Canadian Council for Refugees, or CCR, represents 200 frontline organizations working with refugees and vulnerable migrants. Our members provide daily support to people living in the reality of the refugee claims process and immigration detention. Because of this, we have a long history of advocating for an external complaints mechanism for the Canada Border Services Agency.
We strive in this advocacy to bring forward the perspective of people living multiple vulnerabilities, who are engaging with CBSA in contexts where they do not usually have counsel, and they are often not well placed to advocate for themselves.
[Translation]
I am honoured to be joined by Ms. Jeanes, Vice-President of the Canadian Council for Refugees. We are very grateful for the opportunity to present our perspectives and recommendations on Bill C-20.
[English]
This legislation is long overdue. The bill was significantly improved in the House and, as other organizations have stated, we support its passing, but we want to speak to important areas where it should be strengthened by the Senate to ensure the legislation can achieve its intended objectives.
We urge that you share your perspectives on these issues not only for the record, but minimally to be appended as observations if the Senate chooses not to bring amendments, in order to provide the crucial guidance needed for the legislation’s regulations, implementation, and, ultimately, review.
The committee has already received our detailed brief, so we will speak to two key issues today: The need for clarity on third-party access, and the need for the commission to be able to pause a removal order in order to properly investigate a complaint.
On the first matter, the House explicitly amended Bill C-20 to clarify that third parties can bring complaints and request a review of specified activities. This is essential since those most at risk of suffering abuse are least able to bring forward a complaint, and the House clearly sought to ensure that organizations like our own could help advance the concerns of vulnerable populations alone or alongside an individual complainant. However, the current language of the bill may unintentionally narrow that access, since we have heard clauses 38 and 52 state that the complaint could be refused if it is from a third party that is not directly concerned. It is not clear how Parliament intends the words “directly concerned” to be interpreted, so it is important, senators, that you weigh in on this. We appreciate the concerns raised by Senator Carignan already in past hearings that third party complaints not be constrained.
The Canadian Council for Refugees has recommended that the language “directly concerned” be replaced by the much clearer and well-established test used in the courts: That the third party must have a genuine interest in the matter. This approach, through years of jurisprudence, has enabled NGOs to be granted standing to bring important cases forward in the public interest while closing the door on frivolous cases or complaints.
In the absence of a formal amendment — which is what we anticipate — to update the language, we would invite senators to weigh in during the study provide guidance through observations to clarify that this approach, as used by the courts to discern and enable NGO challenges to advance the public interest, should be what guides the approach taken to interpret “directly concerned” to ensure that NGOs do, in fact, have access to file complaints.
[Translation]
I’ll now pass the floor to Ms. Jeanes to address our second point.
Jenny Jeanes, Vice-President, Canadian Council for Refugees: Hello. Thank you for this opportunity to speak to you about Bill C-20. As vice-president of the Canadian Council for Refugees, I represent one of our member organizations across Canada, Action réfugiés Montréal, where I coordinate a support program for people detained for immigration purposes at the Laval Immigration Holding Centre.
I’d like to comment on the second recommendation in our submission, namely that the commission have the option of interim measures to suspend an order for removal or deportation so that the complaint can be reviewed. This is necessary to protect the commission’s integrity. In the absence of such a measure, many serious complaints will not be made or examined, because the person will be outside Canada.
Some of the worst allegations of abuse by the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) occur during deportation proceedings, including allegations of excessive force. Border officials have the power to enforce a removal order as soon as possible, and can even expedite the departure of a person who complains about their treatment. If a mother is detained pending removal and involuntarily separated from her minor children through her detention, she could be removed quickly before she can make a complaint.
We recommend the establishment of a triage process to identify cases where these types of measures are necessary. Some models, such as the United Nations Human Rights Committee, have mechanisms for interim measures.
[English]
As Ms. Sreenivasan has mentioned, we understand that the committee may wish to move quickly so as to ensure the creation of an independent review body for CBSA. If no amendments are made, we hope members will add observations in your report on the need for the commission to notify CBSA of the seriousness of a complaint in the context of a need to stay a removal. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Our third panellist represents the Canadian Muslim Public Affairs Council. Welcome, Mr. Khaled Al-Qazzaz.
Khaled Al-Qazzaz, Executive Director, Canadian Muslim Public Affairs Council: As-salamu alykum. Peace be with you. Honourable senators of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs, thank you for this opportunity to speak before you today. My name is Khaled Al-Qazzaz, and I am the executive director of the Canadian Muslim Public Affairs Council, or CMPAC.
The Canadian Muslim Public Affairs Council has provided multiple consultations and submissions to the Senate and the government on issues that directly impact the Muslim community, such as Islamophobia, anti-Palestinian racism, national security, financial targeting of Muslim charities and, recently, the foreign interference act. We have also submitted to this committee a brief with our recommendations for Bill C-20.
I am in agreement with my colleagues here who presented today, but I would like to begin by sharing a principle of our religious teachings that directly applies to this context. In the Quran translation, chapter 5, verse 32, “and whoever saves a life, it will be as if they saved all of humanity.”
As a community, we value the role that Canada plays in the international community as a safe haven for those who were oppressed and persecuted and would like a new chance to contribute to a free and diverse society. I personally have faced unjust persecution in my country of birth, Egypt, after the 2013 military coup, where I was unjustly imprisoned for 18 months, mostly in solitary confinement without charges, until my Canadian family and the Canadian government intervened and helped me come back to home and safety.
I want to share with you a moment that I will never forget: As soon as the plane landed, I was wheeled out on a wheelchair, passing through immigration, and finally out to meet my family and community who were waiting at the airport. I prostrated, thanking my creator for this moment, for finally feeling safe from persecution, and as I told my brother, for the first time in three years, I felt that I could speak freely without fear.
However, this is not the experience of everyone, especially those in our community who come from Muslim majority countries with authoritarian regimes and police states, escaping from persecution, seeking safety and freedom in Canada. Many are being profiled because of where they came from and are treated as guilty until proven innocent. Apart from difficult questioning, many are placed in immigration detention, some face a stressful inadmissibility process and some eventually get deported back to their countries where they face persecution or death.
It is important to note that as a community we understand the priority of protecting Canadian national security and the importance of minimizing the risk of allowing individuals who would pose risk to our country. However, our community, civil liberties organizations and even the government agrees that the process has to be just, humane and nondiscriminatory or abusive. For years, civil society has called for oversight and improvements in the practices of the CBSA, and with Bill-C20 we feel that we are one step closer. However, there are some important considerations — potential amendments or observations — that should be addressed. We have detailed these recommendations in a joint submission with our colleagues, and we shared our community’s perspective in our brief. I would like to share this perspective on two main recommendations.
Many have shared their concerns with third-party complaints. Our engagement in the community has shown us that many victims of profiling and discrimination are reluctant to file complaints, either because they feel powerless, fear retaliation or they simply do not have access. But there is an important role that third-party organizations provide in advocating for those who feel vulnerable.
We strongly believe that Bill C-20 must allow third-party organizations to file complaints behalf of those who cannot do so themselves. The current language of the bill restricts this, stating that complaints from third parties will only be accepted if they are “directly concerned” by the incident. This is too narrow and does not account for the broader systemic issues at play. We propose amending the language to allow third-party organizations to represent individuals based on a “genuine interest,” which would enable more community involvement and more accurate reporting of systemic issues.
The second issue is the redress mechanism or the absence of one. Another critical issue is the absence of effective redress. Without the possibility of meaningful remedies, including halting deportation, financial compensation and interim measures, the complaint process remains ineffective.
We have shared stories, and the media has shared stories of people staying over 1500 days in immigration under the justification of national security.
We believe that the public complaints and review commission, or PCRC, must have the authority to recommend interim remedies, including halting removals or providing financial compensation where appropriate. This would ensure that individuals are not left stranded while their complaints are being investigated and that they have meaningful options for justice.
In conclusion, Bill C-20 has the potential to be a transformative step toward accountability and justice for all people going through this process, but only if it addresses the unique and pressing concerns of marginalized communities.
The amendments we propose today and in our briefs are not just legal recommendations; they are essential for restoring trust, ensuring fairness and protecting the rights of all Canadians.
Understanding the time limitations, the status of the legislative cycle and the value of creating this oversight body, we support the passing of Bill C-20 immediately without amendments, and instead add senators’ observations that include our recommendations. We will continue to advocate for improvements in the future after passing the bill.
On behalf of the CMPAC, and the communities we represent, we urge you to consider our concerns and recommendations. We are committed to working with you to make this legislation a meaningful tool for justice.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Al-Qazzaz and our other panellists today. We’re now proceeding to questions. We have three and a half minutes for each question, including the answer, so I’m asking my colleagues to keep their questions short to allow as many interventions as possible.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: My question is for Ms. Webster. Ms. Webster, the current government is having a great deal of difficulty managing the refugee files in the country. Do you sincerely believe in the commission’s ability to process complaints quickly? Moreover, will the option of filing a complaint with the commission delay the assessment of a refugee’s admissibility?
Ms. Webster: I’m sorry that I can’t respond in French.
[English]
Thank you very much for the question, Senator Dagenais.
I take your point that the government currently has a number of pending refugee files. I don’t know if I would agree that it’s having difficulty managing it, but there is a significant backlog in the processing of refugee claims.
In terms of the interaction between the refugee process and the need for CBSA oversight, or this review mechanism, I truly believe that they need to work hand in hand. Part of the challenge for individuals who are detained or who have concern interactions with CBSA in advancing a refugee claim can be if they are subject to abuse or mistreatment. That can play out in different ways. In detention, they may have limited access to counsel, limited access to communications, difficulty obtaining evidence from abroad to advance their claim. To the extent that any mistreatment plays into exacerbating those issues, those need to be addressed for our government to properly assess refugee claims and for us to live up to our obligations under international and domestic law.
Similarly, an individual’s interaction with CBSA is often the initiating point of a refugee claim, especially for those who arrive via the land border. I cannot tell you the number of times that I’ve been in a refugee hearing, and the board member will say, “But you said X, Y, Z to the CBSA officer on arrival, and now you’re saying something different.” That may be based on a misunderstanding; it may be based on discrimination; it may be based on cultural misperceptions; it may be based on trauma. There are any number of things that can play into it, but to the extent that we currently lack oversight of CBSA and review of mistreatment that refugee claimants may experience, that’s hugely problematic in terms of the integrity of our refugee system.
I will conclude by saying this: Do we have the capacity to quickly process claims and complaints? I’m not sure we do. I would ask that this committee add important observations regarding sufficient resourcing. Resources are scarce everywhere. We are very mindful of that, but just because there are scarce resources doesn’t mean we can ignore a process that is lacking. CBSA is one of the largest law enforcement bodies in North America that does not have oversight and we need to move forward.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: In your opinion, could lawyers challenge the bill’s constitutional legal components?
[English]
Ms. Webster: If I understand the question you’ve asked — whether there are components in the bill which could be subject to a constitutional challenge — it’s difficult to comment in advance, but certainly the organization that I represent, the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, has been involved in test case litigation challenging all sorts of legislation, and we value our role in the legislative process. We value it very much at this stage, and I think there’s work to do to get this right.
But to the extent that provisions in the bill do not prevent against discriminatory application or implementation, I can see it vulnerable to challenge, but that’s the same as any legislation. I don’t think that should be something that holds us back here.
Senator Boehm: Thank you, witnesses. You probably heard my question in the last panel, and this is going to be a variation thereof.
You’re being very clear in terms of asking us to pass this bill because it’s an important first step, but to include observations. My assumption is that you would accompany us and the government in terms of how to flesh out things.
My sense is that this type of legislation has Canada in the vanguard among other countries that receive large numbers of newcomers, border crossings and the like. At the same time, we have jurisdictional challenges. We have, essentially, a border services agency, as other countries do too. We have multiple level police forces with different responsibilities.
You’re members of associations. What are you hearing from other parts of the world? Are you hearing anything? Are you hearing, “Go for it, Canada”? Are you hearing criticism? I would be very interested in knowing.
Ms. Sreenivasan: Thank you very much for the question. It’s interesting whether or not to say Canada would be in the vanguard for finally putting in oversight for CBSA. It has been a lacuna for Canada to have a major police body without oversight.
In terms of areas where other countries may be encouraging or watching, I would be interested in my co-panellists adding other dimensions, but I would say that, to date, Canada’s practices in detention have raised eyebrows internationally. I’ve just come back from the executive committee meeting of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, or UNHCR, where I was privileged enough to be part of the Canadian government delegation, and I heard over and over again from the high commissioner and countries like Colombia and Brazil about the critical importance of not separating adults and children in detention, of not actually putting children in detention at all, and their efforts to improve their regulatory and legislative bodies to guard those rights.
I think there has actually been an interest on the part of countries where Canada is viewed extremely favourably for our general generosity and openness to resettling refugees, but even members of the UNHCR have noted a concern with respect to detention, which is a critical issue in this bill.
For me, connecting the dots and setting this legislation up helps put us in a better place for oversight over an area that has been a concern.
Senator Boehm: It has been very helpful.
Ms. Webster: I would briefly add that, yes, we are behind. By international standards, Canada is behind. We have an enormous law enforcement body that has no oversight. We are out of step with our international partners or competitors — however you want to define them.
In terms of other countries, I can speak briefly about the United States. I began my practice as an immigration and asylum lawyer in the United States. There are numerous oversight mechanisms that oversee the Department of Homeland Security as a whole, as well as its constituent parts of customs and border control, as well as citizenship and immigration services. There is an office of the inspector general as well as an office of civil rights and civil liberties that are inside each of those departments, and there are multiple complaints mechanisms. I would have a lot to say about the efficacy of those complaint mechanisms, but they do exist. They have existed for a long time. They collect data and report on that data, trends and make recommendations to Congress.
Finally, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention for the UN came to Canada in May of this year, and they specifically, for the third time, called Canada out for having no CBSA oversight. It is a shame that we have not managed to act on that recommendation before.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: My question is for the Canadian Muslim Public Affairs Council. I asked the Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association this question earlier. It concerns the independence of the commission. You emphasize the need for truly independent investigations. I suggested to the other witnesses the possibility of joint investigations involving civilian investigators and police forces. I want to hear your thoughts on this specific issue. How can independence be guaranteed in the investigation process?
My question is for you.
[English]
Mr. Al-Qazzaz: Sorry, I missed the first part and the French translation.
Senator Carignan: It was a question to the lawyers in the other panel. It is about independence. What kind of norms or criteria do you want to make the investigations more independent?
Mr. Al-Qazzaz: I want to give a quick example. I was a witness in a refugee hearing. I’m not a lawyer or legal practitioner, but it reflects the community experience in this process. I attended several of these hearings. Even though there are multiple personalities in the hearing, whether it is an admissibility hearing or a refugee hearing, the sense that people get is that basically I’m in with everybody from the same culture or same group or same police background. The officer or the representative of the minister is many times with experience or has previously served as an officer. The sentiment people get even in a hearing that even moves positively, from the participant’s side, they feel that everybody is against them. It feels as though there are no layers of justice that allow us to object.
When it comes to the issue of complaints, it makes much more sense, and the appearance of justice is as important as the practice itself and the process. When there is no independence, it gives more of a perception that I am complaining to the judge, to the executioner, to the person who has collected the information and is testifying against me as a claimant. We feel it is important to push for more independence and make it clear that the independent review is separate from this.
Senator Carignan: How can we fix that?
Mr. Al-Qazzaz: Basically include more people who are not from within the security agencies, and allow for more civilian participation in the wider committees, the setup, the process itself and the engagement part with civilians.
Senator Carignan: Thank you.
Ms. Webster: As my colleague acknowledged, there is this general principle of law enforcement and the problem of police investigating police. It is that justice is not seen to be done even if justice is being done. The reality is we have very scarce resources, and, certainly, from the perspective of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, if the commission is the only body to receive all complaints, it will be dead in the water. It won’t have any resources to move forward. The current CRCC themselves have said that. They have the power of investigation, and they have only done a small handful because they are so under-resourced.
In terms of easy things to fix, right now there is no timeline for a receiving agency to acknowledge, investigate and report on a complaint. If a timeline could be added, saying, “Sure, CBSA, you investigate the complaint first, but it has to be according to this timeline, and if you haven’t met that timeline, the matter should automatically be referred to the commission.”
Similarly, clause 111 of the bill proposes an amendment to the CBSA Act concerning serious incidents, section 14 of the act. I would also suggest that “serious incidents,” as defined, should be automatically referred to the commission. That is where we could see independence for certain types of occurrences. There are already provisions in section 14 that suggest having an independent observer to monitor the impartiality of the agency investigating itself, so if we are already concerned about impartiality, just hive those off for independence.
Senator Al Zaibak: Thank you to our witnesses for being here. My question may relate to Senator Carignan’s question and your answers as well. There have been ongoing concerns about how law enforcement and security agencies engage with communities that are culturally or religiously distinct, such as the Arab and Muslim communities, but they include other racialized communities as well. Ensuring that these agencies receive appropriate cultural sensitivity training is key, in my view, to reducing discrimination and unjust profiling.
In your view, does Bill C-20, as is, adequately address the need for law enforcement and security agencies to be trained in cultural sensitivity and anti-bias approaches, particularly when interacting with racialized communities, including the Arab and Muslim communities? The question goes to Mr. Al-Qazzaz and other witnesses.
Mr. Al-Qazzaz: Thank you. I got the full question. In the current practice, as many people have reported, especially for racialized communities, particularly Arab and Muslim communities, the challenge is compounded. These refugees typically come from authoritarian regimes where there is some level of collaboration between security agencies, so they come already disadvantaged even with evidentiary perceptions and sometimes documentation that sets them back. They are coming here, as my colleague mentioned, with a high level of trauma in general. So for the engagement, the encounter itself, these individuals are already disadvantaged.
Our experience with cultural and sensitivity training is that they scratch the surface. They don’t change real practices. They simply give a higher level of education and awareness but not deep change and practice.
What we see with the introduction of this bill is a first step toward creating another layer that guarantees a certain level of fairness or a certain level of oversight that allows for this particular angle to be viewed. There are provisions that basically deal with the aspect of discrimination itself or bias, and specifically when there are complaints that relate to cultural and bias against particular types of individuals.
One case we witnessed included this component along with disability, a case in Vancouver recently. An Egyptian tried to come through Vancouver, and he was at a disadvantage because his hearing aid was not working for over a month.
These are all compounded issues. We hope the introduction of this body in the bill would allow for a process to deal with these issues in the form of complaints and hopefully opens the door for redress, whether it is in this or later versions.
Senator Al Zaibak: Are there other witnesses who would like to answer that question?
Ms. Sreenivasan: I add, largely in support of what Mr. Al-Qazzaz is saying, I want to be clear about this bill is not particularly about resources for sensitivity training that may be helpful.
The important feedback loop that would happen if we had an effective oversight body, for there to be consequences when complaints were raised that addressed clearly identifying that racism and systemic racism was happening; over time, that would send the feedback loop back to the system so the officers began to behave differently.
It is also important in this bill that it is not necessarily about the ability to speak to an individual complaint about an individual officer, but as has been brought forward in the testimony, that particularly — probably through third-party complaints — the pattern of systemic racism can also be identified. It is important to continue to have training and opportunities to change at the front end. The critical importance of this bill passing is that we will have a mechanism that generates consequences for systemic discrimination which, itself, is what will drive institutional change.
Senator Al Zaibak: Thank you.
Senator Richards: Thank you for being here.
You speak as if you want amendments, yet you want to make observations. The problem with observations, I have found, is they have no teeth. Amendments would have teeth, but you want the bill passed. We are in a quandary here. That’s the problem I find with the bill.
Much of the bill — not much of it, but some of it — is certainly aspirational, but it is not specifically focused, which is unfortunate.
My question is: When I read it, I think there should be two commissions; one for the border and one for the police. Reading this, that’s how I feel. Ms. Webster, could you address that in any way?
Ms. Webster: I appreciate the comments at the outset of your remarks. I don’t disagree that this is a frustrating situation in which we all find ourselves. The bill is deeply flawed. Yet here we are, and I ask that you pass it. I also ask that you pass it with observations in your report.
I’ll tell you the small way — yes, they don’t have teeth. The next time I have a client facing removal, and he tells me about this horrific thing that happened in detention, the way racial slurs were used against him — and the way he felt he couldn’t advance his refugee claim — and he has filed a complaint, when I go to the CBSA representing him and make a request to defer his removal, I will say, “You know what? The Senate committee that reviewed this bill thought it was important CBSA consider a pending complaint as a factor if we are going to grant that request to defer removal.”
I will do my best to give teeth to observations you make; I think they will guide regulations, and I will work on it. I ask you to do it, even if it feels like a pointless exercise. I still think we can work with the bill we have.
As to whether there should be two commissions, possibly. There has been one for the RCMP. The effort was, perhaps, to remedy those flaws, and remedy the flaw of the lack of oversight completely with CBSA. Are we trying to do too much? Maybe. Are we missing the boat? Maybe. I still ask that this bill pass.
Senator Richards: We are not going to get two commissions. I asked your opinion on it.
The item about the law enforcement is provincial, as well as federal. There is a whole merit of things that could happen here with that. That’s why I asked the question. I would like two commissions, but we are not going to get it, right?
Ms. Jeanes: To add, you know that CBSA has existed for over 20 years. It is 20-plus years of accumulation of some very serious issues, many of them happen literally behind closed doors. People in detention are not seen. Things are not recorded. Legal counsel is not present for many interactions.
Some of the worst things that we hear about happen when there are no cameras, witnesses or recordings. This contradiction you are faced with, we live it too. Even if one more complaint goes forward, gets investigated and shines a light on these issues, it is a place to start from. Right now we are in the dark.
I sat at a CCR consultation beside Minister Goodale who committed to closing the gap. That was seven years ago. Here we are. We can’t risk going forward leaving that gap open. That’s why we are all willing to be practical at this point and see how we can improve things over the years to come. Your words, guidance, direction and observations will be extremely helpful in that exercise.
Senator Richards: Thank you.
Senator Yussuff: Thank you, witnesses, for being here. Let me also thank you for the incredibly good work you do on a day-to-day basis in regard to advocating for people who often don’t have voices in the absence of you doing your hard work, many of the things we are doing now, including this bill, wouldn’t be here before the committee.
I want to return to the nature of systemic issues. As you know, the RCMP is not a new institution; it was founded on the basis of how we expanded and developed the country. Some of the challenges we are faced with are still rooted in that culture. We know from women in the last while, their experience has not been good; we know from other groups equally so.
The CBSA may be a new organization, but it did not come out of nowhere. It came out of a merged organization with a history.
How do we deal with systemic issues if the commission cannot find a way to address them in a way that leads to a lasting change? In the absence of that, we can keep dealing with individual complaints. If the attitudes of the individuals and the institution itself do not change, we are not going to have much change. We may give some justice to individuals.
To a large extent, the challenge we face with both of these institutions are, to some degree, many people don’t have faith they are fair, if they had a terrible experience; and, more importantly, they are not compelled to think this bill is going to fix what we are trying or attempting to fix, recognizing you have to start somewhere.
Institutional bias is not an easy thing. When it exists within an organization, it requires a cultural change. It is always more difficult, because you are talking about changing individual behaviour within an organization.
By the way, the enforcement of the law comes because individuals attempt to give meaning to the law; in some cases, it is an overreach, in other cases it respects what the law allows them to do. How do we deal with that in the context of what you are hoping for us to achieve in the context of this legislation taking effect as soon as we are able to pass it but, equally, get the regulations in place?
Ms. Sreenivasan: Thank you, senator, both for your acknowledgement of the incredible work that many of our front-line organizations are doing, and for your thoughtful question.
There is no easy answer to the question of how we address systemic issues and racism.
One angle I think is important for us to think about — because I’m also focused practically — is how your observations could drive interpretation and potentially the creation of regulations? In addition to the individual complaints, in this bill there is the ability of third-party interveners to bring a review of specified activities. It is a Herculean kind of work.
I have been continually amazed and impressed with the dedication and ambition of many human rights and non-profit organizations, CCR members, to track systemic patterns and specified activities. It will not all be solved through the complaints mechanism. To the extent this bill creates one more tool to be able to address systemic issues, the role for a third party to be able to bring a specified activity review is important.
The guidance you can provide about the language of how a third party is able to bring a complaint, or not, for a specified review is extra important.
Again, I would bring us back — and I know many of us have spoken to it — to our concern about the contradiction where the bill clearly has been reformed to enable third-party complaints, and then it provided this very unusual and narrow term called “directly concerned.” It is the term I don’t like because my brain keeps rejecting it.
If there were a way to clarify that, “directly concerned” must enable access for NGOs to bring specified review in the spirit in which the courts have used the genuine interest test. If you find a way to link that in your comments, then we can be arguing it in the regulations because that provides decades of jurisprudence to guide how one should be interpreting, “directly concerned.”
You can think of examples like an NGO that regularly visits people in a detention centre. Are they directly concerned if the NGO makes a complaint about CBSA conduct that it learned about in its visits but for which it was not present?
You could imagine an example where an NGO is serving undocumented persons, and they make a complaint based on reports by the clients about abuse of an officer. These are the vehicles and agencies that are most likely to be able to raise issues. And now we’ve seen this in a systemic pattern through all the clients we’ve been dealing with. As much as you can empower third parties to do the specified-activity reviews and to raise systemic issues, that would be a sharper tool for us. Other than that, it will be an ongoing and long fight. Thank you for the question.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you for being here and, of course, thank you for the work you do continuously.
With regard to the issue that Senator Richards raised earlier, I am wondering about the new agency dealing with complaints from the RCMP and the CBSA. Is it an advantage that you have a body with experience in dealing with complaints? It is, therefore, not starting from scratch if there were to be a separate one dealing with the CBSA, although I understand from the folks who are organizing it that there will still be two separate processes for launching complaints.
My second question is whether you think the five-member commission is large enough. We’ve had suggestions for various kinds of representation at the commission. The five-member plan seems to be a bit tight in terms of getting various kinds of representation. What are your thoughts on those two issues?
Ms. Webster: Thank you for the question, senator. I’ll take your second question first in terms of the number of staff or resources. We need to look at the commission not only in terms of who the commissioners are. Yes, perhaps increasing that number to seven would provide an opportunity for greater representation from different communities, but we need to look beyond just the number of commissioners to the type of resourcing that the body overall will have. It will not be the commissioners themselves doing the investigations and reviewing the complaints, in the first instances. It’s not the commissioners who are appointed to monitor the CBSA or the RCMP in their investigations of serious issues as the bill is currently drafted.
My concern is almost beyond that number five and in ensuring that the rest of the staff are helping those five to be effective and efficient in their own limited hearings. Most of the work of the commission will happen outside of that limited chamber.
Senator Cardozo: Having that body of experience from the RCMP, is that a good thing or a bad thing?
Ms. Webster: My understanding of the bill is that there is a degree of experience, but we’re talking about a new commission and new commissioners who will be appointed. We can all learn lessons from concerns that came up with the CRCC. As I understand it, the RCMP oversight is being brought under the ambit of this newly created mechanism because there was an effort to have independent oversight and because there were flaws with it in terms of independence and capacity and in terms of its ability to collect data and in terms of the nature of that data and the reporting of that data.
We have learned some lessons along the way, but there is more to do. We are also kind of stuck with the commission as is. As I say, I would encourage you to pass this bill or to move this bill forward. We will work in regulations and in any observations you give us in your report to give the commission as many teeth as we can.
Ms. Jeanes: We are concerned about the resourcing of the commission, the capacity, but I want to come to the question from another angle. My biggest concern is, if this bill passes and the mechanism goes forward, will it enable the people who most need to make complaints against CBSA to do so, and to be aware of it? Will they have access to the tools? Many of the people with whom I work, first of all, do not have internet or proper writing tools. They don’t have proper information. Many don’t have legal representation. They are afraid because of the powers and the control that CBSA has. Will they get out of detention? Will they be deported? How quickly? How will they be treated? What restraints will they be forced to wear during that deportation?
There is so much fear of CBSA that a lot of people will not complain regardless of how great a mechanism exists. I am more concerned about whether the commission can work with civil society to get the information out there, so that the proper complaints are bubbling upward. Of course, the more that happens, the more we will see the inadequacy of the resources. Hopefully, at least some of those key issues will come to light.
Mr. Al-Qazzaz: I have a quick comment on those multiple questions. Actually, the value of this commission and of the bill passing immediately are beyond the legislation. Of course, we do not sit here as legislators, but this bill will offer us, as community organizations and advocacy organizations, a lot to work with. It will help us to give to our clients not just a perception but a process for justice and fairness.
It will also give us proper documentation that we can use to address issues that we see in different places as trends across practices. It actually offers a level of deterrence from repeating such kinds of mistakes when they are actually seen through this process. We feel the initiation is an important step, with all these reservations, but your language in the observations will also help us with this advocacy beyond just addressing this or solving this through legislation.
The Chair: Thank you. This brings us to the end of our time with this panel. On behalf of all our colleagues and myself, I extend our sincere thanks to Ms. Webster, Ms. Jeanes, Ms. Sreenivasan and Mr. Al-Qazzaz for being here and giving us your best advice. I won’t try to improve on Senator Yussuff’s commendations because I don’t think anyone could have done that better. Take that as the feelings of the committee. You’ve taken on tough work. You make a big difference. Some of you have arrived here through bitter experience. We thank you all for sticking with it. It’s hugely important.
For our final panel this evening, I’d like to welcome by video conference from the Independent Investigation Unit of Manitoba, Roxanne M. Gagné, Civilian Director, and appearing as an individual, Heather Campbell, Commissioner, Calgary Police Commission. Thank you both for joining us today.
I invite you both to provide opening remarks. You have five minutes each for your testimony, and we will begin this evening with Roxanne Gagné. Please proceed whenever you are ready, Ms. Gagné.
Roxanne M. Gagné, Civilian Director, Independent Investigation Unit of Manitoba: Thank you to the committee for the opportunity to appear today.
[Translation]
My name is Roxanne Gagné. I’m the civilian director of the Independent Investigation Unit of Manitoba. I’ve been in this position for a year and a half.
[English]
My role in appearing today as agency head of the Independent Investigation Unit of Manitoba, or IIU, is not to advocate for specific amendments to the legislation but, rather, provide information on the Manitoba oversight regime and answer any questions you may have that could assist in implementing Bill C-20.
The IIU’s mandate is to conduct independent and impartial investigations of police officers who are involved in matters where there is a serious injury or death. We also investigate other prescribed offences, such as perjury and obstructing justice, and matters that we deem to be in the public interest, for example, sexual assaults.
We also have the option to monitor investigations, and we can assume conduct of an investigation if we feel that certain investigative steps were overlooked.
We investigate matters involving police officers that are from municipal police services, First Nations police services, as well as the RCMP. This includes members that are on and off duty.
I receive notifications from the chiefs of police and not directly from the public. Since 2015, since inception, the Independent Investigation Unit of Manitoba has received 643 notifications, and we commenced 566 investigations. Last year, we saw our highest levels since inception with 99 notifications and 76 investigations, which is about 30% higher than the past couple of years.
Our staff complement includes the director of investigations. In addition to the civilian director, we have the director of investigations, two team commanders, eight senior investigators and some administrative staff.
All of our investigators are either retired police officers or civilians with extensive investigative experience. Although the Police Services Act allows us to hire current members, we have not for many years.
We also now have a new director of Indigenous and community relations. She was appointed in July 2023. She assists the IIU with liaising with First Nations communities and other marginalized communities, especially in cases where we are investigating a fatality, and there is more trauma to the families and to the next of kin. Eventually, we’ll have community liaison officers who will work with the director of investigations of community relations, who will assist with navigation and provide information to communities, family members and organizations.
The decisions and investigations of the IIU are made public. They’re posted on our website. I will issue a final report that will outline all of the findings of fact, the statements, subject matter, opinions, applicable law and, of course, my decision. My final report will anonymize the parties. The only times the final report is not published is if charges are laid. Then the investigation becomes public through the courts or if there are matters of a sensitive nature — for example, a child abuse or sexual assault where a party might be identified — then we do not publish them on the website, but they’re available to the parties.
I hope this information is helpful. I thank you for your time and I’m open to answer any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Gagné. Colleagues, we will now hear from Ms. Heather Campbell. Ms. Campbell, please proceed when you’re ready.
Heather Campbell, Commissioner, Calgary Police Commission, as an individual: Thank you. Good evening.
As this Senate committee does its evaluation of Bill C-20, my testimony today is provided as an individual. My comments are exclusively mine and not those of the Calgary Police Commission.
I will focus my comments on three areas that speak to the practical implementation of Bill C-20: data collection, investigators’ skill sets and discipline resulting from misconduct.
I am pleased to see the changes that were made after Bill C-20 was in front of the House of Commons. My commentary and testimony are reflected in the clauses on the collection of data on complainants, including the reporting of disaggregated demographic and race-based data that will lead to the analysis of trends and inferences on patterns of behaviour within policing and public safety bodies.
In accordance with the predilection of an engineer, I must speak to the practical tools that will be required to support and enable the legislation once it comes into force.
Consideration must be made for the investigative skills and tools of the complaints and professional review commission teams.
Specifically citing the Alberta Human Rights Commission tribunal, John v. Edmonton Police Service, we have seen where a decision by the Professional Standards Branch of the Edmonton Police Service, or EPS, to dismiss a complaint where racial discrimination was the sole complaint, resulted in a much different outcome when held to the test of a tribunal under the Alberta Human Rights Commission. The paragraph in this tribunal that is intense, in my view, is paragraph 19, where one of the officers says, after the three victimized Black men were pepper-sprayed by the police, “Well, you’re lucky. You could have been shot.”
For this landmark decision, legal scholars have indicated that the real gold is in paragraph 30, one that basically says that the two officers weren’t overtly racist; it was their implicit bias in action, but racial discrimination was still at work. The EPS, in their initial investigation, somehow couldn’t see the racism at all.
Investigators will need to be trained and to develop recruitment approaches to enable the performance of investigations where the sole complaints are bias, discrimination, racism, homophobia and transphobia, as examples. Investigators need to be motivated to investigate allegations properly and actively reduce bias. Decision makers at hearings should be trauma-informed.
Investigators should be empowered to seek out expertise in their investigations of complaints. For example, translators for the audio of body-worn camera video should be made available. There is also an opportunity to use technology, artificial intelligence and generative AI to assist in this work. Translation services for a rare South Sudanese language — as was needed in Calgary — could be developed with talent, thought and intentionality.
Discipline matrices for police misconduct are archaic, and policing has not reflected the cultural shift or a modernized understanding of the grievousness with which Canadians overall view complaints of public safety and policing bodies’ misconduct, especially those which involve excessive use of force, sexual misconduct — including sexual harassment and sexual assault — racial discrimination and other misconduct on the continuum of behaviour for which a civilian would typically experience charges under the Criminal Code of Canada.
To support the new legislation, there will need to be an improvement in the consistency, calibration and intensity of discipline for misconduct, especially an updated recognition of the severity of the criminality of the allegations in some complaints, investigations and subsequent hearing processes that are contemplated in Bill C-20.
Policing and public safety body’s leaders need to articulate their full support for Bill C-20 and correctly implement the legislation so that it will deliver a zero-tolerance approach to certain types of behaviours — from unacceptable to criminal — an approach Canadians want and expect from police and public safety bodies.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Campbell and Ms. Gagné. We’re now proceeding to questions. Let’s go back to four minutes for each question, including the answer. I ask that our members keep questions succinct in an effort to allow as many opportunities for interventions as possible.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: My question is for Ms. Campbell.
A number of witnesses used the term “systemic” to describe certain actions that could lead to complaints to the review commission. I’m a former police officer. I consider myself fortunate to no longer need to deal with this type of situation. I want to know whether the use of the word “systemic” now makes it difficult for police officers to respond to a situation that they consider illegal. How would you describe your position as commissioner?
Ms. Campbell: Thank you for the question. I’ll respond in English.
[English]
I am responding as an individual. As a citizen and a Calgarian, I believe the word “systemic” is not problematic; it is actually quite appropriate.
We have a cultural challenge at work within policing and within public safety bodies, which must be rooted out. There is often discussion about whether it’s bad apples or a bad barrel. I don’t believe it’s either. It’s actually the soil. It is the culture and environment from which we train, recruit and develop our public safety bodies and police recruits.
We need to be soil reclamation specialists and create a cultural shift. To deny that there are systemic issues is to deny our role as soil reclamation specialists. It is a cultural shift and transformation that must occur to address systemic issues. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Many complaints are dismissed as frivolous or unfounded. In my career as a police officer, I personally witnessed the inability to apply for a rank, since the police officers were often being investigated. An unfounded complaint can slow a police officer’s rise in their organization. I don’t want to take away the right to file a serious complaint. However, should we be thinking about some type of compensation process when a police officer or border services officer is investigated for malicious and unfounded allegations that could harm their career?
[English]
Ms. Campbell: The ability of a citizen to file a frivolous and vexatious complaint is something that complaint bodies and commissions must address. I think a more appropriate approach would be to expedite the process by which those complaints are investigated such that the stress, anxiety and pressure that is on that officer while that complaint is under investigation is not extensive. There is a significant recognition internationally of the pressure and difficulty that an officer experiences while they are being investigated, and there is no lack of recognition of that challenge.
We would probably be better served to have additional resources in place and additional investigators who are highly skilled and trained who can more quickly address those complaints such that there isn’t a long-standing complaint hanging over an officer’s head.
Senator Patterson: Thank you very much for both of your presentations. It’s very interesting. I’d like to go back to data and the data that is built into the bill to be collected. Because of the area in which you work, you have a lot of experience in understanding what kind of data we should be collecting.
The bill certainly talks about disaggregated race-based data, but we also know that those demographics may or may not pick up things such as sex, gender and other prohibited grounds of discrimination within the Charter. Yes, it can be interpreted liberally, but what I would like to know from your work is: Do you publish reports, how often and what type of data do you publish beyond demographics and race-based? This will be for the complainant. I will also ask you to consider what kind of data do you publish, disaggregated but de-identified, on the respondent as well. Go ahead, Ms. Gagné.
Ms. Gagné: I have to say we have challenges in collecting data. I feel that the data that we have collected is not accurate. It is something that we have discussed and we’re working on.
We collect data based on people self-identifying. That’s very difficult when you have families living through trauma or affected persons living through trauma. We do ask the question, but we don’t get very many responses.
I find it challenging to report on data. We do, but the numbers aren’t accurate. I can tell you that our director of Indigenous community relations, who has been here with us now for a year and a half, has helped us navigate a bit of the cultural components regarding the affected person. It’s a difficult discussion sometimes. You don’t want to outright ask people what their nationality is, but it’s important because we can engage the services of our director of Indigenous community relations to be able to assist with the process, who also then will engage with, for example, Indigenous community organizations and political organizations that also come to offer assistance to families.
I don’t have a clear answer for you, but we are trying, and something we’re currently working on is how we can better get accurate data so we can properly report on it.
Senator Patterson: Thank you.
Ms. Campbell: Thank you for the question. Calgary has started a collection of data and taken a very, I’m going to say, brave first step in that process. Data has just been published through the Calgary Police Commission, although I am appearing as an individual. Where Calgary has a long-standing reporting of data is through something called info posts, which are like street checks.
In terms of data on complainants, Calgary has struggled with how to ask those questions in an acceptable manner to the complainant, although they recognize that it would be appropriate to collect the data on complainants and cross-reference that with the data of those on whom the complaints have been lodged.
I would point you to a review by Justice Epstein from Toronto, and that was the Missing and Missed —Report of The Independent Civilian Review into Missing Person Investigations, which dealt with missing persons. If you think about the nature of the missing persons in those cases Justice Epstein was reviewing, I will be very transparent. They were Brown, and they were Black. They were gay and they were trans, and when they went missing and were eventually murdered, the police didn’t look that hard for them.
That didn’t happen in Calgary. Calgary looks for everyone and finds 99% of missing persons. The fact that they have data to that end has been significant because it’s also allowed for them to put very unique and particular navigation services into the police service for missing and murdered Indigenous women and two-spirit persons to be able to provide trauma-informed, culturally appropriate care for missing persons, knowing that that is a national issue for Indigenous populations.
Senator Richards: Thank you for being here. I think my question has been answered or at least discussed, but I’ll ask it again to reinforce it.
My question is: What does your data say about percentages concerning race and ethnicity compared to the general population? I think you’ve gone over that, but maybe you could just tell me again. Thank you.
Ms. Campbell: I’ll perhaps go first, before Ms. Gagné.
Calgary’s data is based on what we call officer perception, so that is, again, not necessarily an accurate process. The data categories are based on the databases that were set up by the RCMP. The categories, classifications and the labels for those classifications are quite archaic. They are also linked to data within Statistics Canada. Their labels, classifications and criteria are also somewhat archaic.
There is a whole number of connected agencies and bodies which will need to move forward in their connectivity, observational capacity, and the process by which that data is collected.
I’ll let the report speak to the observations on disproportionality.
Senator Richards: Can the other witness respond briefly, please, if you don’t mind?
Ms. Gagné: Yes. As I mentioned earlier, we are collecting data based on self-declaration. We will ask the question, but we don’t always get a response, so we have work to do on properly obtaining this information in a culturally appropriate, sensitive and accurate manner. Unfortunately, I don’t have a clear answer going forward.
Senator Richards: You computerize the names of the individual. Do you put the race or ethnicity alongside it, or is that taboo? How does that work?
Ms. Gagné: If we get a response, we mark it in our computer system. We have been identifying those family members or community members that we know, for example, are Indigenous because of our new director of Indigenous and community relations. We are not necessarily comfortable publishing that data because it’s based on officer perception, which then lends itself to discussions with our director of Indigenous and community relations. We are engaging with her, and she is assisting us on some of these issues, so we are thankful to have her there.
Senator Richards: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: My question is for Ms. Gagné.
Can you talk about the definition of serious incidents? You look at complaints about serious incidents. I want to hear your thoughts on the criteria used to determine what constitutes a serious incident.
I also want to hear your comments on the process. The current legislation states that, when the complaint concerns an incident involving the RCMP, the investigation process is led by an independent body. However, when the complaint concerns a serious incident at CBSA, it’s referred to the RCMP, to the police of jurisdiction. I want to hear your thoughts on this double standard. Shouldn’t an independent body also investigate the behaviour of CBSA officers?
Ms. Gagné: Thank you for your question.
Our mandate is well defined. The regulations define what constitutes a serious injury. They even go so far as to describe the bones of the human body that could be fractured. They also talk about less lethal weapons, such as rubber bullets. Any injury inflicted when a police officer uses a weapon is included.
Orbital cavity bones aren’t included in the definition of a serious injury. However, our regime is flexible enough to let me carry out an investigation in the public interest. We’ll describe what constitutes a serious injury. This helps police chiefs determine whether they must contact the civilian director while giving us the chance to specify the types of incidents that require investigation.
Regarding your second question, remember that we don’t receive complaints directly from the public. The RCMP will contact us in the event of a complaint. We’ll investigate whether it fits the definition of a serious injury or the public interest. The member must also be a police officer. Since CBSA members aren’t police officers, they don’t fall under our jurisdiction at this time.
Senator Carignan: That’s what my question boils down to. When a complaint is filed against a CBSA officer, shouldn’t it be reviewed by a service such as yours, which operates independently of the police services, to ensure greater transparency, independence and impartiality?
Ms. Gagné: Bill C-20 will fill the current gap. We’ll seek out all the complaints that we don’t hear about.
I should point out that these must be criminal investigations. Otherwise, we refer the matter to the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP. This isn’t currently part of our mandate. However, the new bill will fill this gap.
[English]
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you for the work you are doing and for being here with us this evening in our long hearing today. We appreciate it.
Ms. Gagné, I was trying to take in everything you said in your introduction. There are a number of people you are working with, and I was trying to picture the hierarchy and the folks that, as you said, come from a background of perhaps retired policing or from the community background. To make your civilian oversight work efficient, is this a recent organization or reorganization? Is this how you have been established for a long time in this work? Can you help inform the bill, or the bill is helping you or neither?
Ms. Gagné: Thank you for your question. The IIU opened its doors in 2015, so it is a relatively new organization in the world of organizations. I’m the second civilian director. I was appointed a year and a half ago. We have only been open for nine years. We still see some legislative amendments that will probably be coming through to help support the mandate.
We have seen a lot of “moving things along.” Some of the struggles that we had at the beginning we don’t necessarily have today. For example, we had a bit of resistance from officers in providing their notes. Under the legislation, if you are designated as a witness officer, then you have an obligation to come and give statements and provide your notes. We had struggles on some of the disclosure issues. But these things have come along now, and all the chiefs of police, including the IIU, everyone knows how our mandate is supposed to work.
In terms of the structure of the organization, just to go back, I am the civilian director. I have a director of investigations, and then, under the director of investigations, we have two team commanders and eight senior investigators that do the investigative work, and then we have some administrative staff. It has been like that since 2015. We haven’t included any new positions.
We are looking at the possibility of including an assistant civilian director to support the Civilian Director in our work. That would be in line with all of the other civilian oversight agencies in Canada.
In terms of our complement of eight senior investigators and the two team commanders, that’s been since 2015. There might be some legislative amendments that are supposed to come soon. We might expand the mandate to include more mandatory investigations and identify more proscribed offences in the regulations. If that happens, then we might look at having more investigators because we anticipate an influx of notifications.
Senator M. Deacon: I have a question on that. Would you clarify? Are Indigenous communities welcome and a part of this process, or do they have an independent and parallel process?
Ms. Gagné: No. They are part of the same process. We have one process for the whole province of Manitoba, for all police officers in Manitoba.
We now have a director of Indigenous community relations, which helps us navigate the accountability and transparency piece. Myself, since I have been in the position, I have been doing more outreach, speaking at conferences.
We have a few Indigenous political organizations in Manitoba. We are fortunate to have them there, because they help us with navigating some of the communication pieces and presenting before grand chiefs and chiefs of different First Nations.
I presented at a conference last year. I was surprised that one of the chiefs in the First Nations had never heard of the Independent Investigation Unit. It is making sure that I put myself out there and talk to communities.
Since my appointment, I have also been meeting with families where there is death. I can’t meet with all families. But the cases that are more serious, where there’s death, to be able to meet with the families at the outset with the support of the director of Indigenous community relations, to be able to talk about who is the IIU? What do we do? What can you expect from the process? We obviously can’t share any details of our investigation.
I’m cognizant that people who are living with trauma need to be informed of what the process is, so it diminishes some of the stress the families are experiencing as they wait for the investigations to complete, which can take a fairly long time when there is a fatality.
Senator M. Deacon: It also sounds like you have learned, in nine years, ways to make folks feel more comfortable in coming forward and accessing the services. We have heard that’s a roadblock or challenge for many groups. There’s something we can also learn from the work you are doing. Thank you.
Ms. Gagné: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
Colleagues, that brings us to the end of our witnesses this evening. I have the job of thanking Ms. Campbell and Ms. Gagné for being with us, and for bringing your very best advice, sharing your experience tackling some tough issues. We congratulate you on the important work you do every day in a difficult area. You make a difference. That’s important.
You have been helpful in assisting us to understand this legislation and how it will, hopefully, work; that is greatly appreciated by both the people in this room and those who will benefit from this legislation, if passed. Thank you for joining us.
Colleagues, that brings us to the end of the panels of witnesses for today’s meeting.
We will now proceed to the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-20, An Act establishing the Public Complaints and Review Commission and amending certain Acts and statutory instruments.
I note that we have with us this evening officials from Public Safety Canada, the Canada Border Services Agency and the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP. They will assist with any technical questions that may arise during this process. Thank you for joining us this evening.
Before we begin, I would remind senators of a number of points. If at any point a senator is not clear where we are in the bill, please ask for clarification.
When more than one amendment is proposed to be moved in a clause, amendments should be proposed in the order of the lines of a clause. If a senator is opposed to an entire clause, I would remind you that, in committee, the proper process is not to move a motion to delete the entire clause but rather to vote against the clause as standing as part of the bill.
I would also remind senators that some amendments that are moved may have consequential effects on other parts of the bill. If that is the case, it would be useful if a senator moving an amendment identifies to the committee other clauses in this bill where the amendment could have an effect. Otherwise, it would be difficult for members of the committee to remain consistent in their decision making.
Staff will endeavour to keep track of the places where any subsequent amendments need to be moved and will draw our attention to them.
If committee members have any questions about the process or about the propriety of anything occurring, they can raise a point of order. As chair, I will listen to the argument, decide when there has been sufficient discussion on a matter or order and make a ruling, but you, the committee, are the masters of the business within the bounds established by the Senate. A ruling can be appealed to the full committee by asking whether the ruling shall be sustained.
As chair, I will do my best to ensure that all senators wishing to speak have the opportunity to do so. For this, however, I will depend on your cooperation and ask you all to consider other senators by keeping your remarks as concise as possible.
Finally, I wish to remind senators that if there is ever any uncertainty as to the results of a voice vote or show of hands, the most effective route is to request a roll call vote which, obviously, provides unambiguous results. Senators are aware that any tied vote negates the motion in question.
Are there any questions on any of the above? Seeing none, we will move to clause-by-clause review.
Colleagues, is it agreed that the committee move to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-20, An Act establishing the Public Complaints and Review Commission and amending certain Acts and statutory instruments?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Colleagues, is it agreed that, with leave, the clauses be grouped according to the parts of the bill, as described in the table of provisions of Bill C-20, when appropriate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 2, containing the interpretations, pages 1 to 3, carry?
Hon. Senators: Carried.
The Chair: Shall Part I, entitled Public Complaints and Review Commission, which contains clauses 3 to 32, carry?
Hon. Senators: Carried.
Senator Cardozo: I had considered putting an amendment forward on clause 3, but I won’t put that forward. I would be happy to address that in observations.
The Chair: Shall clauses 3 to 32 carry?
Hon. Senators: Carried.
The Chair: Shall Part II, entitled Investigation Review and Hearings of Complaints, which contains clauses 33 to 72, carry?
Hon. Senators: Carried.
The Chair: Shall Part III, entitled Review of Integrated Cross-border Law Enforcement Operations, which contains clauses 73 to 82, carry?
Hon. Senators: Carried.
The Chair: Shall Part IV, entitled General, which contains clauses 83 to 92, carry?
Hon. Senators: Carried.
The Chair: Shall Part V, entitled Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, which contains clauses 93 to 107, carry?
Hon. Senators: Carried.
The Chair: Shall Part VI, entitled Canada Border Services Agency Act, which contains clauses 108 to 111, carry?
Hon. Senators: Carried.
The Chair: Shall Part VII, entitled Terminology, which contains clause 112, carry?
Hon. Senators: Carried.
The Chair: Shall Part VIII, entitled Transitional Provisions Consequential and Coordinating Amendments and Coming into Force, which contains clauses 113 to 146, carry?
Hon. Senators: Carried.
The Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, carry?
Hon. Senators: Carried.
The Chair: Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Carried.
The Chair: Shall the bill carry?
Hon. Senators: Carried.
The Chair: We now move on to the possibility of amendments. I ask this: Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report?
Senator Cardozo: I would. There is an issue I raised in an amendment, but there were a couple of other things that people had raised in our hearings from witnesses if there is interest in that. I don’t have the wording for those, but I would be prepared to consider those in terms of issues that a number of witnesses suggested were important, but could be considered in regulations. I had raised the point that in clause 3 the commission is described as having a chair, a vice-chair and up to three members. I suggested having that changed to up to five members for a total of seven for the purpose of ensuring that we could reflect various aspects of diversity, a point that had previously been raised by some of the witnesses.
The Chair: Before we proceed, I’m going to ask if the committee would prefer to go in camera to discuss this or are you content to proceed?
An Hon. Senator: Proceed.
The Chair: Okay. Senator, one point I would make is that if anyone has your script in the room, it would be important for us to hear it.
Senator Cardozo: The script I had was with regard to an amendment, and I won’t be putting that forward. I’m not going to suggest increasing it because that would require amendments, but I think reinforcing the point that is made in subclause 3.1(1). We’ve heard from witnesses about the importance of having various aspects of diversity included, that is indicated in 3.1(1), and we would encourage the government to ensure that as many aspects of diversity as possible be included, given the various expertise that they’re looking for as well.
The Chair: That can be captured fairly easily by our analysts here and could be read back to us this evening or provided to us overnight to turn around quickly in the morning so that we can move a pace with this. Is that agreeable?
Senator Omidvar: We heard from witnesses today that it wasn’t the size of the commission; it was more the depth of diversity in the new staffing that will be undertaken. That’s important to keep in mind.
However, you make an important point, and perhaps you’d consider speaking at third reading as opposed to making an observation.
Senator Cardozo: I’ll consider that. I would be happy to have an observation.
Senator Boehm: I would like to address the point made by Senator Cardozo. With a commission that has five individuals — a commissioner, a deputy commissioner and the other members — offers enough scope to ensure some diversity, as appropriate.
I had a number of discussions today, which included the National Police Federation. Their greater concern was not so much the size of the commission, how many commissioners, but having the triage ability, having enough hires underneath and the budget to do that rather than having a few more order-in-council appointees at the top.
I’m aligning myself with our colleague Senator Omidvar in terms of saying that this is a good thing. We can all agree on that. But as the commission moves forward, it should be looking at those particular elements and perhaps it would be best to set it out in a third reading speech.
I’m not entirely opposed to it. I understand what you’re saying, but I’m just wondering whether five cannot accomplish what seven can accomplish.
Senator Cardozo: Given that it would require an amendment, and I’m not putting forward an amendment, I’m not looking at expanding the size of it, but highlighting for the government that we heard from witnesses. I think they didn’t really suggest expanding it. They just wanted to ensure that within the commission — whatever the size — the diversity would be accommodated.
I’m suggesting that we give a voice to those who came forward and highlight the diversity as being an important aspect of the commission.
I’m withdrawing the idea of expanding it to seven.
The Chair: We can capture that language here this evening and agree, likely, on an observation to that effect, it’s done, we will record that this evening, and our work will be done.
Are you in a position to read it back to Senator Cardozo?
Senator Yussuff: First of all, let me start by thanking Senator Cardozo for considering withdrawing his amendment.
I think the fundamental point he’s trying to make is that the commission should reflect diversity, given its responsibility and its role in trying to deal with issues that are paramount to human rights organizations and NGO organizations. These are concerns that the commission was set up to address in the first place.
In the spirit of making an observation which reflects the reality of how we can capture that, I think it would be very much about what Senator Cardozo was trying to address in the amendment that he has now withdrawn. I don’t think this would change anything. I think we can agree on this, to a large extent. It’s fundamental to what we have heard from witness but equally from others who have come to testify for the government before the committee.
Senator Boehm: I agree with our colleague Senator Yussuff.
I think the whole question of diversity and the commission being sensitive to the diversity within our country are very important points. We’re going to get a few more observations, and many of our witnesses have basically given them to us. There are probably four or five, but to have in the opening sentence a very clear reference that the work of the commission should reflect the diversity and that its composition should also reflect the diversity of our country might be away to do it.
I’m just making a suggestion, because, Senator Cardozo, it’s an overarching and important point that you’re making. Maybe that’s the way to put it together.
Senator Cardozo: I would agree with the point that Senator Omidvar made that it’s the commission but also the staff of the commission.
Senator Omidvar: I’m not speaking against the observation, but I just want to point out that the bill was amended in the House of Commons with the new clause “Diversity and other factors,” which says the minister “must.” It’s not may. It must consider diversity, so I leave it up to the committee. I’m not a standing member of this committee. I don’t know the culture of this committee. I leave it up to you, but I would say to you that this concern was addressed in the House of Commons.
The Chair: We’re now at the point of asking whether an observation is needed in this respect given the amendment made in the House of Commons and the language in the current bill.
Senator Kutcher: I don’t know if other people are having the same trouble as I am, of not having a written document with the observation clearly laid out and us trying to do something on the fly, which I find difficult. I wonder if there is another tack that we could take that would allow us some time to ensure that our thoughts are actually written down and duly considered and that members of the committee have seen the observations a priori instead of trying to respond on the fly.
The Chair: There is an option to do that. It’s all a matter of time, and from experience, that would take some time, so if we can land on it this evening, we could proceed to the next step in terms of completing the work that has to be done in the broader Senate.
Senator Cardozo: Are there other observations that people want to make? I don’t want to hold it up over this. If there are other observations, then it’s easy to wrap it into a bundle and do it, but I don’t want to hold it up for this one observation.
The Chair: I don’t believe there are other observations.
Senator Yussuff: What will become an observation — I think we did hear significant amount of testimony tonight and in the past on the issue of systemic discrimination. I know the bill has acknowledged that. There is obviously a concern from NGO organizations regarding, I guess, the commission’s ability and how it will use those powers that are currently acknowledged in the bill.
There was a recognition to try to make sure that the legislation will ensure there is a robust understanding — not in the narrow context, in the broad context — because those institutions that have been pushing for this bill in its totality recognize the systemic issues will need to be dealt with as part of the commission’s power, and, as such, they don’t want to be marginalized in regard to how they can bring forward the collective voice from the community at large in dealing with systemic issues in strengthening the commission’s role and its evolution in serving Canadians in the broadest possible way.
So I think what we’re saying is that in the absence of amending the bill, we’re trying to reflect that the commission should take this to heart; hopefully, use its broad powers to ensure that NGOs and other organizations will be given standing; reflect on how to deal with systemic issues as they might arise in the context of complaints from individuals; but, ultimately, be able to initiate its own power to investigate systemic issues without amending the bill.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Yes. I may have another observation to put forward. I’m the chair of the finance committee. I think that I’m the only member of the finance committee here. Over the past few weeks and months, while studying the main estimates, we’ve heard from commissioners such as the complaints commissioner, the public sector integrity commissioner and the information commissioner. They complain a great deal about the availability of financial resources. This affects their work, prevents them from investigating, increases delays and makes the groups under their administration lose trust, according to the concept, in the process put in place.
I asked a few questions about this. We heard a number of concerns about effectiveness, transparency, delays, investigative capabilities and the ability to make decisions within a reasonable time frame. We were even told to set deadlines for decisions and to follow a process. However, this brings up all the issues surrounding the financial and material resources available to carry out the tasks effectively.
I suggest that we add an observation stating that some members are concerned about the availability of the financial and material resources needed for the commission to carry out its tasks within a reasonable time frame and that we call on the government to ensure that the commission always obtains the available financial resources needed to carry out its tasks effectively.
I would propose wording along these lines. I don’t know what my colleagues think about this.
[English]
The Chair: Have our analysts captured the gist of that observation? We have an observation proposed on financial resources that I think was fairly clear. Are we going to continue to entertain an observation along the lines proposed by Senator Cardozo?
Could you produce —
Senator Cardozo: I agree with the observation that Senator Carignan has made, and you have explained it very well.
The Chair: And it’s been captured. That observation has been captured. I think we all understood it. Is there agreement that the observations be forwarded along with the bill?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Are there any other observations?
Senator Patterson: I’d like to come back to Senator Yussuff’s comments. I think we certainly heard from enough witnesses that said because we’re talking about systemic issues, there is going to be great work to do at an individual level with complaints that come forward. Having third-party status in their ability to submit their systemic observations should be taken into consideration. Obviously, I’m quickly jamming down wording here that would need to be refined, but it would be an observation such as consideration should be given to clarify third-party access to the complaints process to include organizations that have a genuine interest in the issue at hand — or wording to that effect. Yes, in addition to rather than just a direct connection as the end of it.
The Chair: We have captured the essence of that one. So there is one on resources and one on third-party access, both of which we heard repeatedly in the course of testimony today.
Is there anything else?
Senator Kutcher: I was going to propose the same thing Senator Patterson did. Thinking it through, it may be reasonable to suggest “genuine interest” in addition to the way that the bill talks about “directly concerned.” In the bill, I think the wording is “directly concerned.” I think that is the language, and we want to ensure in the observation that we think it should be broadened to include “having a genuine interest,” not just narrowly defined as “directly concerned.” That’s what Senator Patterson and I were both struggling with.
Senator McNair: In connection with the comment from Senator Patterson and Senator Kutcher, I think the language that the witness used was “general interest in the matter”; that was the legal term which she thought was significant and had been interpreted a number of times.
The Chair: Okay. Anything else? If not, is it acceptable to ask the steering committee to approve final versions of these observations?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Okay. If that is the case, is it agreed that I report this bill with observations to the Senate in both official languages?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. With that, we have completed our work on this bill. I thank all of you for your patience.
Senator Cardozo: What is the time frame as to when you think you will be reporting it back to the chamber?
The Chair: As quickly as we can check the wording with steering. I would set a goal personally as chair and, given what I’ve heard about the importance of this proposed legislation, almost universally, that we try to turn that around by no later than noon tomorrow.
Reporting the bill would probably be Thursday, I would think.
Senator Yussuff: Could the bill be reported earlier? Tuesday?
The Chair: Why don’t we do it this way: Are you in a position to read back the two observations as you’ve captured them so that we could approve them here and now?
Let’s suspend and have the proponent senators work with our analysts. We will be back in 15 minutes, and we may well be able to approve this and get it done this evening.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Colleagues, we have some language ready to be shared with you. I would ask the analysts from the Library of Parliament to do that right now.
Ariel Shapiro, Analyst, Library of Parliament: Thank you. We wrote three observations based on the discussions of the committee.
The first is:
Having heard from witnesses concerned with the issue of diversity and representation, the committee urges the government to ensure that the members of the proposed Public Complaints and Review Commission, as well as the staff hired by the commission, reflect a diverse range of backgrounds and experiences.
Second:
Your committee heard concerns relating to the ability of third parties, including public interest organizations and non-governmental organizations, to submit complaints to the commission, including relating to systemic issues.
According to your committee, the Government of Canada should explore options to clarify the ability for third parties with a genuine interest in the subject matter of the complaint to submit complaints to the commission.
Third:
In regard to concerns raised by witnesses about resourcing, the committee is of the view that the Government of Canada provide the commission with the personnel and financial resources that it requires to accomplish its mandate effectively.
The Chair: Thank you. We are agreed with the observations.
Is it agreed that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered to approve the final version of the observations being appended to the report, in both official languages, taking into consideration today’s discussion and with any necessary editorial, grammatical or translation changes as required?
Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you.
Is it agreed that I report this bill with observations to the Senate in both official languages?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues.
With that, our work is done. I thank all senators, and our staff, for your patience and diligence in helping us to get through this.
Senator Cardozo: I’m just taken by the fact that we’ve got this bill this far. As we’ve heard so many times, this is the third attempt to do this bill. Congratulations to you, Mr. Chair, for taking us through this. I’m really excited about this moment.
The Chair: Thanks very much. That’s a great comment on which to adjourn. Thank you, all.
(The committee adjourned.)