Bill C-20

Public Complaints and Review Commission Act

An Act establishing the Public Complaints and Review Commission and amending certain Acts and statutory instruments

This enactment, among other things,
(a) establishes, as a replacement of the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, an independent body, called the Public Complaints and Review Commission, to
(i) review and investigate complaints concerning the conduct and level of service of Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Canada Border Services Agency personnel, and
(ii) conduct reviews of specified activities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canada Border Services Agency;
(b) authorizes the Chairperson of the Public Complaints and Review Commission to recommend the initiation of disciplinary processes or the imposition of disciplinary measures in relation to individuals who have been the subject of complaints;
(c) amends the Canada Border Services Agency Act to provide for the investigation of serious incidents involving officers and employees of the Canada Border Services Agency;
(d) amends the English version of federal statutes and orders, regulations and other instruments to replace references to the “Force” with references to “RCMP”; and
(e) makes consequential amendments to other Acts.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank my colleagues.

As I mentioned, the theft and subsequent export of vehicles is a growing problem in Canada, and the Port of Montreal is where it's happening most, and not only for vehicles being stolen in Quebec. Indeed, 60% of the vehicles that end up at the Port of Montreal were stolen in Ontario. They are put in sealed containers and then shipped to countries in Africa, the Middle East and Europe.

Last year, the number of thefts doubled in Quebec, with approximately 1,000 every month. Last year, insurance companies paid consumers nearly $1 billion in compensation. It's becoming a problem that affects everyone. I would venture to say that every one of us here knows at least someone who has had a car stolen.

The government has some responsibility in this area, because the Canada Border Services Agency is a government agency which, according to its employees, is not making this problem a priority. It is in fact at the bottom of its priority list.

There are only five officers at the Port of Montreal responsible for searching over 580,000 containers a year. The x-ray scanner used for the containers only works about half of the time. There is an obvious shortage of staff and equipment, and not enough commitment and co-operation.

I am mentioning co-operation because a joint unit was set up in March 2022. The unit is made up of the Montreal and Longueuil police departments, the Sûreté du Québec, the RCMP, and Équité Association, an organization that focuses mainly on stopping the export of stolen vehicles. The Agency refused to join this unit even though it is the only body authorized to open and search container contents if there are suspicions. It doesn't always do so, even when certain high-risk containers are reported to them.

The Agency and the Government of Canada are clearly responsible. There were media reports about this issue last week and over the weekend, and both the Canada Border Services Agency and the government refused to answer questions from the media. If we were to invite them to appear before our committee, that would give us the opportunity to ask some rather difficult questions and to get some answers. The government needs to explain how it intends to deal with the vehicle theft epidemic, which some have called a national crisis.Minister of Public Safety

As I just mentioned, I discussed this with my colleagues earlier. I know that our committee workload is rather heavy, and I'm as keen as anyone to begin discussing the bill. However, it would be great if we could adopt this motion today, because it would enable us to add this study to our to-do list and to address it at an appropriate time. Many Canadians are looking for answers to the problem. C-20

I hope that my colleagues will vote in favour of my motion.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm very pleased that this matter has been settled.

My intent is really not to further delay the study of bill C-20, but there is one important study I would like to propose to the committee. I discussed it with my colleagues prior to the meeting.

I'm going to read the motion that I would like to introduce, Mr. Chair, and then would ask you to determine whether there is unanimous consent for us to debate it here today. I don't think it would take very long, because everyone appears to agree on the issue, but unanimous consent is nevertheless required.

The motion has just now been sent to the clerk. Here it is:

That, in light of the drastic increase in the number of car thefts in Canada and given that the port of Montreal, the largest in Eastern Canada, is a hub for exporting stolen cars, the Committee undertake a study, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), on the growing problem of car thefts in Canada and on the measures the federal government has taken to combat this criminal activity; That the study include six meetings; That the Committee invite the ministers of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to appear, along with other witnesses depending on the Committee’s needs; That the Committee report its recommendations to the House; and That the government provide a response to the Committee after it receives the report.

Mr. Chair, do I need to have unanimous consent before commenting on the motion? What's the procedure to follow?

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

I appreciate Mr. Shipley for basically re-presenting the motion that the NDP presented at the last meeting as a way to get through the impasse we've had over the course of the last month.

Mr. Chair, you talked about “resuming consideration” of Bill C-20, but the reality is that we have yet to consider one clause of Bill C-20, despite the fact we've been working for over a month, because of the Conservative filibuster. I guess I would say, with the exception of some quibbles—and I look forward to what my colleagues have to say about this—that this is essentially the same type of motion I presented weeks ago.

My question for my Conservative colleagues would be this. Why did it take them a month to basically accept the good common sense of what the NDP was offering at that time? That being said, better late than never. If the Conservatives have come around, I think that's good.

Bill C-20, for a whole range of reasons, needs to be properly considered. We've had witnesses that we've had to dismiss repeatedly over the course of the last few weeks, at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars to taxpayers. They all have important work to do, and we've retained them here, basically, to hear a Conservative filibuster.

If it's the consensus of the committee to adopt this motion, then that is a good thing. I just regret that the Conservatives didn't see the light a month ago.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 77 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Friday, November 25, 2022, the committee continues consideration of Bill C-20, an act establishing the Public Complaints and Review Commission and amending certain acts and statutory instruments. Today, the committee resumes clause-by-clause consideration.

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

I will remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

I recognize Mr. Shipley.

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

You were absolutely right to do so, Mr. Chair—I want to compliment you—because we do have from the House of Commons the obligation to do Bill C-20. The fact that this filibuster has killed a month of committee work is not something that any committee chair should countenance.

I think your approach has been very effective. I just wish that the filibuster that has now lasted a month would end.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you for your advice.

I will note that my expectation was informed by the notion that the motions that were before us were fully in keeping with what was being asked for. I had every expectation that we could get through this quickly and get on to Bill C-20.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Chair, I hope this is helpful.

You are not under any obligation to bring the witnesses back at subsequent meetings. You may schedule meetings at your discretion. I think many chairs under these circumstances would schedule a meeting of committee business. They might schedule a meeting of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure. You are not under any obligation to schedule clause-by-clause on Bill C-20 and bring witnesses when you expect the discussion to be on another matter.

Out of respect for the witnesses, and also fully in keeping with the rules—I don't need an answer now, but you can consult with the clerk—I think you would be fully within your rights as chair to schedule something else, or to convene the subcommittee on agenda and procedure, or to take other such matters that would potentially focus the discussion where it seems to be going anyway.

I just provide that as hopefully helpful advice, and hopefully it's received in the spirit of that. I don't need a response now. You can certainly consult with the clerk. We'll see in the notice of the next meeting what you decide to do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I am speaking. I have the floor.

I would like to apologize to all for wasting your time yet again. It is a serious matter that we have before us to deal with Bill C-20. We are trying to get it done and we are doing our best. The alternative is to capitulate to matters that are out of our control.

With apologies, I will continue to invite you and continue to schedule this matter. Hopefully, we will get it done sooner rather than later. I do heartily thank you for your time and for having to put up with committee in this way. Thank you to all.

Please feel free to depart, if it is your wish. If you want to stay for the show, you're welcome to do that as well.

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

Yes, of course, Mr. Chair.

In the first case, you rightly explained that this would come after the Bill C‑20 study.

The briefing on trauma-informed questioning at committee is something we included for the Conservatives, who wanted to ask victims about the issue. Those of us on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage found it very helpful to have that education before hearing from victims. The motion doesn't close the door to that at all, but the committee members aren't currently equipped for the appearance of victims.

I feel it's important for the committee to be briefed on how to question victims in a trauma-informed way, and I believe Ms. Rempel Garner was in agreement. We would be more equipped and better educated if, as a committee, we decided to invite victims to appear on this matter or any other down the road. As I said, the heritage committee found the briefing very beneficial. We learned a lot, and it improved how we interacted with victims.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

The clerk has taken notice of the deficiencies and will address them.

I would point out that if we were to pass this motion.... When we finish clause-by-clause on Bill C-20, we still have to ramp up for Bill C-26. We don't know when it is, so this might be an opportunity to fill in between the two studies in an effective, useful way. That's how I think we would approach it if we were to pass this motion.

Mr. Julian, do you wish to respond to those questions?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We have spent more than six and a half hours debating a number of motions that all deal with the same thing. The opinion of every party represented here has been heard. I think the Liberals proposed a motion in good faith at our last meeting, and I think Mr. Julian has in good faith moved a motion that provides a reasonable compromise so as not to further delay the study of Bill C‑20.

I'm not sure whether my fellow committee members feel the same, but I struggle to look witnesses in the eye because I'm embarrassed to bring them before the committee. I know this is costing taxpayers a ton of money. I'm not sure whether you know how much, Mr. Chair. Perhaps the clerk can send us the information. Our constituents need to know what we're doing here. The study of a very important bill is being held up.

People are writing us. Every single member here has gotten emails from people who are very eager for our study of Bill C‑20. I've even met stakeholders who are also worried about the study of Bill C‑26, which we are supposed to deal with after the study on Bill C‑20. That means the Bill C‑26 study is also being delayed. I think it's tremendously unfortunate, not to mention disrespectful to the people here, who surely have better things to do. Their expertise could be helping us in our study of Bill C‑20.

As I said, I think Mr. Julian has put forward an acceptable compromise, but I do have a few minor technical questions. The French version of the motion starts off, “Que le Comité permanent de la sécurité publique et nationale tienne immédiatement une réunion de 3 heures, à la suite de l’étude du projet de loi C‑20”. I was wondering whether “immédiatement” is really what's meant, as opposed to “après”, meaning after the study of Bill C‑20. The English version says, “immediately after”, so the meaning may have gotten lost in translation. I'm not sure whether we can sort that so the French version is clear as well, without necessarily going through a subamendment.

I also have a question about the one-hour in camera meeting being requested so the committee can be briefed on trauma-informed questioning at committee. I'm wondering what purpose that will serve, since the people we hear from are not necessarily victims. Is that additional hour really necessary?

As for Mr. Shipley's amendment, we'll be back to square one if we hold three meetings on this. I think inviting the minister for one three-hour meeting and another two-hour meeting is an acceptable compromise. That is five hours of debate, after all. When it comes to inviting former public safety minister Marco Mendicino, he lost his portfolio, so I think we can leave him out of this. It's not his job to answer these questions. The motion already calls on the committee to invite the current Minister of Public Safety to answer our questions.

I'm ready to vote on the amendment and the motion so we can move on to studying Bill C‑20, but I would appreciate it if Mr. Julian could answer my questions.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

I have optimism. I agree with Mr. Julian that typically we should let the witnesses go, but I take Mr. Shipley at his word that he cares about the witnesses and their time. For three meetings in a row, he's had about 10 to 20 of them here. Since he has this new-found love for witnesses' time, I think we should keep the witnesses here, because I really have optimism that Mr. Shipley and the Conservatives intend to keep this short and that we will get through it and get to Bill C-20. If they're going to filibuster, then they'll filibuster, but I take them at their word that this is going to be fast.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't want to take any more time on this. I think we've had, as you pointed out, three meetings, at the cost of tens of thousands of dollars to Canadians, where Conservatives—and I mentioned this before—would agree to something off-line that was then changed online.

We had this discussion. It incorporates what the Conservatives were asking for. It incorporates what the government was proposing. It incorporates Madame Michaud's comments. Unless there is some tweaking that needs to be done, I would hope we could just vote on this and move forward.

If any member of this committee feels that we may want to go further after having these meetings on this issue, I would agree in the same way, in the same spirit that we brought to the Canadian heritage committee, with all parties coming together, to look at the issue of safe sport. With an initial meeting that we had on Hockey Canada, it led to—for those who followed the Hockey Canada and Soccer Canada hearings—a study that lasted about six months.

I think all members of this committee will be interested, first, in hearing from the witnesses. Second, we will have the Minister of Public Safety, and it is important for him to answer questions on this and other aspects of his mandate. A third aspect is having this committee be trauma-informed, which was extremely helpful for the Canadian heritage hearings. After that, as a committee, we can decide whether to move forward, whether to continue or whether to invite additional witnesses.

But for goodness' sake, let us stop the incredible waste of resources. We have before us witnesses who come from a wide variety of backgrounds in terms of public safety and who are here to answer questions on Bill C-20. Let us keep the commitment we have to the House and to Canadians to get the Bill C-20 amendments through—and hopefully a bill that is improved—and out of committee and back to the House. That's our responsibility. As the Conservatives indicated, they want to do this study, and this study is now before us.

I'm hoping, given that it is now 5:45 p.m. on day four of this filibuster, that Conservatives will accept the yes, vote for it, and let us move on to the important amendments and improvements that we have to make to Bill C-20.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Lewis wasn't here 48 hours ago, but Mr. Genuis was, and he'll recall that I gave the notice of motion 48 hours ago. Even if that was his point of order, he understands that I spoke to this issue, spoke to this amendment, spoke to this motion 48 hours ago. Therefore, Conservatives have no excuse, no pretext. They got their 48 hours' notice, even if they disagree with the chair's ruling.

Can we please have consideration of the motion, rather than these incredibly wasteful...? For taxpayers' purposes, tens of thousands of dollars have been invested now into this Conservative filibuster, when we have people from Public Safety, people from the RCMP, people who have very busy jobs, who are here to answer questions on Bill C-20. I would hope that the Conservatives would not destroy another committee meeting, at the cost of tens of thousands of dollars, and would allow this discussion and, hopefully, a consensus on this motion.

Forty-eight hours ago, I gave notice of this. It was also distributed, as a courtesy, to all members of the committee. Quite frankly, I'm flabbergasted by Conservatives' trying to pretend that the notice wasn't given 48 hours ago and trying to overturn a decision that was made by this committee a few minutes ago, so thank you, Mr. Chair. I will speak to this motion.

I will read the motion into the record a second time, just to make sure that everyone is aware and that the typo is corrected:

That the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security hold a 3-hour meeting, immediately after the committee's study of Bill C-20, on the rights of victims of crime and the security reclassification and transfer of offenders within federal corrections.

That the committee invite:

1. The Commissioner of Correctional Service Canada, Anne Kelly; Deputy Minister of Public Safety, Shawn Tupper; the Correctional Investigator; the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, Benjamin Roebuck; and Tim Danson, lawyer for the victims to appear,

2. Representative(s) of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers (UCCO) to appear,

3. Representative(s) of the Union of Safety and Justice Employees (USJE) to appear.

Furthermore, that the committee invite immediately the Minister of Public Safety and ministry departmental officials to come to committee for two hours to discuss the Public Safety Minister's mandate.

Finally, that the committee hold a 1-hour in camera meeting to be briefed on trauma-informed questioning at committee for future testimony from victims.

After “That the committee invite”, we strike the first line. That was a duplicate, so I've renumbered these.

This is a consensus of all the comments that were made—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I'm open to a discussion about some aspects of this, but Mr. Julian did not provide the required 48 hours' notice. The matter at hand, according to the agenda, is Bill C-20, which means that a motion has to be either on Bill C-20 or on a matter being discussed. The fact that we discussed this issue at a previous meeting does not make it the matter at hand. The fact that it was discussed two days ago does not make it the matter at hand at the beginning of this meeting.

Mr. Julian got the floor and moved this motion, which he would be entitled to do if it had been on notice for 48 hours. Respectfully, it is not plausible to say that something having been discussed at a previous meeting 48 hours ago makes it the matter at hand.

I would respectfully suggest that Mr. Julian can present some of these proposals in the context of an amendment to a motion under discussion. It is very clearly not the matter at hand.