:
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 , 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.
I hope everybody had a good weekend.
Chair, I'd like to move a motion that was put on notice last week. I'll read it out:
That the committee hold three meetings lasting two hours each, immediately after the study of Bill C-20, on the rights of victims of crime, the security reclassification and transfer of offenders within Correctional Service Canada, including Paul Bernardo's transfer from maximum-security to medium-security prison.
That the committee invite to appear:
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;
2. Representatives of the victims' families and friends, including Tim Danson;
3. Representative(s) of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers...and the Union of Safety and Justice Employees....
Furthermore, that the committee invite immediately the Minister of Public Safety and department officials to appear for two hours to discuss his mandate.
Finally, that the Committee hold a one-hour in camera meeting to be briefed on trauma-informed questioning of victims at committee, in order to be prepared to receive future testimony from victims.
I would like to speak just very briefly to this.
I'm hoping, Chair, that we've come to an agreement on this. There have been a lot of discussions. We have spent a lot of time on this. I think this covers everything, hopefully, that all sides have wanted, including some additions and deletions. I have nothing further to say on it. I think we have other things to move on with, and I'd like to see where this goes today.
Thank you.
:
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 , 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 , 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.
I'm very pleased that this matter has been settled.
My intent is really not to further delay the study of bill , 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?
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.
I hope that my colleagues will vote in favour of my motion.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to my Bloc colleague for the introduction of this motion. I support it 100%.
We know that Ontario and Quebec have been especially targeted by organized crime. Auto thefts are up by around 50% so far this year compared to last year, and 90% of vehicles taken from Ontario and Quebec end up in the Port of Montreal. Each day in Toronto, over 50 cars are stolen, and carjacking is becoming a greater risk as well.
The public safety impact of that is significant, and I support this 100%. In fact, as part of this, I think we should also include the possibility of spending a day at the Port of Montreal to get first-hand knowledge and experience from CBSA officials there, to see what's happening on the ground.
Thank you.
:
I'm in favour of this motion, Mr. Chair. I'm glad that Ms. Michaud proposed it today. We're talking about a crucial factor in efforts to combat organized crime.
At the moment, the fact that there are too few inspections at the Port of Montreal, the Port of Vancouver and ports in other parts in Canada, definitely has an impact on our ability to take down criminal networks. We don't have the resources needed, because the government has been negligent in this area. Indeed, over a 20-year period, fewer and fewer resources were being allocated to the port system.
This has also had an impact on public safety, because it can lead to a smuggling hub in Canada, whether at the Port of Montreal or the Port of Vancouver.
It's therefore extremely important for us to look into this matter. It's also important to go to the Port of Montreal and the Port of Vancouver to see just how lax things are in terms of the inspections needed for the police to counter criminal networks.
There are not enough inspections for either exports or imports. Port system unions and workers have said so repeatedly.
I am therefore fully in favour of the motion for this study. It's important for the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to look into the problem, and also to consider what solutions and investments are needed to do something about this epidemic.
This is an extremely serious problem, and I'd like to thank my Bloc colleague for bringing this motion forward.
When held the post, we were actually able to visit a CBSA facility at Pearson airport. This was probably half a year ago, I believe. We were able to see what measures are taken to prevent contraband from being transported and what measures are being taken to prevent car theft.
The region that I'm from, Peel Region—which includes Mississauga, Brampton, and Caledon—is particularly hard hit. We probably have the highest level of car theft in the country. This is something that my constituents raise to me all the time. I hear it every single day. I would definitely like to see the measures that are taken at the Port of Montreal. I would support a visit to the port, as well. This is something that I raised to our provincial counterparts and to the local police force.
I'm very supportive of this motion.
Thank you.
I fully support the motion put forward by my colleague Ms. Michaud. It's something that affects families, not only in terms of their finances because of rising insurance premiums every year, but also their quality of life.
[English]
In my community of Vaudreuil—Soulanges, every single week that goes by, we have cars stolen. People wake up, and they are unable to go to work. Parents are unable to take their children to school.
This is an issue that touches Canadians no matter where they're situated across the country. I want to thank my honourable colleague for putting this motion forward.
In the spirit of consensus, I also want to say that I am in support of this motion. This is an issue that's actually quite personal to me, as my vehicle was stolen. I did recover it, thanks to the tracking technology that many companies are putting into their vehicles. Unfortunately, much of this tracking technology is subscription-based. If you don't pay for your subscription, you won't have this very important capability for getting your vehicle back. I think that's a very important part of this that we need to discuss as well: the new technologies that can enable the retrieval of stolen vehicles.
This is a national issue, because it is not only providing an immense amount of capital for organized crime but also driving up insurance premiums for all Canadians. The cost of living crisis is very real right now, and the last thing that Canadians want to see when their mortgages are going up and when their grocery prices are going up is their insurance premiums going up so that they can use a tool that is very necessary to enable them to get to work to support their families. This is not only a public safety issue but also an essential cost of living issue. If we have the federal government come forward with a strong action plan to deter these vehicle thefts, then I think we'll see a corresponding benefit to all Canadians through lower insurance premiums and through an enhanced feeling of safety in our communities. Perhaps most importantly, it will do significant damage to the financial capabilities of organized crime.
I'll be very supportive of this. Thank you to my colleague for bringing it forward.
I'll be supporting this also. Thank you to our Bloc colleague for bringing this forward.
I have two quick things to add to this, and then I think we can probably move on after a vote.
This is a very serious problem. I was astounded to find out that residents in Toronto are now installing their own mechanical bollards at the ends of their own driveways as the only way to keep their cars in their driveways. That is just astounding to me. The cost of those alone must be astronomical, but that's what's going on.
I also heard further that this appears—I'm sure we'll learn more in our study—to be an organized crime concern. They are actually placing orders for which cars they want, which kind of shocked me a bit. They want six of this car and five of that model, and they're just going out almost like they're shopping for these cars.
It's a very serious problem. I agree with what all of my colleagues have said today. Once we get to that study, I look forward to hearing some more information on it.
I will be supporting this.
Thank you.
:
Thank you, Mr. Shipley.
Seeing no more speakers, I suggest that we go to a vote.
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: That was carried. Congratulations.
We'll now welcome the officials who are with us. They are available for questions regarding the bill, but will not deliver any opening statements.
With the Canada Border Services Agency, we Cathy Maltais, director, recourse directorate. From the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we have Joanne Gibb, senior director, strategic operations and policy directorate; and Lesley McCoy, general counsel. From the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, we have Randall Koops, director general, international and border policy; Martin Leuchs, manager, border policy division; and Deidre Pollard-Bussey, director, policing policy; and from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we have Kathleen Clarkin, director, national recruiting program; and Alfredo Bangloy, assistant commissioner and professional responsibility officer.
Thank you all for joining us today.
I would like to provide the members of the committee with a few comments on how committees proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of a bill. Many of us have gone through this before, but some of us are new to the process.
I'm not going to read this whole thing. I'll just sketch out some points.
This is an examination of all the clauses that appear in the bill, in order. I will call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and a vote. If there are amendments to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing it, who may explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on. Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the package that each member has received from the clerk. If there are amendments that are consequential to each other, they will be voted on together.
In addition to having to be properly drafted, in a legal sense, amendments must also be procedurally admissible. The chair may be called upon to rule amendments inadmissible if they go against the principle of the bill or beyond the scope of the bill, both of which were adopted by the House when it agreed to the bill at second reading, or if they offend the financial prerogative of the Crown.
If you wish to eliminate a clause of the bill altogether, the proper course of action is to vote against that clause when the time comes, not to propose an amendment to delete it.
Since this is the first exercise for many new members, the chair will go slowly to allow all members to follow proceedings properly. If during the process the committee decides not to vote on a clause, that clause can be put aside by the committee so that we visit it later in the process.
Amendments have been given a number in the top right-hand corner to indicate which party submitted them. There is no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once your amendment has been moved, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw it.
During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time. That subamendment cannot be amended.
Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the title of the bill itself. An order to reprint the bill may be required, and so on.
I thank members for their attention and wish everyone a productive clause-by-clause consideration of Bill .
All right, pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, the short title, is postponed.
(On clause 2)
On clause 2, first up is CPC-0.1.
Mr. Lloyd, do you wish to speak to this?
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I want to make a brief comment on the last seven Conservative amendments.
Having the drafters draft this up backwards and forwards is a significant cost to the taxpayers. If the Conservatives were presenting seven amendments they had no intention of moving, I think that's unfortunate. Conservatives are the first to talk about waste, and this was waste. It was a waste of time.
As I mentioned earlier, the fact that our witnesses have been waiting for a month now is also indicative of a strategy I simply do not understand.
That being said, I want to thank our witnesses for being here, going through the last month and being available now for questions. I'm sure my colleagues will have questions.
I want to move NDP-1. It ensures that the commission would include representatives from indigenous, Black, racialized and northern communities. This is in line, Mr. Chair, as you know, with recommendation 3 on page 4 of “Systemic Racism in Policing in Canada”, a report that provides the inspiration for this amendment. The reality is, the government response to that report also indicated that it is in the interest of the public to have a commission that includes representatives from groups that tend to be marginalized by the justice system and, often, by our institutions. They're often overrepresented, as well, in the incarceration system.
Therefore, what NDP-1 attempts to do is ensure that this diversity is present at every level of the commission. Hopefully, the commission will operate much more effectively than the existing structures that are in place.
I'm sure my colleagues will have questions.
On behalf of the NDP, I move that amendment.
Again, my question is on the practicality and the possibility. We know the intent is honourable. To play it out in practicality, what are your thoughts on that and those in the commission representing the actual communities where complaints could originate from?
That's the intent of this. It's to make sure that investigators and other people, I believe, are in tune with the needs and such of each of those communities, and aware of...and then the commission, I guess, is going to be a different scenario.
I can't speak to the intent behind Mr. Julian's wording, but again, when I read this, I was concerned about how this would play out in practice.
I have an objection to continually suspending. I've done clause-by-clause and BIA implementation several times, and while I understand that it's a complex bill, we've done complex bills before. We were able to hear rationale from others on their recommendations. We can continue to read out the amendment for officials to hear it and get comment on it. However, continually suspending every time—it's not just this one but when others make amendments—is just delaying our ability to get through this bill.
I think we need to be able to have the conversation. We have simultaneous translation. We have officials. We can reread it as many times as is needed. However, I don't think that continually suspending to print documents for a few words being changed is going to be reasonable, given what we are going to have to do in the future. For future meetings, if we have minor amendments, we can try to be prepared with additional paper copies.
In my eight years, I've never seen this, where we can't just continue to have this conversation about what the amendments are and what they mean. We've now supplied it to all members. We can reread it into the record as many times as needed for everybody to get caught up, but I think that suspending is not going to allow us to move forward on this bill in a productive way.
:
I'd like to make sure that I understand.
Earlier, I thought I heard Mr. Koops say to Mr. Julian that the previous subamendment being proposed was too long and that it would be better to just replace "Governor in Council" by the word "Minister". That's also what the subamendment we are now examining is attempting to do.
However, Mr. Gaheer would like to keep:
[English]
“In making recommendations for appointments of members....”
[Translation]
As I understand it, according to Mr. Koops the wording should remain as is with just "Governor in Council" replaced by "Minister". It would therefore begin as follows: "In making recommendations for appointments of members of the Commission, the Minister must seek to reflect…"
Is that correct, Mr. Koops, or is it essential to add the proposed words in this instance?
The issue here, which also came out of Breaking Barriers Together, is the concern around both external misconduct and internal misconduct. In terms of ensuring that we have an ability for employees, people who are in the service with CBSA and RCMP, who give so much to our country, that they are...ensuring that this commission is free from the potential for conflicts of interest that may arise, NDP-3 endeavours to include the following:
is a member of the immediate family of a member, as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, immediate family having the same meaning as in section 33 of the Canada Labour Standards Regulations
We've already adopted a clause that makes it clear that a member of the commission can't be a member of the RCMP, but immediate family as well could potentially, I think, give rise to that conflict of interest. We need to ensure, on behalf of RCMP officers and CBSA officers, that there are no potential conflicts of interest.
That's why I'm moving NDP-3.
I'm satisfied with that explanation, that there are screens that could be put in place, and that, in looking for a specific skill set to sit on the commission, it would be unfair for someone who may not have been able to determine their family's career choice to be automatically disqualified for life.
I think it would be best to not support this. I do understand the need to ensure that there's fairness on the board, but I think there can be mechanisms put in place at the commission to take that into consideration.
:
Thank you, Mr. Shipley.
The chair's ruling on this is that Bill establishes the public complaints and review commission and amends other acts and statutory instruments. The bill states that some powers are given to the commission and that the chairperson of the commission has the rank and all the power of a deputy head of a department. The amendment seeks to give the chairperson all the powers of a peace officer, which is a new concept that goes beyond the scope of the bill as adopted by the House at second reading.
As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”
In the opinion of the chair and for the above-stated reason, I rule the amendment inadmissible.
Shall clause 5 carry?
(Clause 5 agreed to on division)
(On clause 6)
The Chair: This brings us to clause 6 and CPC‑3.
Mr. Shipley, did you wish to move this?
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
The issue of service standards is something that has been raised regularly by labour representatives who have come here on behalf of the employees. The reality is that investigations take months, sometimes years. We need to have service standards that actually have some teeth, and ensure that there is a timely resolution to concerns that have been raised and complaints that are handled both by the RCMP and the agency.
What is suggested through this process in NDP-6 is essentially that:
The Commission, the RCMP and the Agency must deal with and resolve complaints made under this Act within a year after the day on which the complaint is made....
It also provides some scope:
within any longer period the Commission considers appropriate.
However, it does set a line in the sand in terms of what the service standards should be. This is something both for internal and external complaints. Obviously, it would make a difference. As we know, Mr. Chair, justice delayed is justice denied.
I move NDP-6 to put in place those minimum service standards. It still gives the commission the ability to prolong past that date, as needed.
:
Thank you very much, Chair.
I appreciate the need for service standards. It's absolutely necessary that there be time limits on how long investigations can go before decisions are made, or even reporting back to complainants, victims, etc.
What I don't think is necessary, and what I'm really concerned about, is having unions involved in decision-making at the commission level. Complaints need to be dealt with, and that's important. Establishing collective bargaining agreements in that process to me would be somewhat problematic, in my opinion.
While I agree with the idea of a standard, which is what we're getting at in CPC-5, I believe, moving on, it certainly removes any idea that our unions are involved in the commission's work. That could be construed as being somewhat of a conflict, as well.
:
In this case I would like to argue against the subamendment by Mr. Gaheer. I think the reality is that—and we saw this in our hearings on Bill —the complaints commission hasn't been adequately funded and resourced in the past. This is a problem. We see an underfunding of our courts system, and we see an underfunding of our complaint process as well. To put this framework in place, we need to have minimum service standards that have some flexibility.
Subclause 8(3), which Mr. Gaheer is seeking to remove from the amendment, gives the opportunity to the commission to make it a longer period if that is appropriate. The reality is that it's a question of resourcing that makes the difference. Currently, when we look at our judicial system and complaint process, they're not adequately resourced.
I would point out, for folks who say that might cost money, that we give over $30 billion a year to overseas tax havens. That's tax money, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. There are resources that should be allocated to this. If we want a complaints commission that works effectively for the public, for CBSA and for RCMP employees, we need to establish some meaningful minimum service standards. A one-year period is a long period of time, but it is by no means exaggerated, and the commission does have the opportunity to prolong that if it chooses to.
I would argue against a subamendment. I think the reality is that a one-year service standard is something that should absolutely be contemplated and resourced. The reality is that if this bill passes without that service standard, I think we are going to see these complaints prolonged unduly. Again, I will cite that justice delayed is justice denied.
:
I'd like to ask the officials—either the RCMP or Ms. Gibb from the commission—a question.
While I agree with Mr. Julian on the need for service standards to get investigations looked after appropriately and in a timely way as much as possible, we heard during the study that some of these investigations have taken a considerable period of time. My office has received complaints over the years, from members of my constituency who have complaints before the commission, about the length of time it took to hear anything back, so I support that.
We heard evidence at committee about how a lack of resources is going to make this problematic. We know the financing that's been allotted to this new improved commission, including the CBSA and the RCMP, is woefully inadequate in the opinion of the commission, and I would tend to agree.
However, with this particular subamendment that was moved, I'd like to get a perspective from you, Ms. Gibb, on the subamendment and whether it fits. We're looking at CPC-5 and CPC-6, which follow this—also talking about service standards—and whether we are in line with the realities of this.
If we put a timeline in here that's six months or a year from.... I know you can go and ask for an extension—I get that—but what's the reality that we should be looking at as a committee, so that there's a proper guideline for you to follow in the act to do your work?
:
I think it would be helpful to distinguish what part of the complaints process we're talking about. If we're talking about the investigative part on the front end in the first instance, most complaints are done by the RCMP. The RCMP has an internal service standard for the investigation, which is 90 days, not a year.
However, if we're talking about a complaint that goes from the time it's filed to the time the commission reviews it, in the instances when there's an interim report—when the commission is not satisfied with the way the RCMP handled the complaint—or a report is sent to the minister and to the commissioner, and the commissioner then has six months to respond.... In those instances, I won't say that meeting a one-year time frame would be impossible, but it would be a challenge when the commissioner has six months to answer our report. It would have to be filed and investigated, and the commission would have to get the 60 days the individual has to request that review, do the review, write the report and send it to the commissioner, who then has six months.
If you want to parse out which complaints we're talking about, that might be helpful.
I would suggest that 365 days is still very much an appropriate service standard to set, given the average treatment at this point. As I mentioned earlier, and as it states in proposed subclause 8(3), which Mr. Gaheer has proposed to take out of the amendment, it talks about 365 days. I think it makes sense for us to set in place those service standards, with the ability of the commission, of course, to prolong that if it chooses to.
However, putting in place a service standard makes sense and obliges the government, in my opinion, to put in the resources. This was a big part of the hearings last spring—the fact that it is under-resourced. What the government has set aside will not get the job done. I think, as legislators, we have to say to the government, very clearly, that this needs to be adequately resourced in order to ensure that the complaints commission does the job, in terms of RCMP officers, CBSA officers and—just as importantly, if not more so—the general public.
To start, I'll say that I agree we need to have some service standards in this. However, I have some questions about this to pass on.
My first question is this: Concerning the language “the Commission, the RCMP and the Agency must deal with”.... Is that standard parliamentary language—“must deal with” something?
The second is concerned with the definition of “resolve”. When we're talking about resolving a complaint.... There are instances, I'm sure, where you can't resolve a complaint. Does that mean the complainant is satisfied with the resolution, or does that just mean you've completed the process?
My third and final question is this. There's a second page here, which says the complaint must be resolved “within a year”, or “within any longer period the Commission considers appropriate.” Is it even a legislated standard to say, “Yes, you should do it in one year, but if the Commission thinks it appropriate to go longer, then it can go longer.”
Those are my three questions. Thank you.
:
I won't speak to the standard parliamentary language. I'll let Public Safety deal with that one.
In terms of resolution, it means it's completed, in my mind. It doesn't mean the individual may be satisfied. A lot of times, I'm sure, they are not satisfied, but it has come to its full conclusion. Therefore, it's resolved.
To your point, it's giving the commission discretion, certainly. How that's defined and operationalized.... As it is right now, we know it takes longer than even the 90 days. I'm thinking that in most instances, right off the bat, it's never going to meet this one-year service standard when a complaint goes through to the review process and an interim report. It's not a lot of them. There are about 350 a year.
:
That's right, but if it goes to the commission, then you have to add the commission's time onto it, because you reinvestigate in some circumstances.
To get to Mr. Julian's point, sometimes the reality—and I can speak to this from experience—is that you are not going to complete an investigation inside of six months, and 128 days is your four-month mark. However, if the commission gets a hold of it then and follows through, which is what this legislation is about, it could go on for another six months, eight months, 10 months, a year or more following that.
When you came to the committee, Ms. Gibb, there was conversation about what your service standards were, what your averages were once you got a complaint—not what the RCMP had. What would you think is reasonable, from a commission's perspective, with regard to having a regulated service standard on investigation completion?
Resolution is a different story. To me, when you have a complaint, have investigated it and have passed on your findings to the complainant, if you will, many times there's a process after that, a follow-up, and some sort of a resolution beyond that. You've completed your investigation, and the complainant knows what your investigation result is. Should we be separating those two? It does extend the timeline for resolution. If we're using that word, if we're saying that we're going to “resolve” it, an investigation is one thing. Letting the complainant know at the end of an investigation is another thing. Then, having the complaint resolved completely.... The complainant doesn't have to be satisfied, as you said, but having it resolved completely can mean another extension of the timeline.
What would you suggest the language should be that meets the expectations of the community that we're here to serve on these issues of complaints with the commission?
:
I think that having a service standard for the investigation of a complaint by the agency—so, by the RCMP or the CBSA—in that first instance would be helpful.
The commission has its own service standard. Once we get the complaint on review, we have our service standards. We have to report annually to Parliament on whether we meet those service standards. The process is already well established. We don't always meet our service standards, but we certainly strive to.
I think that, a lot of times, it's that first-instance investigation that is the challenge, that takes quite a while. There's a multitude of reasons for why it can take a long time, including complainants who don't make themselves available sometimes when the RCMP wants to interview them and discuss their complaints, so it can go much longer than the 90 days.
With regard to my earlier point, the language here appears to say that it's from the time a person complains to the time it's resolved, which could be upon review. If we were to go with resolving it in one year, by my math the commission would have about one month to get information from the RCMP, review it and write its report to the commissioner if it wasn't satisfied. However, if you parsed it out and perhaps excluded complaints that are on review, just that initial investigation to get the complainant the initial response might be helpful.
We'll sort this out here, and we'll carry on from where we left off the next time.
That being said, thank you, all.
Thank you to our officials, once again, for being with us. We look forward to your participation every time, and we are now adjourned.