Parliamentary Committee Notes: Bill C-20 - Questions & Answers
Enhanced Review Body for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canada Border Services Agency

If asked about the Public Complaints and Review Commission

Q1.   What is the Public Complaints and Review Commission?

A1.The Public Complaints and Review Commission (PCRC) would be a replacement for the existing Civilian Review and Complaints Commission (CRCC) for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) - through the expansion of its mandate, it would become the complaints and review body for the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA).

The PCRC would consider complaints from the public about RCMP and CBSA employee conduct and the level of service provided. It would also be empowered to undertake specified activity reviews related to RCMP and CBSA activities. The findings and recommendations of the PCRC would be non-binding, but the RCMP and CBSA would be required to respond to the findings and recommendations for all complaints and reviews within codified time periods.

The PCRC would not have the authority to review, uphold, amend or overturn enforcement, trade or national security decisions made by the CBSA, and the national security activities of both agencies would continue to fall under the jurisdiction of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency (NSIRA).

Q2.   What powers would the PCRC have?

A2.   The PCRC would have the mandate to:

In relation to the PCRC’s mandate, it would have the power to:

Q3.   Why is the PCRC needed?

A3.   The PCRC is needed to ensure robust accountability and transparency for the RCMP and the CBSA.

While independent review mechanisms exist for most CBSA activities (e.g., customs and immigration decisions), public complaints are currently handled through internal processes at the CBSA. There is no independent mechanism tasked with reviewing complaints related to CBSA employee conduct or levels of service provided.

Establishing an impartial mechanism in the form of an independent review body to handle public complaints about CBSA employee conduct, levels of service, and to review CBSA’s non-national security activities, would close this gap.

Enhanced PCRC authorities in the new legislation would also strengthen its mandate in relation to the review of the RCMP. For example, they would address RCMP delays in responding to review body reports and recommendations.

Q4.   Why has it taken so long to act on the calls to create an independent, external review body?

A4.   Bill C-98 was introduced in May 2019 during the previous 42nd Parliament and Bill C-3 was introduced in the House of Commons in January 2020. Both Bills sought to establish an independent review and complaints body for the RCMP and the CBSA and received wide support in the House of Commons after being introduced.

Bill C-98 was passed by the House of Commons and had been read a first time in the Senate when Parliament was dissolved for the 2019 federal election. C-3 died on the order paper at second reading in the House of Commons when Parliament was prorogued in the summer of 2020.

The Government committed to move forward on “enhanced civilian oversight of our law enforcement agencies” in the 2020 Speech from the Throne. This was done as part of overall efforts to strengthen public trust in the RCMP and the CBSA. In the December 16, 2021, Mandate letter to the Minister of Public Safety, the Prime Minister re-committed to “reform the RCMP”, including by “establishing defined timelines to respond to recommendations from the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission” and the necessity to “introduce and bring into force legislation to create a review body for the Canada Border Services Agency, including defined timelines for responding to complaints and recommendations”.

The Government has always been committed to establishing a review body for the CBSA and to strengthen and enhance accountability and transparency for both the RMCP and the CBSA.

Q5.   How does Bill C-20 mainly differ from what was proposed in former Bill S-205 (2015)?

A5.Bill S-205, An Act to amend the Canada Border Services Agency Act (Inspector General of the Canada Border Services Agency) would have provided for the appointment of an Inspector General (IG) of the CBSA. The IG position would have been established in the CBSA Act, where they would have been appointed by the Governor in Council following consultations with “the leader of every recognized party in the Senate and House of Commons and approval of the appointment by resolution of the Senate and House of Commons”.

The IG would have fulfilled the sole mandate of receiving and considering complaints about “any act or thing done” by the Agency and submit findings and recommendations to the Minister of Public Safety and the President of the CBSA.

S-205 did not specify whether the IG, and its staff, would have been solely responsible for considering and investigating complaints against the CBSA, or whether the CBSA would have had the ability to review complaints internally. 

Bill C-20 differs from the S-205 proposed regime by establishing the PCRC under a standalone statute (the PCRC Act), rather than establishing it under the CBSA Act, to further reinforce the PCRC’s independence from the CBSA.

Further, the PCRC would have the mandate to serve as the review body for both the CBSA and the RCMP, rather than for the CBSA only.

Rather than review complaints about “any act or thing” done by the CBSA, the PCRC would have the ability to review and investigate complaints related to the conduct and level of service of RCMP and CBSA employees, as non-conduct or level of service complaints fall under the purview of other federal entities (such as the NSIRA and the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada and the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada ). In contrast to S-205, the PCRC would also be able to institute hearings into these complaints.

Further, the PCRC would be able to conduct specified activity reviews, which allows the Commission to investigate systemic issues within the RCMP and the CBSA.

With respect to both its complaint related functions and specified activity reviews, the PCRC would develop findings and recommendations that would be shared with RCMP and CBSA deputy heads and the Minister of Public Safety.

The regime established under C-20 also provides that, in most cases, the CBSA would investigate complaints at first instance, to maintain lines of accountability between CBSA employees and the President of the Agency.

Finally, the PCRC would be provided with additional tools to fulfill its complaints and review mandate, which are further detailed in Q6.

Q6.   How does this initiative differ from what was proposed in former Bills C-98 (2019), and C-3 (2020)?

A6.   Bills C-98 and C-3, both named An Act to amend the Royal Canadian

Mounted Police Act and the Canada Border Services Agency Act, would have amended the RCMP and CBSA Acts to provide for a combined review body for both organizations, as an expansion of the CRCC.

One of the key differences from Bills C-98 and C-3 is that the new bill reflects the government direction to implement standalone legislation to establish the PCRC, an enhanced independent public complaints and review body for both the RCMP and the CBSA. By drafting an entirely new statute, the Government of Canada aims to reinforce the independence of the new review body from the agencies it oversees.

The proposed bill also contains new provisions aimed at enhancing RCMP and CBSA accountability and transparency. These include, but are not limited to: the establishment of codified timelines for the RCMP and the CBSA to respond to the findings of the PCRC, and a requirement for the RCMP and the CBSA to report annually to the Minister of Public Safety on the status of implementation of PCRC recommendations. As it relates to complaints about national security, the bill contains a Governor in Council regulation-making power to increase cooperation with the National Security Intelligence Review Agency or other prescribed federal entity.

Further, Bill C-20 no longer contains sections that would require the PCRC to demonstrate it has sufficient resources to conduct specified activity reviews, which provides the PCRC with increased autonomy to fulfill its complaints and review mandate.

The proposal would also introduce legislative changes to confer on the PCRC Chairperson a power to recommend that the RCMP and the CBSA Deputy Heads initiate a disciplinary-related process, or impose a disciplinary measure, under certain circumstances (see Q40). Deputy Heads would be required to advise the Minister whether or not discipline was initiated or imposed.

To contribute to Government efforts to address systemic racism, provisions would also require the PCRC to publish disaggregated data, including demographic and race-based data when voluntarily disclosed, in its annual reports to the Minister. A due-regard clause was also included to respond to recommendations around increasing diversity among PCRC members. In addition, to improve PCRC outreach to communities, including Indigenous and visible minority communities, the new review body would be required to deliver public information and education programs. To increase accessibility, the bill specifies that third parties can submit complaints and make representations on behalf of complainants, and that legal representatives are privy to any information shared in writing with a complainant.

Moreover, in order to avoid potential confusion on who can be subject to a complaint, Bill C-20 would apply to RCMP reservists as reservists are not easily distinguishable from regular RCMP members.

Q7.   What makes the PCRC different from the CRCC?

A7.   The PCRC would build on the CRCC’s expertise and mandate for the RCMP, but its mandate would be expanded to the CBSA. Further, the PCRC would be provided with additional tools to reinforce its autonomy and independence from the RCMP and the CBSA, while enhancing transparency and accountability of the complaints and review process.

Key design principles of the more robust model proposed in Bill C-20, which are currently not part of the CRCC model, include, among others:

Q8.   Why is one agency being tasked with reviewing both the RCMP and the CBSA?

A8.   Combining the review function into one agency, for both the RCMP and the CBSA, builds on the expertise of the CRCC in performing these functions, which would contribute to effective implementation. It is also anticipated that efficiencies of scale would be generated, allowing for the allocation of resources to priority areas as required.

Q9.   What will the “new” review body do for the CBSA vis-à-vis what it does for the RCMP?

A9.The basic powers, functions and processes for complaints and reviews performed by the PCRC would be essentially the same for the CBSA as for the RCMP.

However, differences in procedures with respect to the unique mandates of the RCMP and the CBSA would remain (e.g., RCMP providing police services for provinces and territories and CBSA detaining individuals in Immigration Holding Centres). Therefore, certain situations would be unique to each organization and would be treated accordingly by the PCRC.

Q10. Will this initiative contribute to efforts to address issues around systemic racism?

A10. The PCRC would be required to incorporate disaggregated demographic and raced-based data on complaints, including information regarding the Indigenous and/or ethnic background of complainants, when voluntarily disclosed, in its annual report to the Minister. Individuals would be able to self-identify as Indigenous or as members of racialized communities when making complaints. Furthermore, the PCRC would conduct public education and outreach effort to increase awareness of, and recourse to, the PCRC, including to members of Indigenous and racialized communities.

Q11. Will the PCRC be able to conduct combined investigations where a complaint relates to actions of both the RCMP and CBSA?

A11. The PCRC would be able to merge complaints stemming from events that involve both the RCMP and the CBSA as long as, in the Chairperson’s opinion, it is appropriate to do so to deal with a complaint. For example, if an event that the subject of a complaint concerning a CBSA employee also involved the actions of an RCMP employee, the PCRC would be able to use information collected for the investigation of either agency for that purpose.

Q12. Who will have recourse to the PCRC?

A12. The PCRC would be available to all individuals who interact with RCMP and/or CBSA employees, including Canadian citizens, permanent residents, and foreign nationals, as well as third parties. A complainant would have up to two years following the incident to submit a complaint.

This would also include immigration detainees in CBSA Immigration Holding Centres, who would have the ability to submit a complaint related to their conditions of detention or treatment while detained. The PCRC could also consider complaints from immigration detainees held in provincial facilities, if the complaint concerns the actions or omissions of CBSA employees or the level of service provided by the CBSA.

Q13. Who do the RCMP and the CBSA interact with on a daily basis?

A13. In fulfilling the CBSA’s broad mandate, its employees have extensive contact with Canadian citizens, permanent residents, foreign nationals, and the trade

community. For example, CBSA employees interact with almost 100 million travelers in an average year, and process over 20 million commercial shipments and over 60 million courier shipments per year.

The RCMP provides policing services to over 150 municipalities and 600 First Nations across the country and interact with a broad cross-section of Canadian society.

Q14. What is a ‘level of service-related’ complaint?

A14. Complaints related to services provided by the RCMP or the CBSA could

include CBSA related processing delays at the border; border wait-times; ArriveCAN; lost or damaged personal items; quality of information provided; examination process (e.g., damage of electronic devices or goods during examination/search, goods taken out of view for examination, length of examination process); and CBSA infrastructure-related complaints (e.g., insufficient space available, poor signage, lack of available parking).

Service-related complaints do not include enforcement actions (e.g., fines for failing to pay duties) or trade decisions (e.g., tariff classification). These decisions are already reviewable by existing administrative review bodies.

Q15. How will national security-related complaints be handled?

A15. The Government of Canada has strengthened accountability for national

security by establishing the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP) and has created a new expert review body, the NSIRA. These bodies review the national security work of all departments and agencies, including the RCMP and the CBSA.

If the PCRC receives a request to review a RCMP or CBSA response to a complaint that is closely related to national security, or the link to national security becomes apparent during an investigation, the PCRC would be required to discontinue any investigation and forward the complaint to NSIRA for review.

The bill currently includes a regulation-making power that would seek to increase the cooperation of the PCRC with NSIRA, notably around the sharing of information, the referral of complaints, as well as the holding of joint proceedings.

If asked about funding allocated to the Public Complaints and Review Commission

Q16. What additional resources would be proposed to support this initiative?

A16. The Government is proposing to invest $112.3M over six years and $19.4M ongoing in the creation of an enhanced independent review and complaints body for the RCMP and the CBSA.

If asked about the Public Complaints and Review Commission’s composition

Q17. Who would be heading the PCRC?

A17. The PCRC would be headed by a Chairperson and up to four additional members, including a Vice-Chairperson, appointed by the Governor in Council (GIC).

The Chairperson would be nominated as a full-time member, while the other GIC appointed members may be appointed as full-time or part-time members of the Commission.

The Bill includes transitional provisions to ensure that the current CRCC Chairperson would continue in office when the legislation comes into force.

Q18. Who is eligible to serve as one of the five Governor in Council appointments? Are there any exceptions in place?

A18. Any Canadian citizens or permanent residents, as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, are eligible to be one of the five Governor in Council appointed members of the PCRC.

A due-regard clause will require the Minister of Public Safety, when making recommendations for the Governor in Council appointment of a PCRC member, to seek to reflect the diversity of Canadian society by taking into account considerations such as gender equality and the overrepresentation of certain groups in the criminal justice system, including Indigenous peoples and Black persons.

That said, a person would not be eligible to be a member of the Commission (including the Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson) if this person has previously been or is currently a public facing uniformed officer of the CBSA or an RCMP member, in order to avoid any actual or apparent conflict of interest.

If asked about reporting requirements

Q19. Who will the PCRC report to and how will its findings be disseminated?

A19. The PCRC would publish an annual report covering each of the agencies it reviews (the RCMP and the CBSA), and the resources devoted to each. This report would summarize its operations throughout the year (e.g., number and type of complaints, review activities) and provide information on the number, type and outcome for serious incidents.

The annual report would also provide information on the number, type, and outcome of complaints received from CBSA detainees, including information regarding detainees held in provincial or territorial facilities. When such data is available, the PCRC annual report would also contain self-identified demographic and race-based data on complainants.

The annual report would be tabled in Parliament by the Minister of Public Safety.

On the request of the Minister or on its own initiative, the PCRC would also have the ability to submit a special report, and a summary of this report, related to any of its mandated areas to the Minister of Public Safety. The Minister would share a copy of these reports with the CBSA President and/or RCMP Commissioner if deemed necessary. A summary of the special report would be made public at least 15 days after it was provided to the Minister.

After conducting a specified activity review of the RCMP and/or the CBSA, the PCRC would provide the Minister, the RCMP Commissioner and/or CBSA President, with a report on the review. The PCRC would be required to make available to the public a summary of this report.

Q20. How would the RCMP and the CBSA report on their progress in implementing recommendations made by the PCRC?

A20. Both the RCMP and the CBSA would be required to update the Minister, via an annual report, on the status of the implementation of recommendations    issued by the PCRC within three months following the end of the fiscal year. Both the RCMP and the CBSA would also be required to provide a copy of their respective reports to the PCRC Chairperson.

If asked about the Public Complaints and Review Commission’s complaints-related function

Q21. What are the powers of the PCRC in relation to its complaints mandate?

A21. The PCRC would have the power to:

The PCRC would also have the ability to hold a public or semi-public hearing into a complaint.

Q22. Whose conduct could be subject of a complaint?

A22. The conduct of any employee of the RCMP or the CBSA would be subject to review by the PCRC. This also applies to anyone assisting the CBSA in the performance of its duties or functions, including contractors the CBSA engages to perform some functions that involve significant interaction with the public. For example, the CBSA hires contractors to operate Immigration Holding Centres. The actions and level of service of these contractors would be subject to review by the PCRC. The technicalities of contracting agreements with individuals to perform functions on behalf of the CBSA should not interfere with the public’s access to a robust complaint mechanism.  

RCMP reservists, who are considered a different class of RCMP employees, would be subject to review by the PCRC.  Agents or associates of the RCMP are also considered employees of the RCMP, and their conduct while performing actions on behalf of the RCMP would also be subject to review.

One exception is for provincial and territorial government employees who work with the RCMP, who would be subject to provincial or territorial complaint mechanisms.

Q23. How will the PCRC respond to complaints?

A23. When the PCRC receives a complaint from the public, it would notify the RCMP or the CBSA, which would investigate the complaint at first instance. If, however, the PCRC receives or is notified of a complaint received by the RCMP or the CBSA and believes it would be in the public interest for the PCRC to investigate, the PCRC would have the power to institute a public interest investigation into the complaint. In these cases, the RCMP or the CBSA must refrain from starting or must desist from any investigation into the complaint.

In the event that a complainant is not satisfied with how the RCMP or the CBSA initially handled their complaint, they could submit a request for review of the complaint to the PCRC within 60 days of receiving notice from the RCMP or the CBSA about the outcome of their complaint. When the PCRC receives a request to review a decision of the RCMP or the CBSA, the PCRC may review the complaint and all relevant information and share its conclusions regarding the RCMP’s or the CBSA’s initial decision.

If the PCRC disagrees with the RCMP and the CBSA’s conclusions, it may:

Q24. Are complaints initially handled by internal mechanisms at the

RCMP/CBSA?

A24. Yes, except in some circumstances (i.e., if the PCRC believes it is in the public interest for the PCRC to investigate a complaint first). The majority of complaints made to either the RCMP/CBSA or the PCRC are expected to be initially reviewed and investigated by the respective internal mechanism of the RCMP/CBSA. If the complainant is not satisfied with the RCMP or the CBSA’s treatment of their complaint, he or she may refer the complaint in writing to the PCRC within 60 days of obtaining a response from the RCMP or the CBSA. Currently, the RCMP resolves around 90% of complaints it receives, without the need for intervention by the CRCC. The resolution of complaints by the RCMP/ CBSA will foster frontline excellence and accountability in both organizations.

Q25. Which CBSA activities would fall outside of the PCRC’s complaint related functions?

A25. The PCRC would not have jurisdiction to review, uphold, amend or overturn admissibility, enforcement or trade decisions made by CBSA, including but not limited to: decisions related to immigration detention or removal, seizure of goods or a conveyance, monetary penalties, origin of goods, tariff classifications, value for duty, the marking of goods, prohibited importations, or trusted traveler program membership.

Various independent statutory appeal mechanisms already exist for these decisions, which are qualitatively distinct from CBSA employee conduct and service complaints. For example, in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) context, independent review mechanisms currently exist for admissibility recommendations and detention decisions. Decisions made by CBSA employees pursuant to the IRPA would fall under the jurisdiction of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada or the Federal Court. This also applies to decisions made by the Minister, the Minister’s Delegate, or a CBSA Officer under the IRPA.

In addition, the PCRC would not have jurisdiction to review complaints related to the CBSA that concern an activity closely related to national security as this would fall under the jurisdiction of NSIRA.

However, in the event that an individual believes that a CBSA employee’s conduct was inappropriate when making such decisions (e.g., an officer was rude or unprofessional when seizing goods from a traveler), the PCRC would have jurisdiction over complaints related to the conduct, but not the statutory decision rendered.

Statutory provisions will also ensure that a submission or ongoing review or investigation into a complaint will not stop or delay enforcement activities of the CBSA, such as enforcement of a removal order. This will ensure that having an outstanding complaint cannot be used to influence or delay enforcement actions.

Q26. Why are third parties allowed to submit complaints on behalf of individuals?

A26. Third parties would be permitted to submit complaints to the PCRC on behalf of individuals. Various stakeholders have recommended allowing third party complaint submissions given that RCMP and the CBSA frequently interact with vulnerable populations. Some vulnerable individuals (e.g., asylum seekers or persons with disabilities) may be reluctant to submit a complaint for various reasons (e.g., language barriers) that make them uncomfortable or unable to proceed with the complaints process. The RCMP provides policing services for large parts of rural Canada, including many First Nations that do not have their own police forces, and evidence shows that Indigenous Canadians are less likely to report adverse conduct from law enforcement when it occurs, possibly due to a lack of trust in the complaints process. Permitting third parties to submit complaints on behalf of an individual would ensure that everyone has access to the accountability mechanism.

The PCRC, RCMP and CBSA would have the discretion to refuse complaints from third parties who have not been given written permission by the individuals impacted by an RCMP or CBSA conduct or level of service. 

Q27. What is a Chairperson-initiated complaint and when could it be invoked?

A27. A complaint could be initiated by the PCRC Chairperson when the Chairperson is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to investigate a complaint that falls under PCRC jurisdiction. This could be the case, for example, where the Chairperson finds out, through means other than a complaint, about a situation warranting investigation. This function is intended to help ensure that situations do not remain unexamined simply because no one has made a complaint.

Q28. Will an ongoing review or investigation delay or stop extradition or     removal, or interfere with a criminal investigation?

A28. No. The submission, review, or investigation of a complaint would not delay or stop extradition or removal orders, and the PCRC would be required to suspend an investigation if it believed that proceeding would compromise or hinder an ongoing criminal investigation being undertaken by the RCMP or enforcement activities or proceedings undertaken by the CBSA. However, removal or extradition would not deprive an individual of their right to submit a complaint regarding CBSA employee conduct or the level of service provided. Complaints could be made from outside of Canada.

Q29. Can complaints be made by employees about workplace matters?

A29. The PCRC is not intended for workplace complaints. That said, the bill would allow the PCRC to play a limited role in workplace related complaints by allowing the Commission to take on complaints regarding disciplinary measures taken or not taken by the President of the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA).

Despite this limited role, the PCRC would also have a discretion to refuse complaints that could be more appropriately dealt with, according to a procedure provided for under any Act of Parliament. As such, in the case of disciplinary-related complaints from the CBSA, the PCRC could refer these complaints to the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board, as the Federal Public Service Labour Relations Act (FPSLRA) provides a procedure for grievances under a collective agreement.

This is not to say that complaints from employees are completely excluded. For example, an employee could make a complaint if they witness misconduct on the part of another employee in the performance of his or her duties or functions.

Q30. Will RCMP and CBSA employees have the right to be represented in their dealings with the PCRC?

A30. The Bill provides that employees may be represented at a hearing. Even outside the context of a hearing, however, general legal principles applicable to similar administrative bodies would oblige the PCRC to allow employees to seek assistance in responding to requests from the PCRC if they so desire. For example, union representatives for the RCMP employee or CBSA employee who is subject to a complaint must also be given an opportunity to make representations.

In addition, union representatives, and anyone that would have a substantial and direct interest in a complaint before the Commission, would also be provided an opportunity to present evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and make representations at a PCRC hearing.

If asked about the handling of complaints from Canada Border Services Agency detainees

Q31. What will the PCRC’s roles and responsibilities be with regards to complaints from immigration detainees?

A31.  The PCRC would be responsible for complaints from detainees held in CBSA’s Immigration Holding Centers currently located in Laval, Quebec; Toronto, Ontario; and Surrey, British Columbia.

In cases where the immigration detainee is held in a provincial or territorial facility through agreement, the PCRC would consider complaints concerning the conduct of a CBSA employee or the level of service provided by the CBSA in the context of these facilities. However, the PCRC would not consider complaints about the treatment or conditions in a provincial or territorial facility that did not involve a CBSA employee or level of service. If the PCRC received a complaint outside of its scope, it would be required to inform the complainant of the appropriate mechanism to submit a complaint.

Although the CBSA plans to reduce its use of immigration detention, a temporary measure has been proposed through Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, to house high-risk detainees in Correctional Service Canada (CSC) facilities (currently at Second Reading in the House). As proposed in Bill C-69, services would be provided and managed by CBSA employees, which would allow the PCRC to review complaints from detainees.

That said, it could be possible that under exigent circumstances (e.g., in the event of a clear danger to human life or the safety of immigration detainees), CSC employees may be required to provide additional support to detention enforcement officers of the CBSA.  In such cases, Bill C-69 requires that an arrangement between CSC and the CBSA include a procedure allowing immigration detainees to file complaints against CSC staff members or registered healthcare professionals employed by CSC.

Q32. How would the Bill ensure that immigration detainees held in remaining provincial and territorial facilities have access to a recourse mechanism for detention-related complaints?

A32.  Bill C-20 would ensure individuals detained in provincial and territorial facilities have access to an independent complaint and review mechanism for their complaints related to CBSA employee conduct and level of service. The Bill sets out requirements that the CBSA inform all its detainees, including those held in provincial or territorial facilities, of their right to make a complaint, and to provide information to them on how to submit a complaint to the appropriate independent body.

To improve transparency around the treatment and conditions of CBSA detainees held in provincial or territorial facilities, the Bill requires the CBSA to share information with the PCRC pertaining to detainee complaints addressed by a provincial or territorial competent body. This information would enhance the PCRC’s ability to track trends in detainee complaints both in the CBSA’s own facilities as well as those in provincial or territorial facilities, which may assist the PCRC in identifying activities that would benefit from a specified activity review. Further transparency would be achieved through the requirement that the PCRC report annually on the number of complaints made by persons held in provincial or territorial facilities on behalf of the CBSA.

Furthermore, any future arrangement between CSC and the CBSA would be required by law to specify a procedure allowing immigration detainees to file complaints against CSC staff members or registered healthcare professionals employed by CSC, when assisting the CBSA during exigent circumstances.

Q33. What is the recourse in Prince Edward Island and Nunavut, were there to be individuals detained there by the CBSA?

A33. Currently, all provinces and territories except PEI and Nunavut have an independent complaint mechanism established. Should a situation arise that would require immigration detention in either of these two jurisdictions, the CBSA would be required to transfer an individual to a jurisdiction where an established independent complaint mechanism exists.

In extraordinary circumstances where there is an urgent need to detain an individual on a temporary basis, the Minister could approve an exception. In such a case, an immigration detainee would be able to lodge a complaint via a CBSA Detention Liaison Officer or via a Non-Governmental Organization such as the Red Cross.

If asked about the Public Complaints and Review Commission’s Specified Activity Review functions

Q34. What type of activities can be the topic of a specified activity review?

A34. A specified activity review (SAR) could focus on any activity conducted by the RCMP or the CBSA other than national security matters, as the NSIRA is responsible for conducting national security reviews throughout the Government of Canada. Specified activity reviews may examine the adequacy or reasonableness of any RCMP or CBSA policy, practice or procedure and provide recommendations for improvements.

Q35. What are the powers of the PCRC in relation to its review mandate?

A35. The PCRC would have the same powers for reviews as it has for complaints. These would include the power to:

Q36. Why does Bill C-20 no longer require the PCRC to demonstrate that it has  sufficient resources before conducting a SAR?

A36. As originally drafted, Bill C-20 provided the PCRC Chairperson the ability to initiate a SAR if the Chairperson was satisfied that there were sufficient

resources to do so. This provision aimed to safeguard the PCRC’s complaint-related functions from becoming secondary to SARs.

The removal of this condition provides the PCRC Chairperson, as subject matter expert on review, more flexibility and autonomy to conduct SARs and better equips the Commission in targeting systemic concerns around law enforcement.

Q37. Can reviews focus on issues occurring in provincial correctional facilities?

A37. The PCRC would have the authority to conduct a review of the CBSA’s actions and agreements as they relate to immigration detention within provincial and federal facilities, when applicable. The need for a review could be informed by monitoring trends in complaints that are received from federal and provincial corrections and/or provincial Ombudsman offices, as the CBSA would be required to proactively share this information with the PCRC, to the extent possible. The CBSA would also be required to proactively provide the PCRC with reports on detention monitoring activities conducted on behalf of the CBSA (e.g., activities currently undertaken by the Red Cross). All of this information could be used to inform the need for a review on the CBSA’s detention practices.

The PCRC would be able to examine the agreements that the CBSA establishes with provinces and territories for detention purposes, as well as the CBSA’s responses and actions to address the detention-related issues being examined. The PCRC would also be able to conduct joint reviews with provincial and territorial complaint bodies, and share information for that purpose.

If asked about the handling of serious incidents

Q38. What is a serious incident and how does the Bill complement existing responses to serious incidents?

A38. A serious incident refers to an occurrence where the actions of a RCMP or CBSA employee may have resulted in serious injury to, or the death of, any person or may have constituted an offense that either the RCMP Commissioner, the CBSA President, the Minister or (in certain circumstances) a provincial Minister, decides would be in the public interest to treat as a serious incident. It also includes a serious injury or death occurring in custody. In addition to conducting its own internal review following a serious incident, the CBSA relies on existing external investigative bodies to respond to serious incidents (e.g., police of jurisdiction and coroner). This initiative provides an opportunity to legislate these existing procedures to ensure a consistent and transparent response to serious incidents.

The developed framework also includes an after-the-fact reporting requirement to the PCRC. The CBSA would be required to ensure that the police of jurisdiction and the PCRC are notified as soon as is feasible after becoming aware that a serious incident is alleged to have occurred. In the case of the RCMP, notification of a serious incident would also be made to the PCRC.

The RCMP and the CBSA would be required to provide the PCRC with information pertaining to any investigation (internal or external) conducted into the serious incident. This would position the PCRC to report publicly on serious incidents in its annual report and determine whether further action from the PCRC (e.g., a review) may be warranted.

The legislation also codifies existing CBSA practices when serious incidents occur (i.e., contacting the police and conducting an internal CBSA administrative investigation into the incident) and requires the sharing of this information with the PCRC so it can publicly report on the number and nature of such incidents and use the information to inform its activities (e.g., areas that may warrant a review or a chairperson-initiated complaint).

The bill also provides that in cases where the RCMP and the CBSA investigate a serious incident involving a member or employee of the RCMP or the CBSA, respectively, the RCMP and the CBSA will permit an observer appointed by the PCRC to assess the impartiality of these investigations.

Q39. How will the PCRC be involved in the investigation of a serious incident that involves an immigration detainee being held in a provincial correctional facility?

A39. In the event of the death or serious injury of a detainee occurring in a provincial facility, the relevant province would have to ensure a mechanism is in place to notify the CBSA immediately. The CBSA would then initiate its internal procedure in response to such incidents and work with the province to understand the specifics of the incident. To assess the impartiality of the CBSA’s investigation, the PCRC would have the option of sending an observer. The CBSA would also be required to provide a report to the PCRC Chairperson outlining the measures taken to ensure the CBSA’s investigation is impartial. Following the investigation, the CBSA would be expected to provide its investigative reports and any other relevant documentation to the PCRC to allow for the PCRC to report on the incidents occurring within provincial jurisdiction.

Q40. Why is a civilian-led law enforcement body not recommended for investigating CBSA-related serious incidents? What steps will be taken to ensure investigations into serious incidents are conducted in a fair and impartial manner?

A40. Some stakeholders have recommended that serious incidents involving CBSA employees be investigated by independent civilian-led law enforcement bodies (e.g., Special Investigations Unit in Ontario) rather than local law enforcement.

Provincial special investigations units and similar bodies are structured to eliminate the perceived conflict of interest associated with “police investigating police” in cases where there is a possibility that criminal charges could result from an investigation. The same considerations do not exist with respect to CBSA employees, who are not police officers. Where there is a possibility of an investigation leading to charges, local police who

an investigation leading to charges, local police who have jurisdiction over criminal law enforcement are best placed to investigate the actions of a CBSA employee, just as they would investigate the actions of a member of the public.

In cases where the RCMP would be investigating a serious incident involving a member or an employee of the RCMP, the local provincial or territorial authority or the PCRC would be able to appoint an observer to assess the impartiality of the RCMP’s investigation. The RCMP would also be required to provide the PCRC Chairperson with a report detailing measures that have been or will be taken to ensure the investigation is impartial.

The proposal also provides that, in cases where the CBSA would investigate a serious incident involving an employee of the CBSA, the CBSA would permit an observer appointed by the PCRC to assess the impartiality of these investigations.

Q41. Why and how are Bill C-20 provisions about CBSA handling of serious incidents different from those in the RCMP Act?

A41.   Bill C-20 would close a transparency and accountability gap in CBSA responses to serious incidents by codifying CBSA current practices of conducting investigations into the CBSA Act. It would add the requirement for the Agency to first report these incidents to the police of jurisdiction and to the PCRC , and provide the PCRC an opportunity to send an observer to assess the impartiality of CBSA investigations into serious incidents (see Q.37 for more details).

Codifying CBSA practices around the handling of serious incidents in legislation would bring the CBSA Act on par with the RCMP Act, which codifies the RCMP’s handling of serious incidents under Part VII.1.

However, CBSA and RCMP practices with respect to the handling of serious incidents will differ due to their respective mandates and jurisdictions. 

More specifically, in contrast to the CBSA, the RCMP provides contract policing services to provinces, territories and municipalities across the country. For this reason, the RCMP Act provides that the provincial authority of jurisdiction within which an alleged serious incident occurs is given precedence to appoint an investigative body or a police force to investigate the incident.

The RCMP will investigate serious incident only if a provincial investigative body, or the police force that receives the request, notifies the RCMP that it will not investigate the serious incident and the RCMP does not consider any other investigative body or police force to be appropriate to conduct the investigation. In the rare cases where the RCMP would investigate serious incidents, the CRCC/PCRC could send an observer to ensure the impartiality of the investigation.

Services provided by the CBSA, however, fall under federal jurisdiction. As a result, provincial or municipal authorities have no jurisdiction to conduct administrative investigations into serious incidents involving the Agency.

While Bill C-20 would provide for the CBSA to conduct administrative investigations of alleged serious incidents, it would require the CBSA to immediately notify the police of jurisdiction of the occurrence of a serious incident. The police of jurisdiction would conduct their own investigations into these incidents to  identify any potential criminal offences. The CBSA would also rely on other external investigative bodies to respond to these incidents, such as coroner’s inquests in cases of deaths.

If asked about provisions related to discipline

Q42. What provisions relating to discipline would be provided to the PCRC?

A42. New discipline-related provisions would allow:

These new measures to recommend discipline would ensure that issues that come to the attention of the Chairperson of the PCRC, but not yet to the attention of the RCMP Commissioner or the CBSA President – are also brought to their attention, while preserving deputy head authorities and collective agreement rights. Any decision to discipline, or not, will have to be reported to the Minister and Chairperson within a timeline to be prescribed by the Governor in Council.

Q43. What are the safeguards on the PCRC Chairperson’s authorities to recommend on discipline?

A43. The final decision on the nature of any action taken in relation to PCRC notices containing recommendations on discipline would rest with the RCMP Commissioner or CBSA President. They would not be bound to these recommendations.

The PCRC powers to recommend on discipline would not encroach on existing RCMP or CBSA Deputy Head authorities; impede on RCMP or CBSA Deputy Head authorities on initiating or taking disciplinary processes; the application of existing laws or collective agreements; an already initiated disciplinary process; and, already imposed measures in relation to an employee’s conduct.

The PCRC would  not be permitted to use its authorities to recommend on discipline for the purpose of collecting information that it would use in relation to its other responsibilities (e.g., investigations, reviews or hearings).

In the event of a conflict or inconsistency between a PCRC Chairperson recommendation to Deputy Heads on discipline and any Act of Parliament or collective agreement, the Act of Parliament or collective agreement would prevail to the extent of the conflict or inconsistency.

If asked about the coming into force of Bill C-20 and Governor in Council regulation-making powers

Q44. How soon after Royal Assent will the Bill come into force?

A44. The provisions of the Bill will come into force on a day or days to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council. Given the level of effort required to establish a new organization, with a new mandate, it is expected that this process would take a year to 18 months.

Q45. What Governor in Council regulation-making powers are envisioned in the proposed Bill?

A45. In addition to its decision powers respecting the establishment of the

Commission (appointment of its members, establishment of their remuneration, designation of the PCRC head office’s location, etc.), the Governor in Council may make regulations to govern the processes surrounding the:

The Governor in Council may also make regulations to establish, among other things:

Additionally, this Bill would give the following regulation powers to the GIC, in the CBSA Act:

If asked about Bill C-20 stakeholder consultations and recommendations

Q46. What consultations were undertaken during the development of this Bill to ensure stakeholder views were taken into account?

A46. The Bill builds on extensive engagement with government partners and other stakeholders through several consultation processes that took place over the years.

In 2015, following the introduction of private Senate Bill S-205 to create a review body for the CBSA, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness signaled that, while the Government of Canada’s supported the establishment of a review body, further consultations with stakeholders were required and were subsequently conducted in 2016 during broader national security consultations across the country.

In 2017, Public Safety also contracted Mel Cappe, former Clerk of the Privy Council, to report on ways to enhance the review function within the PS Portfolio, with a focus on CBSA review. Mr. Cappe consulted a myriad of stakeholders from academia, public office holders to civil society groups, unions, etc. He recommended that a review body for the CBSA be created to fill the gap.

In 2020, the Government consulted several external stakeholders as part of Bill C-3, including the Canadian Council for Refugees (CCR), International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, Canadian Association of Refugees Lawyers, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, Canadian Civil Liberties Association , and Amnesty International.

Between May 30th and June 13, 2023, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security (SECU) heard various witness testimonies on the importance of strengthening civilian review of law enforcement agencies. Witnesses included the Customs and Immigration Union, National Police Federation, legal associations (e.g., Quebec Immigration Lawyers Association), Indigenous community  leaders, civil society organizations (e.g., CCR, National Council of Canadian Muslims), as well as academia (e.g., Mel Cappe, Christian Leuprecht), among others.

The Chairperson of the CRCC, the CBSA and the RCMP, as well as other government departments, have also been consulted throughout the development of Bill C-20.

The Government of Canada has continued to monitor, on a regular basis, public interventions and views of stakeholders, including appearances before the SECU Committee on Systemic Racism in Policing in Canada (see Q46). It has also monitored and taken into account recommendations of the Mass Casualty Commission, as they relate to review functions (see Q47).

Q47. Have CRCC suggestions to improve on the current CRCC been incorporated into the Bill?

A47. The Government has accepted the recommendations of the Chairperson of the

CRCC for improvements, such as:

The legislation would improve on the CRCC model by responding to the above recommendations.

Q48. Does this initiative respond to recommendations raised in the June 17, 2021, Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security report on Systemic Racism in Policing in Canada?

A48. The Bill reflects the first recommendation of SECU (with one exception):

SECU Recommendation 1:

That the Government of Canada clarify and strengthen the mandate, independence and efficacy of the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (CRCC) by:

If asked about the Mass Casualty Commission

Q49.    Does the bill respond to recommendations stemming from the Mass Casualty Commission Final Report related to the CRCC?

A49.    Although it was drafted before the release of the Mass Casualty Commission (MCC), the Bill is a key milestone and an important step forward in implementing some of the recommendations from the report.

More specifically, Bill C-20 would directly respond to the MCC recommendation P.43 around the establishment of timelines for the RCMP Commissioner to respond to CRCC recommendations, and a requirement to report annually on CRCC recommendations. As the new standalone statute, the PCRC Act, would:

Further, Bill C-20 would respond to the MCC recommendation P.44(a) on ensuring that the CRCC has sufficient stable funding to fulfill its mandate, and particularly for the conduct of systemic investigations. The Government has announced that the CRCC, the CBSA and the RCMP will be provided with a total of $112.3M over six years and $19.4M ongoing, for the creation of an enhanced independent review and complaints body for the RCMP and the CBSA. This would provide more flexibility for the PCRC to conduct systemic investigations.

Bill C-20 would also respond to this recommendation by requiring the PCRC to report annually on the number of complaints that were disposed of through the reconciliation process with Indigenous peoples.

Q50.    The MCC report recommends that the RCMP allocate sufficient resources to its Professional Responsibility Unit to ensure it has the capacity to conduct investigations into public complaints. Does the Bill require the RCMP to dedicate adequate resources to investigate public complaints?

A50.    The Bill does not require the RCMP to allocate a specific number of resources to their Professional Responsibility Unit, which is responsible for conducting investigations into public complaints.

Q51.    The MCC report recommends that Parliament amend the RCMP Act to specify timelines for the RCMP Commissioner to conduct an initial investigation and attempt to resolve public complaints, and to respond to CRCC interim reports. Are there prescribed timelines/service standards in the Bill for how long the RCMP has to complete these tasks?

A51.    The Bill does not specify a timeline for the RCMP Commissioner to conduct an initial investigation and to attempt to resolve public complaints. However, establishing timelines for the RCMP to conduct initial investigations, could be achieved through regulations (provided for in Bill C-20) or Ministerial Directive.

The Bill does specify that the RCMP Commissioner must, within six months after the day on which they receive the PCRC interim report, provide the Chairperson with a written response indicating any further action that has been or will be taken with respect to the complaint.

If the Commissioner decides not to act on any findings or recommendations set out in the report, the Commissioner must include in the response the reasons for not acting.

Q52.    The timely investigation of public complaints at the initial stage has been highlighted as a concern by the MCC report. Should this issue be addressed in the Bill, rather than through a Ministerial Directive, thus providing greater assurances that complaints are dealt with in a timely and effective manner?

A52.    There are pros and cons to addressing this issue through written Ministerial Directive, regulation or legislation.

Legislation and regulations allow for statutory requirements to be established, however, they are less flexible instruments. Once a requirement is enshrined in legislation, or a regulation is made, it is more difficult to amend it based on changing circumstances. Over time, legislation can become outdated and result in barriers to innovation and growth and processes for changing rules are time-consuming.

Ministerial Directives are policy instruments that allow the Minister to provide direction regarding priorities or policy matters and create an accountability framework that can adapt over time. Providing the RCMP with flexibility in how they handle complaints at the initial stages may better equip the organization to fulfill its mandate, including the timely investigation of public complaints.

Q53. Would using Ministerial Directives to establish time frames for the RCMP to meet its obligations to the PCRC constitute political interference with police independence, or interference with the independence of an arm’s length agency, the PCRC?

A53. No. Any Ministerial Directive issued regarding the RCMP meeting its statutory or other obligations with regard to the PCRC would not constitute political interference with the police or with an arm’s length review agency.

Review agencies, including the CRCC and the PCRC, are not subject to Ministerial Directives.

Ministerial Directive may, however, be issued in instances where the RCMP Commissioner may need guidance on priorities or policy matters, or when there is a need to hold the organization accountable for meeting its statutory and other obligations.

Ministerial Directives cannot interfere with the operations of the RCMP, with the deputy head powers of the Commissioner, or with the mandate and powers of federal review bodies.

Q54. Will the member positions of the PCRC be filled to help the Commission fulfill its expanded mandate?

A54.The Government of Canada recognizes that should Bill C-20 receive Royal Assent, the PCRC would see an increase in the number of complaints due to overseeing two separate organizations. The Commission may require a complement of members to manage the increased workload, and the Government is considering different options to appoint new members. The GIC appointed members may be appointed as full time or part time members of the Commission.

Q55. A number of immigration lawyers and civil rights organizations have criticized the fact that the review body’s recommendations would remain non-binding. What is the point of creating an independent body to review the RCMP and the CBSA if the recommendations are non-binding?

A55. This approach would allow for flexibility in how the government responds to recommendations and preserves lines of accountability (e.g., Ministerial accountability), while ensuring transparency.

The RCMP and the CBSA would carefully consider all recommendations and findings of the PCRC and provide written responses to the Commission’s report, as stipulated in the new legislation. Should the RCMP and the CBSA decide not to act on any findings or recommendations set out by the PCRC, they would be required to include reasons for not doing so.

The RCMP and the CBSA would be required to provide an annual report to update the Minister and the PCRC on the status of implementation of the recommendations it has issued.

If asked about SECU amendments

Q56. What do the amendments carried by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security aim to achieve?

A56. SECU provided its report on the study of C-20 to the House of Commons on November 9, 2023.

The 46 adopted amendments included in the report improved on Bill C-20 by strengthening the complaints and review process through increased accountability and transparency, as well as by providing clarity to the Bill to make it more accessible to the public.

More specifically, the amendments, among other things:

Q57. Do the amendments made at SECU respond to stakeholder concerns?

A57. Most of the amendments that were adopted at SECU were either recommended by stakeholders, or directly responded to concerns that they have raised.

SECU-made amendments were recommended by:

The 12 Government-proposed amendments that were supported by SECU resulted from the CRCC Chairperson’s recommendations to improve on Bill C-20, which were shared with the Minister of Public Safety and during her June 9, 2023, testimony at SECU.  

Q58. Why should the Government support the inclusion of a due regard clause for diversity for Governor in Council appointed PCRC members?

A58. A due regard clause is preferred as it would continue to provide the GIC with the necessary flexibility to appoint members but reinforces the need for broad consideration. This due consideration would assist in cases where members from certain communities cannot be identified, or may be unable or unwilling to serve, as members of the PCRC.

This amendment would also align with language used in recent Government legislation and bills, which require consideration of diversity of Canadian society prior to recommending GIC-appointed members (e.g., the inclusion of a due regard clause when recommending members for the Management

Advisory Board in the RCMP Act; and for the appointment of the Miscarriage of Justice Review Commissioner in Bill C-40).

Q59. Why should the Government support the inclusion of RCMP reservists under the purview of Bill C-20, even though clause 95 of the Act proposed to exclude them?

A59. The Bill, as originally drafted, mirrored the current complaint regime under the RCMP Act, which excludes RCMP reservists, thus prohibiting the CRCC to receive complaints made against them.

That being said, to members of the public, a reservist is indistinguishable from a regular member. It benefits the public to know that any RCMP officer they interact with could be subject to the same public complaints process, should they want to file a complaint.

Removing clause 95 ensures that the RCMP and PCRC will treat complaints about the conduct of reservists in the same way they treat complaints about the conduct of regular RCMP members. This would also allow the RCMP and PCRC to better track and monitor complaints and outcomes of complaint investigations involving reservists.

If asked about the Canada Border Services Agency current handling of complaints

Q60. What does the CBSA currently have in place in terms of reviews and responses to complaints?

A60. The CBSA has a public complaints mechanism in place that ensures all public complaints received are assigned to the appropriate area of the Agency for a full review and action within established service standards.

The CBSA provides further details as required as to their service standards, etc.

Q61. What kind of public complaints does the CBSA receive?

A61. The most frequent complaint allegations submitted to the CBSA in the last two fiscal years (FY22-23 and FY 23-24), that are within the scope of the Agency’s mandate, concerned employee conduct, immigration lookout/flags, secondary examination, postal searches, border wait times, and examinations.

The CBSA categorizes public complaint allegations into over 40 types. This ensures each allegation contained within a single complaint is addressed on its own by the appropriate area of responsibility. Based on the last five fiscal years, the CBSA receives a yearly average of 3000 public complaints that are within the scope of the Agency’s mandate. 

Date modified: