News from ICLMG

Joint statement on urgent need for action to ensure accountable, independent and effective review of the RCMP and CBSA in Bill C-20

Our organizations, with decades of expertise in the areas of immigration and refugee law, criminal law, human rights, international law, civil liberties, and national security, are coming together to ensure that the Public Complaints and Review Commission (PCRC), to be established through Bill C-20, sets up an effective, independent, fair and accessible accountability process, from start to finish, in regard to the activities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA).

This includes ensuring access and removing barriers for complainants and their advocates, including for systemic complaints; preventing the CBSA and RCMP from investigating themselves; ensuring recourse and redress as a result of review; and enshrining the ability for judicial review to ensure process is followed.

The below proposals address these concerns in the proposed legislation. See annex A [PDF] for specific legislative wording.

Amendments are required to remove barriers to making well-founded complaints

Bill C-20 must be amended to better allow for third parties, particularly public-interest organizations and NGOs, to be able to file complaints. The current wording of the bill also establishes unnecessary barriers to the filing of complaints that should be removed.

  • Facilitation of third party complaints, which can help to shed light on systemic issues, including systemic racism.
    • Sections 33(1) and 33(2) should be amended to explicitly allow third parties to submit complaints.
    • In order for this to be viable, other related amendments are necessary:
      • Amend the bill by striking sections 38(1)(b) and 52(1)(b), which limit the complaints to directly impacted individuals and those representing them, and instead explicitly allow for public-interest/NGO third party complaints by inserting “or third party” after “Any individual,” i.e. “Any individual or third party may.”
      • Amend s. 44(1) to explicitly allow third parties to make representations.
      • Amend s. 59(7) by removing the requirement for parties to have a “direct” interest in the complaint to make representations and otherwise participate in hearings.
  • Instead of a strict one year time limit, the body receiving the complaint should have discretion, based on defined criteria, to decline to investigate a complaint based on the time elapsed after either the conduct in question, or the date that it was discovered that such conduct occurred. We would recommend a two-year period from the later of the date of the conduct, or the date that the conduct was discovered to have occurred. Amend ss. 33(3), (4), (5) and (6) accordingly.
  • Allowing for complaints to be dismissed based on being trivial will likely lead to valid complaints being dismissed and obscure patterns of racial and other forms of discrimination. The word ‘trivial’ should be deleted from s. 38(1)(a) and 52(1)(a).
  • The provisions allowing for termination of a complaint where it is “not necessary or reasonably practicable” to continue the investigation should be deleted (ss. 38(1)(e) and 53(1)(b)).
  • All provisions preventing or terminating the investigation of complaints due to their impact on the administration or enforcement of program legislation or the investigation or prosecution of any offence (i.e., ss. 37(3)&(4), 46(2), 52(6)(a) & (b) and 60(1)) should be replaced with more targeted language allowing for complaint investigation to be postponed or suspended if it would seriously hinder a criminal investigation or prosecution.
  • Section 52(5), requiring the Commission to refuse to address a complaint if it could have been adequately or more appropriately dealt with according to another procedure provided for under any Act of Parliament or a legislature of a province should also be removed.

Amendments are required to allow for complaints regarding systemic issues and to remove barriers to the PCRC carrying out systemic reviews

Complaints regarding the RCMP and CBSA must not be limited to individual cases, and instead must be amended to allow for the public to file complaints regarding systemic and policy issues, including systemic racism and discrimination, patterns of behaviour or problematic policies and operations.

  • Amend sections 33(1) and (2) to allow for individuals and organizations, including third parties, to submit systemic complaints; alternatively, a new section could be added to allow for the same.
  • Amend section 28 to allow organizations to request a specified review, and to explicitly allow the Commission to consider the actual content and impacts of policies, procedures, guidelines, and practices, including whether they comply with international and domestic human rights law and standards and result in systemic racism and other forms of discrimination.
  • Delete subsection 28(3)(a), which requires that the Commission must be satisfied that “sufficient resources exist for conducting the review and the handling of complaints under Part 2 will not be compromised.”

Amendments are required to ensure independence of investigations

Given the systemic racism that has been acknowledged to plague both the RCMP and CBSA, leaving them to investigate themselves leads to an apprehension of bias by design and may exacerbate existing problems. Establishing an independent investigative unit with resourcing to address all complaints within the PCRC will take time and presents a complex endeavour, but is achievable.

While we have attempted to provide specific amendments for the other points in this document, the complexity of amendments on this issue, and concern around resources, makes it difficult to provide exact language. However, in general terms, we believe these amendments and steps may move in the right direction:

In order to ensure proper resourcing, staffing and training at the PCRC to take on the role of sole investigator, the government could implement a transition period during which more investigations are handled by the PCRC, with the goal of full PCRC control over investigations as soon as possible, and within a maximum of five years

To do so, Bill C-20 could also be amended to remove sections 37 to 39, which require CBSA and RCMP to investigate, in favour of a system where the PCRC is given the role of primary investigator, with the power to delegate investigations, as necessary, to the RCMP or the CBSA.

Section 51(1) already states that:

Subject to section 52, after receiving or being notified of a complaint, the Commission must investigate the complaint or institute a hearing to inquire into it if the Chairperson is of the opinion that it would be in the public interest for the Commission to do so. [emphasis added]

This provides appropriate language and a starting point for granting the PCRC primary – and eventually sole – investigatory powers.

Amendments are required to ensure recourse during an investigation, and redress upon success

In order to give force to the complaints process, the PCRC must be armed with necessary powers to address interim needs during an investigation and provide redress upon a successful complaint.

  • Amend section 28 strengthen requirements to enact the PCRC’s recommendations;
  • Amend sections 67, 68 and 84 to allow the PCRC to:
    • Recommend a stay of removal and other interim remedies during the investigation of a complaint;
    • Initiate a disciplinary process, or impose a disciplinary sanction, at the conclusion of complaint hearings;
    • Recommend certain forms of redress, particularly in the form of halting removals from Canada or allowing re-entry;
    • Order financial redress or awards for founded complaints.

Amendments are required to ensure judicial recourse

The work of any administrative body must be subject to judicial review to ensure compliance with its enabling statute.

  • Remove s. 65, which precludes possibility of judicial review

SIGNED BY:

Amnesty International Canada (English-speaking)

BC Civil Liberties Association

Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers

Canadian Civil Liberties Association

Canadian Immigration Lawyers’ Association

Canadian Muslim Lawyers’ Association

Canadian Muslim Public Affairs Council

International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group

Since you’re here…

… we have a small favour to ask. Here at ICLMG, we are working very hard to protect and promote human rights and civil liberties in the context of the so-called “war on terror” in Canada. We do not receive any financial support from any federal, provincial or municipal governments or political parties. You can become our patron on Patreon and get rewards in exchange for your support. You can give as little as $1/month (that’s only $12/year!) and you can unsubscribe at any time. Any donations will go a long way to support our work.panel-54141172-image-6fa93d06d6081076-320-320You can also make a one-time donation or donate monthly via Paypal by clicking on the button below. On the fence about giving? Check out our Achievements and Gains since we were created in 2002. Thank you for your generosity!
make-a-donation-button

Canadians deserve to be protected from AI overreach, but Bill C-27’s Artificial Intelligence and Data Act is not up to the task

Advocates demand proper consideration for AI regulation

Canadians deserve to be protected from AI overreach, but Bill C-27’s Artificial Intelligence and Data Act is not up to the task

SEPTEMBER 25, 2023 — Today 45 leading civil society organisations, experts and academics released an open letter to Industry, Science, and Economic Development (ISED) Minister François-Philippe Champagne outlining key concerns with the current draft of the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (AIDA), currently wrapped into the government’s proposed privacy bill, Bill C-27. The House of Commons Industry and Technology Committee will begin its study of the legislation tomorrow, Tuesday, Sept. 26.

The signatories are gravely concerned that shoehorning AI regulation into Privacy Bill C-27 will not allow for adequate consideration of AIDA, and will take necessary committee time and attention away from improving the privacy provisions of the bill. While advocating for separating AIDA into its own process, the signatories also provided Minister Champagne with bare minimum bottom-line recommendations for changes to AIDA.

Key recommendations of the letter include:

  1. Recognizing privacy as a fundamental human right;
  2. Removing AI regulation from ISED’s sole jurisdiction, given ISED’s mandate to bolster the AI industry conflicts with the public interest in regulating the potential dangers of AI;
  3. Addressing poorly defined language in AIDA that create loopholes and a lack of enforceable rules;
  4. Committing to far more active consultation with stakeholders beyond industry insiders; to ensure AIDA and subsequent AI rules are well balanced and rights-protecting; and
  5. Expanding AI regulation to apply to both the public and private sector, including government security agencies.

We know people in Canada are concerned: in the past two years, more than 10,000 signatures and letters were sent to government officials calling for strong action to address the impacts of AI and facial recognition. Since November 2021, more than 29,500 signatures have been collected by OpenMedia petitions calling for new privacy laws in Canada, and more than 17,800 messages have been sent to the government calling for enhanced personal privacy protections.

Quotes

“Excluding private sector AI tech developed for government intelligence, defence and national security purposes from any form of regulation means a free pass for some of the most potentially harmful AI tools. If the government is serious about protecting the rights of people in Canada, AIDA isn’t up to task.”
–Tim McSorley, National Coordinator at the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group

“By combining consideration of C-27’s privacy regulation with AI regulation, Minister Champagne is doing a disservice to both. Today we join our peers in calling on the government to take the time and space needed to ensure Canada’s AI rules comprehensively respect our human rights.”
–Matt Hatfield, Campaigns Director at OpenMedia

“The Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (AIDA) fails to capture the complexity of the harms and risks that AI can bring to bear on individuals, communities, and their fundamental rights. These rights and freedoms should be protected in our quick-shifting technological landscape, and AIDA is not fit to do so—AIDA is at risk of lagging behind the times before it can meet the present.”
–Daniel Konikoff, Interim Director of the Privacy, Technology & Surveillance program at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association

“AI regulation under AIDA lacks independent oversight, relies heavily on industry discretion and self-regulation, and fails to meaningfully consider systemic harms and human rights. In its current form, AIDA is far too underdeveloped to be a serious piece of AI legislation worthy of committee study.”
–Yuka Sai, Staff Lawyer at the Public Interest Advocacy Centre

“Canadians deserve AI legislation that prioritises human rights over economic development. AIDA fails to meet this standard. The power that AI technology has to enable mass surveillance, and the risk of mass rights violations created by unregulated government use of these tools, is too great to be brushed aside and left for later consideration.”
–Aislin Jackson, Policy Staff Counsel at the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association

“The Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (AIDA) is ill-considered and un-democratic. It has been driven by AI industry interests and not the public interest. Canadians deserve a genuine consultative process before such legislation can be passed.”
–Andrew Clement, Professor Emeritus, University of Toronto (affiliation only)

– 30 –

Contact

Tim McSorley
National Coordinator, ICLMG
613-241-5298
nationalcoordination@iclmg.ca

Rosa Addario
Communications Manager, OpenMedia
1 (888) 441-2640 ext. 0
rosa@openmedia.org

Alex Nanoff
CCLA
media@ccla.org

Andrew Clement
Professor Emeritus, University of Toronto (affiliation only)
1 (250) 536-3029
andrew.clement@utoronto.ca

Since you’re here…

… we have a small favour to ask. Here at ICLMG, we are working very hard to protect and promote human rights and civil liberties in the context of the so-called “war on terror” in Canada. We do not receive any financial support from any federal, provincial or municipal governments or political parties. You can become our patron on Patreon and get rewards in exchange for your support. You can give as little as $1/month (that’s only $12/year!) and you can unsubscribe at any time. Any donations will go a long way to support our work.panel-54141172-image-6fa93d06d6081076-320-320You can also make a one-time donation or donate monthly via Paypal by clicking on the button below. On the fence about giving? Check out our Achievements and Gains since we were created in 2002. Thank you for your generosity!
make-a-donation-button

MAC gives its 2023 “Friend of the Community” award to Tim McSorley and the ICLMG

Watch ICLMG’s National Coordinator Tim McSorley’s award acceptance speech at the MAC 2023 Convention. Thank you to MAC for this honour and for all their important work!

“It was such an honour to join the Muslim Association of Canada at their convention. I am humbled to receive their “Friend of the Community” award for my work and the work of the ICLMG against Islamophobia and fighting for justice. And thank you Abdul Nakua for such a kind and moving introduction!” – Tim McSorley

Visit macnet.ca to learn more about MAC’s important work.

To support ICLMG’s work, please visit iclmg.ca/donate. Thank you!

Page 9 of 103« First...7891011...203040...Last »