Public Safety Committee on Oct. 25th, 2023

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

In the example of people watching reruns and complaints going up, then, there's still no obligation to automatically investigate those complaints, because it's already protected in terms of the discretion.

[Lesley McCoy]

That's correct.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Ms. Michaud, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With respect to the intent of this amendment, I would like to draw the attention of my colleagues mainly to the fact that currently, the complaint must be filed by the complainant's legal representative or by someone who has obtained written consent from the complainant.

Groups like the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers came to tell the committee that sometimes, owing to an immigration process that is under way, a person may be removed from the country, making it complicated for that person to file a complaint against the Canada Border Services Agency. There is a concern that the case might be put on hold because a complaint has been filed. Moreover, if the person is already out of the country, it's rather difficult to obtain that person's signature or written consent.

The intent of using the expression “any third party” is not to give anyone the right to file a complaint just because they saw something on TV. In any event, it's understood that the commission would be entitled to refuse to deal with such a complaint. It's really more to allow an association like the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers to file a complaint on behalf of a complainant without obtaining that person's written consent in instances where it would be difficult to do so.

That then is the true intent of this amendment. I don't know whether that might clarify things for some colleagues to help them decide.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Mr. Julian.

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

I believe it's extremely important for us to be able to address broader issues. As Ms. Michaud just said, the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers was very clear about the fact that there is currently no way of dealing with systemic problems or procedures. Nor is this clearly addressed in the current bill.

The commission already has the power to reject groundless complaints, which I find reassuring. I do not find this problematic.

However, at the moment, the process is not open to people who might be experiencing systemic problems, thus making it impossible to examine these problems.

My view is that the subamendment and the amendment are worth adopting. The only qualification I would add is that they do not provide for addressing Canada Border Services Agency policies or procedures, or the services it provides. In my view and that of some of the witnesses we have heard, the capacity to do so is essential.

To make sure that I have understood correctly, I would like to ask the clerk a question through you, Mr. Chair. I believe you said that if amendment BQ‑3 were adopted, then amendment NDP‑21 could not be moved. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

That's correct. If BQ-3 is adopted, NDP-21 and PV-1 cannot be moved, due to a line conflict.

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

What's missing is the addition of a provision like the one in amendment NDP‑21 that would allow people to file a complaint against the agency's policies or procedures, or the services it provides. That's something that was frequently mentioned by witnesses. I believe it's an important aspect in connection with complaints.

A second subamendment cannot be moved. Accordingly, if that subamendment is carried, I'm going to try to move another one that includes such a provision.

I'm not worried that this would open the door to too many complaints. What I'm worried about is that there are not enough resources. That's something that became clear in our meetings, in particular in our discussions with the former minister.

I think that the very principle underlying the commission's role ought to be its capacity to accept not only individual complaints, but also complaints on behalf of people who may have left Canada and are accordingly unable to file complaints in person, or when there are systemic problems.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I'm going to stick my neck out here a bit.

My advice is that NDP-21 will not be admissible. I can't make that ruling until it's moved, but if it were moved, I would have to rule it inadmissible. It would be that and PV-1 as well.

I'm thinking that if you happen to decide against BQ-3 because of NDP-21, you might want to factor that into your consideration.

Ms. Michaud, you have the floor.

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

I'm not sure I've understood what Mr. Julian said, but we could adopt the Liberal subamendment that replaces “non-governmental organization” with “third party”. We might then introduce a new subamendment that would add the provision proposed by Mr. Julian to amendment BQ‑3.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Okay, I think discussion on the subamendment is winding down. Is there any further discussion on Madam O'Connell's subamendment?

Seeing none, all in favour of the subamendment?

I'm sorry. Ms. May, before you speak, we're going to have to get the clerk to test your audio.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Simon Larouche]

Madam May, could you turn off your video feed and say one or two sentences, please?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Can you hear me all right?

Thank you very much. I've been enjoying hearing you all working so collaboratively. It's been delightful.

[The Clerk]

Yes, it works now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. May.

Go ahead with your comments.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you. I didn't mean to interrupt the vote on this subamendment to BQ-3.

As was previously mentioned, if amendment BQ‑3 is adopted, then amendment PV‑1 could not be moved.

I just want to make a brief comment to speed your work along. As you may remember, because of the strange motion that each committee passes that requires that I show up at committee if I want to present amendments, I don't move my amendments; they are deemed moved.

In every case, as far as I can see, our Green Party amendments are drawn from the testimony and evidence of a group I used to belong to, which is the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers. I wanted to put forward as a helpful suggestion—since my amendments, I think in every case, are identical or very similar to the NDP amendments—that adding additional comments will just slow you down. However, I can't withdraw my amendments. I don't have that power. They are deemed moved as you come to them.

I just wanted to offer that, and perhaps Peter Julian can take it forward.

I will stay silent on all my amendments. Know that I care about them a lot. I hope you pass them, but since they're identical to NDP amendments, I will save you time now by flagging that I don't want to be in the way. As you can tell, I may be on less of a secure connection than if I were stationary in my own office.

Please pass them, but I'm not going to speak to them.

With that, I will go back on mute. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I'm a little unsure of how to proceed here.

If you don't want them to be automatically moved, we can, as a committee, agree to act in this way.

Mr. Julian looks puzzled.

Go ahead, please.

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

I am puzzled, Mr. Chair, because I thought Ms. May was saying that they would be moved in the case where there's no corresponding amendment from another party. I don't believe she was withdrawing all of her amendments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I just want to clarify.

I am suggesting that as a committee we will give due deference to Madam May's request, and we will move them or not according to whether we think it is appropriate to do so.

Madam May, is that acceptable to you?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I'm just trying to help your work. I care about these amendments, but I don't need to speak to each one of them. It seems to me there are very similar amendments in the same motions each time. I don't have the power to withdraw my amendments from consideration. I think they're good amendments; I like them a lot. I would love it if they were carried, but I'm in your hands on that.

If you want to just move ahead each time, the automatic impact of the motion you passed is that as you go along, all of my amendments will be deemed to have been moved. It's up to you at this point how you want to handle them.

I'm not withdrawing them. I think they're great. I just won't be speaking to them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

We'll muddle forward and do our best to try to sort this out as we go forth.

Mr. Shipley, go ahead.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Just quickly, looking through our charts, every one of the amendments I see is the same as an NDP amendment. When you say “muddle through”.... They're pretty straightforward. They're already in there as someone else's, and Mr. Julian is here.

Is that what we're saying—that maybe we can just...?

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Well, we can't withdraw them.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Can we not even do unanimous consent? There is no way...?