Public Safety Committee on Oct. 25th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I think we can decide as a committee, because Ms. May is speaking of routine motions we passed at the outset. We passed them, and I think we can set them aside.

We're getting a little far afield, at the moment. Let us carry on with the business at hand, which is BQ-3 and Ms. O'Connell's subamendment. Can we do that?

(Subamendment agreed to)

Now, go ahead, Mr. Julian.

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

I am going out on a high wire here, with the indulgence of the committee, and offering another subamendment taken from NDP-21, which would add a paragraph (b).

We have subclause 33(1) and subclause 33(2), and that would simply add paragraph (a) in 33(2). Then add paragraph (b) from NDP-21:

the policies or procedures of the Agency or the services it provides

It just extracts that reference in the CBSA investigation review regarding the hearing of complaints, and expands it to include “the policies and procedures of the Agency or the services it provides.” It was the recommendation—as Madame Michaud said, and as I said—of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers to expand the ability for complaints to come in from third parties, as well, allowing the policies and procedures of the agency to be the subject of complaint.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Paragraph (b) from NDP-21 cannot be added, because it would be inadmissible. It changes the spirit and scope of the bill. This is one of the reasons. If you were to move NDP-21—if we get to that point—I'd have to rule it inadmissible.

Other than that, I'm not quite clear what you're suggesting.

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

Well, you are obviously very clear on what I was suggesting, Mr. Chair. I hadn't realized you were prepared to rule on it being out of scope. That surprises me, because this is certainly something we heard from the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers and others very clearly.

However, your ruling is that it is out of scope for the bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I haven't actually made the ruling. I can't do that until it's moved.

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

I am moving it as a subamendment, so....

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Okay, that subamendment would have to be ruled out of scope. It seeks to introduce a process regarding complaints about the policies and procedures of the agency, which is a new concept that goes beyond the scope of the bill as adopted by the House at second reading.

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.

That's my information about NDP-21, which I am now applying to paragraph (b), if you're trying to add that.

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

Okay.

Mr. Chair, I like and respect you very much, but I would not be doing justice to what we heard from witnesses, who very clearly talked about this. I would suggest that if it's out of scope, then the idea of having third parties could potentially be ruled out of scope.

I will, in the nicest way possible, and having great respect for your abilities—Mr. Bittle knows where I am going on this—challenge that ruling and allow the committee to make a decision as to whether or not they perceive it as out of scope.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

That's fair enough.

The question is, shall the decision of the chair be sustained?

Voting yes means that you're supporting the decision of the chair that this particular subamendment is out of scope. If you vote no, then you're saying it remains in scope.

(Ruling of the chair sustained [See Minutes of Proceedings])

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

I congratulate you, Mr. Chair, on that victory. You have been sustained, so I cannot offer the subamendment. That's the committee's decision.

That should mean we then vote on BQ-3, which I will be supporting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Is there any further discussion on this most interesting amendment?

Mr. Shipley, go ahead.

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

It's just a quick point of order.

I'm curious. We're making good time here today, Mr. Chair. I know some members on our side have other commitments later.

I want to know for sure what time we're going until today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

We suspended briefly. We're expected to extend for that amount of time. We can go home at seven.

Go ahead, Ms. O'Connell, on a point of order.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As much as it pains me to suggest this, I request that you and the clerk look into additional meeting time, given the amount of time we're going to need for this bill. The committee has already agreed to other studies. In order to finish this, we're going to need additional committee time. I would suggest that you at least come forward with some options that everyone could then look at.

I'm fine with leaving tonight at seven, but we need some options for additional committee time in order to get through this study.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

That's fair enough.

Mr. Motz, go ahead.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think we can get through it. I agree with seven o'clock tonight.

I'm sure I'll be outvoted, but I don't necessarily think we need extra meetings. However, if you decide to have them, I would ask that the subcommittee meet to determine those, as opposed to your arbitrarily selecting them. I think that would avoid a whole lot of hassles. That's what I would recommend.

If we vote to agree to have you extend the extra meeting times—I'm opposed to that, but if you do, and if that's the vote—I would ask that whatever dates you and the clerk come up with are run past our subcommittee, in order to ensure they fit with the schedules of our people, so we can get the proper people here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

We can't vote on this right now, because we have a motion on the floor.

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

It was just on the point of order in terms of timing. I'm not asking for a vote, in fairness. I would like some options on how we figure that out.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I will talk to the clerk. He'll see what's available, then we'll come back to the committee. I don't want to do a subcommittee meeting, because that takes up a meeting slot. Perhaps we'll do it more informally.

Mr. Julian, go ahead.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I completely agree with Ms. O'Connell on this. Having extra meetings makes a lot of sense. I think that's something you could do in consultation with the four parties. You have the ability to call those meetings with the proper notice. That will allow us to move through.

The NDP has a lot of amendments. When we have debated, discussed and made a decision, I will be withdrawing the subsequent amendments on the same issue. For those who are daunted by the number of NDP amendments, that number will be much smaller, ultimately. As we go through each of these issues, I will withdraw further amendments on the same topic. If the other parties agree to do the same thing, then hopefully, with a few extra meetings next week, we should have this bill improved and back into the House.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Very well, I'll let you advise us as we go forward on which amendments—when we get there—you want to withdraw.

For the moment, let us carry on with this amendment. I think we ended the discussion on Ms. Michaud's BQ-3 amendment, as subamended by Ms. O'Connell.

(Amendment as amended agreed to)

This renders NDP-21 and PV-1 moot, in any case.

That brings us to BQ-3.1.

Go ahead, Ms. Michaud.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This amendment is related to the one we just adopted. It goes a little farther by also enabling members of the public, hence any individual, to file a complaint.

I don't believe any further explanations are required.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Okay. Is there any discussion?

Mr. Shipley.

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

We feel that's redundant and not necessary. They can already do that.

To the witnesses, do we not have that process already?

[Randall Koops]

We would agree it appears to be redundant, since the bill already provides for that.