Bill C-20

Public Complaints and Review Commission Act

An Act establishing the Public Complaints and Review Commission and amending certain Acts and statutory instruments

This enactment, among other things,
(a) establishes, as a replacement of the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, an independent body, called the Public Complaints and Review Commission, to
(i) review and investigate complaints concerning the conduct and level of service of Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Canada Border Services Agency personnel, and
(ii) conduct reviews of specified activities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canada Border Services Agency;
(b) authorizes the Chairperson of the Public Complaints and Review Commission to recommend the initiation of disciplinary processes or the imposition of disciplinary measures in relation to individuals who have been the subject of complaints;
(c) amends the Canada Border Services Agency Act to provide for the investigation of serious incidents involving officers and employees of the Canada Border Services Agency;
(d) amends the English version of federal statutes and orders, regulations and other instruments to replace references to the “Force” with references to “RCMP”; and
(e) makes consequential amendments to other Acts.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. If we are going to play that game, and the member opposite.... We had the motion before us previously. In fact, it was our members who brought it forward. We were working collectively.

Mr. Chair, if the members opposite didn't come prepared to deal with Bill C-20, then they should just let everyone know instead of trying to make a political show of horrific—

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

I have a point of order. Mr. Chair, the motion isn't in order. We already voted on it. The member opposite's motion would need to be.... This could be a notice of motion, but it's not in order since we are currently on Bill C-20.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

I can send it to the committee. Revised, it would be that the committee hold a three-hour meeting with the following witnesses: the commissioner of Correctional Service Canada, Anne Kelly; the deputy minister, Shawn Tupper; the federal victims ombudsman; and representatives of the victims' families to discuss the transfer of Paul Bernardo from a maximum-security facility to a medium-security facility.

We could pass that with unanimous consent and go right to Bill C-20 and get on with this.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Yes, of course.

I'm saying, one hundred per cent, let's move forward with Bill C-20 and get that done, but we cannot defend Paul Bernardo in the House of Commons.

I'm putting forward that we would have unanimous consent to move forward with Bill C-20 right now, but that we should remove what was put forward, that the minister not come, and that we have unanimous consent on the subamendment that was put on the floor originally by my colleague Mr. Lloyd to ensure that the rights of victims are met. I believe that, among my colleagues from the Bloc, the NDP and the Liberals, they didn't want the Minister of Public Safety, so let's just ensure that the rights of victims are here and we're not protecting the child killer and rapist Paul Bernardo.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

I'm new to this committee. I don't normally sit on this committee. This is a very interesting committee to sit on for the first time. I just want to acknowledge the witnesses who have sat very patiently. Thank you.

I think I can find a compromise. I think that actually everybody in the room, based on what I've witnessed, wants exactly the same thing. I think everybody wants to move forward immediately with Bill C-20. Is that right? Let's get that done. We have these lovely people who have been extremely patient—you can come and teach my children how to be that patient—and they want to get on with it.

The reason I came—and I think and hope there is an appetite, especially in my female colleague across the way—is that we have to investigate the Paul Bernardo transfer. That's why we're here, on the rights of victims. If we could have—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Doug Shipley]

Everyone, I'd like to call the meeting back to order, please.

Thank you for everybody's indulgence. It's been a little bit of a trying hour. Let's try to make the second hour not quite as trying. We're all trying.

Through many discussions, it's been decided that perhaps we should, for today, move on—and I will make a ruling on Mr. Genuis's motion on Bill C-20. Do we have unanimous consent?

Ms. Ferreri, go ahead.

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

Thanks.

On that point of order, if Mr. Genuis is arguing that his motion is part of Bill C-20, I would argue then that it's also out of order because the context of his motion is outside of the scope. It's actually on a motion as amended that is still before the committee, so he's off-topic on numerous fronts.

The irony is that the Conservatives suggested this issue was not just a way to filibuster on dealing with government legislation. I think they've made it very clear to Canadians that they are willing to use the rights of victims to filibuster government legislation. I think they've proven the point.

Mr. Chair, my point of order is that the motion is out of order.

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

I have a point of order.

There are two issues here. I'd like you to confer with the clerk as to whether this motion is in order.

The first is that we voted on the issue at hand. The second is that I would argue that the motion is out of order because it refers to reporting back to the House, although the motion itself is not on a study or a meeting on the subject matter as was the last motion moved. Therefore, the subject matter we are currently on is Bill C-20. You would need to report back only on a study.

I would argue that his motion is out of order on two fronts.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Okay. Chair, I will move that the committee report to the House that we have reached an impasse on studying the transfer of Paul Bernardo to medium security; and that the chair inform the House that as a result the consideration of Bill C-20 will be delayed.

That motion is I think an important one in a context where this committee should be willing to have one meeting to hear about the transfer of Paul Bernardo. We have victims' families that want to be heard on this matter. We want to have one meeting to allow victims' families—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Yes, I'm moving a different motion. If I have the floor again, I will just declare that I'm moving the motion that the committee not proceed any further with clause-by-clause of Bill C-20. That is the motion I'm moving.

I don't think any plausible reading of the rules would find that out of order, given that it is on the matter being considered quite directly. It doesn't reference any other matters, and I'll proceed to speak to it.

The previous discussion at the committee dealt with—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I have a couple of points.

The motion I previously put forward was, through the committee's decision, deemed not in order. No reason was provided by the member presenting the challenge as to why it wouldn't be in order, but I have, in any event, presented a completely different motion.

If the previous motion wasn't in order, this motion certainly is in order, because it doesn't make mention of any other issues. It says, simply, that the matter at hand is the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-20, and the motion I moved is that the committee not proceed any further with clause-by-clause on Bill C-20. It is entirely implausible that this motion would be out of order as it is substantially different from the previous motion that was on the table.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you.

I move that the committee not proceed any further with clause-by-clause on Bill C-20.

The reason I'm moving that motion at this time is that I do not think we should proceed with clause-by-clause on this bill until the matter previously before the committee is disposed of. That matter is the desire of this committee on our side to allow victims and family members—

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

This is why I asked for this. It's because it's a reverse order of motion, and every committee always has this issue.

If you vote yes, it means you're supporting the chair's ruling. If you vote no, it means you are not supporting the chair's ruling. Then, as the clerk said, we'd go back to Bill C-20.

[The Clerk]

Right now there's a motion to challenge the ruling of the chair, which was that the motion is in order.

If the motion is adopted, we return to the item that was decided by the committee to deal with, which is clause-by-clause study of Bill C-20.

If the motion is defeated, we return to the previous discussion.

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

To answer Ms. O'Connell, we return to the matter at hand, the item on the agenda that the committee decided to deal with. It would mean that we would come back to clause-by-clause study of Bill C-20 at the end of the decision.