Evidence of meeting #41 for Justice and Human Rights in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for the explanation.
I'm inclined to support amendment NDP-2, but with the caveat raised by Mr. Xavier. I thought he provided some pretty good language. I don't think that was a drafting instruction, so I don't know whether we want to come back to it or need to work out the exact language now. I think it's probably important that the language around personal and confidential material be included in the amendment.
Therefore, this is a friendly subamendment.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
I've been told that it would have to be submitted in writing. Somebody would have to submit it. We can put it in and come back to this one afterwards, if that's something you want to do. A subamendment would be done. We'd vote on the subamendment, then on the amendment, then....
Yes, go ahead, Mr. Bachrach.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I'm wondering if I can ask, through you to Mr. Xavier, whether the protection of confidential and personal information would be covered under any other statute. If it weren't explicitly included in this clause, are there statutes that would protect those individuals and their identities?
December 1st, 2022 / 4 p.m.
Acting Deputy Director and Senior Counsel, Judicial Affairs Section, Public Law and Legislative Services Sector, Department of Justice
It's not entirely clear. I believe the CJC is exempt from access to information and privacy laws, so I'm not.... Unfortunately, I don't have that answer right in front of me.
Generally speaking, I think the council is very conscious of confidentiality and has always attempted to protect it whenever possible. It might be able to read that into the provision, but the bill has erred on the side of caution and always indicated in those other provisions, as I said, that confidential and personal information need to be protected when it's necessary. To indicate it here would follow the policy that the bill has established in these other provisions.
Another example is proposed subsection 147(3) when there's an independent review of financial provisions. That report of the financial review is issued every five years. Again, there's an exhortation there to protect personal and confidential information. It's to err on the side of caution and ensure that that information is, indeed, protected.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON
Thank you.
Mr. Xavier, to be clear, without this amendment, the right of individuals to get a summary of the information, and the policy that you were talking about earlier that governs what kind of information is to be provided will still be available. Am I correct?
Would this hinder the ability of the policy to evolve as it has evolved over the number of years, or would there be additional restrictions for you to make sure that the policy is in-line with current practices? We're unlikely to amend this act any time soon, so we want to have a longer-term sight on this.
4 p.m.
Acting Deputy Director and Senior Counsel, Judicial Affairs Section, Public Law and Legislative Services Sector, Department of Justice
It seems to codify a very basic right to simply receive reasons for a particular decision, specifically the decision to dismiss complaints by the reviewing member. It's hard to see how that would hinder the ability of the policy to evolve. There will still need to be a policy that addresses the notice of complainants, probably in other ways.
It's hard to see how that would hinder evolution of the policy.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON
Mr. Chair, we're inclined not to support this. We feel there are sufficient safeguards in place, and we will not be supporting this amendment.
4 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I thought that to do justice to my colleague's thinking, I would read the note that he left on this, explaining the rationale:
It is difficult for a complainant to know whether there are grounds for asking for judicial review of a dismissal at the screening level or a decision of a review panel without having the full legal reasons for the outcome. Currently, and continuing under C-9, complainants only receive the decision and a summary of the reasons from the CJC. Ironically, once an application for judicial review has been filed the full legal reasons must be disclosed to the complainant. Both logic and transparency seem to demand that the legal reasons be disclosed at the earlier point in the process.
I would note that I believe Professor Craig Scott from Osgoode Hall law school spoke to this point when he appeared as a witness before the committee.
Mr. Garrison went on to say:
As it stands C-9 inadvertently makes the process more secretive as it reduces the number of opportunities for outside review in its attempt to simplify the process and shorten timelines for resolving complaints. The amendments proposed in NDP Amendments 2 and 3 aim to provide more transparency by providing the complainant with a copy of the reasons for decisions by a review panel as well as the reasons in case of dismissal of a complaint at the initial stage.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
There is no further debate.
Unless somebody is going to propose an amendment, I will take it to a vote.
4 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Chair, it seemed like we had support for the idea of adding the caveats that Mr. Xavier suggested. If those were provided in writing, could we return to this amendment and—
4 p.m.
Liberal
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
We're on amendment NDP-3. Mr. Bachrach, do you want to introduce that?
4 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Okay. This is more talking than I counted on. It reads that Bill C-9, in Clause 12, be amended by adding after line 27 on page 8 the following:
“(2) If the review panel dismisses the complaint, it shall inform the complainant in writing of its decision and the reasons for it.”
Again, this has the same rationale as the previous amendment. Perhaps, likewise, we can return to it.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
With, I'm assuming, the same caveat, I would be inclined to support it. I see no reason that we wouldn't codify that with the caveat not to disclose personal or confidential information.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
Without further debate of that here, I'll wait.... I'll return to it later if you have a subamendment.
Mr. Moore.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
In the interest of practicality, before someone goes around drafting the caveat, if we knew what Mr. Fortin's intention is in regard to the amended amendment, it might save someone time.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
You're lucky. He's perking up. He's pretty excited that we want to know his opinion.
4:05 p.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
I didn't understand what you said, Mr. Moore.
Could you repeat that?
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Yes.
Before we go to amending the amendment, are you inclined to support NDP-2 and NDP-3?