Public Safety Committee on June 17th, 2019

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

The gentleman who is on the screen.... I'm sorry; I forget your name, Sergeant.

[Brian Sauvé]

Brian Sauvé.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Brian, you talk about service standards within the RCMP and completion of investigations. Do you believe that the service standards should go both ways?

I'm going back to 15 years ago when I was in charge of Fort St. John detachment. I can recall an incident where I had a member stationed there for four years who I never met. He was on a standby investigation. I never knew what it was about. I wasn't told what it was about, but he lived in my area. He never came to work. I wonder if you feel that there should be a service standard both ways.

[Brian Sauvé]

I'm not sure what you mean by a service standard both ways. Whether it's a public complaint, an internal investigation or a criminal investigation, those being investigated have a right to a procedurally fair and expedited investigation, period. That's the way I look at it.

The laws of natural justice should apply. Whether it's the CBSA being investigated or the RCMP being investigated, the member being investigated has a right to a timely completion of that investigation. He or she also has the right to silence. That's a common law: the right to silence. So, if that impedes the investigators, well, find another avenue.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Thank you.

I think I've run out of time.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Yes, you have.

Mr. Manly, do you wish to ask any questions?

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Are there any other questions on this side? No.

With that, I will thank our witnesses.

I appreciate your patience while we went off to vote.

With that, we'll suspend and come back for the clause-by-clause study.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I see that our witnesses are at the table and members are here.

We are now moving to clause-by-clause.

(Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to)

(On clause 3)

We have PV-1.

Mr. Manly.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

This amendment would specify that neither current nor former officers nor employees of the Canada Border Services Agency may sit on the public complaints and review commission. This amendment does not appear in Bill C-98, but in the parent act, the RCMP Act. The ineligibility paragraph under subsection 45.29(2) of that act would exclude current or former members from service on the PCRC, and under that act, “member” has a specific definition that means an employee of the RCMP. Presumably, current and former agents of the CBSA should be excluded from sitting on the PCRC as well. This amendment would make that crystal clear.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Motz.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a couple of questions. One is for the officials that are here about this particular amendment, and one is for Mr. Picard, actually.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

He won't be able to serve.

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

No, but seriously.... I appreciate what the RCMP Act says, but I've always been curious to know if there's some distance between service and a commission like this. Even as a public servant now, to work as an investigator on this end, how that would preclude someone from being impartial, someone who has some understanding of the business to be able to be of value to service to the public in this commission.... I'm at a loss to understand why that would be something we would want to even consider.

Could the officials help me understand whether this is something that is consistent with legislation or is the intent of Bill C-98?

[Evan Travers]

The intent of this bill is not to impose a restriction on who could become a member of the commission by virtue of having formerly been employed by the CBSA. The amendment offered by Mr. Manly would impose on former CBSA members the same restriction that currently applies to former RCMP members. We have not put that forward as part of the bill.

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

Mr. Picard, you started out in the service this way, and you've had some distance since then. Do you see this as being something that would cause disruption or cause the public to be concerned about the fairness, the non-bias of a commission if it employed someone who used to work with CBSA in years past?

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

In all cases, I don't think experience should diminish someone's capacity to act. I would vote against that.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Dubé.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

I'm just wondering, through you Chair, if Mr. Travers can explain the inconsistency between the fact that the RCMP are forbidden but former CBSA members are allowed in this legislation.

[Evan Travers]

We worked mostly on the CBSA-related elements. With respect to those elements, the decision was made not to impose a similar requirement for former employees of the CBSA. They are different kinds of workforces. The CBSA tends to engage summer students and the like, who may spend only a few months with the agency. In order to allow the Governor in Council, the body that would make appointments to the commission, discretion in picking the best candidates, we did not include that restriction in this part of the bill.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Chair, if I may, it seems like a pretty glaring inconsistency. You're going to have an organization that's now going to handle complaints for two different public safety entities. On the one hand, certain individuals—I take your point about the types of experiences—will be allowed. That's a very specific example, but it basically means that someone who served 30 years as a border officer and who is, with all due respect to the great work that they do, in a bit of a conflict of interest....

I assume that is why the RCMP Act was drafted the way it was. It was to avoid the old adage of police investigating police. I know that it's called “public” now, but I'm just wondering if the civilian nature of it is a bit lost by this pretty important inconsistency that will now exist throughout what is supposed to be one organization. Could you perhaps offer us what the thinking was behind that?

[Evan Travers]

I don't want to speak to the intent of the RCMP Act or the provisions that are there. I was not involved in their drafting or their development.

With respect to the bill that is before you, we've provided our advice to cabinet through our minister, and this is the bill the government has come forward with. If there are concerns or questions, it may be that the minister would be better placed to speak to the policy intent behind that distinction.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Graham.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I have a very quick question.

I'm not going to support this amendment, but I just wanted to ask a question on the RCMP ban. Who is currently banned? Is it RCMP members in the meaning of the act, or any employee of the RCMP?

[Evan Travers]

I'll turn to Mr. Talbot on that.