Evidence of meeting #77 for Public Safety and National Security in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was commission.
A video is available from Parliament.
12:30 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Similar to NDP-3, what this seeks to do is ensure no conflict of interest, including the member of an immediate family, having the same meaning as in section 33 of the Canada labour standards regulations. I think the committee was fairly clear in its intent on this, but I wanted to move the motion for the amendment just the same.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Thank you.
I would suggest that this is moot. Again, it's based on a decision and a previous vote on almost the exact same language in another area. It's, again, the same thing. We're limiting a pool. I would think that we should vote against this, or withdraw it.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Iqwinder Gaheer Liberal Mississauga—Malton, ON
We tend to agree with Mr. Motz. This is in line with NDP-2 and NDP-3, to limit who can be employed. We run into the same issues, that a child of an officer would be prevented from ever providing technical assistance to the review agency. We tend to agree.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Is there any further discussion on NDP-4?
(Amendment negatived)
Shall clause 6 carry?
(Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to)
(On clause 8)
That brings us to clause 8 and NDP-5.
Mr. Julian, please go ahead.
12:30 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Mr. Motz will be happy to learn that I'm not moving NDP-5 in preference for NDP-6.
12:35 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
The issue of service standards is something that has been raised regularly by labour representatives who have come here on behalf of the employees. The reality is that investigations take months, sometimes years. We need to have service standards that actually have some teeth, and ensure that there is a timely resolution to concerns that have been raised and complaints that are handled both by the RCMP and the agency.
What is suggested through this process in NDP-6 is essentially that:
The Commission, the RCMP and the Agency must deal with and resolve complaints made under this Act within a year after the day on which the complaint is made....
It also provides some scope:
within any longer period the Commission considers appropriate.
However, it does set a line in the sand in terms of what the service standards should be. This is something both for internal and external complaints. Obviously, it would make a difference. As we know, Mr. Chair, justice delayed is justice denied.
I move NDP-6 to put in place those minimum service standards. It still gives the commission the ability to prolong past that date, as needed.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Mr. Julian.
I will note that if NDP-6 is adopted, CPC-5 and CPC-6 cannot be moved due to a line conflict.
We go now to Mr. Motz.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Thank you very much, Chair.
I appreciate the need for service standards. It's absolutely necessary that there be time limits on how long investigations can go before decisions are made, or even reporting back to complainants, victims, etc.
What I don't think is necessary, and what I'm really concerned about, is having unions involved in decision-making at the commission level. Complaints need to be dealt with, and that's important. Establishing collective bargaining agreements in that process to me would be somewhat problematic, in my opinion.
While I agree with the idea of a standard, which is what we're getting at in CPC-5, I believe, moving on, it certainly removes any idea that our unions are involved in the commission's work. That could be construed as being somewhat of a conflict, as well.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Iqwinder Gaheer Liberal Mississauga—Malton, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I'm also concerned about the one-year mark in terms of whether it's actually sufficient for the resolution of complaints. I know the bill also contains codified timelines as well.
My question to the officials is how the one-year time limit would affect complaints or systemic reviews.
12:35 p.m.
Senior Director, Strategic Operations and Policy Directorate, Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
In relation to complaints, you're right: The codified timelines that are in this bill allow the RCMP commissioner six months to respond to a review by the commission. You're already, right off the top, taking away six months, which leaves just six months from the time the complaint is made to the RCMP's investigation of it. The individual has 60 days, as per the statute, to request that the commission review it. The commission then has to request the material from the RCMP and then actually undertake the review, write the report and send it to the commissioner, who has six months to respond.
Although it would be ideal to have it done within a year for complaints that go to review, I don't see that being feasible.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Iqwinder Gaheer Liberal Mississauga—Malton, ON
Thank you.
Chair, with that I'd like to move a subamendment. I would delete the part about subclause 8(3) from the amendment.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
The discussion is on Mr. Gaheer's subamendment.
Mr. Shipley, go ahead.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
12:40 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
In this case I would like to argue against the subamendment by Mr. Gaheer. I think the reality is that—and we saw this in our hearings on Bill C-20—the complaints commission hasn't been adequately funded and resourced in the past. This is a problem. We see an underfunding of our courts system, and we see an underfunding of our complaint process as well. To put this framework in place, we need to have minimum service standards that have some flexibility.
Subclause 8(3), which Mr. Gaheer is seeking to remove from the amendment, gives the opportunity to the commission to make it a longer period if that is appropriate. The reality is that it's a question of resourcing that makes the difference. Currently, when we look at our judicial system and complaint process, they're not adequately resourced.
I would point out, for folks who say that might cost money, that we give over $30 billion a year to overseas tax havens. That's tax money, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. There are resources that should be allocated to this. If we want a complaints commission that works effectively for the public, for CBSA and for RCMP employees, we need to establish some meaningful minimum service standards. A one-year period is a long period of time, but it is by no means exaggerated, and the commission does have the opportunity to prolong that if it chooses to.
I would argue against a subamendment. I think the reality is that a one-year service standard is something that should absolutely be contemplated and resourced. The reality is that if this bill passes without that service standard, I think we are going to see these complaints prolonged unduly. Again, I will cite that justice delayed is justice denied.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Mr. Julian.
I'd like to clarify Mr. Gaheer's subamendment.
To accomplish what you want, you're trying to remove paragraph (e) from amendment NDP-6?
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Is there any further discussion on Mr. Gaheer's subamendment?
Mr. Motz, go ahead.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
I'd like to ask the officials—either the RCMP or Ms. Gibb from the commission—a question.
While I agree with Mr. Julian on the need for service standards to get investigations looked after appropriately and in a timely way as much as possible, we heard during the study that some of these investigations have taken a considerable period of time. My office has received complaints over the years, from members of my constituency who have complaints before the commission, about the length of time it took to hear anything back, so I support that.
We heard evidence at committee about how a lack of resources is going to make this problematic. We know the financing that's been allotted to this new improved commission, including the CBSA and the RCMP, is woefully inadequate in the opinion of the commission, and I would tend to agree.
However, with this particular subamendment that was moved, I'd like to get a perspective from you, Ms. Gibb, on the subamendment and whether it fits. We're looking at CPC-5 and CPC-6, which follow this—also talking about service standards—and whether we are in line with the realities of this.
If we put a timeline in here that's six months or a year from.... I know you can go and ask for an extension—I get that—but what's the reality that we should be looking at as a committee, so that there's a proper guideline for you to follow in the act to do your work?
12:40 p.m.
Senior Director, Strategic Operations and Policy Directorate, Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
I think it would be helpful to distinguish what part of the complaints process we're talking about. If we're talking about the investigative part on the front end in the first instance, most complaints are done by the RCMP. The RCMP has an internal service standard for the investigation, which is 90 days, not a year.
However, if we're talking about a complaint that goes from the time it's filed to the time the commission reviews it, in the instances when there's an interim report—when the commission is not satisfied with the way the RCMP handled the complaint—or a report is sent to the minister and to the commissioner, and the commissioner then has six months to respond.... In those instances, I won't say that meeting a one-year time frame would be impossible, but it would be a challenge when the commissioner has six months to answer our report. It would have to be filed and investigated, and the commission would have to get the 60 days the individual has to request that review, do the review, write the report and send it to the commissioner, who then has six months.
If you want to parse out which complaints we're talking about, that might be helpful.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
That's the part we have to clarify. Even around this table, the thought is that once a complainant makes a complaint to the RCMP or the CBSA, the clock starts, but that's not necessarily the case, as you described.
The RCMP has its own process for handling an initial complaint...because this deals with all complaints that go to the commission. It's not necessarily only about how the Mounties deal with theirs. Is that right?
