Public Safety Committee on Oct. 23rd, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Ms. Michaud, you have the floor.

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

I'd like to make sure that I understand.

Earlier, I thought I heard Mr. Koops say to Mr. Julian that the previous subamendment being proposed was too long and that it would be better to just replace "Governor in Council" by the word "Minister". That's also what the subamendment we are now examining is attempting to do.

However, Mr. Gaheer would like to keep:

“In making recommendations for appointments of members....”

As I understand it, according to Mr. Koops the wording should remain as is with just "Governor in Council" replaced by "Minister". It would therefore begin as follows: "In making recommendations for appointments of members of the Commission, the Minister must seek to reflect…"

Is that correct, Mr. Koops, or is it essential to add the proposed words in this instance?

[Randall Koops]

I believe that the current wording of the amendment is appropriate. It reflects the roles of both.

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

Good. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Julian, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

They are indeed two different roles. This wording says that members of the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are appointed by the Governor in Council. Another provision states that recommendations come from the minister. Mr. Gaheer's subamendment combines these two roles and that's why I support it. I think that it strengthens the Bloc Quebecois proposal and the one made earlier by the NDP, in which there is mention of giving consideration to "factors such as gender equality and the overrepresentation of certain groups in the criminal justice system, including Indigenous peoples and Black persons".

Generally speaking, these two amendments strengthen the bill. It's an important improvement and I'm satisfied with it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, let's vote on Mr. Gaheer's subamendment.

(Subamendment agreed to)

That brings us to CPC-1.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, we haven't voted on BQ-0.1 yet.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

That's correct. Thank you. I'm just getting so enthusiastic about moving forward here.

Is there any further discussion on BQ-0.1 as amended?

(Amendment as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

Now we are at CPC-1.

Mr. Shipley, did you wish to move this?

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

Yes, Chair. I will be moving this. We've gotten through only two so far. Hopefully we can get through this one a little more quickly, but we'll see.

This amendment is that Bill C-20, in clause 3, be amended by replacing line 21 on page 3 with the following:

mission, including the Chairperson or the Vice-chairperson, if that person

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Is there any discussion?

Go ahead, Mr. Julian.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to ask our witnesses a question. I see the language as being superfluous, but I may be wrong on that. I just wanted to make sure that it's already covered in the existing clause, or is it necessary to cite “the Chairperson or the Vice-chairperson” for further clarity?

[Randall Koops]

Our view would be the same as yours, sir. We don't think it's necessary, given that the chairperson and vice-chairperson are already defined as members.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Is there any further discussion on this amendment?

Go ahead, Mr. Shipley.

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

If you feel it is that way.... We just felt they were maybe not considered as members and wanted to make sure that the language of that....

[Randall Koops]

The definition of a member includes them explicitly throughout the bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Seeing no further discussion, all in favour of CPC-1?

(Amendment agreed to)

That brings us to NDP-2. If NDP-2 is adopted, NDP-3 becomes moot.

Go ahead, Mr. Julian, if you wish.

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

Not wanting to make NDP-3 moot, I'm not moving NDP-2 in favour of NDP-3.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

That brings us to NDP-3.

We'll go to Mr. Julian once again.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The issue here, which also came out of Breaking Barriers Together, is the concern around both external misconduct and internal misconduct. In terms of ensuring that we have an ability for employees, people who are in the service with CBSA and RCMP, who give so much to our country, that they are...ensuring that this commission is free from the potential for conflicts of interest that may arise, NDP-3 endeavours to include the following:

is a member of the immediate family of a member, as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, immediate family having the same meaning as in section 33 of the Canada Labour Standards Regulations

We've already adopted a clause that makes it clear that a member of the commission can't be a member of the RCMP, but immediate family as well could potentially, I think, give rise to that conflict of interest. We need to ensure, on behalf of RCMP officers and CBSA officers, that there are no potential conflicts of interest.

That's why I'm moving NDP-3.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

Are there any comments?

Yes, Ms. O'Connell.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Could we just ask officials here to talk about whether that is an issue or not in terms of this amendment? That's for whoever is qualified to answer that question.

[Randall Koops]

We think the amendment may raise some concerns in the sense that, as defined here, not only a former member of the RCMP but also their children, grandchildren and others would be ineligible to be members of the commission. That would seem to unnecessarily restrict the pool of Canadians who are eligible for consideration.

It would also create a sort of intergenerational ineligibility. A person may be ineligible from being appointed to the commission because an ancestor who may no longer be alive or whom they may never have met may have served in the RCMP or CBSA. That may seem to some to be an unnecessary restriction.

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

Thank you.

Following up on that, through the chair, in addition to this, I'm assuming that part of the commission.... In finding these appointments they would have someone with a pretty specific background or skill set, wouldn't they? Limiting finding that individual or those individuals would be problematic. It isn't just anybody, probably, who would be appointed to the commission. There is a skill set that would be looked for.

Is that a fair assessment as well?

[Randall Koops]

That's correct. It has been difficult, from time to time, to fill positions on review bodies, given that the pool of qualified applicants can be very small.