Public Safety Committee on Oct. 23rd, 2023

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

Would there be ways, for example, if somebody did have, let's say, a family member who served at one point, to put in a screen or to put in some sort of process or disclosure so that, if there was a perceived conflict of interest, that could be established but wouldn't disqualify them altogether? Does that process already exist?

[Randall Koops]

There is a process for public office holders to be screened for conflict of interest and to declare matters to the commission to which they're appointed that they may not be best suited to sit in consideration of.

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

Okay.

I'm satisfied with that explanation, that there are screens that could be put in place, and that, in looking for a specific skill set to sit on the commission, it would be unfair for someone who may not have been able to determine their family's career choice to be automatically disqualified for life.

I think it would be best to not support this. I do understand the need to ensure that there's fairness on the board, but I think there can be mechanisms put in place at the commission to take that into consideration.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Mr. Lloyd, please.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

My question for Mr. Julian is, what is the intent of this amendment?

Is the intention to prevent a conflict of interest in the case where somebody is a member and has a living member of the RCMP that they could possibly have a conflict of interest with, or is this about weeding out an entire group of people from consideration who have had any sort of familial connection to the RCMP?

I'm just wondering what the intention of this is.

Thank you.

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

The intention is, as I stated, to avoid conflict that could occur for both internal and external misconduct investigations.

This is already very clearly referenced as “is or was a member” of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. That is something that already ensures ineligibility.

I think one could consider the potential for a conflict of interest in having an immediate family member as well. The bill already explicitly states that this could be a concern. That's why we're looking at it from the standpoint of the immediate family.

It's already defined in the Canada labour standards regulations, section 33.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I see no further speakers, so I'll ask for all those in favour.

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 3 as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 4 agreed to)

(On clause 5)

This brings us to clause 5 and CPC‑2.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I will move CPC‑2. It is that Bill C-20, in clause 5, be amended by adding after line 30 on page 4 the following:

(1.1) For the purposes of this Act and the regulations, the Chairperson has all the powers of a peace officer conferred under an Act of Parliament or the common law.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Shipley.

The chair's ruling on this is that Bill C-20 establishes the public complaints and review commission and amends other acts and statutory instruments. The bill states that some powers are given to the commission and that the chairperson of the commission has the rank and all the power of a deputy head of a department. The amendment seeks to give the chairperson all the powers of a peace officer, which is a new concept that goes beyond the scope of the bill as adopted by the House at second reading.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”

In the opinion of the chair and for the above-stated reason, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

Shall clause 5 carry?

(Clause 5 agreed to on division)

(On clause 6)

This brings us to clause 6 and CPC‑3.

Mr. Shipley, did you wish to move this?

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

Yes, I will move that Bill C-20, in clause 6, be amended by adding, after line 31 on page 5, the following:

(3.1) While an officer or employee under subsection (3) may have investigative experience, the officer or employee is not eligible to be appointed if the officer or employee

(a) is or was a member, as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act;

(b) is or was an officer, as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Customs Act, or is or was a person designated by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness as an officer under subsection 6(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, who, in performing their normal duties, is or was required to interact with the public; or

(c) is not a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident, as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Shipley.

Is there any discussion? Seeing none—

I have Ms. O'Connell.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, similar to my questions earlier about where this may limit the ability to employ former RCMP or CBSA agents to help with investigations, could I maybe ask the officials—any of them—for their perspective on this amendment?

[Randall Koops]

Thank you.

I think we would offer the view that while it maybe necessary and desirable to impose those kinds of limits around members of the commission, it would be less desirable to impose those limits on staff or employees of the commission. Excluding any former RCMP or CBSA members from being employed by the commission risks depriving the commission of expertise and knowledge in specific areas of practice of both of those agencies that it may be in the public interest for the commission to acquire.

We would suggest that the decision is best made by the commission itself. My colleagues from the commission may have more to add.

[Joanne Gibb]

Yes, I agree. It limits the pool. I think it fetters the chairperson's ability to staff.

We're all public servants, so we are subject to the code of values and ethics. We have lawyers who have to be members of the bar in good standing, so if they are former members of CBSA or the RCMP, they would still have to adhere to that.

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

Thank you.

Similar to my question earlier, are there opportunities for employees as well to be screened for conflict of interest, should an investigation, given their past, have any sort of cross-sections? Are there abilities for any of these employees or those working on cases to raise their hand to say, “Okay, I may need to sit this one out,” without excluding them from the position altogether?

[Joanne Gibb]

Yes, they can, and I believe that in the past they have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

I have Mr. Shipley.

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

Thank you.

Upon hearing the advice of the officials, I'd like to withdraw that amendment, if I could.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Do we have unanimous consent to withdraw?

(Amendment withdrawn)

Okay. This brings us to CPC-4.

I have Mr. Shipley once again.

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

I would like to move that Bill C-20, in clause 6, be amended by adding after line 39 on page 5 the following:

(a.1) in prescribed circumstances and in relation to a specific complaint made under this Act, engage, on a temporary basis, the services of a person having technical or specialized knowledge of any matter relating to the work of the Commission or those of a member, as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, to advise and assist the Commission in the exercise of its powers or the performance of its duties and functions under this Act; and

and by replacing, in the English version, line 2 on page 6 with the following:

sons engaged under paragraph (a) or (a.1).

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

We have Mr. Lloyd on a point of order.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

I think this amendment might be moot, considering the previous amendment didn't pass. I think it might be.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Do you wish to withdraw the amendment?

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

I guess if we have unanimous consent, we will.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Do we have unanimous consent to withdraw this motion?

(Amendment withdrawn)

That brings us to NDP-4, Mr. Julian.