Public Safety Committee on Oct. 23rd, 2023

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

While I appreciate the amendment, and while we support the intention, we happen to like the wording in BQ-0.1 better. We won't be supporting this amendment, because we prefer the language in the next one. We fully support the intention of ensuring there is good representation on the board.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Ms. Michaud, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I fully agree with Ms. O'Connell. The next amendment on the list, which I intend to put forward, covers approximately the same thing, but uses different wording based on the wording of the bill with respect to representation and diversity within the commission it aims to establish. This request comes directly from the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.C-40

I am accordingly not going to vote for Mr. Julian's amendment, but rather for the amendment I will be presenting afterwards. I would recommend that members of the committee do likewise.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

As a matter of process, if we vote on this one, we won't be able to vote on BQ-0.1. Is that right?

Okay. Apparently, there is nothing that prevents both from being moved. There's a bit of overlap.

Thank you.

We have Mr. Motz, followed by Mr. Shipley.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I have a question to pose to Ms. Gibb.

I'm trying to remember the testimony from when we had this at the committee for the study. As it was indicated by Ms. O'Connell, while we certainly support the intent of this motion, how is this even going to be possible?

Can you speak to the challenges you have in having the representation that was mentioned in this particular motion in various communities across our nation?

[Joanne Gibb, Senior Director, Strategic Operations and Policy Directorate, Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

Right now, the commission has only one member, who is the chairperson. We don't have a vice-chair. We don't have other members. The chairperson has called for this indigenous racialized representation and to have that at the most senior level. Commission staff is quite diverse, but we don't have a diverse membership, because there is only one member.

In terms of representing all of the groups, it may be a bit of a challenge, because we're a fairly small organization, so if you have six or seven different members.... We see it in NSIRA, which has multiple members, so I think it's doable.

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

Could you remind the committee...? Your public complaints commission is made up of basically one member, but you have investigators and you have other people who do a lot of the work to get it to the commission that hears the complaint.

Mr. Julian is saying that the commission must be made up of these, and I think the next one has appointing members of the commission. That's in the Bloc one that's coming up.

Can you explain how that's...? Are you referring to the members who do the investigation as being members of the commission, or are they investigators? That's part of the challenge that we have to understand when we're looking at this particular clause.

[Joanne Gibb]

This clause refers to GIC appointments only, not to the staff.

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

I see.

[Joanne Gibb]

Yes, we have investigators, analysts and lawyers, but they are all public servants. They're not GIC appointments. They're on staff.

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

I see. Okay.

Again, my question is on the practicality and the possibility. We know the intent is honourable. To play it out in practicality, what are your thoughts on that and those in the commission representing the actual communities where complaints could originate from?

That's the intent of this. It's to make sure that investigators and other people, I believe, are in tune with the needs and such of each of those communities, and aware of...and then the commission, I guess, is going to be a different scenario.

I can't speak to the intent behind Mr. Julian's wording, but again, when I read this, I was concerned about how this would play out in practice.

[Joanne Gibb]

Public Safety might be better to speak to GIC appointments.

[Randall Koops, Director General, International Border Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

I think the concern around the amendment is that it would propose that the appointees of the commission named by the Governor in Council include four specific communities. The entire commission is quite small. It would consist of only five Governor in Council appointees: the chair and four members. If all four members of the commission are allocated in the statute to a specific community, the Governor in Council may over time have less leeway in appointing representatives of other communities who, through time and circumstance, may emerge as warranting representation on the commission.

In that regard, as the parliamentary secretary pointed out and as the chair of the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission has submitted to this committee, an amendment along the lines of BQ-0.1, closer to what exists now in Bill C-40—which is before another committee at the moment—may be desirable from that perspective.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Motz.

It's Mr. Shipley next, followed by Mr. Julian.

Mr. Shipley, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Very briefly, most of this has been said, but I'm going to repeat it very quickly. Our party will not be supporting this motion, but we will be supporting the Bloc's motion. I think it fits a bit better there and isn't quite as restrictive, so we will be supporting the next one, but we won't be supporting this one.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Mr. Julian, go ahead.

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

I'd like to go back to this point.

We are currently grappling with an enormous problem, which are trying to resolve with the bill. But if the wording says that only certain factors be taken into consideration, it will not achieve the objective, which was mentioned several times. Given all the current problems, adopting an approach that provides for the opportunity rather than the obligation to appoint specific individuals or groups, would in my view not be as effective as an amendment that does provide for this representation.C-20

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

Seeing no more speakers, I will call the vote.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We go now to BQ-0.1.

Go ahead, Ms. Michaud.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I was saying a few moments ago, this amendment is similar to the one that Mr. Julian just proposed with respect to the diversity of commission members. There will be no need for me to give further explanations, because it is so explicit:

(1.1) In appointing members of the Commmission, the Governor in Council must seek to reflect the diversity of Canadian society and must take into account considerations such as gender equality and the overrepresentation of certain groups in the criminal justice system, including Indigenous peoples and Black persons.

This definition is based on the legislative wording of the bill, which appears to have been largely accepted. It strikes me that this wording is better than the wording proposed in the previous amendment. I would therefore ask my colleagues to vote in favour of my amendment.C-40

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Julian.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'm not against the idea, but it doesn't seem to me that it achieves the goal. I'll ask the witnesses what they think.

How do you think the words "take into account considerations" are to be interpreted? Does it mean one of the five members, or two of the five members, for example? Are we talking about a minimum number or is it simply one factor among others that need to be considered when members of the commission are being appointed?

[Randall Koops]

It would be a consideration among the many others the Governor in Council would bring to bear to ensure representation.

Similar provisions, both those in Bill C-40 and the ones that exist now in the RCMP Act in relation to the management advisory board, place that onus on the minister rather than on the Governor in Council. That may be something the committee wishes to consider the desirability of. Placing that onus on the minister allows the House or the minister to question the minister about how those considerations were taken into account, which is, of course, more difficult if the obligation is placed on the Governor in Council directly.

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

Thank you very much.

In your opinion, if we change the words “Governor in Council” to “Minister”, would that be tighter language, stronger language?

[Randall Koops]

I think the committee may wish to consider that.

It may choose to adopt an amendment like this, in the sense that it is consistent with what we find elsewhere regarding this minister's responsibilities, including for the RCMP, and consistent with government practice. We are seeing other bills—for example Bill C-40—in which that obligation is placed directly on the Minister of Justice, rather than on the Governor in Council. It provides the committee with an individual who can be called to discuss it if it's necessary to inquire about what was considered in making the appointments.

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

Mr. Chair, I'd like to propose a subamendment, that we replace “Governor in Council” with “Minister”.