Evidence of meeting #78 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 amendment.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Okay.
(Clause 18 agreed to on division)
NDP-16 has been withdrawn.
(Clause 19 agreed to on division)
There are no amendments to clauses 20 through 25. We can vote on them all in a block if we have unanimous consent to do so.
(Clauses 20 to 25 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On clause 26)
I recognize G-3 as a government motion. I would invite someone from the government side to move that.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Paragraph 26(1)(b) would read as follows:
use information obtained by the Commission under a review conducted under subsection 28(1) or (2)
—the amendment is striking out “section 28” and replacing it with “subsection 28(1) or (2)”—
or section 29 of any activity that was, is or may be carried out by the RCMP 25 or Agency if
Subparagraph 26(1)(b)(i) would read:
(i) the information is relevant and necessary to the conduct of a review under subsection 28(1) or (2) or section 29
—the amendment is adding “or section 29”—
of any similar activity that was, is or may be carried out by the RCMP or Agency, and
The rationale for this change is simply to allow another specified activity review—the information contained within that—to be part of an investigation that the PCRC would do. It's already included in the legislation that other information can be included in the PCRC review; however, it does not included information from what might be a provincial review, and in some cases where, for example, the jurisdiction does actually fall under our provincial counterparts. This simply includes that if there were another activity review, that information could be included in the work that the PCRC is doing.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you.
Shall amendment G-3 carry?
(Amendment agreed to)
(Clause 26 as amended agreed to on division)
(Clause 27 agreed to on division)
(On clause 28)
We are on amendment NDP-17.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is actually a slightly more complicated clause, because I think what we have is a number of amendments that are seeking to make the review of specified activities in section 28 broader. This would be in keeping with the comments we've had from organizations such as Amnesty International and others, which have raised concerns about ensuring that reviews other than the review that is currently in the legislation can be initiated.
I actually, curiously, will have a question for the witnesses. We have amendment NDP-17, which talks about the request of ministers initiating a review. In amendment NDP-18 we talk about union representatives as well, and then we have Ms. Michaud's amendment, which talks about non-governmental organizations. I think the goal we all share is to enable these reviews to be undertaken from a variety of different standpoints.
My question to the witnesses is this: In your opinion, does amendment BQ-1, which talks about non-governmental organizations, incorporate the union representatives from amendment NDP-18, or do you believe the language needs to be specific for all three of the amendments? If that is the case, then, Mr. Chair, how do we incorporate all three elements to ensure that transparency and the ability to request those reviews?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I should have mentioned that if amendment NDP-17 passes as written, then amendments NDP-18 and BQ-1 cannot be moved due to a line conflict. If NDP-17 does not pass, NDP-18 can be moved, but then there would be a line conflict with BQ-1.
Are you proposing to amalgamate these three in some manner?
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Well, first I'd like to hear back from our witnesses as to whether their understanding is that non-governmental organizations would include unions or not. I believe it's not the case, but I want to double-check.
Randall Koops Director General, International Border Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
We think it could. There could be other wording that might better serve both interests.
The intent in clause 28 is not to restrict who may ask the minister or the chairperson of the commission for a specified activity review; it's not intended to narrow that or to specify who may or may not ask or who may be excluded from asking for, recommending or suggesting a review. The intent of clause 28 is to provide a means for the minister, who would otherwise not have the authority to direct or make a request to the commission, to undertake something, where he believes it is in the public interest and where he, for reasons of his own accountability, can answer to this place that he has brought a matter to the attention of the commission. The commission draws very broadly on all sorts of sources, from both within and outside of government, in formulating its plan for what may benefit from a specified activity review.
As drafted, clause 28 does not restrict any organization whatsoever from engaging either with the minister at the political level or directly with the commission about where it believes a specified activity review would be warranted.
My colleagues from the commission may have more detail.
Senior Director, Strategic Operations and Policy Directorate, Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
I agree.
Under our existing legislation we get requests somewhat regularly from non-governmental organizations, asking for systemic review.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you for that. That is very helpful, but it still means that, ultimately, at this point, the minister or the commission would make the decision. I think what we're looking for in these amendments is to provide an ability for a trigger, for lack of a better word, to ensure that the review could take place.
I know Madame Michaud wants to speak. I guess I'll bookmark the problem with you, Mr. Chair. Whether or not that's something like Ms. O'Connell did, in a very inspired way. She parked a clause, and whether we would want to park this clause and come back to it when we work off-line is something I'm certainly open to, if other members of the committee are in agreement.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
My understanding is that the intent of amendments NDP‑17, NDP‑18 and BQ‑1 is to also allow other organizations to request a review of specific activities. If I've understood what you just said, they can already do so, but it's not stated in the act. These groups therefore asked that it be mentioned.
I don't know whether there is a way of adding this information so as to include not only the groups that Mr. Julian was talking about, but also the non-governmental organizations mentioned in amendment BQ‑1. If we were to just use the term “third party”, would that amount to the same thing? These groups can already ask for a review of specific activities, but doing this would actually put it into the act.
In other words, if we drop amendments NDP‑17 et NDP‑18, keep amendment BQ‑1, and replace “non-governmental organization” with “third party”, will that amount to the same outcome?
NDP
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
It's for everyone.
Would Mr. Koops or anyone else care to answer?
Senior Director, Strategic Operations and Policy Directorate, Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
I was rather thinking of another form of wording that would make it clear there was nothing in the act that would prevent other parties from requesting a review. You could write something like that rather than specifically mentioning things like committees or unions.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Mr. Julian, I don't think I actually heard you move NDP-17 yet, so it's still in flux, whatever is going on here.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
I think we need to be flexible if we want to get through this.
I think that if we refer to a “third party”, it doesn't necessarily include the fact that a union representative, or a House of Commons or Senate committee, could request such a review.
The fact is that with the current wording, decision-making authority rests with the department, the minister or the commission. We would like to extend this authority. That's why we want to propose these amendments.
It strikes me that the best thing for the time being would be to hold discussions behind the scenes. We could set aside section 28 and discuss these matters among ourselves rather than take up too much of today's meeting time. That might lead to a solution much more quickly.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Okay, I'll take that as a motion to park clause 28 for the moment.
Do we have agreement to do that?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
(Clause 28 allowed to stand)
That takes us to clause 29.
(Clause 29 agreed to on division)
(Clause 30 agreed to on division)
(On clause 31)
That brings us to clause 31 and NDP-20.
Mr. Julian, go ahead, please.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
As I mentioned earlier, we've already dealt with the issue of national security as a committee. I respect that most members of the committee did not agree with that approach, so I'll withdraw NDP-20.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
NDP-20 is not moved.
Shall clause 31 carry?
(Clause 31 agreed to on division)
(Clause 32 agreed to on division)
(On clause 33)
We have Madame Michaud with BQ-3.
If BQ-3 is adopted, NDP-21 and PV-1 cannot be moved, due to a line conflict.
Go ahead, Ms. Michaud.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This amendment would enable third parties like non-profit organizations to file a complaint. At the moment, under the act, such a complaint may only be filed by the legal representative of a complainant or someone who has obtained written consent from the complainant. The amendment would therefore open the door to further options.
Several of the groups that came to the committee to testify made this request, including the Quebec Immigration Lawyers Association, which often encounters situations of this kind.
This amendment would require a number of consequential amendments to ensure consistency later on in the bill.