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.
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
Doug Shipley Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
Thank you.
We will not be able to support this today. It seems unnecessary and may lead to an enormous number of requests, bogging down the whole process.
We won't be supporting this.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Thank you.
We can support this in principle, but we would like to put forward a subamendment. I have copies, but I don't think they will be needed. It's quite simple.
Instead of “non-governmental organization” in both subclause 33(1) and subclause 33(2), we would change that to “third party”.
The rationale is that, at the end of the day, the commission would still have the ability to determine.... Hearing these concerns, complaints or allegations coming forward from other parties is fine. They should be considered, and it sounds like it already happens. We just don't want to limit it to non-governmental organizations.
We think “third party” is cleaner for keeping that ability open.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you.
The discussion is on Ms. O'Connell's subamendment.
Go ahead, Mr. Motz.
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Can the officials confirm whether they already deal with complaints from third parties?
Do you not?
6:10 p.m.
Senior Director, Strategic Operations and Policy Directorate, Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Yes, we accept third party complaints with the authorization of the individuals involved. We don't take a third party complaint if someone watches YouTube, sees RCMP enforcement and files a complaint. There's no connection there. They just watched it on YouTube. We would not take that complaint, because it's third party.
6:10 p.m.
Senior Director, Strategic Operations and Policy Directorate, Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Yes.
If an individual wants to make a complaint on behalf of someone else and has their authorization, we accept that third party complaint. That would include a non-governmental organization, which could file a complaint on behalf of an individual.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
Doug Shipley Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
I'd like some clarity on this. If this amendment goes through, would the NGO need the third party to be involved in that and have their written authority to do that?
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
It would take out “NGOs” and replace it with “a third party”. It wouldn't be both. It would be one or the other.
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
Doug Shipley Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
I'm sorry. What I'm trying to get clarification on is this. If there is a complaint by the third party, do they need the affected person to give their approval to go forward with that?
Can any third party be making the complaint?
6:15 p.m.
General Counsel, Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
The bill as written doesn't require consent, but there is discretion for the PCRC to refuse to deal with the complaint if the individual making the complaint—the third party—is not sufficiently connected to the incident or doesn't have the approval of the individual. As an example, they're not the parent or guardian. It's that sort of thing.
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
I'm sorry. With that explanation, would we not be setting ourselves up for the potential of some frivolous and vexatious types of complaints, when all we'd have to do is clear up the language here and say, “with authorization, a third party may”?
I know it's your practice and that's what you expect, but if the act doesn't say it.... People are always going to go back. They'll appeal your decision if you decide not to take their complaint, because the act says they can. It doesn't say anywhere in the act that they have to have authorization.
If you require the aggrieved individual to authorize it, then it would make sense that we put something like that in the act. Otherwise, you're opening yourselves up to a world of hurt and tying up your processes with people who just want to tie up your processes without any skin in the game. They just want to tie up the process and cause aggravation.
I hope there is some understanding of that. We're trying to make it easy for the public who have a complaint to have it be dealt with, but we all know that in our society, there are those who are litigious, frivolous and vexatious in their complaints and have zero impact on the people who may be aggrieved.
I think it would behoove us to ensure that if we're going to change any language, we add language that clarifies that it's “with authorization from the aggrieved individual”, or whatever wording you want to put in there.
Otherwise, I think by expanding this to include the CBSA and RCMP.... I would defer to some of my former law enforcement colleagues to talk about that—even CBSA colleagues. Will leaving out that clarity cause the potential for workload...?
We're not actually improving what we intend to improve with this legislation, and that is to make sure that those who have been aggrieved are heard, that their investigation is dealt with appropriately and in a timely fashion, and that they get a response back from the investigating body—whether it's the RCMP, the CBSA and/or the commission—but with the understanding that, if I'm a third party and I want to make a complaint, I have the aggrieved individual's permission to do so.
I'd be more than happy to hear from officials about their take on that.
October 25th, 2023 / 6:15 p.m.
Alfredo Bangloy Assistant Commissioner and Professional Responsibility Officer, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Certainly, if we're expanding the pool of people who can make complaints beyond those who are affected or impacted, it will cause further resources to be drawn to investigate those complaints and deal with those complaints, both at the RCMP and the PCRC.
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
6:15 p.m.
Assistant Commissioner and Professional Responsibility Officer, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
In some cases it would, yes.
As was mentioned, a YouTube video and a complaint of actions on YouTube, where they're not directly involved or implicated or have no connection to that incident, potentially could create an increase in complaints in which the individuals themselves who are impacted aren't complaining but other people are. It could lead to a rise in overall complaints and resources to be drawn to investigate and deal with those.
6:15 p.m.
Cathy Maltais Director, Recourse Directorate, Canada Border Services Agency
Today in our process we do require the signature, because, if you watch the reruns of Border Security on TV, whenever there are reruns in the season, we get an increase in complaints. People are watching the show and complaining about whatever they're seeing on TV, even though it has no impact on them.
Yes, it would increase volumes if people who are not actually affected....
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you.
We go next to Ms. O'Connell and then Madame Michaud.
I'd point out that this amendment requires a grammatical correction to the French.
The wording would now be “Any individual or any third party” in both entries.
Was that your point?
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
No. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
My point was that I think the intention of this was to ensure that a complaint couldn't be rejected simply because it was in the original version an NGO but in our proposal just a third party.
Ultimately, and correct me if I'm wrong, but even given the example just provided in regard to CBSA and the increase in complaints, ultimately the PCRC would still have the discretion to decide whether to move forward or not, and this is simply an amendment to ensure that it doesn't get automatically excluded simply because it's a third party making that complaint.
If there are processes in place such that there needs to be a connection.... I think we've heard testimony or we've heard before that if it were a public interest situation that is garnering attention, ultimately the decision-making authority of whether or not to move forward with an investigation still exists, but it wouldn't automatically be excluded simply because it was a third party making the initial complaint.
Is that a fair assessment of what this amendment would potentially do?
6:20 p.m.
General Counsel, Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Yes. In Bill C-20 there's already the discretion for the PCRC to refuse to deal with complaints if the individual making the complaint, as I indicated, doesn't have a sufficient connection to the incident.
As well, there's also a provision for the commission to refuse to deal if the complaint is considered frivolous, trivial, vexatious or made in bad faith.