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.
6:45 p.m.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
That being the case, I could simply withdraw the amendment with the consent of my colleagues.
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Do we have unanimous consent for Madame Michaud to withdraw the amendment?
(Amendment withdrawn)
We get to NDP-22.
Are you withdrawing this amendment?
6:45 p.m.
An hon. member
Is that a challenge to the chair?
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
6:45 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
This is actually a new subject, but an important one in terms of the complaint timelines.
Currently the bill proposes that “The complaint must be made within one year after the day on which the conduct is alleged to have occurred”. What we received from witnesses from the Canadian Council for Refugees and Breaking Barriers Together was that they wanted to make that time limit similar to what happens with civil litigation laws in Canada.
Given that some of these complaints are dealing with severe trauma from misconduct, it may take time for complainants to come forward. That's certainly why a two-year timeline is what exists in civil litigation. NDP-22 would essentially replace the one-year time limit and make it a two-year time limit, in keeping with civil litigation laws.
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you.
I should point out that if NDP-22 is adopted, BQ-4, BQ-4.1 and BQ-4.2 cannot be moved due to a line conflict.
Mr. Motz, go ahead.
6:45 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Having said that, it almost is worth accepting it. Then we can get rid of three more.... Anyway, I'm just saying.
I would like to ask the officials this. We're talking about a time limit extension doubling from the time a complaint can be laid after the alleged offence or grievance has occurred. Do you have a practice now—either the agency or the commission—that allows for a complainant to make a complaint after the one year in special circumstances?
I'd like each of you to respond to that.
October 25th, 2023 / 6:45 p.m.
Director, Recourse Directorate, Canada Border Services Agency
Currently, we generally say one year, but we will accept on a case-by-case...over the one-year limit. There has to be enough information for us to still be able to investigate. There has to be a reasoning as to why it wasn't done. For example, if somebody was in detention for a year or a year and a half and was not able to make the complaint, then, yes, we would accept that. For somebody who just watched the TV show and decided that four years ago they weren't satisfied, and then they complained—they don't have the name of the officer, the location—then, no, we would not accept that, because we're not able to investigate it.
6:45 p.m.
Assistant Commissioner and Professional Responsibility Officer, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
We don't have lots of these types of complaints, but we have a similar process. We assess the information on a case-by-case basis and make a determination on whether we should investigate.
6:45 p.m.
Senior Director, Strategic Operations and Policy Directorate, Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
The commission has the discretion to extend the time limit. We have a policy, on our website, on the circumstances under which we'll do that.
6:45 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
It really exists, and as such I really don't see the need to have the time limit extended like this, to two years. It's just another arbitrary date that you could be extending again. I don't see, Chair, any reason to accept this, given what the commission, the CBSA and the RCMP have informed us of.
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I'm just curious as to whether, through the passing of BQ-3, there are then line conflicts with NDP-22. I know what would happen if this were passed, but our notes say there would be a line conflict, since we did pass BQ-3. I stand to be corrected, but that's my understanding.
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Because we passed BQ-3, NDP-22 has a line conflict, doesn't it?
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Okay. That's fair enough. We're just double-checking. We don't have an issue with this.
6:50 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
I'm going to push back a little back on my friend Mr. Motz, because the reality is that there's a difference between a person's having the ability to make a complaint up to a two-year period, particularly in the event of trauma, and their applying for an extension that may or may not be accepted after the one year has expired. Although he is right to point out that there are provisions that may allow that individual to still file the complaint, the reality is that the power is taken away from the individual.
If we don't accept this amendment, we are not empowering people who, for a variety of reasons, may have difficulty stepping forward to make the complaint in the first place. That's why I'm proposing the two-year timeline, which, as I mentioned before, was recommended by Breaking Barriers and the Canadian Council for Refugees.
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Is there any further discussion?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
This passes. This renders BQ-4 moot, as well as BQ-4.1 and BQ-4.2.
That brings us to BQ-5. We have eight minutes left. I'm wondering if we want to pause here, or whether we want to try to tackle BQ-5.
6:50 p.m.
An hon. member
Let's go for it.