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.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
That's fair enough.
(Amendment agreed to)
(Clause 13 as amended agreed to on division)
(On clause 14)
On NDP-9.1, go ahead, Mr. Julian.
5:30 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think it would be easier to adopt this amendment given that we have just adopted the principle for the Canada Border Services Agency. It's now a matter of extending the principle to the RCMP and the annual reports from the provinces.
This amendment does in fact aim at precisely what we have just adopted. The wording would therefore refer to complaints that have been disposed of, “including those, if any, disposed of through the reconciliation process with Indigenous peoples”.
The principle underlying this amendment is indeed connected to these reports and to the reconciliation process.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Mr. Julian.
Is there any discussion?
(Amendment agreed to)
(Clause 14 as amended agreed to on division)
(Clause 15 agreed to on division)
(On clause 16)
On NDP-10, go ahead, Mr. Julian.
5:35 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
This is another recommendation from Breaking Barriers Together. It deals with the ongoing issues with the RCMP, as identified in the Merlo Davidson lawsuit and also referenced during the mass casualty inquiry, that it was difficult to get important material.
If we have a complaints commission that has the ability to ensure that the appropriate materials are released, this would ensure that a failure to comply with production of this material, these documents, would constitute an offence under subclause 90(1).
5:35 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
I should add that the complementary amendment is NDP-58, which we'll probably see many days from now—who knows? I wanted to flag that they are essentially part of a similar approach from recommendations coming from Breaking Barriers Together.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Thank you so much.
Though we appreciate the amendment, I think it goes a little too far in applying potential criminal penalties against individuals who are not willfully obstructing investigation. Clause 89 of the bill already deals with offences related to harassment, obstruction and destroying documents, so there's already a provision for that. Unfortunately, I cannot support it.
5:35 p.m.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
I'm wondering how often the failure an agency or organization to comply with an obligation becomes an offence. If so, what are the consequences? Who is the offender: individuals or the commission itself? What happens in such cases? I would imagine that if there is a failure to comply with an obligation, it must be for a good reason.
Can someone clarify that for me?
5:35 p.m.
General Counsel, Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Well, there are instances in which the current Civilian Review and Complaints Commission doesn't receive information in as timely a fashion as it would like—information from the RCMP—but I would say that, in the commission's experience, it is rare for that to be a willful intent to obstruct the process. However, as noted, there is an offence already in the bill for willful obstruction, in the event that it were to occur.
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Thank you. I appreciate that explanation.
What I'm curious about now is.... I was going to ask it the other day, but we were moving along so quickly that I forgot about it. We mention the RCMP a lot. We are now adding the CBSA to this exact same legislation, aren't we? Why are we silent on CBSA bringing this information forward? We've mentioned only the RCMP, and the whole purpose of this is to say that we're going to now amalgamate two agencies under one to report back to a complaints commission, yet we don't mention them at any point so far.
I'm wondering whether.... We say “the Agency”, but that isn't...to me, unless in the definitions we mention that “Agency” means CBSA, but I don't think it does. I'm just curious to know if it's an oversight or whether it's listed somewhere else and I've missed it.
Never mind. “Agency means the Canada Border Services Agency.” Thank you. I missed it.
5:35 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
It's good to have these problems solved so readily.
Is there any further discussion on Mr. Julian's amendment?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 16 agreed to)
(On clause 17)
Once again, Mr. Julian, you're up.
5:40 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I certainly appreciate members of the committee in their consideration of this. I'm glad we're getting into this. I do hope, Mr. Chair, that we'll be able to schedule additional meetings in the next few days so that we can get through this important legislation. We have a lot of amendments to consider.
In this particular case, NDP-11 would add “privileged” in terms of allowing the commission to have access to privileged information. The ability of NSIRA, for example, to investigate is in part because of its ability to access this privileged information. The reality is that the PCRC needs to have access to that privileged information if it's investigating national security issues.
The objective of this amendment is to allow for that access to information, so the new PCRC can be on par with NSIRA in its abilities to review activities and handle complaints for both the RCMP and CBSA.
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
Doug Shipley Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I'm not comfortable with this amendment. This is just giving a bit too much power to the chairperson. They would be able to see some solicitor-client privileged information.
Would any of the witnesses be able to, perhaps, guide us on this? Would this information be required to fulfill some of these investigations?
October 25th, 2023 / 5:40 p.m.
Martin Leuchs Manager, Border Policy Division, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
The PCRC would be able to access privileged information. My understanding of this amendment is that it is a consequential amendment to NDP-16 that would actually provide the PCRC with access to excluded information under clause 19, which would entail solicitor-client privileged information for employees, for instance, solicitor-client information that is shared with the RCMP and the CBSA when they have to deal with the commission, or information that the RCMP and CBSA prepare for meetings with the commission.
The exclusion is in place, I think, to provide for procedural fairness, among other things.
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
I want to continue on that question. I too have concerns about this term and also the extension of it.
We have NSIRA for a reason—for exactly this reason, is my understanding—so that the complaints commission does not have to and should not be exposed to national security or...not necessarily cabinet confidences, because they can have access to those in the right circumstance, obviously, but on some things that are of a nature to compromise national security. I think that's what NSIRA is for. Unless I hear otherwise, I certainly can't support this extension of powers to this complaints commission.
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We also have concerns about privacy and the right—whether it's of individuals, the RCMP, the CBSA—to have solicitor-client privilege. We think this goes too far in that. Should there ever be a situation where that information is crucial, there are legal mechanisms to go through, but to—almost as a right—allow client-solicitor privileged information to be shared automatically or to be able to access that if requested, we think, goes too far, and there are other avenues if there were really a case that required that. We can't support this change.