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.
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
6:50 p.m.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Normally, a copy of any communications from the commission is sent to the complainant. We would also like a copy to be sent to the complainant's legal representative.
For example, as I said earlier, in some instances complainants may have been removed from Canada and we don't have their address. If the legal representative had access to the documents, it would go some way towards facilitating the process for complainants.
That's the intent of this amendment.
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Is there any further discussion?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
That's carried. This brings us to CPC-7.
Look at this—six minutes to go. Can we do this in six minutes?
Go ahead, Mr. Shipley.
6:50 p.m.
Conservative
Doug Shipley Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
I would like to move CPC-7. It's fairly straightforward. We just want to delete lines 3 to 5 on page 23 and also lines 20 to 23 on page 23. We just don't think the ability to complain directly to an RCMP detachment.... We want to make the complaints to the commission. Some of these detachments and border patrol areas have one or two officers. It would just tie them up too much, so we feel that this is a good way of alleviating that issue.
6:50 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
I have a note that I wanted to follow up with. I want to ask our witnesses whether the adoption of this would have consequences around the discussion that we're still having around clause 8 and NDP-6. It appears that there is a bit of a conflict between what is proposed here and what we have yet to fully adopt in clause 8.
Maybe through you, Chair, to the clerk or to our witnesses...?
6:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
If someone wishes to answer, go ahead.
Mr. Julian, maybe you need to be more specific about who answers that question.
6:55 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
As we are working through it, I believe that NDP-6 does have an impact on this provision. That being said, I intend to vote against it for that reason, but I also don't agree with the principle that's contained within it.
6:55 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We also don't support this change. This would essentially get rid of the existing complaint process whereby the RCMP might handle a complaint initially. We think that this wouldn't work, that the idea is that the initial complaint should be investigated as is, and that, if resolution can be done there, that's great. If not, then the PCRC can then take on that additional role, if needed. This would essentially make the PCRC solely responsible for handling RCMP-related complaints at the first instance. We think this would be overly burdensome, so we don't support this.
6:55 p.m.
Conservative
Doug Shipley Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
Chair, I committed to you that we could finish this one by 7:00. Hearing some discussions going around, we'd like to ask for UC to withdraw that amendment.
6:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Do we have unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment?
(Amendment withdrawn)
The last amendment on this clause is G-4.
Does someone...?
6:55 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I'd like to propose this amendment as deeming under section (8.1):
For the purposes of subsections (7) and (8), a complaint that is referred to the Commission under regulations made under subparagraph 87(0.1)(ii) is deemed to be a complaint made to the Commission.
Very quickly, if I can explain.... Hopefully it's self-explanatory. For example, if proceedings occurred and a referral of complaint were conducted between the PCRC and NSIRA, it would be deemed as having received this complaint. For example, if NSIRA had done some work and then referred the matter to PCRC, it would be deemed that a complaint had been made. It's a bit technical, but it's to accept that that process can happen.
6:55 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
I agree with that.
What about timelines following that, Ms. O'Connell? Are there any conditions? Is it when NSIRA or some other agency got that complaint, or is it when the commission received it? When do those start? What would be reasonable, so that we can maybe consider that?
6:55 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
My understanding of this is that it would not change anything else in the act. All of those other timing conditions would still apply. This was just to make it so that a complaint from or a referral from NSIRA is deemed a complaint made. Everything else in the act in terms of timing and process would remain the same.
I see heads nodding, so I haven't totally messed that one up, but that was my understanding.
6:55 p.m.
Liberal
6:55 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
I want to ask our witnesses about their interpretation of this clause, but I understand that it's now 7:00. Maybe that's where we should leave off for tonight.
6:55 p.m.
A voice
That's okay.
6:55 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
7 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
I would like to ensure that the witnesses can answer that first.