Public Safety Committee on Oct. 30th, 2023

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Yes. I couldn't agree more with Ms. O'Connell.

What she pointed out is that the problems we've had with the use of non-disclosure agreements is that they have essentially stopped victims from speaking out. This has meant that in our sporting systems over the years, abuses in Hockey Canada and abuses in other national sports organizations have not been exposed because of the use of non-disclosure agreements. They're basically payments in return for silence.

If we are putting into place a transparent complaints process, it's important that non-disclosure agreements not interfere with that transparency, so that when there are systemic problems, we can actually identify them.

For those reasons, I think the potential harm of NDAs, which we've seen in real time in other sectors—literally covering up, in some cases, decades of systemic problems—is something that needs to be identified in this legislation, so that we're moving forward with a transparent and effective complaints process.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Is there any further discussion on NDP-23?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Shall clause 36 carry?

(Clause 36 agreed to on division)

(On clause 37)

This brings us to CPC-8.

Mr. Shipley, or someone on your bench, go ahead.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

We will not be moving CPC-8.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

It's withdrawn. Okay. Shall clause 37 carry?

(Clause 37 agreed to)

(On clause 38)

That brings us to CPC-9.

Mr. Shipley.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

We will also not be moving CPC-9. We withdraw that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Okay.

That brings us to NDP-24, Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The speed with which we're moving through these amendments.... If you'll give me just a moment to gather my thoughts....

I appreciate my Conservative colleagues' withdrawing their amendment and I commit to withdrawing other amendments a bit further on. As I mentioned at our last meeting, I don't intend to readjudicate issues that we've already discussed, debated and voted on, so that will mean the number of amendments we have to consider from the NDP will decrease significantly. I appreciate the Conservatives' also facilitating that work.

In this case, NDP-24 proposes that clause 38 would be amended by deleting lines 11 and 12, which currently state:

is not the individual at whom the conduct was directed,

and this is a commissioner directing the RCMP or the president directing the agency not to commence an investigation of a complaint if, in his or her opinion, the complaint is from an individual who is not the individual at whom the conduct was directed.

Breaking Barriers believes that this is something that could lead to a victim not stepping forward if there is any fear of reprisals. It would mean that essentially there would be an opportunity to not do the investigation. We seek—and Breaking Barriers recommended this—the removal of that clause, so that the investigations can still be undertaken.

There are a number of other groups as well, Mr. Chair, as you'll remember from our witnesses, that asked for the same thing, so it's removing that one clause to ensure that it is not a pretext to not commence an investigation of a complaint if the victims themselves feel uncomfortable stepping forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

Mr. Motz, go ahead.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

For the witnesses, with the amendments that have been made with respect to third parties, would that have any impact on this amendment, NDP-24? I think it's kind of problematic to remove that sentence from there, yet I see Mr. Julian's point. With the amendment made of a third party being able to make a complaint, does it render NDP-24 moot?

That may be a question also for the legislative clerks.

We'll hear from them first, and then you guys can weigh in.

It's safer that way, isn't it?

[Randall Koops]

I don't think we can offer you a view on whether it is rendered moot or would render moot the other amendment.

We would just note that it is simply one of the conditions that is set out for the commissioner or the president to take into consideration under their grounds of the right to refuse to investigate. The others that follow provide other things they may consider, including whether that person has consent or is acting in a role on behalf of that other person.

A complainant who's not satisfied with the decision of the commissioner or the president in that case of course can bring that complaint to the commission to be reviewed. The net effect, however, of removing subparagraph 38(1)(b)(i) would be that it may increase quite considerably the number of complaints that are brought to the commission, because it would make much broader the class of persons who would feel that they are entitled to bring complaints about things that do not directly affect them.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Just as a follow-up to that, then, if I'm reading this right, Mr. Julian's intent to remove this would be that he doesn't want to narrow the scope of an individual who is not the complainant to make a complaint, which I think we have as a third party already. That's in there. I just see this as being a problematic amendment, and I certainly can't support it.

Thank you.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Very quickly, I also can't support it, because of my comments earlier that if we want to allow for others to do investigations, we still have to have some flexibility in determining “frivolous” or creating some standards within the agency.

Keeping that in mind, though, if there are internal practices for how complaints are handled or refused, ultimately there will be reviews looking at how those internal standards are created. If they are not being adjudicated effectively, there could be more conversations.

In terms of the legislation itself, my comments earlier were that we still need some flexibility for the commission to weed out frivolous complaints or complaints that would not meet the standard in a more formal investigation.

I can't support this amendment, based on those reasons.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Mr. Julian, go ahead.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The right to refuse investigations because the complaint is trivial, frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith already exists in the legislation. That's not a change. What the commissioner and president can do is direct to not commence an investigation if any complaint is trivial, frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith. That doesn't change.

The second proposed paragraph, 38(1)(b), is “the complaint is from an individual who”, and included in that are a number of different criteria, including, “did not see or hear the conduct or its effects as a result of not being physically present at the time when and the place where the conduct or its effects occurred”. There are many provisions that exist for the exact reasons Ms. O'Connell just set out.

I would suggest that the reason Breaking Barriers made this strong recommendation is that what that does, given all the reasons an investigation could be directed to not continue and the fact that an individual, for very valid reasons—concerns about what the exposure might mean—might not make the complaint themselves.... This means that removing this clause, which still gives the commissioner and the president a wide scope not to continue an investigation.... One thing they couldn't point to is an individual who, for very valid reasons, has chosen not to step forward, even though there were witnesses to the conduct who are willing to step forward on their behalf.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Is there any further discussion?

(Amendment negatived)

This brings us to BQ-7.

Ms. Michaud, you have the floor.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is also a consequential amendment regarding the addition of third parties who may file a complaint. Obviously, as in the other amendments, it says “non-governmental organization”, and I would support a subamendment to change the words “non-governmental organization” to “third party”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

How about you just move it with the “third party”? There you go.

Is there any discussion?

Shall BQ-7 carry?

(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Note that that was moved with “third party”.

We go now to BQ-8.

Ms. Michaud, you have the floor.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

BQ‑8 is also a consequential amendment. This time, it concerns notices that could be sent in writing to a legal representative, if necessary.

We passed an amendment a little earlier to allow legal representatives to receive a notice in the case of a complainant who has been deported outside the country or who cannot be reached for some personal reason. This consequential amendment follows a request from the Association québécoise des avocats et avocates en droit de l'immigration.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Is there any discussion?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 38 as amended agreed to on division)

(On clause 39)

That brings us to clause 39 and CPC-10.

Mr. Shipley, go ahead, please.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

I will not be moving CPC-10.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

The amendment has been withdrawn.

(Clause 39 agreed to)

(On clause 40)

That brings us to clause 40 and NDP-25.

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

What this seeks to do—and this, as well, was a recommendation from Breaking Barriers Together—is, in clause 40, add to line 29 on page 27 the words “and the reasons for the withdrawal”.

This is something that Breaking Barriers recommended to this committee. In this way, it is better to understand, for example, the reasons for the withdrawal of the complaint. Is it because the process has taken too long, or are there other concerns that have been raised? This would include reasons for the withdrawal in the information that is then sent as a written notice to the commission or the commissioner.

As I mentioned, it was a recommendation from Breaking Barriers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Shipley.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a couple of quick questions for our officials.

Is there any process like this now, whereby you have to give a reason as to why you're withdrawing a complaint?

[Joanne Gibb]

No. Reasons don't have to be provided.