Public Safety Committee on Oct. 30th, 2023

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

Do you feel there would be any benefit to having this in there? Do you think it's a bit onerous on complainants to ask for their reasons?

[Joanne Gibb]

I think it would be beneficial.

During COVID, when we were all working from home and online, people had to submit their withdrawals by email. A lot of times they would include in there the reasons for their withdrawal, but normally the commission won't see that. Understanding why they're withdrawing and understanding that they're not being pressured to withdraw a complaint would be helpful.

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

That makes a bit of sense, then.

Is there any way it could be done whereby it would be more of a box submission, like a check mark? Instead of having to write their own paragraph, essay or whatever, is there an easier way? How would you go about actually doing this?

[Joanne Gibb]

If the individual requested a withdrawal from the commission, we could ask them their reasons. Conversely, if it's done at a detachment—it's only the RCMP here—they could do the same. A lot of times individuals will say that time has passed or that they're no longer interested, or, “I've had a couple of days to think about it. I want to withdraw.”

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

I don't know how we could make this mandatory, but would there be an opportunity for them to say that they do not want to disclose their reasons?

[Joanne Gibb]

I suppose that we should make that an option, yes.

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

Yes, I would think so.

Okay, thank you for that clarification.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

We're going to hear from Mr. Motz, but I should have mentioned earlier that, if NDP-25 is adopted, CPC-11 cannot be moved due to a line conflict.

Mr. Motz.

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

I think there is some value in this, as we heard.

Rather, can we change the “and”, or do an “and/or”, so they can just do a withdrawal? We're requiring them to give a reason for the withdrawal.

“If they wish” should be something that.... I don't know whether Mr. Julian is even interested in entertaining that, but if we make it arbitrary, they may not answer it. If it's a requirement, then what? “If they wish” is something we can add, potentially.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I would suggest it's not up to Mr. Julian, at this point. It's been moved. If you wish to make a subamendment, go ahead.

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

All I'm asking is whether there is any value in having words like that added to it.

[Joanne Gibb]

We could also just put in the option of “prefer not to say”.

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

[Inaudible—Editor] a check box, if we're using that.

[Joanne Gibb]

Yes.

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

That's fair enough. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Go ahead, Ms. O'Connell.

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

Thank you.

I think my line of questioning is similar.

There should be no repercussions, should someone wish not to say. That would be my only concern. If they just choose to withdraw, there wouldn't be any sort of follow-up or issues if they prefer to leave it. Seriously, if it's in the act, I don't want an overzealous situation where, again, a complainant coming forward could be intimidated or...any kind of negative recourse, in terms of trying to scare them. I see no issue with understanding that information. I want to make sure there would be no form of repercussions, such as that they couldn't, then, ever complain in the future or raise other issues.

I want to be crystal clear on what this does, but I'm not overly concerned about it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Is there any further discussion?

Go ahead, Mr. Julian.

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

Mr. Chair, if all parties are supporting, that's wonderful.

Another way of achieving that would be to use the word “any” instead of “the”. I think we've gotten clarity from the witnesses, which we always do, in an excellent way. I think it's clear that, if there were any concerns about it being a mandatory, obligatory thing, it's not going to happen.

If there are concerns about it, I would be open to that one-word change. If all parties are supporting it, we can just move ahead.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Is everyone in favour of amendment NDP-25?

(Amendment agreed to)

CPC-11 cannot be moved due to a line conflict.

(Clause 40 as amended agreed to on division)

(Clause 41 agreed to on division)

(On clause 42)

We'll go to BQ-9.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, this is a consequential amendment that would allow non-governmental organizations to file a complaint. I move right away that “non-governmental organization” be replaced by “third party” in the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

You're moving to change “non-governmental organization” to “third party”.

Is there any discussion?

(Amendment agreed to on division)

(Clause 42 as amended agreed to)

On amendment CPC-12, we have Mr. Shipley.

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

Thank you, Chair.

We will be moving this one.

I'd like to move CPC-12, and I'll give a brief explanation. This amendment would provide remuneration for back pay for officers who were suspended during an investigation if the complaint was withdrawn or unfounded.

I would like to provide a bit of rationale for that. This amendment addresses an issue that was raised by the CBSA union. Currently, under CBSA's complaint regime, if a serious allegation is made against an officer, that officer's security clearance is revoked; therefore, that officer is not suspended and not fired, but that officer cannot go to work and does not receive any pay. Ultimately, if a complaint is deemed to be unfounded, that officer must go through a lengthy grievance process to receive any back pay. This issue is obviously devastating for our hard-working CBSA officers, and we hope all committee members can support this very reasonable amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Ms. O'Connell.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to ask officials on this one. I never understood the PCRC as a disciplinary process to be able to remove, or implement, any of these disciplinary actions. I'd actually want to hear from the officials. If there is a disciplinary process whereby, let's say, a member is suspended while there is an investigation, would that be as a result of the PCRC work? Could you elaborate on the intersection between the PCRC process and disciplinary hearings, or disciplinary judgments, while an investigation is ongoing—something along those lines?

Would the PCRC actually put in place those measures in, let's say, the example of a suspension or removing pay? If not, wouldn't that be as a result of the PCRC investigation? That would probably be a union issue with the body that suspended the individual. Am I understanding that correctly? Could someone explain it more clearly?