Evidence of meeting #79 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 complaint.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:05 p.m.
NDP
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
You found some support out there.
PV-2 is inadmissible for the same reason.
This brings us to CPC-13.
If CPC-13 is adopted or defeated, then NDP-27 cannot be moved, since they are identical.
We will go to CPC-13.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Doug Shipley Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
Thank you, Chair. I will be moving CPC-13.
As explanation, this amendment would allow union representation on behalf of an RCMP or CBSA employee who is subject to a complaint.
I'll keep that short and sweet and see what the rest of the committee feels about that.
12:10 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
I absolutely support CPC-13.
Mr. Chair, as you can see from the package, it's worded exactly the same as NDP-27. The idea that RCMP and CBSA members have the right to union representation, I think, is a fundamental principle within Canada's system of collective negotiations and labour rights.
I completely support CPC-13 and thank the Conservatives for presenting it.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
On the wording, I want to get a little more clarification.
Could I ask officials whether this is the best clause to be included and where in the legislation it spells out the rights of employees who have filed a complaint or have had a complaint filed against them.
I'm not necessarily opposed to it. I'm just not sure whether this is the right wording and whether this is helpful or not.
Perhaps I could get some more insight from officials on how they see this clause working in the legislation.
12:10 p.m.
Director General, International Border Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
We would have the same concern, from our analysis.
Clause 44 is not dealing with a broader right of the union to make representations on behalf of the employee. It is a much narrower ground, about making representation with respect to the conduct's impact on the person who is the recipient of the conduct. It is actually giving the unions the right to make representations about what may or may not have happened to the person who ends up as the complainant.
That's a very different thing from a union making representations about the effect on the employee or on behalf of the employee. From that perspective, we think that may raise some concerns.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Thank you.
Again, it's the employee whose conduct is the subject matter of the complaint. Could you foresee this causing issues in terms of just the investigation?
The PCRC's role is to investigate the matter, and issues of disciplinary action or conduct would be outside of the PCRC's scope. It's simply to look at what happened and determine whether there are changes that need to be made.
Could this been seen as a situation that could limit the ability for the investigation to take a look at the actual complaint?
12:10 p.m.
Senior Director, Strategic Operations and Policy Directorate, Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
I don't think it would limit the ability to do an investigation. As earlier noted, I think the desire to have union representation is somewhat different from having the unions being allowed to make representations at what is essentially a victim impact statement.
As it is right now, if RCMP members want to have a National Police Federation member with them when they're being interviewed, that's permissible.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Okay. It doesn't limit the ability for the union...or it's for someone to have their union representative with them throughout any stage of the process, but this would be kind of above and beyond that.
That wouldn't necessarily be just the representative. Am I understanding correctly that this is above and beyond just an individual's representation?
12:15 p.m.
Senior Director, Strategic Operations and Policy Directorate, Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Yes. That's our understanding.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Thank you.
On that line of thought, do you ever foresee an opportunity or a possibility that, in the odd circumstance, the subject of a complaint—not the complainant—could find themselves in a spot where they could make representation about what the complaint has done to them?
As part of the investigation, and at the end of the adjudication process, it may be found to be frivolous and vexatious. Is there a possibility, then, that this gives a member of the RCMP or CBSA an opportunity, through their different associations, for representation, in this particular clause, to explain the impact the investigation has had on them or their family or whatever it might be, just like, as was said, a victim impact statement?
12:15 p.m.
General Counsel, Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
The proposed amendment as written does not allow the subject of the complaint, through their representative, to give comment on the impact on themselves. It allows comment only on the impact of the victim, we'll say, the person impacted by either the RCMP member or CBSA employee conduct. As written, it does not allow representations to be made of the effect on the subject of the complaint.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Yes. It's directed specifically only to a complainant.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Is there any further discussion?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
NDP-27 cannot be moved. That takes us to NDP-28.
12:15 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This was a recommendation from Breaking Barriers. It is a fact that was documented through the Merlo Davidson lawsuit that there are concerns once a complaint arises about the complainant not getting ongoing support.
This would add a new section, 2.1, in clause 44 that would allow the commission to continue to maintain contact with the complainant to ensure there is not any untoward influence. This is a recommendation that came out of Breaking Barriers to protect the complaint process.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Doug Shipley Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
Thank you, Chair.
For the officials, if this were put in place and passed, who would be able to do these monthly contacts? It seems like that potentially could be a lot. Also, basically, what would be the human resources required and removed from your current resources to maintain and to do this monthly contact?
12:15 p.m.
Director General, International Border Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Our assessment is that it could be a very onerous burden. A conservative assumption would be that it would create about 60,000 touchpoints a year, over and above the commission's existing workload, to check in with 5,000 complainants 12 times a year over a duration of an average of one year.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Doug Shipley Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
There would be 60,000 contacts over a year. I mean, these contacts must take a while. Do you have any idea how many full-time employees it would take for a role like that?
12:20 p.m.
Senior Director, Strategic Operations and Policy Directorate, Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Lots. Is that sufficient?
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Doug Shipley Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
Give me a ballpark, because I don't have a clue.