Public Safety Committee on Oct. 30th, 2023

[Joanne Gibb]

It seems to me that both amendments have a discretionary clause to them, to change the first part of subclause 52(5). The NDP one references “seriously compromise an ongoing investigation”, as opposed to stating another act of Parliament. I'm not the lawyer here, so I can't interpret the difference.

“Seriously compromise an ongoing investigation” suggests to me that we're referring to CBSA's investigation or an RCMP investigation, as opposed to sending it, say, to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you, so the intent here is to ensure that the commission has the necessary discretion.

Does the language in NDP-34—and feel free to invite your colleagues in as well—take away some of the discretion that I think is being suggested through the amendment by adding the “seriously compromise an ongoing investigation”, whereas the other amendment simply says “may”?

Is there a substantive difference in terms of how that would be interpreted and the impact that would have when this discretion is utilized?

[A/Commr Alfredo Bangloy]

NDP-34 limits discretion because it provides for that only if there's another investigation in place, whereas the other provision continues with other factors, as far as the complaint being more appropriately dealt with by another act of Parliament.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

I will follow up on that.

It's adding discretion but narrowing the scope of where that discretion can be applied. Could you provide some context around what the practical effects of that might be, and the ongoing work? For discretion to be added but limited.... In the right context, that makes perfect sense, but it's about ensuring we find the right balance.

I'm wondering whether you could provide some simpler context.

[A/Commr Alfredo Bangloy]

It could potentially require the PCRC to look into things that could be more appropriately dealt with by other acts of Parliament, because they're limiting it to when there's an investigation.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

I will again follow up on that.

For example, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and other types of investigations.... Would narrowing that discretion prohibit complainants from having access to the full scope of what is intended through this legislation?

[A/Commr Alfredo Bangloy]

No, but I think it might require the PCRC to look into things that could be more appropriately dealt with by other acts of Parliament. For example, a complaint with respect to official languages could be more appropriately dealt with through that specific act.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

As we see in BQ-13.... As a general rule, simple is better. That's sometimes a tough thing to say in government, but the simplicity of amendment BQ-13 fails to allow for appropriate discretion to be provided in the context of an investigation—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Can we stick to NDP-34, please?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

I'm happy to, Mr. Chair, but in whether or not to support NDP-34, I think these are certainly important questions that need to be asked, since the passage—or non-passage—of NDP-34 affects whether or not we debate BQ-13.

I have a list with your title. Is it constable?

[A/Commr Alfredo Bangloy]

It's assistant commissioner.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

I apologize.

It's just to make sure we have that appropriate scope when looking at the difference between the bill seriously compromising ongoing investigations, and....

In your opinion, would that be an appropriate limitation to the added discretion that would be imposed by the passage of NDP-34?

[A/Commr Alfredo Bangloy]

I think it provides discretion, but because it replaces everything else that was previously in subclause 52(5), it could potentially require the PCRC to turn things down if they could be more appropriately dealt with by another act of Parliament.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

We'll go to Mr. Julian.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I think it's quite clear that if we want narrow scope in terms of the commission's refusing, we should adopt NDP-34. If we want a slightly larger scope, as Madame Michaud indicated, we can look to adopt BQ-13, but we actually need to get to a vote.

I am a little perplexed by the filibuster around NDP-34, Mr. Chair, because we had a one-month filibuster, you'll recall, where finally the NDP motion was essentially adopted around the Bernardo transfer and the transfer of offenders.

Now, one party around this table is filibustering Bill C-20. Now they're filibustering NDP-34 and, in doing so, they're stalling the study that they filibustered on for a month. It doesn't make sense. They're filibustering themselves. The Conservatives are now filibustering what they finally agreed to: the NDP motion a few weeks ago. Now they're filibustering the bill and filibustering the study that they said was important to get to.

I'm very perplexed about the filibuster around NDP-34. It doesn't make sense at all.

I've said this many times, Mr. Chair: There are two block parties in the House of Commons. There's the Bloc Québécois and there's the block everything, and the Conservative Party seems to be blocking everything, including Bill C-20, NDP-34 and good legislation that will make a difference in putting in place a public complaints commission, which is something so many people in this country are calling for.

The delay around this, the filibuster around it and filibustering the study around the transfer of offenders within the correctional services make no sense at all, from any standpoint, and I'm just very perplexed about the member for Carleton and his approach to the House of Commons in trying to block everything at all times.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

We're back to Mr. Genuis, who will be followed by Ms. O'Connell.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I have some questions, but since it's on the table, maybe I'll respond to some of the comments made by Mr. Julian.

Of course, we have two parties currently in the opposition and two parties currently in the government—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

We have a point of order.

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

That is actually completely false, and Mr. Genuis knows that. There are three opposition parties and just one government.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

The point is taken and well made. Thank you.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Chair, I've always esteemed your neutrality in these proceedings.

To Mr. Julian's point, I do not think it's factually inaccurate at all, and whether it is or not is not a matter of order. The NDP have made a choice when it comes to providing a relative blank cheque on confidence to the government, and they can't very well take advantage of that and train all of their fire at their so-called fellow opposition party—

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I suspect it's not a point of order, but go ahead.