Public Safety Committee on Oct. 30th, 2023

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

Thank you, Chair.

Before I begin on the substance of this, as a matter of process, my understanding was that this committee normally sits from 11:00 to 1:00. Some of our members were consulted. They're not available to meet after 1:00, but the meeting was scheduled anyway.

On that basis, my suggestion would be that it would be most productive for all if the committee adjourned and scheduled to sit at a time when the regular members from our side of this committee are available, and when there's proper consultation about additional meetings.

On that basis, I move that we adjourn.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

The motion is to adjourn.

All in favour of the motion? All opposed?

[An hon. member]

Can we have a recorded vote, please?

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

On a point of order, you had already called the vote. Members had voted, and then a recorded vote was asked for while we were already in the process of voting. Let's just move forward here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

We'll do the recorded division.

(Motion negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Thank you.

Is there any further discussion on new NDP-34?

Mr. Genuis.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I think I made my point about the value of having regular members and having meetings scheduled at a time when they're available, but given that that's not the appetite in terms of direction, I wonder if I could get the officials to explain for us what the substantial effect of amendment NDP‑34 as it's proposed would be on the legislation.

[Joanne Gibb]

It would give the commission, the PCRC, more discretion to ensure that certain complaints wouldn't fall through the cracks, by making it discretionary.

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

It would give the commissioner more discretion to ensure—

[Joanne Gibb]

It would, for the commission, the PCRC.

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

Okay.

In your judgment, is it likely that complaints would fall through the cracks otherwise?

[Joanne Gibb]

It is conceivable that where we would have to refuse, there would be some circumstances in which that could happen, I would think.

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

What are the circumstances in which a complaint could fall through the cracks?

[Joanne Gibb]

If we were required to refuse to deal with a complaint based on this, there could be aspects.... For example, there could be certain aspects of human rights-related complaints that we take now, whereas in other instances it might be more appropriate for them to go to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, so it's discretionary.

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

It's discretionary for whom? Do you mean for the commissioner?

[Joanne Gibb]

It is for the PCRC, the commission, the chairperson.

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

Okay, so this would oblige it to do what exactly then, to prevent it from falling through the cracks?

[Joanne Gibb]

I mean the amendment.

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

You mean the amendment. Exactly.

[Joanne Gibb]

Well, it provides the discretion for the commission, for the chairperson, to actually examine it and decide whether or not to refuse it and whether it would be better investigated somewhere else or with the PCRC.

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

The process that's envisioned by this amendment is one in which it would go to the chairperson, and the chairperson would then have the discretion to determine whether they were going to examine it or someone else should examine it. How does that differ from the process proposed in the absence of the amendment?

[Joanne Gibb]

The commission must refuse. It's not discretionary as it's written, as opposed to “may refuse” as it would be amended.

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

The commission must refuse. If a complaint went to the commissioner, the commission, in the absence of the amendment, the commissioner would have to refuse. Under what circumstances would that be?

[Joanne Gibb]

It would be as is written. They “must refuse to deal with a complaint if the complaint has been or could have been adequately dealt with, or could more appropriately be dealt with....”

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

Okay, so the effect of this is to give the commission the discretion to look at an instance in which the situation could be dealt with by another body, whereas the amended language would give the discretion to look at it if the commissioner considered it—

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

A point of order, Mr. Chair.