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.
12:45 p.m.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
BQ‑12.1 is a consequential amendment to replace “non-governmental organization” with “third party”. That person would be appointed to represent a person.
I don't think this amendment needs any more explanation.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
BQ-12.1 is moved with the change to “a third party”.
Is there any discussion?
(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
That brings us to BQ-12.2
Ms. Michaud, you have the floor.
12:45 p.m.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Again, we're making a consequential amendment to replace “non-governmental organization” with “third party”. That way, a complaint can be filed, without necessarily having to represent an individual.
In addition, it won't be necessary to be the subject of the complaint directly. This is a consequential amendment to an amendment that we've already adopted.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Very well. Thank you.
Is there any discussion?
Go ahead, Ms. O'Connell.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
I'm sorry. Just to clarify, are we changing that to “third party” as well?
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Is there any further discussion?
(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
That brings us to NDP-33.
Go ahead, Mr. Julian.
12:50 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
In this case, this is a recommendation that comes from the Customs and Immigration Union.
You'll recall that in clause 52, there is specific reference that the commission “must refuse to deal with a complaint if it relates to a disciplinary measure taken, or not taken, by the President.” The reality is that concerns have been raised by the union. What that means is that the commission is not able to address issues that relate to an abuse of authority when disciplined by management or, more importantly, I think, Mr. Chair, in the case of management deciding not to discipline a manager who is engaged in problematic behaviour, such as harassment.
What the Customs and Immigration Union recommended to us was that this particular subclause be taken out, so that there is access through the process for these types of problematic disciplinary measures, or measures when the president simply hasn't taken action within the CBSA for managers when action should have been taken, particularly when it relates to harassment.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Okay. Thank you.
I should mention that if NDP-33 is adopted or defeated, BQ-12.3 cannot be moved due to a line conflict.
We have Mr. Motz, and then Madame Michaud.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This, if I remember correctly, is kind of in line with one of the other clauses that we went through earlier this morning, when we talked about its being outside the purview of the commission. This says that they have to refuse a complaint if it relates to a disciplinary measure taken or not taken. I think that's in line with comments that the department officials made earlier this morning with regard to not weighing in on things that are of a departmental nature.
I certainly support the idea of removing this from this particular piece of legislation, because it doesn't seem to fit with the explanation that was given to us earlier this morning. I would defer to Mr. Koops or others who might provide some clarity around subclause 52(3) here as it relates...and that I think should be removed. I certainly would defer to him on why it's there and whether that's a contradiction of what we talked about this morning with regard to weighing in on something that you don't have any jurisdiction on—it might be covered off with another act.
12:50 p.m.
Director General, International Border Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
We would offer at least two concerns about the amendment as presented. The first is that it would create an inconsistent condition between the commission's authorities related to the RCMP as found in subclause 52(2) and then, if subclause 52(3) were amended, the new condition created in relation to the CBSA. The commission would be obliged to refuse a complaint concerning part 4 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, which is conduct and discipline, but then would not be obliged to refuse the same under the CBSA.
With regard to the substance of the amendment, removing that limitation on the commission would be very much at odds with the design intent and the policy intent of the regime, which are that the commission not be brought into matters of discipline and that matters of discipline not be brought before it. The means by which that is achieved is by imposing on the commission a duty to refuse to deal with disciplinary measures, because they are provided for, as we said earlier, by other processes under other statutes.
The commission would, in any event, not be able to adjudicate or review a disciplinary decision, so there would be no logical reason, in any event, to bring that decision before it for review.
12:55 p.m.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just want to say that I support Mr. Julian's amendment. I wanted to propose a similar amendment. Indeed, this is in response to a request from the Customs and Immigration Union, and I am very sensitive to that request.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the officials for clarifying.
I do see some concerns. We wouldn't want to see the PCRC become just another adjudication process for disciplinary action that someone is not happy with. There are other means to do so, and the PCRC is meant to deal with complaints outside of that, outside of a disciplinary nature. I think it does kind of change the spirit of the act in terms of allowing for these sorts of complaints when there are already avenues to deal with them. They may be very legitimate disciplinary complaints that should be questioned. I just don't think that the PCRC should be getting into that, so I can't support this amendment.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Is there any further discussion?
(Amendment agreed to)
BQ-12.3 cannot be moved. That brings us to CPC-20.
Mr. Shipley, go ahead.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Doug Shipley Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just before I jump on this, I will say that, regrettably, I'm going to have to leave. As I mentioned, I do have a previous engagement at one o'clock, so we will continue on with some substitutes, which is quite allowed. As I said, the time didn't permit me to stay today. We talked about that on Friday and had another discussion on the phone about it.
I will move CPC-20 just before I go, though. The explanation is that this amendment would ensure that the commission cannot refuse complaints made about disciplinary measures or by serving members.
12:55 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
I want to ask the witnesses what they see as the impact of CPC-20.
12:55 p.m.
Director General, International Border Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Our assessment, if we have understood correctly, is that CPC-20 would erode the protection around the commission's responsibility to deal uniquely with complaints and review of complaints. It may risk opening the door for the commission to deal with things that are better dealt with under other existing statutes.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Is there any further discussion?
(Amendment negatived)
That brings us to new NDP-34.
If new NDP-34 is adopted or defeated, PV-4 cannot be moved, since they are identical, and if new NDP-34 is adopted, BQ-13 cannot be moved due to a line conflict.
Mr. Julian, go ahead with new NDP-34.
12:55 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.
Folks around the table will recall this recommendation from the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers. Currently, the bill says:
The Commission 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, according to a procedure provided for under any Act of Parliament—other than this Act—or any Act of the legislature of a province.
It's a significant loophole. One might say it's a loophole you can drive a truck through. The Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers indicated that we needed to be more specific in the legislation about what the circumstances are in which the commission may decline to hear a complaint.
What is proposed here is replacing that open language with:
The Commission may refuse to deal with a complaint if dealing with the complaint would seriously compromise an ongoing investigation.
The difference, of course, is that in the first case, in the current bill as drafted, any expectation that the complaint could have been dealt with somewhere else will lead to the commission refusing to deal with that. In this case, with what the amendment proposes, the commission has the option to refuse if there is an ongoing investigation. It tightens up the language and would ensure that it is used only sparingly in a case in which an investigation through another entity had already begun.
That was the recommendation of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, and I propose it as an amendment, a new subclause 52(5).