Public Safety Committee on Oct. 30th, 2023

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

Thank you, Chair.

I keep being about to pose questions to the witnesses, but trying to briefly deal with other matters first and then getting interrupted in my attempt to briefly deal with those other matters.

On this legislation, Bill C-20, we have four regular members of the committee who, I think, made clear to the chair that they were not available for the additional time proposed outside of the time slot. Hence, we are here asking questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Leave it alone.

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

Mr. Chair, I don't understand at all your approach to chairing this meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Stick to the topic at hand. That is the requirement.

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

Chair, it is the topic at hand. I'm talking about the bill. You don't like what I'm saying, but it's still the topic at hand.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

The topic at hand is NDP-34. Do you want to ask questions of the witnesses or not?

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

Could I ask—

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

Read the green book.

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

I read it to my kids every night, Mr. Julian.

[Some hon members]

Oh, oh!

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

Respectfully, there is nothing I enjoy more than discussing the rules of the House of Commons. I'd invite chairs, and this particular chair, to avail themselves of that opportunity.

To the witnesses, I wonder if you could clarify this. The context of NDP-34 envisions other entities potentially looking at complaints that may emerge.

I wonder if you have a list or could suggest a list of all the various entities that might be conducting an investigation that would lead the commission to decide that it either must or may, depending on this amendment's being adopted, refuse to deal with the complaints.

I heard mention of the human rights commission and official languages. I want to make sure I have a clear sense of what the various other bodies are that could be conducting investigations.

[Randall Koops]

We don't have a list. The amendment doesn't appear to include one. We can suggest that, in that case, it may be very open.

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

What other types of bodies...? I presume federal government bodies, at least, would be your interpretation of this wording, or could this include other bodies that can conduct investigations and are not under...?

You could imagine a situation in which some international body was conducting investigations on similar matters, or a provincial one...if there was some ambiguity around....

Again, this is the base of the question, that it's very open. What range of bodies or other types of bodies do you imagine that this would be referring to?

[Joanne Gibb]

It could also refer to the serious incident bodies in the provinces that investigate potential criminality against police officers. We have a chair-initiated complaint currently that we're putting on hold because it is under investigation by a provincial body.

We wouldn't necessarily refuse the complaint, though. We might hold it in abeyance, as opposed to the, as written, “must refuse” and, as amended, “may refuse”.

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

Okay. Do you think “may refuse” provides you with the flexibility around holding it in abeyance, for example, or is there language that would be needed to clarify the option to neither refuse nor investigate, but to park, let's say, for later?

[Joanne Gibb]

There are other provisions for suspension.

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

All right.

If the “must” changes to “may”, it would provide the body with the flexibility to make the suspension.

[Joanne Gibb]

It's not necessarily the suspension, but to accept or to not accept the complaint.

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

I see. I just want to understand how those other aspects that you referred to in relation to suspension would potentially interact with the provision here.

If a complaint were brought forward that you thought might be being dealt with elsewhere, maybe pending further consideration, do the other provisions provide the flexibility to have a suspension in the meantime, or is it unclear on that?

[Joanne Gibb]

I'm sorry—we were just discussing some potential scenarios.

The question I was asking my colleague was this. Say the Canadian Human Rights Commission were investigating something, or we thought it was more appropriate for them to investigate, this amendment—the first part, the “may”—would allow us the discretion to decide whether it would be better placed with another act of Parliament.

The second part of the NDP amendment is somewhat different from the way it's written here.

With an ongoing investigation, for example, it may be that suspension would be the better thing to do than either being required to refuse or having the discretion to refuse.

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

I see.

I have some questions about that, but specifically what I was asking was whether, if this passes, you have the discretion to suspend without refusing to deal with or deciding to deal with. Do you have the flexibility to suspend consideration, let's say, pending the continuation of that other process?

[Joanne Gibb]

The suspension provision still exists, yes.

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

Right, and it would apply in this kind of scenario.

I'm sorry; I want to come back to the issue of other bodies, but this just reminds me, what is your interpretation of the difference between—now that I've sort of zeroed in on it—not the “must” versus “may” but the “seriously compromise an ongoing investigation” by any other person or entity versus “could have been adequately dealt with, or could more appropriately be dealt with, according to a procedure provided for under any Act of Parliament”?

It seems to me that in one sense, the NDP amendment does provide for less discretion insofar as the only case in which they may refuse to deal with it is if there is a concern about a serious compromise to another investigation, so there might be a case in which it's determined that it wouldn't seriously compromise another investigation but it would still be more appropriately dealt with at another body. The implication of the new language is that effectively the commission doesn't have the flexibility to refuse in that case; they have the flexibility to refuse only if there's a basis for believing that there would be a serious compromise to an ongoing investigation.

Is my understanding accurate, or am I missing something?

[Joanne Gibb]

Yes, I would be concerned about “seriously compromise” and what that means, but also about what “ongoing investigation” means. Another body is already taking carriage of it and is investigating it, as opposed to the way I read this clause now, which is that the commission would believe it could be dealt with better by another body.

The other body wouldn't be seized with it yet, necessarily, the way it's written in the bill, but with the amendment, it would have to be seized with it and have an ongoing investigation.

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

It's very interesting, actually, to draw our attention to the word “ongoing”. Suppose you have a situation in which an issue has been brought to a human rights commission, the human rights commission has made a decision on it and then another complaint is brought to the commission. Because the decision was made by the human rights commission, it would not be an ongoing investigation. It would be a complete investigation and, as such, the revised language would not give the commission the power to refuse to deal with it.

Is that correct?