Public Safety Committee on Oct. 30th, 2023

[Randall Koops]

In our view, I think that understanding is correct. The design intent behind the bill is that the PCRC not be brought into the realm of discipline. In the case of the RCMP, there is already a separate external body to deal with that.

The act as drafted explicitly excludes the PCRC, or the statute, from dealing with any measure related to discipline. That is better dealt with in the existing domain of labour law and the disciplinary process. There was nothing in the government's design intent in the legislation to bring anything into the statute in relation to suspension, return to duties or compensation, which would otherwise be outside the realm of the PCRC and already subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, with that being said, I can't support this amendment, because if individuals were suspended without pay or any other disciplinary action, they should take that up within the processes of whoever made that disciplinary action. The PCRC's process...Even if a complaint is ultimately withdrawn or whatnot, there would have been an internal process, whether by the RCMP or CBSA, to take that disciplinary action, with or without the PCRC.

I don't think the two should be correlated. I think that if there is an unfair disciplinary action, there is recourse that exists between the union and whoever made that disciplinary action, which is not the PCRC.

I can't support this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Julian, followed by Mr. Motz.

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

I have concerns as well. If the PCRC is disagreeing with the RCMP's or agency's decision on the complaint, what, in the opinion of our witnesses, would be the result? This seems to be a missing part of the amendment. I'll ask our witnesses: What do you see as the ramifications of this in a case where the PCRC is in profound disagreement with the decision of the agency or the RCMP?

[Joanne Gibb]

The founded or unfounded would come at the investigation of first instance, after the CBSA or RCMP investigates. The PCRC wouldn't really have a role until the complainant requested a review, if the complainant requested a review.

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

Let's assume the complainant does.

[Joanne Gibb]

If a review is requested and the commission is in disagreement, we would write an interim report that has findings and recommendations for the commissioner or the agency. A copy goes to the minister. Then the commissioner or the president would have the opportunity to respond.

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

Thank you.

I certainly understand the intent of the amendment. I'm not sure that the wording here actually accomplishes what the intent is. In its current form, I can't support this amendment.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

We'll go to Mr. Motz, followed by Mr. Shipley.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I agree with Ms. O'Connell's explanation that generally matters of discipline would fall under both the RCMP and CBSA. During an investigation, it's their own protocols that set out whether the complaint is serious enough that the individual who is the subject of it needs to be suspended with or without pay, pending the outcome of an investigation.

I understand the RCMP's process a little better. It was the CBSA union that had some concerns.

Can CBSA explain to me what's going on inside the organization that these members feel that they want this language in the act? Do they not have recourse now? Is it a clumsy process?

If you have a six-month, eight-month or year-long investigation, they're without pay for that length of time, and they are found to be not guilty, the complaint is withdrawn or it's frivolous and vexatious—whatever the outcome is, if they're found not to be responsible—there should be an automatic reinstatement of their pay, back pay included.

I'm curious to know whether or not they have to go through a very litigious process to get back what they're rightly due. I don't know the answer to it.

Obviously, there has to be something for them to have this concern.

[Cathy Maltais]

I can't speak on behalf of the union, because they're not here today. My understanding is that they're mixing different investigative processes.

The public complaints investigation is a separate process. As I mentioned last time, we have a service standard of 40 days, which we meet 90% of the time. Professional standards investigations or labour relations code of conduct investigations are a whole separate process within CBSA that is not part of the public complaints process.

While a public complaint may have brought to light the conduct of an employee, the complaints process will follow through within the 40 days to say whether it will be supported or not. Then the professional standards investigation process or labour relations process—I can't speak on their behalf because they're not here today—would be their separate piece with the collective agreements, with the grievance rights and everything else that is part of that statute, which is outside of this.

One triggers the other, if you will, because one may bring up the conduct of someone, but it's not an actual public complaints investigation that would make an employee go on leave without pay or anything else. We have nothing to do with the employee; then it moves to the other processes that are legislated.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Julian, I don't want to put you on the spot, but I'm going to anyway.

Do you understand the intent of this? If the language is clumsy—and I don't have any suggestions for changing the language—do you have anything that comes to mind to change this so it's palatable and still accomplishes what we are trying to accomplish?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

We have Mr. Shipley before Mr. Julian, but I will let Mr. Julian respond directly.

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

I don't have any brainwaves, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Shipley.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mine will be fairly quick, too, because Mr. Motz asked a very similar question.

I just want to get it clarified to me. Ms. O'Connell mentioned that this was during discipline issues.

What we're looking for here is.... This is not a discipline issue whereby they'd be losing pay and be off work. This is when they get their security clearance revoked and can't work. They haven't been disciplined. They're getting it revoked during the investigation. There has been no discipline handed out; it's not a discipline issue.

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

They don't make that decision.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

We're looking for a bit of clarification on that, if we could, please.

[Randall Koops]

Again, we would just observe that suspension and things flowing from it are from the operation of another statute. They are from the operation of whatever labour statute applies and whatever collective agreement applies in that context.

This amendment would impose on the commissioner or the president an obligation about the employment status of an employee in the PCRC statute, when it was the operation of an entirely different statute that may have created that situation, and that is not part of the operation of PCRC or of the complaint itself. It results from a disciplinary decision that was made by the president or the commissioner.

Briefly, I think we conclude that, whether that outcome is desirable or not, this may not be the proper statute to achieve it through.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Is there any further discussion?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Shall clause 43 carry?

(Clause 43 agreed to)

(On clause 44)

On clause 44, we have NDP-26.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

This was a recommendation, members of the committee will recall, from the Canadian Association for Refugee Lawyers regarding a third party, which is a principle I think we've brought forward in the bill as well, allowing, in the section on representation, which is clause 44, to include some clarifying language:

a person or entity with a substantial interest in the subject matter of the complaint, acting in the public interest.

For reasons that we've had before in terms of investigations, it's important to have those third parties able to make representations on specific complaints. I certainly hope that members of the committee will support this recommendation from the Canadian Association for Refugee Lawyers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you. I have to let you move it before I can rule on it.

My advice here is that this amendment seeks to introduce the right to make representation in relation to complaints about the policies and procedures of the agency, which is a new concept that goes beyond the scope of the bill as adopted by the House at second reading. An amendment to a bill that was referred to the committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

In the opinion of the chair and for the above-stated reason, I will rule the amendment inadmissible.

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

Mr. Chair, with all the deep respect I have in your abilities, I think it's fair to say that throughout this bill, what we've been trying to do is ensure that third parties have the ability to intervene in complaints.

With the deep respect I have for you as a fellow British Columbian—and you've done an admirable job as chair of this committee—I'll have to beg to disagree on this particular question, and I'll have to challenge your ruling.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

That's no problem.

The question is: Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?

If you vote yes, you are voting to sustain the decision of the chair, and if you vote no, you are voting to overturn that decision.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 8; nays 2) [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The chair's decision is sustained.