Public Safety Committee on Nov. 1st, 2023

[Randall Koops]

Our understanding is that it ensures concordance with the previous BQ amendment.

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

I understand that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Is there any further discussion?

Are we all in favour of BQ-14?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

That brings us to NDP-38.

Mr. Julian, please.

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

Mr. Chair, I will not be moving amendment NDP‑38 because we previously discussed this topic and the committee decided not to keep it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

(Clause 53 as amended agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Shall clause 54 carry?

(Clauses 54 and 55 agreed to on division)

(On clause 56)

That brings us to clause 56 and CPC-21.

If CPC-21 is adopted, G-6 cannot be moved, due to a line conflict.

Mr. Shipley or whoever, would you like to move CPC-21?

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

I also will not be moving this amendment, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Very well. Thank you.

That brings us to G-6.

Mr. Gaheer, did you wish to move G-6?

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Yes. Thank you, Chair.

We're just adding in the word “prescribed” and taking out the words “provided for in the regulations”.

As far as I can tell, this amendment is recommended to better align the English and French, and to ensure that the regulations around the RCMP and timelines align, but we can hear the experts on this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Who would you like to ask that question of?

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

To the witness, Mr. Koops.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Koops.

[Randall Koops]

That's correct. It would align the English better with the intent expressed in the French version of the statute.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Very well.

Is there any further discussion?

(Amendment agreed to on division)

(Clause 56 as amended agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We're on clause 57 and CPC-22.

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

Thank you, Chair.

We will not be moving this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Okay. Shall clause 57 carry?

(Clause 57 agreed to on division)

We're on clause 58, with CPC-23.

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

We will not be moving that amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Shall clause 58 carry?

(Clause 58 agreed to on division)

(On clause 59)

We're at clause 59. We go back once again to Mr. Julian, with NDP-39.

I should note that if NDP-39 is adopted, CPC-24, NDP-40 and BQ-14.1 cannot be moved due to a line conflict. Also, if NDP-39 is adopted or defeated, PV-6 cannot be proceeded with, since they are identical.

Mr. Julian.

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

I will not move NDP-39, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Very well. Thank you.

That brings us to CPC-24.

If CPC-24 is adopted or defeated, NDP-40 and BQ-14.1 cannot be moved, since they are identical. Also, if CPC-24 is adopted, PV-6 cannot be proceeded with, due to a line conflict.

Mr. Shipley.

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

Thank you, Chair.

We will be moving CPC-24, which is that Bill C-20, in clause 59, be amended by replacing line 32 on page 40 with the following:

(7) The parties and the union representatives for the RCMP employee or CBSA employee, as the case may be, whose conduct is the subject matter of the complaint, and any other person who satisfies the

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Is there any discussion?

Mr. Motz.

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

I'd just like to ask the witnesses whether there's any issue with the addition of the language we're proposing in CPC-24. What impact will that have on how the commission will conduct its investigation or the reports?

[Randall Koops]

I think the intent of the clause before the amendment would have satisfied that in any condition, because there was nothing that would stand in the way of the commission's allowing union representatives to make representation provided they satisfied the other conditions for participation.

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

Is it a flaw to have the language added for clarity?

[Randall Koops]

I think we would suggest it's unnecessary. I don't know if we would conclude that it's a flaw.