Public Safety Committee on Nov. 1st, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you for your intervention, Mr. Julian. They certainly do have the right to ask for a recorded decision.

Mr. Shipley, go ahead on the same point of order.

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

Thank you.

You took the words right out of my mouth, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

There you go.

That is not to say that we could not go faster and get this done today if we buckled down.

On clause 70, we come to amendment NDP-54.

Mr. Julian, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Because we need to improve this bill and get it through committee so it can go back to the House, we've already had the considerations around what's touched on with NDP-54, so I'm not moving the amendment.

(Clause 70 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

(On clause 71)

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

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I would like to note that you're absolutely right to point out that members of the committee have the right to go for a recorded vote rather than simply having it adopted on division, but each of those recorded votes—with the dozens and dozens of clauses still to come—would mean a delay of several hours. That costs the taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars. I wanted that noted, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

I acknowledge this and thank you for the intervention.

On clause 71, we have amendment NDP-55.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is clause 71. Concerns were raised by the Customs and Immigration Union. Currently, in terms of safeguards, in clause 71 the wording is as follows:

Nothing in section 67 or 68 is to be construed as

—and then there's a series of measures that follow—

(a) affecting the powers and rights of the Commissioner or President;

(b) authorizing the Commissioner or President to initiate any process...;

(c) preventing the application of any applicable law or collective agreement;

(d) authorizing the commencement of any process...;

(e) authorizing the imposition of any measure in relation to any conduct...; [and]

(f) authorizing the collection or use of information other than information collected or used in relation to an investigation of, a hearing into or a review of a complaint under this Act.

Of course, the concerns raised by the Customs and Immigration Union are that those safeguards apply only to sections 67 and 68. On the concerns, for example, around collective agreements, none of the other clauses have those safeguards in place.

Amendment NDP-55 seeks to amend section 71 to read, “Nothing in this Act is to be construed as”, ensuring that the safeguards apply to the entire bill—in particular the application of laws and collective agreements—as opposed to just to section 67 or 68.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Go ahead, Mr. Lloyd, followed by Mr. Melillo.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Thank you.

I want to ask the witnesses. The term “safeguard” seems kind of vague to me. In your experience, what would be the impact of this amendment on your processes?

[Randall Koops]

We discussed that the amendment raises concerns. Some are obvious, and some might be less obvious or, in fact, unintended.

The safeguards in clause 71 are very specifically about ensuring that the existing disciplinary processes are not affected. Changing clause 71 such that those safeguards apply to the statute as a whole could result in a very strange construction in saying that nothing in the act affects the powers and rights of the commissioner or the president, when there are plenty of provisions in the act that do that very thing. They are intended to create powers and rights of the commissioner or the president in relation to the complaint process. It would appear to make a safeguard provision overly large, to the point of affecting the very purpose for which Parliament would enact the statute.

My colleagues from the commission may have more specifics to offer, but I think that would be our concern about the nature of the amendment.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Could I follow up quickly on that, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Yes, go ahead.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

You talked about a “strange construction”. Can you clarify what you mean by a “strange construction”?

[Randall Koops]

It would say that nothing in the act is to be construed as doing the very thing the act does, which is set out powers for the commissioner or president in response to their obligations to deal with the PCRC.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

It seems clear to me, but I don't think I can support this.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Melillo, you have the floor.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Mr. Lloyd.

You sort of went down the road I was hoping to go down, but, really briefly, to build off it, Mr. Koops, you outlined clearly for me the concern with changing to this new language. Could you briefly explain why, specifically, the language was chosen as it is currently?

[Randall Koops]

The language was chosen to ensure that any interpretation around clauses 67 and 68 understands the intent of those provisions, which is not to bring the commission into the disciplinary process and not to intrude on the responsibilities of deputy heads under the Financial Administration Act and the Public Service Employment Act.

What is new in clauses 67 and 68 is not the ability to recommend discipline. The commission enjoys that power now, and that would be covered under clause 64, in any event. What's special about clauses 67 and 68 is not the power to recommend discipline; it is the reporting obligation that the recommendation imposes on the deputy heads.

We sometimes refer to this internally as the “bad apple clause”, that, where a person has come to the attention of the commission and that person's conduct raises concern but has not yet attracted discipline, the unique power in clauses 67 and 68 is that the commission, by making that recommendation, obliges the deputy head to report his decision to the minister. That entire process is intended to be separate and apart from the existing labour relations regime and the existing provisions for discipline under various statutes.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Are there any further interventions?

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 71 agreed to on division)

(On clause 72)

That brings us to NDP-56.

Go ahead, Mr. Julian.

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

After the success of the last amendment, I will press on, Mr. Chair.

This amendment comes from the wonderful MP for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, Mr. MacGregor, who sat on public safety up until the spring.

Ensuring accountability in this bill is very important. What the proposal would do is amend the bill in clause 72 to state that:

The Minister must provide a copy of the report to the Chairperson and must cause a copy to be tabled in each House of Parliament within the first 15 days on which that House is sitting after the Minister receives the report.

This ensures accountability, of course, to Parliament, which I think we would all agree with. Because Mr. MacGregor was part of the initial hearings and heard the importance of accountability in this legislation, he is making this recommendation through me.

I move NDP-56.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Motz.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm trying to understand the language, right now.

We're talking about replacing lines 30 and 31, or subclause 72(2) in the bill, with language proposed by Mr. Julian. What's the purpose of “A copy of the report must be provided to the Chairperson” in subclause 72(2) now? Wouldn't the chair already have this? Why would this need to be there?

It doesn't make sense that the reports would come back to the House in some way. I'm lost as to the purpose of current subclause 72(2) of the bill.

[Randall Koops]

The purpose of the current subclause 72(2) is this: The chair of the commission will receive the reports that the agency heads send to the minister so that she, in turn, can prepare her own assessment of their reporting, in order to include it in her report to the minister, which is tabled in Parliament.

As we understand it, the amendment would cause, as an interim step, the first report from the commissioner and president to the minister to be tabled in Parliament before the minister receives the commission's assessment of the agency's reports, and before she has completed her own annual report.

You are correct. It would create a situation whereby the reports of the agencies to the minister would come before Parliament twice: once without the benefit of the committee's commentary, assessment, aggregation of data and all the rest of that, and again—later in the reporting cycle, as amended—when the full report of the commission is sent to the minister and, in turn, tabled in Parliament.

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

Okay. Thank you.