Evidence of meeting #80 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 commission.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Because CPC-24 is identical to NDP-40, I will be supporting this amendment. I think it provides further clarity and strengthens the ability to intervene in hearings.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Are there any further interventions? Seeing none, shall CPC-24 carry?
(Amendment agreed to)
PV-6 cannot be moved. That brings us to NDP-40, which cannot be moved. Also, BQ-14.1 cannot be moved.
Shall clause 59 as amended carry?
(Clause 59 as amended agreed to on division)
(On clause 60)
This brings us to clause 60 and NDP-41.
Go ahead, Mr. Julian, if you please.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is a recommendation that came to us from Breaking Barriers Together—a concern that arose out of the Merlo Davidson lawsuit that there was a complaint undertaken under internal investigation. Currently, the way the bill is worded, the commission:
may suspend an investigation, review or hearing with respect to a complaint if, in its opinion, continuing it would compromise or seriously hinder an ongoing civil or administrative proceeding.
That is the power to suspend in subclause 60(2).
Amendment NDP-41 would strike the words “administrative proceeding”, which is internal of course—the RCMP—and, taking the lessons of the Merlo Davidson lawsuit, limit the commission's ability to suspend the investigation to when it would compromise or seriously hinder “an ongoing civil proceeding”.
Liberal
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Thank you, Chair.
I don't know if I can support this, because I think having administrative proceedings also are critically important, and may cause the investigation to be suspended. I don't think limiting it to only “an ongoing civil proceeding”, and not anything including administrative proceedings, would benefit a complainant, the person being complained about or the agencies that do the investigation. I would appreciate any feedback from our witnesses on that and whether limiting it—removing the administrative proceedings—would be a significant flaw or there would be an issue with that removal.
Alfredo Bangloy Assistant Commissioner and Professional Responsibility Officer, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
From the RCMP's perspective, it could potentially have an impact if we're removing “administrative proceeding”, because within our administrative proceedings—one of them anyway—is a proceeding whereby we're seeking the dismissal of an RCMP member, and removing that potentially could allow this PCRC to interfere or hinder that proceeding.
Conservative
Director General, International Border Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
I would agree.
I think we would offer the view to the committee that the commission should in fact retain the discretion. This is in the “may suspend” section of the “Duty to suspend”. The commission should retain the discretion to suspend an investigation in an administrative proceeding, bearing in mind, in addition to the ones the RCMP has identified, that serious incident investigations would fall within the ambit of an administrative proceeding, and the commission should have the discretion to suspend on those grounds.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
What about CBSA?
Do you see any challenges with that removal as well?
Cathy Maltais Director, Recourse Directorate, Canada Border Services Agency
I do.
For example, we consider an appeals process—somebody who wants to appeal an enforcement action, a seizure at the border—to be an administrative process, and there are legislated timelines attached to that. The complainant may lose the chance to proceed with their appeal if the PCRC has to take over the complaint, and then that would split it all out.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Thank you.
I can't support NDP-41. I'm sorry, Peter.
Conservative
Doug Shipley Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I'm not sure who to address this question to. Maybe it's for one of the officials.
Mr. Julian mentioned it —and he's mentioned it a couple of times—and forgive me for not recalling this if it was brought up in witness testimony before: the Merlo Davidson lawsuit.
I'm not looking for a long legal brief on this from anybody. Can someone just remind me of what that lawsuit was, how that would pertain to this amendment and how that would be affected by that, please?
A/Commr Alfredo Bangloy
Yes. The Merlo Davidson lawsuit was a class action lawsuit in which approximately $125 million was paid out. Justice Bastarache issued a report on that. It was very critical of the RCMP's handling of a number of complaints. It spoke of quite a number of things, including a toxic work environment.
Conservative
Doug Shipley Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
My follow-up to that, then, to the officials, is on how this amendment would affect or not affect what was found in that lawsuit. Would there be an effect on that, or any outcome?
I know that's speculation, but—
A/Commr Alfredo Bangloy
With respect to the RCMP's discipline process and conduct board proceedings, which are administrative processes, under the existing proposed clause, the PCRC would have the discretion to suspend an investigation if it would interfere with that process. Removal of that would remove that discretion from the PCRC, is my understanding of it, which could then potentially interfere with a discipline process whereby the RCMP is seeking to dismiss a member from the force.
Conservative
Doug Shipley Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
Thank you.
Was anybody else's hearing going in and out there a bit, Chair?
Conservative
Doug Shipley Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
Okay, maybe it's me, or maybe it's just my ears.
Thank you, Chair.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
I wanted to respond to Mr. Shipley.
It's a very valid question, but it's not really the Merlo Davidson lawsuit that I'm referencing. It's the recommendations coming from Breaking Barriers Together, and they reference the lawsuit.
Would this have a material change in the lawsuit? Of course not. Organizations that have come forward to this committee to make recommendations on improving the bill have put forward what they see as best practices in terms of refining the bill, improving the bill, so that the lessons from the Merlo Davidson lawsuit are learned.
It is the opinion of Breaking Barriers that this is one of the helpful amendments that would improve the bill.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you.
Is there any further discussion?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 60 agreed to on division)
(Clauses 61 to 63 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On clause 64)
That brings us to clause 64 and NDP-42.
Mr. Julian.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
This is another recommendation from Breaking Barriers. It's inserting the word “binding” in front of “recommendations” in the interim report under subclause 64(1).
That recommendation is to try to ensure that recommendations brought forward are actually implemented. That was the recommendation they made to committee.