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.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
I want to highlight this, as well. I think it could limit parliamentary oversight.
If the RCMP or CBSA reports are brought before committee for a response, for example, we might not have the benefit of the PCRC's report. Therefore, the committee would be limited in asking whether they've implemented all the recommendations, let's say, or what the status is on that. This could limit the ability for parliamentary oversight, in terms of not having the full report with the commission's findings at the same time.
That's why we can't support this amendment.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you.
Is there any further discussion?
We have a tied vote, but the chair votes against.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)
(Clause 72 to 74 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On clause 75)
That brings us to clause 75 and NDP-57.
Mr. Julian, please.
5:55 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
As we have discussed this topic, I will not be moving amendment NPD‑57.
6 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I didn't hear your remarks. I didn't have my earpiece on there, and my French is a little shaky.
6 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Oh, okay.
I initially said that the chair was excellent except for his last vote; I then told him that I no longer wanted to move amendment NDP‑57.
6 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
That's excellent, thank you.
Shall clause 75 carry?
(Clause 75 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)
(Clauses 76 to 86 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 87)
6 p.m.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The purpose of amendment BQ‑14.2 is to add a provision according to which the Governor in Council may make regulations, including with respect to the criteria for determining whether a complaint is "trivial, frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith".
Why are we proposing an amendment like that? In the bill, there is no definition of the words "trivial", "frivolous", or "vexatious", or of the expression "made in bad faith", and yet these words are important.
This amendment would allow for this to be dealt with afterwards, in the regulations. It makes things a little clearer.
6 p.m.
Liberal
6 p.m.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
I'm inclined to support this amendment.
To the witnesses, do you already have processes in place to determine whether or not complaints are vexatious and to deal with that? Would this possibly be an unnecessary amendment?
Perhaps you can explain your process as it is.
6 p.m.
Director General, International Border Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
My colleague can explain their process.
I would just observe that the government is of the view that it is actually preferable, as part of the commission's independence, that it define those terms itself and apply those definitions as part of its own rule-making authority, which is otherwise.... It's not resting with the Governor in Council but resting internally with the commission itself, as part of exercising its quasi-judicial role, as it does now, which my colleagues can explain.
6 p.m.
Senior Director, Strategic Operations and Policy Directorate, Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
The commission has a policy—it's available on our website—that governs the discretion to refuse to deal with a complaint. We have a framework around what “trivial, frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith” is. That's how we apply the discretion of the chairperson, or her delegate in this case.
I can read to you the policy and the definitions we use, if you'd like, or we can skip that.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
I have just a quick follow-up. Is there any evidence or have you seen cases in which your framework has said that something was vexatious, you were challenged on that, and then it was later ruled that it wasn't vexatious? Has your framework as it exists been successful at blocking vexatious complaints, without complaints that were later found to be founded?
6:05 p.m.
Senior Director, Strategic Operations and Policy Directorate, Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
It hasn't been challenged.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Is there any further discussion?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
That brings us to BQ-14.3.
Go ahead, Ms. Michaud.
6:05 p.m.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The intent of amendment BQ‑14.3 is also to add a provision indicating that the Governor in Council make regulations with respect to applicable criteria for not dealing with a complaint for reasons related to national security.
Once again, that would allow for regulations to be added following the passage of the bill. This was requested by the Canadian Bar Association.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Similar to the last question from my colleague Mr. Lloyd, I'm curious to know whether there is already an existing process similar to this or that might be covered under this.
I'll leave the question there for your comments.
6:05 p.m.
Senior Director, Strategic Operations and Policy Directorate, Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
We don't have a policy on this. The process usually is that it's identified, at the point of intake, that on its face it appears to be national security or closely related to national security. We may or may not consult with our colleagues at the RCMP if we have any questions. They then could identify whether it's closely related, yes or no. We've done that on a few occasions.
Otherwise, most of the time it's fairly obvious. Then we send it to NSIRA to deal with.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I'll move a subamendment that a new paragraph (o.1) would include respecting:
(i) sharing of information and cooperation between the Commission and the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency or between the Commission and any other prescribed federal entity,
(ii) referral of complaints by the Commission—
Do I need to read all of these into the record?
No. Okay. Thank you. Then I'll go quickly to the explanation.
This provides for Governor in Council regulation-making power with respect to information sharing, the referral of complaints, joint proceedings and co-operation between federal review bodies such as the PCRC and NSIRA. We think this is important because if there are overlaps or national security matters, we want them to be able to be investigated but also to protect national security matters. We also want the reverse, so if something were to come forward with NSIRA that perhaps should be looked at through the PCRC, this would allow that information sharing and the ability for multiple agencies to be able to do work based on these investigations.
Thank you.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you.
I have Mr. Motz, followed by Mr. Shipley.
Mr. Motz, go ahead.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Thank you, Chair.
Given the explanation Ms. O'Connell just gave, could Mr. Koops explain something?
What's the difference in how it's read now...? With the way paragraph (o) is read now under proposed section 80, what will these new proposed subparagraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) do substantively to the bill? How would they change it?
What advantages or disadvantages are there if we keep it the way it is, or if we add it as proposed?