Public Safety Committee on Nov. 1st, 2023

[Randall Koops]

Generally, when these types of communications are received in the department, they're provided to the minister's office very, very quickly. In my experience, it's often the same day. The accountability could fall to the minister in the sense of reporting to Parliament about when the commission made a report and when it was able to receive responses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Mr. Shipley.

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

Thank you.

I know that we're getting into the weeds a bit with this, and I understand what Mr. Lloyd is saying.

Just to kind of close the loop, though, because we're in agreement with this amendment, would it be at all possible to have some type of an acknowledgement—I'm trying to word this nicely—as Mr. Lloyd was saying, to make sure that the loop is closed, so that no one can just say, “Well, technology.... It didn't get sent through.” We've all heard, “Oh, I didn't receive the email; technology didn't happen.” Is there anything that can be put through so that an acknowledgement has to be made to make sure this loop is closed?

[Randall Koops]

It's probably possible. Whether that's necessary in the context, I think, is a question for the committee in the context of examining the amendment.

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

Can we move that as a...?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Is there any further discussion?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

That brings us to NDP-44.

Mr. Julian, please.

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

You'll be pleased to hear that I will not be moving amendments NDP‑44 and NDP‑45. We already discussed this issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Therefore, shall clause 64, as amended, carry?

(Clause 64 as amended agreed to on division)

(On clause 65)

That brings us to clause 65. NDP-45 has been withdrawn, so that brings us to NDP-45.1, and Mr. Julian.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

A number of organizations—and I'll list some of the groups in just a moment—raised concerns around clause 65, which says that “the Commission's final report[s]...are final and are not subject to appeal to or review by any court”. NDP-45.1 seeks to say that those findings and conclusions “are subject to appeal”. That is the language that allows for the opportunity to appeal to the courts.

Now, there a couple of dozen organizations that have told us that this is an important provision, that it is important to have that ability, if the Commission's findings and recommendations or whatever are not satisfactory, for them to be reviewed by a court. Those groups include Amnesty International Canada, the BC Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Council for Refugees, the Canadian Immigration Lawyers Association, the Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association, the Canadian Muslim Public Affairs Council, the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group and so on.

These very important organizations have told us that the fact that the existing clause 65 basically does not provide for any possibility of appeal or review by any court is something they find very concerning. For credibility in terms of the legislation, they thought it was very important to say to us that this clause needs to allow for the possibility of appeal. That's why NDP-45.1 is before this committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

Go ahead, Mr. Motz.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I have a couple questions for our witnesses.

Number one, how long have you been operating for the RCMP?

[Joanne Gibb]

Since 1988.

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

Thinking of that timeline, is it rare to have appeals of your decisions go to court?

[Lesley McCoy, General Counsel, Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

Yes. It's actually exceedingly rare that complainants seek judicial review in the Federal Court. The rare time that it does happen, it's almost never been a successful application.

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

Having learned that, I understand what Mr. Julian is alluding to or trying to get at, but it's completely opposite to what's in the act right now. As a result, I'm troubled to know how this will actually improve service to the people who were alleged to have been aggrieved. There's a big difference between an appeal and thinking you can get an appeal because you don't like the result of an investigation as opposed to there being some error in law or some misconduct in the investigation in some way that would have tainted it.

I'm troubled by it. I have to understand more that there is no other recourse for a complainant. If I'm complaining about CBSA, let's say, and I go through the whole complaint process, the commission intervenes and does its bit, and I feel as if I still haven't been heard, does that mean I have no other recourse? Once the commission is done, I have zero recourse. That's what it's basically saying now under clause 65—is that correct?

[Randall Koops]

Yes. The government's designed intent there is that there not be a stage of judicial review between the conclusions of the commission and its recommendations to the minister or the deputy head of the agencies, because the commission's recommendation is not the final decision. The final decision rests with the minister and the deputy heads. They answer for it. Their decision to act or not act would, of course, be subject to review by the Federal Court.

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

Would the commission be considered to be a quasi-judicial body? Would that be something that plays into that decision as well?

[Randall Koops]

The intent is that the commission exercises quasi-judicial powers in its investigative capacity. What you'll find in clause 64 is the commission's authority to make any recommendation “that it sees fit”. The commission is unfettered in that, but the decision-making authority to finally dispose of the matter ultimately rests with the minister or with the agency head in terms of whether or not they accept the recommendations of the commission.

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

Do you see any challenges with now adding the CBSA into the commissions mix, that it would create more opportunities for an appeal process, or do you feel that the way the bill is written now in clause 65 is still appropriate?

[Randall Koops]

The government's intent was that it is still appropriate. Clause 65 was drafted with the perspective in mind that CBSA is being brought in under the jurisdiction of the commission.

The logical conclusion of providing for judicial review between a recommendation of the commission and a final decision by the minister or the deputy head would be one of delay. The intent, the designed bias, if you will, throughout the new regime is that it favours faster resolutions by imposing more deadlines and by not providing for judicial review at an interim stage, if you will, which is before the minister or deputy head have made their final decisions.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Is there any further discussion?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

That brings us to NDP-46.

Go ahead, Mr. Julian.

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

Mr. Chair, as we just discussed that, I will not be moving NDP‑46.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Shall clause 65 carry?

(Clause 65 agreed to on division)

(Clause 66 agreed to on division)

That brings us to new clause 66.1 and CPC-25.

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

Thank you, Chair. We will be moving amendment CPC-25. It is that Bill C-20 be amended by adding after line 17 on page 43 the following new clause:

66.1 If the final report finds that the complaint is unfounded and the RCMP employee or CBSA employee, as the case may be, whose conduct is the subject matter of the complaint was suspended as a result of the complaint, the Commissioner or the President, as the case may be, must ensure that the employee is permitted to return to the duties of their employment and that they are paid compensation in an amount equal to the remuneration that they would have been paid if they had not been suspended.

I'll speak to that just a little. We brought up a similar amendment at the last meeting, or a couple of meetings ago. This is similar, but it is a bit different from our previous amendment on remuneration and back pay. This amendment would automate the back pay process for complaints that are deemed unfounded. As employees who are the subject of a complaint are not paid, we would like to make sure the process to access back pay is automatic, rather than the responsibility of the employee. This would help to protect our frontline workers, who are disproportionately placed on leave without pay as compared to managers.

Hopefully, we'll see support on that around the table. Perhaps someone else has some other comments on this. We'll see where it goes.

Thank you.