Public Safety Committee on Nov. 1st, 2023

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

Officials could help me with this.

We're talking about the commission, which is to be an independent body separate from both the RCMP and the CBSA. They're making the suggestion that we're going to add the word “binding” recommendations there.

Do you find that may pose some challenges with those organizations? I think that making recommendations is one thing, but making binding recommendations might be somewhat problematic.

I'd certainly appreciate hearing from both agencies and the department on that.

[Randall Koops]

I can go first on that.

A binding recommendation, which sounds a lot like an order, is very much outside the government's intent in the design of the entire review regime. The regime is predicated on an independent body that operates at arm's length but then makes recommendations to the minister or the relevant deputy heads, those deputy heads in turn being accountable and answerable to the minister, who is answerable here for the decisions that are made in response to the recommendations.

If the commission begins to issue binding instructions to those agencies, the concern is that it begins to erode on the axis of accountability that exists between ministers and deputy heads, established throughout the federal statute book.

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

I'd like to hear from the RCMP and CBSA on how this might create some challenges for your two agencies.

[A/Commr Alfredo Bangloy]

For the RCMP, although the vast majority of time—I'm not sure of the exact percentage but it's a very high percentage—the RCMP agrees with the recommendations of the CRCC, making the recommendations binding would have a very significant impact on operations and, potentially, service delivery, depending on the nature of what the recommendation is. It would effectively give control of certain aspects—whatever the recommendation is—to the CRCC.

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

There will be negative impacts, if I heard you correctly. You didn't say “negative”, but you said that it would have significant impacts.

[A/Commr Alfredo Bangloy]

Depending on the nature of the recommendation: for example, if it impacted resources. I can't think of a specific example, but binding recommendations, I can say, would have a significant impact, both operationally, potentially, and with service delivery.

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

The CBSA is next.

[Cathy Maltais]

We're not under this PCRC/CRCC yet, so we haven't had any recommendations, but I could see examples. If a recommendation came specifically that we needed to have x amount of resources per shift at a port of entry, and if that were binding, it could be a major issue from a funding perspective, a resources perspective that we're not able to meet. Or if there are legislative recommendations and for us that's in legislation, then it may not be possible, because there is law that we have to follow. I could see concerns, but again, they're just assumptions, because we're not part of it yet.

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

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

I have Mr. Shipley.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Along with my colleague, I do have some issues with this. The words themselves would make recommendations “binding”. Recommendations are recommendations. I have concerns, like Mr. Motz was saying, about making these binding....

The officials mentioned “an independent body”. If it's independent, making this binding makes it a little less independent, does it not? How would that work?

[Randall Koops]

That would be one of the risks of giving the commission order-making power, yes.

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

As it would stand right now, the recommendations would come forward, as you mentioned, and then the ministers and the staff would have approval to implement them. We would have no idea.... Obviously, the specs of those recommendations can be huge and varied. They may not be implementable for many reasons.

To make them binding would really be tying their hands to something that maybe could not be done. Am I correct in that?

[Randall Koops]

You are correct. It would erode the authority of the deputy heads to administer their organizations and potentially erode the authority of the minister to issue directions to both of those agencies.

The minister, of course, is now the only person who can issue a directive to the deputy head, to the commissioner of the RCMP or to the president of CBSA. Adding another person into that mix with directive or order-making powers complicates that accountability relationship and erodes the obligation of the deputy heads to answer to the minister, who in turn answers here.

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

Thank you for that clarification.

From the information I'm hearing, obviously I won't be able to support this. Unless I hear something new or different after this, I won't be able to support this amendment.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

I have Mr. Lloyd.

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

Is there a potential, witnesses, that a recommendation from the commission could be for legislative changes that Parliament would be required to enact? If we were to say that this was binding, would that put an onus on Parliament to change the law based upon the recommendations of this committee?

[Randall Koops]

My understanding of the amendment is that it would not bind Parliament.

It could result in a situation where the two agencies, which both have law enforcement roles, would be, in an extreme case perhaps, subject to direction from an outside body that does not have the legislative authority otherwise to direct law enforcement operations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Are there any other interventions?

(Amendment negatived)

It was a valiant effort. Thank you.

That brings us to amendment NDP-43.

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

I was actually thinking of asking for a recount, Mr. Chair.

Amendment NDP-43 is Breaking Barriers' recommendation. It was brought to this committee.

They are concerned, in clause 64, about the length of time within which there can be a response to reports that are issued following an investigation or hearing. They feel that leaving it open for so long—six months—for a response, particularly for victims who have been through a very long process, could be very much retraumatizing.

The recommendation in NDP-43 is to limit that response period to 90 days.

That provides for a much more rapid response in terms of the report and, as we have said all along this process, Mr. Chair—and I know you've repeated this—justice delayed is justice denied. Cutting that response period in half is a way of speeding up the response and, ultimately, the justice that must come to victims.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

We go now to Mr. Melillo.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate Mr. Julian's moving this forward and the thoughtfulness he showed in doing so.

Mr. Chair, looking at it, I believe personally that the current timeline is sufficient, but I'm curious to hear from the witnesses—whoever would like to make a comment on it—about how feasible this is from their point of view.

[A/Commr Alfredo Bangloy]

From the RCMP perspective, we currently have an MOU with a six-month timeline, and we're currently able to meet that service standard.

Reducing it by half would significantly impact resources, as far as our ability to do these reviews and responses in half the time that we are currently doing them would go.

[Randall Koops]

This is a new provision, and legislating a timeline for the responses is, in the government's view, a very important new accountability measure that's being introduced here.

The government is proposing six months for a few reasons.

One is, as my RCMP colleague has said, that it is known to be a workable timeline because the commission and the RCMP work on that timeline now. That is, in fact, the timeline that was recommended by the chair of the commission to the minister and, I believe, to the committee here, and that also responds to the recent Federal Court jurisprudence that examined the adequacy of responses of the RCMP to the commission, in which the Federal Court identified six months as the appropriate length of time.

This provision in the bill is a response to the most recent Federal Court decision on the matter.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Motz.