Public Safety Committee on Nov. 1st, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 80 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Friday, November 25, 2022, the committee continues consideration of Bill C-20, an act establishing the public complaints and review commission and amending certain acts and statutory instruments.

Today, the committee resumes clause-by-clause consideration.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of officials and members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking, with some flexibility when being questioned by members, of course.

Although this room is equipped with a powerful audio system, feedback events can occur. These can be extremely harmful to interpreters and cause serious injuries. The most common cause of sound feedback is an earpiece worn too close to a microphone. In order to prevent incidents and safeguard the hearing health of the interpreters, I invite participants to ensure that they speak into the microphone into which their headset is plugged and avoid manipulating the earbuds by placing them on the table away from the microphone when they're not in use.

Finally, this is a reminder that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

I draw to the attention of the committee—and the witnesses, of course—that we have resources until midnight. This does not mean that we need to sit until midnight.

My hope—and I'm sure it's a hope shared by all—is that we can get through this bill in short order. I think we're yea close to being done.

At the end of a couple of hours, if we want to take a look at where we are and decide whether we want to continue or to resume again the following day, I think that will be up for discussion.

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

No offence, but let's go, then.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Okay, well, I admire the enthusiasm.

I will now welcome the officials who are with us once again. They're available for questions regarding the bill but will not deliver any opening statements.

From the Canada Border Services Agency, we have Cathy Maltais, director, recourse directorate.

From the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we have Joanne Gibb, senior director, strategic operations and policy directorate; and Lesley McCoy, general counsel.

From the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, we have Randall Koops, director general, international border policy; Martin Leuchs, manager, border policy division; and Deidre Pollard-Bussey, director, policing policy.

From the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we have Kathleen Clarkin, director, national recruiting program; and Alfredo Bangloy, assistant commissioner and professional responsibility officer.

Thank you, all, for joining us today.

We are at clause 52, amendment NDP-34.

I have no idea where we left off. If there's any further discussion on this amendment, I invite people to raise their hands at this time.

(On clause 52)

Mr. Motz.

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

I just wanted to know from the officials whether there's a concern raised with changing the wording as it's written in NDP-34.

Basically, if we're changing a “must” to a “may” but taking out all of the other language there, is that going to pose a problem, or are we okay with NDP-34 as it is?

[Randall Koops, Director General, International Border Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Chair, I think we would observe that the government's preference was for the language that was presented in the bill in the form in which it was introduced.

If it would be helpful to the committee, I can explain some of the considerations that were at play in the design of clause 52, which deals with restrictions on the things the commission may and may not investigate. You'll note that there is a subsection that deals with where the commission may refuse and a subsection that deals with where the commission must refuse, and so on.

The designed intent for the commission, as presented in the bill, was to give the commission the broadest possible latitude of decision making about what to investigate within the four corners of its jurisdiction, but not to give the commission discretion about making decisions about where the limits of that jurisdiction lie.

These amendments would, to varying degrees, grant the commission authority to make broader decisions about what would fall within it's mandate as a discretionary matter.

As my colleague pointed out at the last meeting, that could allow the commission to ensure that a type of complaint that was unforeseen does not fall through the cracks. On the other hand, it could also give rise to workload concerns. It could give rise to situations where the commission's mandate is brought into conflict with a space that is reserved in statute for another body.

What the amendments at 52 do, as Mr. Motz noted, is the line-drawing exercise or the balancing exercise around where the commission should be given the discretion about what falls within its mandate in addition to its absolute discretion about what is already defined as within its mandate. I think that is a question the committee is best placed to answer.

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

I appreciate that. I think you're on the money with that. Would it still be appropriate, moving to BQ-13—I know we've jumped ahead—to change the “must” to “may”? Would that substantially change the intent of proposed subsection 52(5), which we're talking about, here in the act?

[Randall Koops]

It would change the intent. The question for the committee to consider is whether that's a desirable outcome.

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

Thank you.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Even though we previously discussed this, I would like to reiterate that NDP‑34 and BQ‑13 are very similar. BQ‑13 comes right after NDP‑34. The intent is the same, but the NDP amendment goes farther by saying "The Commission may refuse to deal with a complaint if dealing with the complaint would seriously compromise an ongoing investigation." The portion of the wording that says "if dealing with the complaint would seriously compromise an ongoing investigation" is not in the initial bill.

I am therefore proposing wording that says "The Commission may refuse to deal with a complaint". That's all I would add. The initial portion stays the same. I believe it's better that way.

I will vote against NDP‑34; however, my intent was the same as Mr. Julian's. I would accordingly ask my colleagues to to follow my lead.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you for the intervention. I should have reiterated that caution.

If NDP-34 is adopted or defeated, PV-4 cannot be proceeded with, since they are identical. Also, if NDP-34 is adopted, BQ-13 cannot be moved due to a line conflict.

Mr. Shipley.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I want to get this out there, so that everybody knows. We will not be able to support NDP-34, but we will be supporting BQ-13.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Are there any further interventions?

Mr. Julian.

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

To reiterate, Mr. Chair, as I did at the last meeting, this recommendation comes from the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers. Their concern about this is that the scope is too large for a commission to refuse to deal with a complaint. This amendment would tighten the language considerably. I urge members of the committee to vote for NDP-34. If it is defeated, I will be voting for BQ-13, which at least gives the commission some leeway in whether or not to use the loopholes that are open to it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Are we all in favour of NDP-34?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

That brings us to BQ-13.

If BQ-13 is adopted, PV-4 cannot be proceeded with due to a line conflict.

Go ahead, Ms. Michaud.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I believe I've already spoken about it sufficiently. This amendment gives the commission a little more latitude to refuse to conduct an investigation. I am therefore asking my colleagues to vote in favour of the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Are there any further interventions?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

PV-4 cannot be moved. That brings us to NDP-35.

If NDP-35 is adopted or defeated, PV-5 cannot be proceeded with, since they are identical.

Mr. Julian, if you please.

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

Members, the committee will be happy to hear that having already had this discussion, I will not be moving NDP-35.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

That brings us to PV-5, which is deemed moved. Is there anyone who wishes to speak to PV-5?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

That brings us to G-5.

Who wishes to move G-5?

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

This is just a minor change. It clarifies the English to align with the French, to affirm that the PCRC has the discretion to determine whether dealing with a complaint would compromise or seriously hinder the administration or enforcement program legislation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Is there any discussion?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

That brings us to NDP-36.

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

I'm sure committee members will be delighted to know that I will not be moving amendments NDP‑36 and NDP‑37 because we've already discussed this issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Moving on, shall clause 52 as amended carry?

(Clause 52 as amended agreed to on division)

(On clause 53)

That brings us to NDP-37, which is not being moved.

Next is BQ-14.

Go ahead, Ms. Michaud.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Amendment BQ‑14 is in concordance with the amendment we just adopted and which says that the commission "may refuse" rather than "should refuse" to deal with the complaint.

The logical thing to do is to adopt this amendment as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Is there any discussion?

Mr. Shipley, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Chair.

We need a little bit of clarification on this from the officials. What would this amendment do?