Public Safety Committee on Nov. 6th, 2023

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you very much.

Very quickly, I'm of the belief that BQ-2 and NDP-19.1 attempt to do something very similar. We just prefer the language and the drafting in BQ-2.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Mr. Motz, go ahead.

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

I have a couple of comments. The way that subclause 28(3) is written in the act right now talks about the commission's doing an investigation on its own initiative, not because somebody has complained about an issue. They have undertaken all by themselves to do something. That's different from what Mr. Julian is suggesting in regard to racism, anti-Semitism or any sort of complaint that someone might have that goes to the commission. That's a totally different scenario and a totally different path for an investigation.

I agree with Mr. Julian's suggestion that if a complaint of that nature was to come to the commission and they chose not to investigate it because they didn't have enough resources, the government needs to certainly give its head a shake and say we have underfunded a commission; however, if the commission on its own accord has chosen to take on an investigation for whatever reason—and I can't think of one offhand—that they would initiate themselves and that hasn't already come to the attention of a third party, that would have changed the language to reflect a third party coming to the commission and saying that this is an issue, because subclause 28(3) doesn't apply to the regular scheme, and that is somebody coming to make a complaint. It only applies if the commission on its own initiative decides to conduct an investigation, and these are the criteria for it.

I think that the act needs to stay the way it's written. I have a problem with NDP-19.1 narrowing the focus even more. I agree with the comments made, as I said previously, by Mr. Julian for certain types of investigations that come to the commission, but subclause 28(3) doesn't apply to those sorts of complaints, unless I missed the boat here.

I'll defer to Mr. Koops. He usually tells me if I missed the boat or not.

[Randall Koops]

No, your observation is correct. It applies to specified activity reviews, not to complaints.

It's really a question of the degree of latitude that the committee prefers the chair have at her disposal. When the bill was introduced, the intent was to preserve the primacy of the commission's complaints mandate and to prevent its ability to handle complaints from the public from being eroded or degraded by the resources required for a specified activity review. That provision exists, as you've said, in the current act now for the RCMP. That was carried over. The reason is that only the PCRC has a mandate to review and investigate complaints from the public, but there are other bodies available to the Governor in Council to conduct systemic activity review-like undertakings.

In the meantime, the committee has heard recommendations from other organizations that this is no longer desirable. The chair of the commission has recommended that this restriction be removed and to allow her to exercise her own judgment and report to this place about how she manages the commission's workload and its priorities.

We would note that NSIRA, around which much of this machinery has been blueprinted, does not have that provision, so the degree of latitude that the chair should enjoy in that space is really, I think, a question for the committee.

My colleagues from the commission may have more to say, given the chairperson's submission on that point.

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

Thank you. I was going to go next to you, Ms. Gibb.

I don't recall exactly what the chair of the commission said specific to this issue. If she is asking for latitude that is better reflected in BQ-2, then I could certainly support BQ-2. If the testimony she gave—I don't recall it offhand—was that the current language in subclause 28(3) is sufficient for the commission to do its work, then I think it should stay the way it is.

I don't remember exactly what she said.

[Joanne Gibb, Senior Director, Strategic Operations and Policy Directorate, Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

I don't recall if she said it at committee, but the submission was that paragraph 28(3)(a) be removed because the result of that—

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

It's not “removed”. It's saying “be amended”.

[Joanne Gibb]

She asked that it be removed, but either amendment gets us to the same place, I believe. Including language that says “sufficient resources exist for conducting the review and the handling of complaints under Part 2 will not be compromised” takes our mandate to do systemic reviews and makes it secondary to the handling of complaints, so the chairperson then doesn't have the discretion to say that a certain amount of resources is going to be dedicated to look at this issue more systemically.

We have an ongoing example. There's an ongoing investigation out in B.C. into the Community-Industry Response Group. Fifth Estate did a piece on it on the weekend. We have over 500 complaints related to that unit in the RCMP in B.C. Those complaints are being investigated and the conduct of individual members is being examined.

Our systemic review is not looking at the individual members. We're looking at the broader issues of whether there's policy, whether there's training, and the command and control. We won't examine each individual member. Instead we're looking at it more broadly.

We couldn't start that investigation for a couple of years, until the commission actually received additional program integrity funding last year. That's when the systemic review was initiated. Up until that point, resources weren't sufficient to undertake a review of specified activities, which for clarity we call systemic investigations, so that was held off for a while until the funding came around.

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

If I'm hearing and interpreting correctly, then, NDP-19.1 and BQ-2 should be withdrawn and subclause 28(3) should just be removed. That should be the amendment: It's that subclause 28(3) should be completely removed from the act, based on what the chair has asked.

[Joanne Gibb]

It should not include paragraph 28(3)(b). The chairperson has no issue with that paragraph still being there. It's a practice we would do regardless, even if that was removed. We would not be looking to reinvestigate something that the Auditor General, for example, had already examined.

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

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Ms. Michaud, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think Mr. Bittle put his finger on it earlier. I would simply like to propose to my colleagues that they vote against NDP‑19.1, unfortunately, and then vote in favour of BQ‑2, which is better drafted and respects the intent or the will of the current commission.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Is there any further discussion on amendment NDP-19.1?

(Amendment negatived)

This brings us to amendment BQ-2.

Ms. Michaud, you have the floor.

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

It's sort of the same as in the previous case, and I don't think there's anything to add. BQ‑2 better respects the will of the current commission, as Ms. Gibb has just mentioned. I therefore invite my colleagues to vote in favour of this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

It's Mr. Motz, followed by Mr. Julian.

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

Thank you.

Just as a follow-up to my last conversation about amendment NDP-19.1, does this language better reflect the intent of what we heard from the chair of the commission?

[Joanne Gibb]

Yes.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I love succinct answers.

Mr. Julian, go ahead.

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

Since this amendment removes the requirement that the commission be satisfied that it has the necessary resources, I will support BQ‑2. Yes, it has the same meaning as NDP‑19.1.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Therefore shall clause 28 as amended, carry?

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

(Clause 28 as amended agreed to on division)

This is amazing. Thank you.

Shall the short title carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.