Public Safety Committee on Nov. 6th, 2023

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

From the department's perspective or from the commission's perspective, is this clause necessary to add clarity to the act, or is it something that completely isn't necessary?

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

We'd offer the view that it's not necessary, on two counts.

One, as my RCMP colleague has pointed out, it's already the practice under the existing provisions of the RCMP Act related to conduct.

Two, once again it would bring measures of conduct, discipline, investigation and the actions of a conduct authority into the PCRC scheme, rather than keeping that separate in the RCMP scheme, where we would suggest it is better placed.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Is there any further discussion?

(Motion negatived[See Minutes of Proceedings])

It's rejected, defeated. I'm sorry.

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

I don't feel rejected, but the amendment was defeated.

(On clause 97)

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

That bring us to clause 97 and BQ-15.

Ms. Michaud, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

BQ‑15 is a final consequential amendment that seeks to allow third parties to file a complaint. In this amendment we used the term “non-governmental organization”, but I would propose right now that we change it to “third party” to make it consistent with the other amendments that have already been adopted on this topic.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Very well.

BQ-15 is moved with the change that “non-government organization” is changed to “third-party”— whatever the language—organizations.

Is there any discussion on BQ-15?

Go ahead, Mr. Gaheer.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

I'm pointing out that the language would be modified in two different spots within section 45.171 from “non-governmental organizations” to “third party”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you. I believe it was moved effectively like that as well.

Thank you.

Is there any further discussion on BQ-15?

(BQ-15 agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Thank you. That brings us to NDP-62.

Go ahead, Mr. Julian, if you please.

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

In the spirit of collaboration, Mr. Chair, and given how co-operative both parties have been today, I am withdrawing NDP-62. We've already had the discussion around the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Shall clause 97, as amended, carry?

It's on division. Okay.

(Clause 97 as amended agreed to on division).

This brings us to a whole bunch of clauses for which there are no amendments.

For clauses 98 to 110 inclusive, do we have unanimous consent to vote on them as a block?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

(Clauses 98-110 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 111)

That brings us to clause 111 and BQ-16.

Ms. Michaud, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The purpose of BQ‑16 is to provide guidelines or further enhance the definition of a serious incident.

The request comes from the Association québécoise des avocats et avocates en droit de l'immigration. Based on the experience of the members of this association, there have often been cases of immigrants being harmed in their dealings with the Canada Border Services Agency. For these members, it would be a good idea to add to the serious incident definition any conduct that would violate human rights and freedoms, including by unsubstantiated detention or extension of detention. That's the definition they're proposing, and I imagine that my colleagues will be in favour of that definition without any problem.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Is there any discussion on BQ-16?

Go ahead, Mr. Motz.

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

I'm just curious to know if there are any concerns with paragraphs (a.1) and (a.2) from the commission's or the department's perspective.

[Randall Koops]

We would offer two separate areas of concern in relation to the amendment.

The first is that it would create a definition of “serious incident” for the CBSA that would be different from the one that exists for the RCMP, which was not the government's intent. The intent was very much to parallel in the new legislation for CBSA the existing definition for the RCMP.

The second is in new paragraph (a.2). It would appear to provide that unfounded detention triggers a serious incident, which can involve referral to the police of jurisdiction in the case of CBSA; however, detention under CBSA is subject to review by the Immigration and Refugee Board and is subject to review in certain circumstances by the Federal Court, so we would not suggest that it is properly a police matter when that occurs.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Is there any further discussion?

(Amendment negatived)

(Clauses 111 to 113 inclusive agreed to on division)

This brings us to proposed clause 113.1 and CPC-26.

Go ahead, Mr. Shipley.

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

Thank you, Chair. I will be moving that today. I just need to get to it. I apologize.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

You don't need to read it, because we have it.

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

Yes, we will be moving this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

The chair has a ruling on this one. The amendment attempts to create a specific pension regime for CBSA employees, which is a new scheme not envisioned in the bill when adopted by the House at second reading and which would require a royal recommendation. Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on a public treasury or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.

In the opinion of the chair, the amendment proposes a new scheme that would require a royal recommendation; therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

We go now to clause 114.

(Clause 114 agreed to on division)

Now we come to clauses 115 to 136, and there are no amendments proposed. Do we have unanimous consent to vote on them as a block?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.