Public Safety Committee on Nov. 6th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

(Clauses 115 to 136 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 137)

That brings us to clause 137 and G-9.

Go ahead, Mr. Gaheer.

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

Thank you, Chair.

We move:

That Bill C-20, in Clause 137, be amended by replacing line 5 on page 72 with the following:

and Review Commission Act or under regulations made under subparagraph 87(o.1)(ii) of that Act,”

Basically, this is just a coordinating amendment associated with G-8, which was passed earlier and provides for new regulatory powers. Since there are areas where we've empowered the government to create regulations surrounding information sharing, referral of complaints, joint proceedings and co-operation between federal review bodies, we're just updating the provisions in the NSIRA Act to ensure that it's bound by these future regulations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Is there any discussion?

Seeing none, shall G-9 carry?

(Amendment agreed to on division)

(Clause 137 as amended agreed to on division)

(On clause 138)

That brings us to clause 138 and amendment G-10.

Go ahead, Mr. Gaheer.

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

Great. Thank you, Chair.

This is the same as before. Amendment G-10 could only be moved if G-8 was moved, and it was. Similarly, as before, this is just to ensure that the provisions of the NSIRA Act are bound by future regulations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Very well. Thank you.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 138 as amended agreed to on division)

(Clause 139 agreed to on division)

(On clause 140)

We have Mr. Julian on NDP-63.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Given the exceptional co‑operation we have at the moment, during the final stages of the bill, I am not going to move NDP‑63, because we've already had discussions on the entire content of this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

(Clause 140 agreed to on division)

(On clause 141)

This brings us to clause 141 and amendment G-11. We have Mr. Gaheer.

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

Great. Thank you, Chair.

As with G-10 and G-9, G-11 could only be moved if G-8 was adopted. Once again, I'll repeat that there are areas where we've empowered the government to create regulations surrounding information sharing, referral of complaints and joint proceedings in co-operation among federal review bodies. We're updating the provisions of the NSIRA Act to ensure that it's bound by these future regulations, as before.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 141 as amended agreed to on division)

(On clause 142)

We have Mr. Gaheer on G-12.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Once again, G-12 is similar to G-11, G-10 and G-9. It's just to ensure that the NSIRA act is bound by future regulations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 142 as amended agreed to on division)

(Clause 143 agreed to on division)

(Clause 144 agreed to on division)

(On clause 145)

On NDP-64, it's Mr. Julian.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Since this is the last amendment before we go back to the clauses we've stood, I'm happy to say that we've already addressed and discussed the entire content of this motion, so I won't be moving NDP‑64.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

(Clause 145 agreed to on division)

(Clause 146 agreed to on division)

This brings us to the clauses that we earlier stood.

(On clause 8)

On clause 8, we had NDP-5, which Mr. Julian already withdrew.

We had NDP-6 and have adopted an amendment to remove paragraph (e). There was a second subamendment from MP O'Connell to remove paragraphs (b) and (d). That subamendment was under debate when the clause was stood.

If NDP-6 is adopted, CPC-5 and CPC-6 cannot be moved, due to a line conflict.

Is there any discussion on this clause?

We were debating Ms. O'Connell's subamendment. Is there any discussion?

Go ahead, Mr. Julian.

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

The reason we stood the clause, Mr. Chair, was the issue around service standards. I think that was the intent. The subamendment basically took out the possibility of service standards being in the legislation. I would speak against the subamendment, and if we feel that what was originally in NDP-6 was potentially too ambitious, I hope that we look at service standards that are more appropriate or look to consensus around the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Is there any further discussion? I'll wait just a few minutes while people get up to date on this amendment.

Go ahead, Mr. Motz.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Witnesses, do you have any comment on the subamendment that was introduced the last time we parked this clause, and then on the comments made by Mr. Julian on how this might impact the intent of the legislation?

[Martin Leuchs]

The last time NDP-6 was adopted, there were unforeseen circumstances, in that joint service standards with respect to timelines between the PCRC, the CBSA, the RCMP and now unions were removed from it with respect to complaints.

What this new subamendment does is re-establish a requirement for the PCRC, the CBSA and the RCMP, with the unions, to establish joint service standards around timelines with respect to complaints.

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

As I understand it, the subamendment would then force the three entities to come together and come up with a service standard that isn't going to be reflected in the act. Will it be part of a regulation, then?

[Martin Leuchs]

I can't speak to the form that the service standards would take, but it would require them, with the unions, to establish those service standards.

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

Is there a timeline of when that expectation would be? I'm just trying to figure out....

The whole idea behind timelines was to ensure that complainants who made the complaint had a timely response to whatever their complaint was from the organizations they were complaining to.

Is it the normal course of practice that the three organizations would get together and develop timelines that are going to be amicable for all of them? How do we identify them as being in the act so that the public knows and can go back and say, “You didn't meet a timeline” if we don't have them codified, so to speak?

[Martin Leuchs]

The timelines that we're trying to introduce are the same provisions that are currently under the RCMP Act between the CRCC and the RCMP.

The establishment of the timelines is not between the three organizations but between the PCRC and the RCMP and then the PCRC and the CBSA respectively.

With the new amendment introduced—

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

And the unions.

[Martin Leuchs]

And the unions, based on the amendment that was introduced by the NDP.

There is also a GIC power-making regulation that could be used with respect to the timelines, in case there is a need to ensure that regulations around those timelines exist.

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

If I'm understanding correctly, you have no issue with the subamendment, then. Is it the department that oversees this?

[Martin Leuchs]

It fixes an issue that had been introduced.