Public Safety Committee on Nov. 6th, 2023

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I've had some clarification from our legislative clerk here. The upshot of these changes is to remove from NDP-6.... We've already removed paragraph (e), so we'd then be removing paragraphs (b) and (d).

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

Sorry; we're removing what?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

The effect of this subamendment is to remove paragraphs (b) and (d) from NDP-6.

Mr. Julian, I can tell you wish to speak.

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

I don't follow you, actually, Mr. Chair.

Is it possible to get a written copy of the subamendment? I don't have one.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

The subamendment looks kind of complicated, but the legislative clerk has evaluated it and basically has advised that it amounts to simply removing paragraphs (b) and (d) from your amendment.

Go ahead, Mr. MacDonald.

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Then basically we're going back to the original language in the bill with respect to timelines.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

We removed part (e), and then if we pass this, we will be removing (b) and (d), but that still leaves part (a) of Mr. Julian's amendment, plus paragraph (c) as well. It's still not quite the original language.

Mr. Julian, are you squared away on this?

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

I have one final question, Mr. Chair.

I understood that elimination of (e) was part of the overall subamendment, so we have yet to vote on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

We have already voted on (e), so if the subamendment—

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

Then this was the second subamendment? Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Basically, this is to get rid of (b) and (d).

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

You're right, Mr. Chair. You have an infallible memory, so thank you for reminding me of that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

That's not true, but we'll accept that.

Good. I think we're squared away.

(Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

I believe that finishes clause 8.

Sorry. We need to adopt NDP-6 as amended.

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

That brings us to CPC-5. CPC-5 cannot be moved because there still remains a line conflict.

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

They were withdrawn. CPC-5 and CPC-6 were withdrawn.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

CPC-6 is withdrawn. Okay.

Shall clause 8 as amended carry?

(Clause 8 as amended agreed to on division)

(On clause 28)

That brings us to clause 28, formerly stood. NDP-17 was moved and was under debate at the time clause 28 was stood. If NDP-17 is adopted, NDP-18 and BQ-1 cannot be moved due to a line conflict.

Go ahead, Mr. Julian, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I remember acutely that we have a problem in that we have a number of good amendments, but they contradict each other, in a sense. I want to propose that we take a few moments to get a sense of where each party is.

The issue in clause 28 is the issue of review of specified activities. This is something that has been raised by a number of organizations, including Amnesty International and a variety of other organizations, such as Breaking Barriers, with respect to the ability of specified activities to be undertaken, which would be reviews, for example, on systemic racism.

In a number of the amendments, ways to initiate a review of specified activities include a request from the committee of the Senate or the House of Commons, from union representatives or from non-governmental organizations. I believe language around “third party” would cover both unions and non-governmental organizations, so I think that is covered off, but I think it would be good to hear back from other parties about the issue that's contained in amendment NDP-17 about the House of Commons committee requesting a review of specified activities. If the other parties are opposed to that, then the amendment would be a lot simpler, because we already have “third party”. I think what we would do would be to defeat amendment NDP-17 and then move on from there.

If there is interest in having a House of Commons committee triggering that review of specified activities, then I think we probably need to suspend for a moment or two and see if we can craft an amendment that includes third parties and the House of Commons committee as well.

That's what I wanted to put out. I think a few minutes of discussion will probably save us more time in finalizing that clause.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

We will go to Ms. Michaud and then Mr. Motz.

Ms. Michaud, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We could have that discussion now. NDP‑17 and NDP‑18 contradict each other. So Mr. Julian would have to tell us which of the two the NDP prefers. However, if we adopt one or the other, it will prevent us from—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Ms. Michaud, adjust your microphone.

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

If we adopt one or the other, that will prevent us from adopting BQ‑1, which will be a problem since it's a consequential amendment to many other amendments that we've already adopted.

So I'm wondering if Mr. Julian can tell us which changes he prefers between those in NDP‑17 and those in NDP‑18, because at this point we can't adopt both. Then I propose to include the changes he prefers in BQ‑1.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Okay.

Mr. Motz, go ahead.

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

I know we have a “review of specified activities” section in the act. I don't remember the definition of those. I didn't look at the definition of a "specified activity".

I want to ask the officials something first. Do you have a challenge with the way amendment NDP-17 is currently worded? Is there a problem?

Even if, as Ms. Michaud suggested, you changed the wording to list a third party, would that change the concerns that could be related to the broadening of this to include other organizations, third parties that could come in and start questioning the specified activities of the two agencies?

[Randall Koops]

We would identify concerns.

In response to your first questions, “specified activities” are what are sometimes called systemic investigations or policy investigations. Recent ones conducted by the commission would have included things about street checks or strip searches. These are broader investigations into fields of practice or fields of policy that go beyond just a single complaint.

Our concern with the amendment is that clause 28, as drafted, was not intended to limit who could come to the commission and propose that it would be in the public interest to have a specified activity review undertaken. The commission could receive that view from any third party. It could be from unions, from some of the groups Mr. Julian mentioned, from parliamentary committees, from the Auditor General or from one of the other officers of Parliament. All of those bodies and organizations could contribute to the body of knowledge that the commission uses to decide for itself when to undertake a specified activity review.

The reason the minister is brought in at clause 28 is that the minister is otherwise unable to direct the commission. The intent is that if the minister refers a matter to the commission, first, that it still be the commission that decides whether to undertake the review, and second, that the minister do so by exercising a statutory avenue so that no outside observer could conclude that the minister was in some way interfering with the quasi-judicial arm's-length nature of the commission.

I think the concern would be that if it were broadened out to other groups, it could put the commission in a position of answering to groups that are outside the process for decisions that are fully within the commission's own authority and own mandate to make.

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

That would potentially include a parliamentary standing committee.