SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Committee

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 25, 2023
The Chair (Mr. Ron McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Lib.))
  • 05:01:01 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 78 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 its 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. Just as a reminder, all comments should be addressed through the chair. We have a budget for this study. We need to amend the budget. I believe everyone has a copy of the budget. Can we quickly get approval to go ahead with this budget?
142 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Ms. Jennifer O'Connell (Pickering—Uxbridge, Lib.)
  • 05:01:41 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
I'll move it.
4 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
The Chair
  • 05:01:41 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
All in favour? (Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]) The Chair: Good. An hon. member: [Inaudible—Editor] The Chair: This means hot food. That's all.
28 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Doug Shipley (Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, CPC)
  • 05:02:22 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
Did you say what time we have translation until?
9 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
The Chair
  • 05:02:27 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
We can go to 7:30 p.m., I understand. That's two full hours. An hon. member: We “can” go. We don't “have to” go. The Chair: We get two hours. We can go until 7:30 p.m. Let's carry on. I will once again welcome the officials who are with us. They're available for questions regarding the bill, but they 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 and border policy; Martin Leuchs, manager, border policy division; and Deidre Pollard-Bussey, director, policing policy. Finally, 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 to all for joining us today. Where we left off.... Yes, Ms. O'Connell.
190 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Ms. Jennifer O'Connell
  • 05:03:47 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Before we go to where we left off, we realized after our last meeting that we had amended NDP-6 to remove their newly proposed provision, which would have required the conclusion of all investigations to take place within a year, but when we removed that, we did not restore some language—the original language that would have been proposed in the original act. I can explain further, but I would ask for unanimous consent to go back to NDP-6. Then I would like to make an amendment. I know I can't speak to that yet.
103 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
The Chair
  • 05:04:40 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
Thank you. Do we have unanimous consent? Some hon. members: Agreed. The Chair: Go ahead.
15 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Ms. Jennifer O'Connell
  • 05:04:44 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
I have tons of copies in both official languages. Thank you. As I was saying, just to clarify, with NDP-6 we removed language that deals with investigations within the one year. However, we did not then go back to restore the language or return the language to the original found in the legislation. There would be no legal obligation for the PCRC, RCMP and CBSA to establish those service standards on complaint-related times. When you all get your copies, the proposed new language to restore back to the bill is in green. It would read: 28(1) or section 29 are to be conducted and This is the new part: the time limits within which each of them is to deal with complaints made under this Act and In the second part, under “28(2) are to be conducted”, this is to be added: the time limits within which each of them is to deal with complaints made under this Act and It's simply to restore language that pertained to the time limits. When we defeated NDP-6, we did not go back to restore this language. It's a bit technical.
197 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
The Chair
  • 05:07:32 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
I'll give the legislative clerk a little time to absorb this, because there are no line numbers or whatnot in there.
22 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Ms. Jennifer O'Connell
  • 05:07:52 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
In the meantime, Chair, do any officials want to discuss why restoring this language is needed?
16 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
The Chair
  • 05:08:07 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
Please go ahead.
3 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Ms. Lesley McCoy (General Counsel, Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police)
  • 05:08:10 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
As it stood at the end of the last meeting, the bill would have read that there were service standards required only for specified activities reviews, which is one of the roles of the PCRC. The other role is the investigation of complaints. As it stood, the requirement to have service standards for the public complaint process was removed. The amendment introduced right now would restore that, so there would be a requirement for the PCRC, the RCMP and the CBSA to jointly establish service standards for both specified activities reviews and dealing with public complaints.
96 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
The Chair
  • 05:09:09 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
I'll suspend.
3 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
The Chair
  • 05:12:04 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
I resume the meeting.
4 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Ms. Jennifer O'Connell
  • 05:12:05 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
Chair, to simplify it—and thank you for the legislative clerk's assistance—the easiest thing to do that would create the same outline as what has been shared around is to subamend NDP-6 to remove (b) and (d).
42 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
The Chair
  • 05:12:24 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
You're moving a subamendment to remove (b) and (d) from NDP-6.
13 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Ms. Jennifer O'Connell
  • 05:12:31 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
Yes. This would give the language, then, that has been passed around in yellow and green.
16 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
The Chair
  • 05:12:39 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
Okay. Is there any discussion? Mr. Julian.
7 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)
  • 05:12:43 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
I think I probably would be tempted to propose that we just restore NDP-6 in its integrity, because it was a very good amendment. I understand that ship has sailed. The reason I voted against the amendment that was originally offered was for that very reason—the complications. Then, eliminate both the issue of the service standards, which I understand the committee has voted on—they don't necessarily agree with the NDP's approach on having service standards established—and ensure, also, that we have union representatives as part of how those standards are established. I would ask our witnesses, through you, Mr. Chair, if they follow the bouncing ball on this, so that we can understand what Ms. O'Connell is proposing now. I certainly agreed with her first approach. I'm less positive about her second approach. I would like to see both approaches. Hopefully, the witnesses have the original Liberal amendment to restore some of the components of NDP-6. No, you don't have that. I think it would be appropriate for them to have copies of that, so they are better able to advise us on the two approaches and what the differences would be in those approaches.
208 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Ms. Jennifer O'Connell
  • 05:14:49 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
Mr. Chair, could I offer a suggestion? I was asked to also make sure that this language gets clarified. Just to keep the meeting moving, perhaps we could just park NDP-6 to allow us all to get the materials in front of us, but just with the commitment to come back to it before we complete the study. I don't want us to suspend for a significant amount of time for getting documents. As long as we just have a commitment.... I think we all have the right intentions. We just want to make sure the language is right and makes sense. Could we just park this with the commitment to come back to it?
117 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border