SECU Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
Minutes of Proceedings
The witnesses answered questions.
The committee resumed its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.
The committee resumed clause-by-clause consideration on Clause 35 of the Bill.
“al or non-governmental organization that wishes to make a complaint, arrange for the provision of assistance to that individual or organization in making the com‐”
Debate arose thereon.
Jennifer O'Connell moved, — That the amendment be amended by replacing the words “non- governmental organization” with the words “third party”.
After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Jennifer O'Connell and it was agreed to on division.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Kristina Michaud and it was agreed to on division.
Clause 35, as amended, carried.
On new Clause 35.1,
Peter Julian moved, — That Bill C-20 be amended by adding after line 24 on page 24 the following new clause:“35.1 Complaints made under this Act shall not be subject to a non-disclosure agreement.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Peter Julian and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 7; NAYS: 4.
Clause 36 carried on division.
Clause 37 carried.
On Clause 38,
Peter Julian moved, — That Bill C-20, in Clause 38, be amended by deleting lines 11 and 12 on page 26.After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Peter Julian and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 10.
“(b.1) the complaint is from a third party that is not directly concerned by the subject matter of the complaint;”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Kristina Michaud and it was agreed to on division.
(a) by replacing line 4 on page 27 with the following:
“must give notice in writing to the complainant and their legal representative, if any, and the”
(b) by replacing line 17 on page 27 with the following:
“province, the notice given to the complainant and their legal representative, if any, under sub‐”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Kristina Michaud and it was agreed to.
Clause 38, as amended, carried on division.
Clause 39 carried.
On Clause 40,
Peter Julian moved, — That Bill C-20, in Clause 40, be amended by replacing line 29 on page 27 with the following:“notice and the reasons for the withdrawal to the Commission or the Commissioner.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Peter Julian and it was agreed to.
Clause 40, as amended, carried on division.
Clause 41 carried on division.
On Clause 42,
Kristina Michaud moved, — That Bill C-20, in Clause 42, be amended by replacing lines 30 to 32 on page 28 with the following:“al or a third party that wishes to withdraw a complaint made under subsection 33(1) or (2), arrange for the provision of assistance to that individual or organization in withdrawing the complaint.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Kristina Michaud and it was agreed to on division.
Clause 42, as amended, carried.
On new Clause 42.1,
Doug Shipley moved, — That Bill C-20 be amended by adding after line 32 on page 28 the following new clause:“42.1 If the RCMP employee or CBSA employee, as the case may be, whose conduct is the subject matter of the complaint that has been withdrawn was suspended as as result of the complaint and the complaint is not to be the subject of an investigation, review or hearing conducted under this Part, the Commissioner or President, as the case may be, must ensure that the employee is permitted to return to the duties of their employment and that they are paid compensation in an amount equal to the remuneration that they would have been paid if they had not been suspended.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Doug Shipley and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 7.
Clause 43 carried.
On Clause 44,
Peter Julian moved, — That Bill C-20, in Clause 44, be amended(a) by replacing, in the French version, line 30 on page 29 with the following:
“ployé de la GRC ou d’un employé de l’ASFC, ou concernant les politiques ou les procédures de l’Agence ou les services qu’elle fournit, est déposée”
(b) by replacing lines 34 to 37 on page 29 with the following:
“ployee, or with respect to the policies or procedures of the Agency or the services it provides, the following persons must be given an opportunity to make representations with respect to the impact of the conduct, policies, procedures or services:”
(c) by adding after line 9 on page 30 the following:
“(d) a person or entity with a substantial interest in the subject matter of the complaint, acting in the public interest.”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was beyond the scope of the Bill, as provided on page 770 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
Whereupon, Peter Julian appealed the decision of the Chair.
The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was sustained on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Chris Bittle, Iqwinder Gaheer, Dane Lloyd, Eric Melillo, Kristina Michaud, Glen Motz, Jennifer O'Connell, Peter Schiefke, Doug Shipley — 9;
NAYS: Peter Julian, Heath MacDonald — 2.
“(1.1) Union representatives for the RCMP employee or CBSA employee, as the case may be, whose conduct is the subject matter of the complaint must also be given an opportunity to make representations.”
The question was put on the amendment of Doug Shipley and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.
“(2.1) Once representations are disclosed to the RCMP or Agency, the Commission must, on a monthly basis until the investigation of the complaint is completed, contact the complainant to ensure that they are not being harassed, intimidated or threatened by the RCMP or Agency. If they are being so harassed, intimidated or threatened, a second complaint must be initiated.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Peter Julian and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 10.
Clause 44, as amended, carried.
At 12:25 p.m., the sitting was suspended.
At 12:36 p.m., the sitting resumed.
Clause 45 carried on division.
Clause 46 carried.
On Clause 47,
Kristina Michaud moved, — That Bill C-20, in Clause 47, be amended(a) by replacing line 23 on page 31 with the following:
“give notice in writing to the complainant and their legal representative, if any, and the RCMP”
(b) by replacing line 35 on page 31 with the following:
“the notice given to the complainant and their legal representative, if any, under subsection (3)”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Kristina Michaud and it was agreed to.
Clause 47, as amended, carried.
On Clause 48,
Kristina Michaud moved, — That Bill C-20, in Clause 48, be amended by replacing line 2 on page 32 with the following:“be, notify in writing the complainant and their legal representative, if any, and the RCMP em‐”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Kristina Michaud and it was agreed to.
Clause 48, as amended, carried.
On Clause 49,
Kristina Michaud moved, — That Bill C-20, in Clause 49, be amended by replacing line 12 on page 32 with the following:“plainant and their legal representative, if any, the RCMP employee or CBSA employee, as the”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Kristina Michaud and it was agreed to.
Clause 49, as amended, carried.
Clause 50 carried on division.
Clause 51 carried on division.
On Clause 52,
Pursuant to the order adopted by the committee on Wednesday, December 8, 2021, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the committee, was deemed moved : That Bill C-20, in Clause 52, be amended by replacing lines 16 to 32 on page 34 with the following:“(b) it is not in the public interest to deal with the complaint.”
The question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived.
“son or a third party that is appointed to act in a similar capacity on”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Kristina Michaud and it was agreed to on division.
“(b.1) the complaint is from a third party that is not directly concerned by the subject matter of the complaint.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Kristina Michaud and it was agreed to on division.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Peter Julian and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Doug Shipley and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 7.
“(5) The Commission may refuse to deal with a complaint if dealing with the complaint would seriously compromise an ongoing investigation.”
Debate arose thereon.
Garnett Genuis moved, — That the committee do now adjourn.
Debate arose thereon.
The question was put on the motion and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Garnett Genuis, Damien C. Kurek, Mike Lake, Eric Melillo — 4;
NAYS: Chris Bittle, Iqwinder Gaheer, Peter Julian, Heath MacDonald, Kristina Michaud, Jennifer O'Connell, Peter Schiefke — 7.
Jennifer O'Connell moved, — That the committee do now adjourn.
Debate arose thereon.
The question was put on the motion and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 7; NAYS: 4.
At 1:56 p.m., the committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.