Thank you, Mr. Chair.
From what I understand in the legislative summary, the new Public Complaints and Review Commission that Bill C‑20 will establish won't have the authority to review national security activities. However, in his 2004 report, Justice O'Connor recommended that the review body be empowered to review all RCMP activities, including those related to national security.
In his report, he warned:
The RCMP’s national security activities make up a relatively small proportion of its overall workload. There could be serious risks in entrusting review of national security activities to one body and review of the balance of the RCMP’s activities to another. To start, the different bodies might apply different and possibly inconsistent standards to the same or similar law enforcement activities. Moreover, separating what is properly considered a national security activity from other activities conducted by the RCMP could in many circumstances be difficult, and the existence of separate review bodies could lead to disagreements and jurisdictional disputes.
It's understandable that Justice O'Connor expressed a rather serious concern at the time. However, as I said, under proposed subsection 52(8) of Bill C‑20, the new Public Complaints and Review Commission must refuse to investigate a complaint if it deals with activities closely related to national security.
Why set aside Justice O'Connor's recommendation in Bill C‑20?