Public Safety committee  Yes.

Public Safety committee  I don't recall if she said it at committee, but the submission was that paragraph 28(3)(a) be removed because the result of that—

Public Safety committee  She asked that it be removed, but either amendment gets us to the same place, I believe. Including language that says “sufficient resources exist for conducting the review and the handling of complaints under Part 2 will not be compromised” takes our mandate to do systemic reviews and makes it secondary to the handling of complaints, so the chairperson then doesn't have the discretion to say that a certain amount of resources is going to be dedicated to look at this issue more systemically.

Public Safety committee  It should not include paragraph 28(3)(b). The chairperson has no issue with that paragraph still being there. It's a practice we would do regardless, even if that was removed. We would not be looking to reinvestigate something that the Auditor General, for example, had already examined.

Public Safety committee  The commission regularly meets with and consults NSIRA on a number of matters, and this has come up. There could be instances when it is related to a complaint where, for example, NSIRA's investigating the national security elements but, say, there's a use of force aspect to it.

Public Safety committee  It hasn't been challenged.

Public Safety committee  We don't have a policy on this. The process usually is that it's identified, at the point of intake, that on its face it appears to be national security or closely related to national security. We may or may not consult with our colleagues at the RCMP if we have any questions. They then could identify whether it's closely related, yes or no.

Public Safety committee  The commission has a policy—it's available on our website—that governs the discretion to refuse to deal with a complaint. We have a framework around what “trivial, frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith” is. That's how we apply the discretion of the chairperson, or her delegate in this case.

Public Safety committee  Since 1988.

Public Safety committee  A copy of our report is sent to the minister, and the reply, which is what this amendment refers to—a reply from the RCMP and CBSA—is currently also copied to the minister. This changes the existing provisions in the RCMP Act, by not.... Sorry, the bill, as written, changes the existing provision, where the minister was included.

Public Safety committee  Yes.

Public Safety committee  When we conduct a review, the duration depends on a number of factors, including how long it takes for the commission to receive the relevant material from the RCMP.

Public Safety committee  Yes, because it's the response to the commission's report back to the agency heads.

Public Safety committee  Yes.

Public Safety committee  I can't speak to the intent, but it may be the result, yes.