Evidence of meeting #51 for Public Safety and National Security in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was commissioner.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
4:35 p.m.
C/Supt Craig MacMillan
Yes. The bill provides the framework, and then we consult and create.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Mr. Potter, I think this one would be to you. You talked about when there is no investigative body in a province. For instance, Regina would investigate something in Moose Jaw. Maybe that's a bad example, but it seems to me that's pretty close. They are pretty close; they are side by side.
Is there an ability, where there's not an investigative body in a province, to use an investigative body from another province?
4:35 p.m.
Director General, Policing Policy Directorate, Law Enforcement and Policing Branch, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Yes, there is. For example, in the Yukon right now, if there is a serious incident, there is an arrangement—it's still evolving, but it actually is in operation—whereby ASIRT, the Alberta Serious Incident Response Team, which is a civilian criminal investigative review body in the province of Alberta, will conduct investigations in the Yukon. If there's an incident involving an RCMP member in Whitehorse and you want an independent criminal investigation of it, you can call on the Alberta body to do that.
There are arrangements like this across the country. For example, if there's an incident in Nunavut, there's an arrangement between the Ottawa Police Service and the Government of Nunavut that the Ottawa Police Service will fly up to Nunavut and conduct the investigation.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Those are two cases where they are territories, which obviously have very small populations and police forces. What about the case of something happening in Saskatchewan? Is it possible for Alberta, Ontario, or somebody else that has an investigative body to do that investigation in Saskatchewan?
4:35 p.m.
Director General, Policing Policy Directorate, Law Enforcement and Policing Branch, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
It depends. I would have to look specifically into it. This is an evolving area. For example, the one in B.C. just became operational last month.
There are processes in place to build these bodies where it makes sense. For example, in Nova Scotia, I know there have been discussions with New Brunswick, P.E.I., and Newfoundland to use the existing and new Nova Scotia body, primarily for reasons of cost-effectiveness. You have the body. It's a civilian-led body. It can conduct these investigations, rather than, say, New Brunswick. Instead of recreating that, given the size of their jurisdiction and the small number of these incidents, why not use the Nova Scotia body?
Those arrangements are evolving and are at different stages, depending on the jurisdiction.
In the case of Saskatchewan, yes, it's entirely possible that the Government of Saskatchewan—it's their call—could ask the Alberta body, the B.C. body, or the one that's emerging in Manitoba to conduct those investigations.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
We talked about investigations, priorities, and so on. Chief Superintendent MacMillan, would the commissioner have to justify to someone when ceasing an investigation due to a higher-priority criminal aspect, or would it simply be obvious?
Madam Dagenais.
October 15th, 2012 / 4:35 p.m.
Anita Dagenais Senior Director, RCMP Policy Division, Law Enforcement and Policing Branch, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Perhaps I can answer that. It goes back to the earlier question. The duty to suspend is under subsections 45.74(1) and 45.74(2). There is a provision there that if the chair of the Public Complaints Commission finds that their review of a complaint could seriously hinder a criminal investigation, then under that provision the chair has a duty to suspend the complaint investigation until that criminal investigation is done.
The next provision gives that discretion to the commissioner. If the commissioner feels that it is interfering and prejudicing the criminal investigation, he or she can, in writing, ask the chair to cease. It's a stay, really, just to put it on hold. The commissioner has to explain the reasons for that request.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
I'm going to try to guess what Mr. Hawn was going to ask.
Ms. Dagenais, you've clarified for me that both sections have a restriction with respect to criminal. We get into a situation where it says, “investigation or proceedings”. Of course, in Canada, we don't have a statute of limitations. That could mean a criminal investigation could remain open. Therefore, the commissioner could request the permanent suspension of an investigation. Is that the way you would read it?
4:40 p.m.
Senior Director, RCMP Policy Division, Law Enforcement and Policing Branch, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
You would have to show how that complaint investigation is interfering with the criminal investigation.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
4:40 p.m.
Senior Director, RCMP Policy Division, Law Enforcement and Policing Branch, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
The commissioner has to explain that to the chair.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
4:40 p.m.
Senior Director, RCMP Policy Division, Law Enforcement and Policing Branch, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
There is a duty to suspend if it's going to actively interfere with a criminal investigation.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
So again, it's back to the commissioner. The commissioner could then permanently suspend any investigation if the criminal matter were still open. The commissioner would have to explain it but would still have the power to do that.
4:40 p.m.
Director General, Policing Policy Directorate, Law Enforcement and Policing Branch, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
I think that's a theoretical possibility. The criminal investigation could, for some reason, be suspended. The commissioner might seek to continue to have the complaint investigation suspended, but for that to happen we'd need—
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
With respect, we've had things like the Air India inquiry, which dragged on for 25 years. We've had things that have dragged on for a very long time.
4:40 p.m.
Director General, Policing Policy Directorate, Law Enforcement and Policing Branch, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Yes. I think there'd be a positive obligation on the part of the commissioner to demonstrate very clearly how the complaint investigation would interfere with the criminal investigation. And if the chair of the commission didn't agree with that, I presume they could continue with their complaint investigation, and this would be subject to judicial review.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Okay. That was my question.
The first section establishes this duty for the chair of the complaints commission. It could proceed if he or she believes it's not interfering with that investigation.
4:40 p.m.
Director General, Policing Policy Directorate, Law Enforcement and Policing Branch, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Yes.
If the RCMP commissioner felt very strongly that the complaint investigation should not proceed, and the chair of the commission felt equally strongly that it should proceed, because the investigation had been going on for 25 years, then the chair would proceed with the complaint investigation. If the commissioner continued to feel strongly, he could seek a judicial action to stop that complaint investigation.
I think there would be absolutely extraordinary circumstances for that to occur.
4:40 p.m.
Senior Director, RCMP Policy Division, Law Enforcement and Policing Branch, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
I might add that in our discussions with the CPC, the current commission, they were open to maybe scoping out the complaint and putting part of it in abeyance, on hold, and continuing to pursue this element of the complaint.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
You're reassuring me that they have the ability to proceed with the parts they believe do not interfere. That was my original question. If they do have that ability, I am reassured in that area.
I just want to ask a question about the informal complaints. In the statistics, we see that most of those things are resolved at the informal level. It would seem to me that the bill makes some improvements here. Correct me if I'm wrong.
It now requires the RCMP to produce written reports, which would be lodged with the commission, on all informal complaints. I don't believe that's the case now, is it?
4:40 p.m.
Director General, Policing Policy Directorate, Law Enforcement and Policing Branch, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
That's not the case now.
What is happening is that we're attempting to build a more robust base of information on what exactly is happening to these complaints.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
I didn't believe they had that obligation now.
It also says that the Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing categories of complaints not to be resolved informally.
Would that mean that the chair of the review commission could make recommendations to the minister on things that should be added to that list? Would that be the way they would have to proceed?
