Public Safety Committee on Oct. 17th, 2012

[Richard Evans]

The reasons would be—

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Actually I want to confirm that. It just says “reasons”, so you would interpret that as meaning reasons that must be made public.

[Richard Evans]

Not necessarily. The legislation doesn't say that, but our reports do end up becoming public at times.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Okay. It's interesting, though, because as a policy matter, you'd think those reasons should be made public; otherwise there would be an accountability problem.

Am I correct?

[Ian McPhail]

I think that's a fair comment. The more public the process is, the better.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Chair, how much time do I have?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

You have another minute.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Thank you.

We also know that the new commission will indeed have greater access to information than the existing commission, including access to privileged information. But the RCMP commissioner does have the ability to invoke a number of provisions, which could lead to a long process before the final decision, about whether or not the commission can get access to certain forms of privileged information.

In terms of that cutback on the access to privileged information, it does appear not to go as far as the Brown task force recommended should be the case, and certainly not as far as SIRC's ability in the context of CSIS to look at privileged information without there being a gatekeeper function.

I'm wondering whether you see this as justified, and if you see it as justified—that it's less than SIRC's access—why would it be justified?

[Ian McPhail]

I would say that the Commissioner of the RCMP has the right to withhold access to privileged information but that the commission can challenge that. And essentially, Bill C-42 provides a fairly straightforward dispute resolution process.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Can I stop you there? I think you've given the answer to that. I accept that it's a good answer.

The problem is that the process is at least five or six steps, and the final step for the commission is, again, to go to court. There's a serious concern that yes, this is clear and straightforward, but it's very cumbersome and time-consuming. There's a bit of a worry that the deck is stacked in favour of the commissioner, partly because the commissioner knows what the information will be that he's trying to prevent the commission from seeing. The commission won't know what they're asking for exactly.

Don't you see a problem there?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Very quickly.

[Ian McPhail]

Very quickly, the commission has a suprisingly good knowledge of what information it's looking for. Many of the commission's investigators are former senior RCMP members who know what's in or should be in the files.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Scott and Mr. McPhail.

We'll now move back to the government side, to Mr. Norlock, please, for seven minutes.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Through you to the witnesses, thank you for appearing today.

I have two questions. I think what I'll do, in order to afford you the opportunity to take as much time with either one that you wish...I have two basic questions.

The first one is fairly simple and straightforward. Does Bill C-42 ensure the independence of the chair and the commission?

Second, as we know, the provinces that contract RCMP policing services have expressed concerns about the accountability of the RCMP, and they've indicated their interest in having a greater role in a compliant and review regime within their respective jurisdictions.

In your view, does Bill C-42 address their concerns?

[Ian McPhail]

I'm very pleased to answer both of those questions.

First of all, in terms of independence, Bill C-42, in my opinion, actually increases the independence of the commission by giving it the expanded powers that I discussed earlier, and in addition, as a practical matter, flowing from Bill C-42 will be stabilized and modestly increased funding.

It's also interesting how the increased cooperation and responsibilities towards the contracting provinces also contribute to the independence of the commission, because when the commission has to report and justify itself to additional bodies, the commission is thereby, by that very process, given increased autonomy.

In terms of how Bill C-42 responds to the concerns of the contracting provinces, it does so in a number of ways. To begin with, when a complaint is received, a notice of that complaint will be sent to the review agency in the appropriate province. Copies of all the reports will be provided to the policing minister in the appropriate province. This is particularly beneficial, because—remembering how the RCMP is really acting in seven of the ten provinces as the provincial police force as well as the national police force—when a complaint is made that may be quite newsworthy, it's only reasonable that the provincial authorities understand how the commission has investigated and what findings it's made, what recommendations it's made. At the present time, the commission can't do that, so I think that's actually a big step forward.

Most importantly, policing itself has become more complex in recent years. There are many more joint policing operations. Just to pick an example out of the air, I can think of one where an integrated operation between the RCMP operating as the provincial police force in British Columbia worked with the Vancouver Police Department. Assuming—and this didn't happen—that a review were necessary or that complaints had been received in an instance like that under the new legislation, the CPC, or the CRCC as it will become, will be able to work jointly with its provincial counterpart in investigating that. So the provincial review body is brought right in as a full partner to the review and investigation.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you.

Would the provincial entity or the complaints commission in each of the individual seven provinces be able to initiate a complaint? If they had a concern that hadn't been brought to the commission's attention in another way...since the commission sends information down, can the contracting province send information up, and thereby initiate an action by the commission?

[Ian McPhail]

I don't believe there's any reason why not.

[Richard Evans]

That's specifically provided for in the bill, so those are the specified activity reviews that the new commission will be able to undertake.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

It's an information exchange that can be initiated. That differs from the current methodology, I believe.

[Ian McPhail]

We currently have information exchanges, but what we don't have at the present time is the ability to self-initiate specified activity reviews. Those can be done on the basis of information we might receive from a provincial counterpart or if there is a request from the province, through the minister, for budgetary purposes, that we conduct such a review.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Great. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you both.

We'll now move to Mr. Scarpaleggia, please, for seven minutes.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I'm just trying to get a handle on how the bill improves the Commission for Public Complaints or gives it more power or overcomes certain gaps that previously prevented it from doing its work.

My understanding is that you didn't have the power to compel witnesses. Is that it?

[Ian McPhail]

That's correct, unless there is a special inquiry.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

If there is a special inquiry today, you can compel witnesses and request information.