Evidence of meeting #53 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 rcmp.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:25 p.m.
NDP
5:25 p.m.
Chair, Audit Committee, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
No, I was not consulted on this bill, but I was involved in discussions during the development of the previous one. One might say it was a consultation, but I was not involved with this one.
5:25 p.m.
NDP
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
All right.
We'll move back to Mr. Payne. Do you want to continue?
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
LaVar Payne Conservative Medicine Hat, AB
Yes, I do. Thank you, Chair.
Mr. MacMillan, we were talking about these public commissions and we talked about criminal offences.
At what stage would this involve the public commission reviewing criminal offences? Are we talking about a DUI or shoplifting, or are we talking about far more serious crimes?
5:25 p.m.
Director General, Adjudicative Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
The CRCC itself would not have jurisdiction over the investigation of a serious incident. That would be held as described by Public Safety, by the specialized agency that exists in the province, by another police force. If it were undertaken by the RCMP, in what would likely be very limited and special circumstances, there's the ability to appoint an observer.
That criminal investigation, if it turns into that, would be done by that department or agency and submitted to crown counsel for prosecution, if that's the route and there's charge approval.
The public complaint element that may still exist relative to that serious incident could still proceed on a slightly different track, but I think it would probably be influenced and informed by what was happening on the serious incident component. The CRCC would still have jurisdiction over that.
If misconduct internally was identified, there's a third element that it would be dealt with internally. If there were a public complaint, the complainant would be informed of the results of that. If it ended up in a dismissal case, it would be a public hearing process, which would be reported on. There's a fairly heavy review that would be undertaken, particularly with serious incidents.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you both, again, for appearing before our committee today. We appreciate your input and your answering questions.
As there are no other questions, the meeting is adjourned.
