Public Safety Committee on Oct. 24th, 2012

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

It's 45.95

[A voice]

Could I ask something?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Very quickly, I don't want to cut Mr. Garrison.

[Warren Allmand]

What if the cross-border operations included not just the RCMP, but the RCMP with the CBSA?

[Dominique Valiquet]

That's dealt with by another section of the bill, 45.75, which is your first issue, and that is a matter of interpretation of that section. I don't have any answer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

That's what we'll have to check on. Thanks for bringing that up.

We'll quickly go to Mr. Garrison. He has five minutes, and probably the last question.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Thanks very much. Thanks to both witnesses for appearing today. I have a quick question for Madam Séguin.

Mr. Leef read proposed paragraph 20.2(1)(a) about training. It says that the commissioner may:

determine the learning, training and development of members and fix the terms of on which the learning, training and development may be carried out;

If I understand your position, you're saying that by not listing sexual harassment specifically, it leaves it too open to this being omitted from the training and development process. Is that correct?

[Yvonne Séguin]

Yes, that's correct.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Allmand, thank you for bringing those questions about joint operations to the attention of the committee. When Bill C-38 was being discussed, I actually did raise some of those same concerns in the finance committee where, strangely, we were dealing with Bill C-38's provisions on the ship-rider.

You talked about Justice O'Connor and his very thorough review and his thorough recommendations. One of the things that some have suggested—I think including Mr. O'Connor—is that the civilian review and complaints commission be very independent, yet in this proposal we have before us, it would report to the minister.

As a former solicitor general and someone who had a commission report to you, do you think it would be better for the commission to report to Parliament, and become an officer of Parliament, and then allow it to review all these agencies and report back to Parliament, or is it sufficient to continue to report to the minister?

[Warren Allmand]

No, I don't think it is sufficient.

I didn't have time to deal with that in my opening remarks, but I read through the whole bill, which was a task in itself.

No, I think it says that the report should go to the RCMP, to the complainant, and to the agency that does the oversight, but not to Parliament or to the public. I think it has to, because it could undermine public credibility in the institutions if the public doesn't know.

For example, if it hadn't been for the public campaigning on behalf of Mr. Arar and the other people who were hurt by these renditions to the Middle East to be tortured and so on, if the public hadn't clamoured, we wouldn't have had the Arar commission. We wouldn't have had the Iacobucci commission, and so on. I think to maintain credibility in government institutions it's necessary to give those reports not just to Parliament, but they also should be made public.

This is the second report of Judge O'Connor. Anybody can get it. It's good that they can get it. It can be studied by academics. Further, it can contribute to a better understanding and better support for our oversight system and our public security system.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

One of the provisions in this bill, which Ms. Bergen mentioned, is that it provides greater access to information with the complaints commission, but it does not provide the same access to information that SIRC has with regard to CSIS. In other words, as we've heard from other witnesses, it has some very large categories of privilege where the commission would not be allowed to have access to the information if the RCMP decided to withhold that.

I know you've dealt with both SIRC and this. In your opinion, as a former minister dealing with this, should it have the same powers as SIRC?

[Warren Allmand]

Absolutely. Judge O'Connor recommended that the new body have the same powers. I know that former chairs of the CPC, like Shirley Heafey, finally quit. She was frustrated because she couldn't get the information to do her job. Other chairs of the CPC have had the same problem.

There's an improvement in this bill, but it doesn't go far enough. It doesn't have the same powers as SIRC does and it should have. There's no reason why it shouldn't.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Somewhere near the beginning of the bill—I have forgotten the number of the section—it says that the chair of the commission can only undertake independent investigations if the chair is convinced they have the resources, and if there's no other investigation going on by any other government entity. Do you have any reaction to those restrictions on the ability of the commission to undertake investigations?

[Warren Allmand]

I found them rather amusing. It would seem to me that if an investigation has to take place and it's important, you get the resources. You don't decide you won't have the investigation. You make sure you have it.

I haven't got the exact figures, but millions of dollars were spent on both the Iacobucci and O'Connor commissions, and there were others, because of these problems, that weren't properly dealt with by the CPC, etc. You end up spending more money in the long run when you have to have a special royal commission to deal with these matters. Better that they have the powers to deal with them.

It would seem to me that the chair and the people who run the new CRCC should have the resources available to do what they have to do. If they didn't have the resources, like any agency of the government, they would request more special resources to do the job, but not give up, I hope. I found those rather strange provisions.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Allmand. That was very valuable, and as you are a former minister, we do appreciate it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I want to thank both groups for attending today, for bringing your expertise to this committee, and for your input certainly in two different areas.

The meeting is now adjourned.