The right exists.
Evidence of meeting #56 for Public Safety and National Security in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was commission.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #56 for Public Safety and National Security in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was commission.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
I just don't understand what the objection would be to including it, then. Could you restate your argument? It would send the wrong signal...? Is that...?
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
We want to send a very strong signal that these decisions would be binding and would be final. I think what we have seen is the reverse, where decisions sometimes take a long time, and that can cause problems within the RCMP.
It's about making sure that the commissioner has this ability and that everyone involved knows that his or her decision is final, still within, obviously, the ability to take it to a higher level of judicial review.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
I think those are all the speakers on that one.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clauses 22 to 28 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 29)
There are three amendments to clause 29, both government and official opposition.
We'll entertain the New Democratic Party's amendment first.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
The bill contains a section that several witnesses, including witnesses who appeared Monday, found problematic; that is, they believe this section of the bill that we are proposing to delete removes the protection that any other Canadian would have against unreasonable search and seizure. It creates a greater power for the government to subject RCMP members to search and seizure than would exist for other members of the public.
Based on that strong testimony from witnesses, we are proposing that this section be deleted from the bill. It would mean that RCMP members would be under the same regime as other members of the public when it came to the question of search and seizure.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Yes, this did come up. What we found is that both British Columbia and Ontario have provisions in their respective police legislation to allow for searches.
This legislation would go a little bit further by creating the ability for a production order, which is less intrusive than a search warrant. From the legislative point of view, there is a concern about investigating code of conduct issues without the ability to do a thorough search and get all the information.
We also heard testimony that the commission may not have access to all the information it needed. We heard that. I think this is making sure that all relevant information is able to be obtained in a legal manner and with the proper process. We support that.
Yes, we did hear testimony of some concern, but we think the provisions in this legislation and the provisions for that particular type of order provide enough protection. We think it's important that stays in so that the commission gets the information and the RCMP investigative team, if it's a serious incident, can do their work.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
It's to correct an inconsistency between the English and the French versions. The English provision states that the justice must be satisfied by information on oath, whereas the French does not have that requirement. We just want to make that consistent.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
It's a correction.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Government amendment number 4.
Ms. Bergen, on the same clause, go ahead.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
The French version has a grammatical error. The current version reads s'il y a contravenu, whereas it should read s'il y a eu contravention.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Very good. Now that's as clear as can be.
All in favour of the amendment on the translation?
(Amendment agreed to)
(Clause 29 as amended agreed to)
(Clause 30 agreed to)
(On clause 31)
Government number 5.
Ms. Bergen, go ahead.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
This is another French translation amendment from the government. We're moving this amendment to correct an inconsistency between the English and the French texts. The English uses the conjugation “and”, whereas the French uses the conjugation “or”. The French should be amended to use “and”, so that it's “and” in English and in French. We should be consistent.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
All right. It's for consistency between the two languages.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
From the official opposition, we have NDP-9 on the same clause.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
This is a substantive amendment that we are proposing. What we're asking here is that the commissioner be bound by the recommendations of the External Review Committee. The External Review Committee was created to provide an appeal mechanism for members and to escape from the rigid paramilitarism, as you might describe it, of the RCMP. This deals with things like dismissal from the force, direction to resign, or demotion. We think these are very serious matters for members of the RCMP, in terms of the future of their careers, down to and including demotion.
This would strengthen the External Review Committee, which was created at the same time as the first public complaints mechanism for the RCMP. It was created to create that kind of balance. If members are subject to complaints from the public and to special investigations as a result of that, they feel that having an external group to look at those conclusions, and to make sure they were fair, would be important.
We heard from the External Review Committee chair herself that she would like to see the recommendations made binding. We heard the same thing from additional witnesses on Monday. This would increase the sense of fairness and the confidence in the fairness of decisions made within the RCMP.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
We would disagree with this on a couple of levels. First of all, it's very important that the bill is clear that the commissioner is responsible for the RCMP—the management, the conduct—and to ensure that the commissioner has the authority to do that.... There are a number of checks and balances and processes whereby if the commissioner overturns a decision, it has to be explained, and again, accountability would be provided.
I do want to read for members something the minister said—I think it's important that we remember this—when he testified. He said:
...the RCMP commissioner is held accountable for the operations of the RCMP and must decide whether to act on the findings and recommendations of the commission. The commissioner is accountable and responsible for the operations of the RCMP, and we will not undermine that accountability by making recommendations binding. However, consistent with the existing legislative requirements, it's also clear that whenever the RCMP commissioner decides not to act on commission recommendations, he must explain, in writing, the reasons for doing so to the new commission and to me [the minister.
It's very clear that this bill clearly outlines, reiterates, and affirms not only the authority and the responsibility of the commissioner, but also that he has the ability to be the person who's accountable for the RCMP. For that reason, we will not be supporting this.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 31 as amended agreed to)
(Clauses 32 to 34 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 35)
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Now we come to clause 35, and we have many different amendments to clause 35.
We'll begin with amendment NDP-10, please.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Thank you very much once again, Mr. Chair.
One of the themes in our amendments is to make sure that the new commission that's created is truly independent. We think this is very important to having the process of restoring public confidence in the RCMP proceed, and we also think it's very important for serving members of the RCMP to believe that this commission can review things without undue influence either from the commissioner or from the government.
In this section, we are removing clauses that place two restrictions on the commission launching its own independent investigations. These are highly unusual for civilian oversight bodies. We did some checking around. I have some previous experience with these. I've never seen these kinds of clauses in any other sections of the legislation setting up a civilian oversight or review body. One says that the commission may not launch investigations unless it's sure it has resources, and the other says it may not do so if there's any other “entity” investigating the same matter.
Certainly, we heard from the previous police complaints commissioner that he felt that sometimes matters arise whereby having the commission proceed to investigate would actually save a lot of money, rather than having to set up an independent commission to look into those matters. However, had he been under this restriction, he might not have been able to launch such an investigation.
We also heard from Mr. Mukherjee on Monday that he sometimes felt that oversight bodies investigate different aspects of the same matter. He pointed to the investigations of the G-20 matters in Toronto, which were investigated from several different perspectives because they were joint operations of different police forces. What he said very clearly to us on Monday was that it might be useful sometimes to have different aspects investigated by different oversight bodies, and that he would not like to see this ruled out from the beginning in the legislation.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
I think it's really important to point out that under this clause the commission is not asked to obtain approval from the minister to initiate a review. Rather, it requires the commission to merely give notice that they are satisfied that certain conditions have been met, for example, that sufficient resources exist for conducting the review.
I know there are a number of other amendments, but this might be a good opportunity to hear from some analysts here who might be able to provide greater clarity on what implications this might have.
Therefore, we would not be supporting these series of amendments, but for that one, particularly, that's the reason.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Because you've made a reference to them, we will go to the officials.
The commission isn't required to obtain ministerial approval for such a review—I think that was part of what Ms. Bergen was suggesting. Do you want to elaborate on this amendment?