Public Safety Committee on Oct. 31st, 2012

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Ms. Bergen.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

I won't be able to support this motion. The chairperson will report through the Minister of Public Safety, who reports to Parliament on their behalf. This is common practice for these kinds of review bodies, so we will be supporting the current legislation.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Next is G-8.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Again, this is to correct an inconsistency between the English and French provisions. The French refers to the conduct of a member, whereas the English refers to conduct in general. The French should be corrected, as the conduct could be from anyone employed by the RCMP, not just a member.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Next is G-9.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

This is to clarify that the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission should refuse to deal with any complaint concerning an internal RCMP discipline decision or how they are made in order to fully capture the policy intent of the legislation.

We want to clarify that it's not within the commission's mandate to review disciplinary decisions of the RCMP, as this is a function that's already performed by the RCMP External Review Committee. We want to clarify that to make sure that the spirit of this legislation is captured and not missed by not having this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Garrison.

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

Thank you very much.

We appreciate the intent of this and we will be supporting this amendment. We would be much happier if you had previously supported our amendment to make the recommendations of the External Review Committee binding. It deals with the same issue, but we do understand. It's never been the intent on this side to suggest that the commission should interfere in discipline matters within the RCMP. We will be supporting this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you Mr. Garrison.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Next is G-10.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Again, this is to correct an inconsistency between the English and French texts.

When providing the authority of the chairperson to self-initiate a complaint investigation, the English text introduces the concept that the chairperson must have reasonable grounds to investigate the investigation, whereas the French text does not have the concept of reasonable grounds.

We want to amend the French text to ensure there is consistency between the French and the English.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

It looks as if people are nodding their heads.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Next is G-11.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Again, it's an inconsistency. The English states that the report must be sent to all listed individuals, whereas the French implies that the commission can send it to just one of them. The French text should be amended to clarify that the commission should send the report to all of them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

It's for consistency between the translations then.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Next is NDP-14.

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

We are still in clause 35. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

We heard from a number of witnesses, including those on Monday, that once again members were being subjected to a measure in this bill that would infringe on their right to protection from self-incrimination in a way that would not be imposed on other members of the Canadian public. We're suggesting deleting the section that would compel testimony from members in disciplinary inquiries.

We do not think this would impede the ability of the RCMP to investigate, and it would go a long way toward ensuring balance in the human relations policy within the RCMP.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Leef.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Chair, I think there was a lot of confusion around the questions that were asked last week around the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and how that applies to labour disputes and conduct issues. Because the right around labour disputes and conduct issues doesn't fall under the provisions that were being highlighted, which are essentially under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for people under criminal investigation or upon arrest and detention, not around code of conduct reviews, I don't see supporting this. There are certainly safeguards in place to protect members when they're compelled to provide evidence. The bill specifically says that evidence won't be used in other proceedings, such as criminal proceedings or civil proceedings, so that should alleviate any concern.

I think for the most part, when the testimony was being discussed, there were intermingling issues where members were getting involved in criminal activity and then were facing a code of conduct review, in which case criminal conduct would still afford them the right of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in that investigation. Where it's just a behavioural issue that would otherwise be minor in nature, there's no need, and actually it would be detrimental to the intent of this bill, to allow a member to invoke authorities that are provided under the Charter Rights and Freedoms that are really specifically designed in this case for criminal investigations. When criminal behaviour is involved, the members will absolutely have the right to invoke sections of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that all Canadians enjoy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Yes, Mr. Garrison.

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

I appreciate your comments, Mr. Leef, but I believe that's exactly the concern that serving members were expressing. Often in disciplinary matters it's not clear at the beginning of that investigation whether that will result in criminal charges at some later date, because of the very nature of the kind of work the RCMP does, and especially in cases involving use of force and those other kinds of inquiries. I think it is their concern that at the beginning of investigations, those things sometimes are not clearly distinguished.

I take the point, in general, but I think their point was that it isn't clear at the beginning of disciplinary hearings what the outcome of that might be, and that this might sometimes include criminal charges and therefore they ought to enjoy that same protection.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

I can just say in response, Mr. Chair, that as soon as an officer of the law knows or has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed, at that very moment they're required, by law, to read the Charter of Rights and Freedoms rights: the right to retain and instruct counsel, the right to remain silent, the duty to notify them that anything they say can and will be used in evidence against them.

A good number of investigations start in Canada where a police officer is just gathering information. Your average citizen in this country doesn't know what the outcome of those queries will be. A lot of times police will question a person wholeheartedly not knowing what the result of those queries will be. But the very moment a police officer knows they're talking to somebody and they have reasonable and probable grounds to believe an offence has been committed, the charter automatically kicks in. And this will be absolutely no different.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Leef and Mr. Garrison.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We have amendment G-12, and it's another translation.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Yes. And again, this was required on proposed section 45.71. The English implies that the report must be sent to all listed individuals, whereas the French implies that the commission can send to one of them. So we're just making the same amendment as previously, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We have government amendment G-13.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Okay. Again, we're correcting a grammatical error in the French. I'm actually not sure this word, celle-ci, is making a reference to the complaint, whereas it should be making reference to the commission. Our understanding is that this was inconsistent. We needed to correct that and clarify the purpose of the provision and just make it read a bit better.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We have G-14. It's another translation, I believe.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Yes. Again, we're correcting an inconsistency in order to protect solicitor-client privilege. Information that is shared between an officer and his or her legal counsel in relation to a hearing must be deemed privileged.

The French should be read to understand that it's only information that is exchanged at a hearing that is privileged. Sorry, the French could be read that way, so we're moving this amendment to clarify that all information exchanged in relation to a hearing...it's just to clarify which information should have that protection. I guess the French is a little more ambiguous. That's what this amendment does.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings] )