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.
5 p.m.
Conservative
5 p.m.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
Are we referencing this document that was just passed around?
5 p.m.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
There must be a typographical error. In the version I have, the first word is “tigation”. Oh, it's a hyphened word.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
“Investigation”—the other part, “inves”, is on the other page.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
Later in the sentence, shouldn't it read “complaint initiated”? Is that not misspelled in this version?
5 p.m.
Conservative
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Okay, then we need to amend the amendment.
Can you make an amendment to spell the word correctly?
I think there is a space in there. The word is spelled correctly; there's an extra space in there.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
It's not spelled right. It's “in” and “tiated”. You have to take a space out to make it a word.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
I think you're right, there is a space.
It should read, “other than a complaint initiated under subsection 45.59(1)”. So it's “in”, space, “it”, and you just need to bring those spaces together.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Are we all right with taking that space out—“initiated”?
(Subamendment agreed to)
Shall the amendment carry as amended?
I don't know the legality of that one.
(Amendment as amended agreed to)
Now NDP amendment 16.
I should tell you, Mr. Garrison, that if NDP 16 is adopted, NDP 17 fails, but I wouldn't worry about it.
5 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Excuse me, Mr. Chair, I was trying to say, politely, that it wasn't something I lost sleep over.
5 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
We're not trying to challenge the authority of the commissioner to run the RCMP, but when there have been complaints, and findings and recommendations are made by an oversight commission, we believe those recommendations should be binding on the RCMP. That's the change that we've suggested in this section.
We are not optimistic that it will be adopted by the government.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Again, we're not just of the belief, but it's a fact that the commissioner is responsible for the RCMP, so to that end, the commissioner has to be the final accountable individual and his or her actions have to reflect that. We think it's important that at the end of the day, the commissioner has the ability to make those decisions.
Again, if recommendations are rejected, there is a process whereby reasons have to be given and they have to be reported. There will be accountability. There can't be frivolous reasons or there will obviously be consequences of all kinds of measures. Within this legislation, it's important that the commissioner has the authority and the ability to do his or her job. That's why we would say it's important that they can reject or not comply with any kind of possible recommendation by the commission.
Legally, it would be important to hear the authority that's needed by the commissioner to do his or her job.
5:05 p.m.
Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
I'm not sure I necessarily have much to add, except maybe that it is common for review bodies to make non-binding findings. The RCMP will be in the best position to determine the measures that should be taken after an investigation by the commission. If there are issues, then, as Ms. Bergen mentioned, there is a reporting and communication scheme established so that the commission and the RCMP communicate in order to implement proper measures after an investigation.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
One of the things we heard quite often is concern about delays in dealing with matters, both internal discipline and complaints. I believe that both the former and the current police complaints commission chairs said they would be supportive of a measure that provided some timeline for response by the RCMP to interim reports from the commission.
There might be some debate about whether 30 days or 60 days or 90 days is the appropriate time, and we would be quite willing to discuss with the other side a different time limit, but we believe it's important that when the commission operates under timelines when it must commence investigations, the RCMP be under the same obligation to have at least some deadline. It has quite often taken a very long time for the RCMP to respond to recommendations.
We're simply trying to establish some balance there that would ensure things are dealt with in a timely manner.
You might disagree with 30 days, that being too short. We would certainly be prepared to entertain other lengths of time, but the concept of having a time is important.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
I don't think we would disagree. Obviously it is important that there are service standards, but it's where those service standards are laid out. In the case of the CRCC, it is within the legislation, and that's probably because the minister obviously doesn't have the ability to direct this group.
If it's laid-out legislation, it's done, whereas with the RCMP, it's best done through ministerial directives and regulations to allow for greater flexibility. With the RCMP, the complexity of what they're doing—not only the investigations, but the information. I think it's important that they have some flexibility with time. Certainly, service standards in terms of time is an important concept. Where we would disagree is where those service standards are, how they are applied, and how they are regulated. We don't think, for the RCMP, they should be in legislation.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you, Ms. Bergen.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
On NDP-18, the counsel we've received is that it is an inadmissible motion because it needs a royal recommendation, so we can skip over NDP-18. I'm ruling that one inadmissible on the advice of the Table here. We don't really need to discuss it because it's inadmissible—