Public Safety Committee on Oct. 31st, 2012

[Anita Dagenais, Senior Director, RCMP Policy Division, Law Enforcement and Policing Branch, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

I'd be happy to, Chair.

The policy intent here is to have the commission not undermine its work in the complaints area, so just to assure.... It's an attestation that sufficient resources are there to conduct a review that won't take away from the complaint and that other reviews on the same matter aren't under way.

The member mentioned the G-20 review. That was really about an incident.... We're talking about policy reviews here—very broad policy reviews. They're quite in-depth and comprehensive, and we wouldn't want various parties all looking at the same thing. I think there are enough reasons to have a focused review without diverting those interests among various groups looking into it. That was really the policy intent for it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Garrison, go ahead again.

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

Thank you very much.

We accept that it is a good feature of this clause that it does not require prior approval of the minister. We simply feel these two restrictions are not necessary.

We're obviously appointing a very senior person in Canadian public life to occupy this position. What we're saying by deleting these two is that we have to trust their judgment. One of the things that both Mr. Kennedy and, if memory serves me right, Mr. Mukherjee pointed out is that sometimes this bill directs that individual complaint investigations take precedence. But both of them said that it may be necessary sometimes to do a more general policy review in order to avoid a lot of future complaints that would be very similar.

I appreciate your intervention, but it does not change our position on the overall question of granting the independence to the chair of the commission.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

NDP amendment 11.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

We're still on clause 35. One of the peculiar things here is that the bill says that when there's a contract for policing between a province and the federal government, if a provincial minister wishes to have an investigation under that contract, they would have to go through the minister they have the contract with in order to get that investigation.

The purpose of our amendment is to remove the requirement that provincial ministers go through the federal minister to request an investigation by the commission. In other words, what we're doing here is strengthening the equality between the parties under the contract by allowing either of them to ask for an investigation from the commission, without the permission of the other.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Ms. Bergen, go ahead.

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

Again, we wouldn't support this. The CRCC obviously falls under federal jurisdiction. There is a mechanism in place whereby provinces can ask, but it would be through the proper channels, which is the minister. So we think it's important, and again, under jurisdictional powers and....

This bill is a pretty big bill, and if we start adding components like this—again, maybe the legal team wants to talk about it, but it would add unnecessary complications. The provinces can ask for these reviews, but it would be through the proper channel, which would be the minister.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

On NDP-12.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The tight timelines meant that I ended up moving all these amendments, and I'm now beginning to regret that because I'm sure my colleagues could do an equally good.... But the tight timelines mean that I am presenting all of these today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

You're doing a very good job. Don't let the result deter you.

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

As you can see, I'm not about to let the result deter me.

As the honourable member notes, we have been supporting the government amendments. We had hoped there would be at least one in this batch of amendments to improve the bill that might see support on the other side.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

It's NDP 12. Let's get to 12.

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

The bill sets up a rather complicated process in disputes over access to information between the commission and the RCMP commissioner. We heard very strongly from Paul Kennedy, as the former commissioner. We also heard from Mr. McPhail, if I remember his testimony correctly, and also from Mr. Mukherjee, from the Canadian Association of Police Boards, that it's necessary for commissions to have access to all information.

There are ways that are parallel to those done in SIRC where you can make sure sensitive information is not subsequently released to the public, but the commission needs to see the information before it can determine the relevance. This sets up a process where a third party, probably a retired judge, would make recommendations on those disputes. The comment was then made by officials, I believe it was Mr. Potter, that if the parties still don't agree, they can go to court.

Our purpose in suggesting this is that we don't see why—if we've brought in the third party, a neutral party with expertise to give a recommendation—we shouldn't avoid those future court costs and delays by simply making those recommendations binding on the two parties. Either we have confidence in this third party's recommendations or we do not. We don't see the point of subsequently having a court dispute between the commissioner and the commission when we've had a third party look at this and make recommendations. This would make the recommendations of the third party binding in disputes over access to information.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Garrison.

Ms. Bergen.

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

We would disagree, and again, what we would see is that the former judge or other person would be a resource to provide information to both parties. Then both parties would be able to come to their own conclusion. If it's binding, it could be very difficult. Both parties, once they receive all the information, might not want it to be binding. They may actually be able to come to their own conclusion outside of the information provided by the former judge or other person, as is in the legislation.

As soon as something is made binding it can automatically create more judicial reviews. We think if we give more flexibility—and I might ask for some legal opinion on this—within the advice the former judge would be providing, and the advice and information is given to both parties, with obviously the hope that the end result would be the parties coming to an agreement, that creates more flexibility. That creates probably a better atmosphere to come to the agreement without having to go to litigation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

You made reference to the officials.

Ms. Lévesque, you have a smile on your face, like you're ready for this one.

[Agnès Lévesque, Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Not necessarily. Actually, she has explained all of the elements that were considered when this provision was drafted. The intent was to assist both the RCMP and the commission in identifying the documents that would be relevant and necessary, in a manner that takes into account the sensitivity of the information and the need for an investigation on a complaint to proceed in a timely fashion. Ideally, because there is an ongoing relationship between the commission and the RCMP, it's so they can discuss these matters in a non-adversarial situation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much for that clarification.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We are on government number 6. This is still part of clause 35.

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

It's another correction. We're moving this amendment to correct an inconsistency between the English and the French languages. We've been advised that having the term “accessed” in English and “obtained” in French could be an issue. One implies physical possession, whereas the other does not. This amendment will clarify that the commission must only use the information that it has accessed for the purpose under which it was accessed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Again, it's more of a wording and a translation deal.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

On G-7, the same.

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

Sorry, just give me one second.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

This is....

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

Okay. I just wanted to make sure this wasn't a French language one.

We want to ensure immunity to every member, officer, and employee of the commission. We heard testimony that the chair needed immunity. That was very clear, so that's the intent of this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I think we all agreed at the meeting, initially.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

NDP-13.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

In this, we're proposing to change the reporting process. One of the important things we think about any civilian oversight body is that its conclusions be transparent—not all of its work, obviously, because sometimes there are matters that cannot be made public. We're suggesting here that the annual report of the commission be tabled with the Speaker in the House of Commons, rather than passing through the minister first. We think it would create a greater sense of independence for the commission and a greater confidence in the transparency of its recommendations and its work.