Government amendment 15.
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.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Again, there is another inconsistency.
A member may be represented by any person and proceeding before a board in accordance with the commissioner's rules. The French could be read to understand that the commissioner may make rules prescribing the circumstances under which only a member may not represent or assist a member or conduct authority, not which person may not assist or represent a member or conduct authority.
I'll reread that if we need me to.
We're moving this amendment to clarify that the commissioner may prescribe rules for circumstances under which a person may not represent or assist a member or conduct authority.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
We are still in clause 35. The bill does a peculiar thing as it's currently drafted. In the previous subsection, it says that the commissioner shall suspend an investigation if in his opinion he believes—and I've lost the actual section—that it would interfere with an ongoing criminal investigation.
The next section says the commissioner may request in writing...and that the chair of the review commission then must suspend any investigation.
Again, I guess we would stress on this side that we're appointing someone to be chair of a police complaints commission. It's a very high and responsible position, and certainly the commissioner can make the argument to that person, but if they are to be an oversight and review commission, they have to have the power to make the decision on the basis of whether it serves the broader interests of the public and the investigation to go ahead.
One of the examples of an investigation going on for a long time was obviously Air India, where criminal investigations were open for 25 years or more, and there may have been some specific aspect of investigations or procedures that went on that needed investigation by a complaints commission and could have been done without interfering with the overall criminal investigation. Again, we heard that, I believe twice, from witnesses before the committee.
That's our reason for the suggestion. If we remove the section that allows the commissioner to force the suspension of those investigations, once again, I think it undermines the public perception of the independence of the commission and creates a public perception that the RCMP is somehow able to protect itself against investigations when complaints have been filed. We think this helps increase public confidence, and that it actually does a service to the RCMP in that sense to remove this section.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
We actually would see it in the opposite way. We think the ability and the necessity for criminal investigation to take priority instills confidence in the public and certainly in the RCMP. It's important to note that the commissioner would not have the ability to terminate an investigation, only suspend it, which I think is an important differentiation.
I'm wondering whether Mr. MacMillan or one of the experts have anything they would like to say in terms of criminal investigation, as well as suspending versus terminating.
4:50 p.m.
Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Thank you.
The proposal in Bill C-42 is, as you mentioned, for a duty to suspend, but the suspension of an investigation would only occur if there is a risk of compromising or seriously hindering the criminal investigation. The commissioner must make this request in writing, so there is an exercise that is expected to be done and there is a very high threshold to be met before an investigation can be suspended. As Ms. Bergen was mentioning, it's a suspension and not a termination of the investigation.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Thanks very much for the assistance. I think on our side we tend to see a suspension without any date, which it would be in this case, as equivalent to a termination in practice. It may in fact terminate, because it is not a suspension for a period of time; it simply says suspension.
In response to Ms. Bergen, I would say that the previous subsection requires—requires—the chair of the commission to suspend any investigation that he believes would interfere with a criminal investigation. That principle is still enshrined as the primary principle here in terms of the complaint commission. The question is, who makes the judgment call about whether that is in fact the case? We're arguing in this case that it should be the chair of the commission.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
I don't hear anything there that is so much a question to the officials. It's more of a statement towards the debate.
Is there anyone else who wanted to speak to this?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Next I have NDP....
A point of order.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
My understanding is that one of the amendments we proposed is not in the package. It was recognized as just an oversight. I'm wondering if at this point we want to clarify. We had it in before the deadline.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
The other gentleman sitting here has already said they missed it, and it was in. He's going to go see if they can get a copy of it and give it to each member. That was on clause 35 as well, correct?
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
I don't have it here. Do you have it there? Is it a translation one?
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Let me see. I have it here, but do we have it in this format?
4:50 p.m.
A voice
No. He's printing it right now.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
He has gone to print it. Is it a translation issue or is it a substantive...?
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Perhaps then what we will do....
Would it fall in line before amendment NDP-16, or should we do amendment NDP-16?
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
All right. We will defer it and insert it when our table brings it here so that you have an opportunity to see it. We will then....
Can we move to clause 36 and come back to this? There are no amendments there. You are all right with that?
(Clause 36 agreed to)
(On clause 37)
On government amendment 16.... What are we going to call this other amendment?
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
October 31st, 2012 / 4:55 p.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Andrew Bartholomew Chaplin
May I suggest that we stick with the numbering in the package? When the other one gets here, it could be renamed as something else.