Evidence of meeting #104 for Public Safety and National Security in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
I'm just wondering if there is any way we could sit until 1:30. I know it's last minute. No? Okay.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Mr. Chair, I would propose the following subamendment.
In addition to the language here, I would propose that 27.1, as amended and proposed here, read as follows: “Despite any provision of this Act, the Review Agency must suspend an investigation if, in the Agency's opinion, and in consultation with the relevant lead investigative organization, continuing the investigation would compromise or seriously hinder an ongoing criminal investigation or proceeding.”
What we're adding there, precisely, is that there is a requirement to consult. Because this is not specific, you could have other law enforcement agencies outside the RCMP that this could impact. That's all to say that it's important there is a clear understanding that the review agency will consult, and that the decision to suspend still rests with it, but in consultation.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Just so that we are precise here, I wrote down “in consultation with the lead organization”. Is that the subamendment?
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
It's “with the relevant lead investigative organization”.
Mr. Chair, could I ask your indulgence to get some feedback from our—
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
We have to at least get the proper wording first for the subamendment that is properly before us.
The debate is initially on the subamendment before we go back to the amendment, which Mr. Motz has properly placed before the committee.
Debate is on the subamendment.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
12:50 p.m.
Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
I think the word “agencies” instead of “organizations” may be better. The only concern I have with that is the word “investigative”. It may be confused with investigations. This is about investigating complaints, as you see in the act. I want to be clear that we're talking about the investigative agency, meaning the law enforcement agency, in most cases. That's the only thing, when reading that, with which I have a concern.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Before we ask for further comment, are you open to those wording changes, Mr. Motz?
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
12:55 p.m.
Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Law enforcement agencies.
We may need a minute to talk about this. I'm getting chatter behind me.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
We'll leave the wording as such for the time being, and maybe come back to friendly amendments to the wording.
Meanwhile, we will debate.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
I have a quick question about adding in this “consultation” wording. Does it create a duty to consult, when they're opening an investigation? I want to make sure we also understand what type of burden we're creating here.
12:55 p.m.
Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
My understanding is that you're essentially codifying what is already going on, and already has gone on. In terms of meeting the threshold and understanding whether the threshold is met, you would have to consult the lead investigative agencies, to use your language, before you made your decision to suspend the complaint investigation.
12:55 p.m.
Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
There would always be a lead investigative agency.
Maybe one suggestion is to say “and in consultation with the agency leading such an investigation”.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC
I will ask the same question, but in a different way.
Would the fact that the agency has the option to consult the organization in question instead of being obligated to do so, while maintaining a procedure that already exists in case a consultation would not be held, really hurt the process? The agency may have its reasons for not doing the consultation. The reasons may be related to confidentiality or to its operations, regardless. The agency's decision not to do the consultation and be freed from that legal obligation does not interfere with its smooth operation.
12:55 p.m.
Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Again, we're talking about a complaint investigation. If you are undertaking the complaint investigation, why would you not want to find out more information and understand what the situation is before you suspended it?
I can't imagine a situation where you would not want to do that before you made the decision to stop a complaint that you received.
