I agree with the intent of proposed section 27.1 of your amendment. I think it makes perfect sense. What I don't agree with is that the review agency determines whether they should stop it or not.
From a non-national security perspective, I've seen this happen where, in the civilian police perspective, you might have a complaint made but the investigation of the complaint made against a member or members or a team is going to compromise an ongoing investigation, whether it be drug-related or some organized crime connection, so the heads of the agency will know enough about that and they will go to the investigative body and ask if it can suspend this until this is done because that investigation, its talking to people, will interfere with their investigation over here.
I like this. It makes perfect sense. All I'm saying is that this has to be in this act but at the agency's discretion that is doing the investigation or doing the review. However we change the language, it has to mean in consultation with or on the advice of the agencies that are doing the criminal investigation. To me, it makes no sense that the review agency is the only one that makes that determination because they will only know the nuances of the investigation by the police on a criminal matter if they're told, and if they're told, then that should be in here.
It should not be the agency's opinion that it's going to compromise. It has to be the opinion of the police organization that is doing the criminal investigation because the review agency is not going to have all the facts. It is not going to have all the nuances of that undercover op or whatever might be going on. They're not going to know it. They're only going to know the complaint aspect of it. I agree that this is language that we have to have. It just doesn't sit right with me that it's the agency's opinion because their opinion in this matter of whether it interferes shouldn't matter. It has to be the agency where the police of jurisdiction are being compromising.