Evidence of meeting #98 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 c-59.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My questions for you are going to be very pointed about the Bill C-59 legislation. As it exists right now, if you find something as you are doing an investigation, from a complaint that's sourced either internally or from outside, and it does become the opinion of CRCC that it's a national security matter, currently it goes nowhere. Is that correct?
12:40 p.m.
Interim Vice-Chairperson and Acting Chairperson, Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
No. Before this legislation, we would—
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
12:40 p.m.
Interim Vice-Chairperson and Acting Chairperson, Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Right. We would take that complaint and we would investigate it, as we would investigate any other complaint.
12:40 p.m.
Director, Research, Policy and Strategic Investigations Unit, Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Right, or refer it to the RCMP, for instance.
12:40 p.m.
Interim Vice-Chairperson and Acting Chairperson, Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Or refer it—
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
If you found a national security issue, what would you do with it right now? It doesn't go anywhere, correct?
12:40 p.m.
Director, Research, Policy and Strategic Investigations Unit, Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Like a systemic issue, do you mean?
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
No, I'm just asking you about right now, so I guess I should be asking this question: has a matter of national security ever come up in an investigation that you've conducted so far?
12:40 p.m.
Interim Vice-Chairperson and Acting Chairperson, Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Yes. I believe that in my comments I indicated that when we look back on the cases that we have dealt with since 2015, we identified a potential of six cases, six complaints—
12:40 p.m.
Interim Vice-Chairperson and Acting Chairperson, Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Not six reviews, but six complaints, which would, under an interpretation of the current legislation, had the new agency existed, require the commission to send them to—
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
—to NSIRA, but because NSIRA doesn't exist, they just all stayed internally within your organization. Is that correct?
12:40 p.m.
Interim Vice-Chairperson and Acting Chairperson, Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Yes, we would deal with the complaints.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Okay. You've said that absent a definition actually in the legislation, it's going to be difficult for your organization to make a determination about the point in the investigation at which you hand over information that could be relevant to NSIRA. Is that correct? Did I understand that correctly?
12:40 p.m.
Interim Vice-Chairperson and Acting Chairperson, Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
I said two things. One, the number of cases in which that would come out based on past practice would be very small. Two, we believe, absent a definition, we would be able to deal with those cases through discussions between ourselves and the new agency.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Right, but it seemed to me as though you were actually making a case to have a definition added to the legislation. Is that true?
12:40 p.m.
Interim Vice-Chairperson and Acting Chairperson, Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
We don't believe that any definition would actually be able to create a razor's edge between what is a security and a non-security issue.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
12:40 p.m.
Interim Vice-Chairperson and Acting Chairperson, Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
No, we are not advocating for a definition.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Okay. Could you assure this committee that the expertise exists within your organization to make a determination in-house when a matter does cross that national security threshold?
12:40 p.m.
Interim Vice-Chairperson and Acting Chairperson, Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Yes, we believe we do, because, as I said, we've gone back and reviewed the files that we have had over the last years and have come up with a definition that satisfies us that those five or six cases would have been national security matters.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Are you satisfied that, with the security level you currently have or will have if Bill C-59 is enacted, you will have access to enough intelligence on a national security matter to cross-reference in order to know if you have an investigation ongoing whether it might involve national security, or does the information become self-evident as you conduct the investigations?
12:45 p.m.
Interim Vice-Chairperson and Acting Chairperson, Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
As I mentioned in answer to one of the other questions, we have very broad powers to receive information that we need, and internally we have both the capacity and the security classifications that would allow us to do the work that we need to do with that information.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
In your opening remarks I heard you say that a concern you had was that there was no referral back to your organization should NSIRA make a determination that it does not cross or meet whatever their threshold is for a national security issue. Would you be advocating to request a legislative change in Bill C-59 to make sure that issue is brought back to your organization? I'm assuming from your comments that when an investigation does cross that national security threshold, in your organization's opinion, and you send it on—or will be sending it on to NSIRA, in this particular case—that investigation would cease in your organization. Is that correct?