Public Safety Committee on Feb. 15th, 2018

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Okay, that's very helpful, thank you.

I have a second technical question and a couple of broader ones within the remaining five minutes. Are there any budgetary or personnel pressures that you see resulting from the proposed changes to accountability and oversight as stipulated in Bill C-59, from the perspective of the commission?

[Guy Bujold]

No, certainly not with regard to the commission itself, because, in our case, we're having some work removed from us and, as I say, the amount of work is fairly small.

I think where there's more of a resource implication for us is if we did one of these systemic reviews like the ones I mentioned in my remarks. Those can be quite time consuming and fairly expensive, but again, we are being taken out of that field with regard to security, so it wouldn't....

You may have had testimony to this effect from others. The resource pressures associated with creating the new agency will be something that will require some careful attention. Depending on the model that is put in place—the CRCC can be, we believe, a useful example to use as a guide for the creation of the new agency—the examination of the model will lead to the consideration of the resource implications, and those should be funded adequately, absolutely.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

On the issue of workplace harassment, the commission issued the May 2017 report. I wonder if you could give this committee an update on this very important work as it has unfolded since then. Maybe even circle back to the highlights of the 2017 report, if you wish, but also let us know where that issue falls.

With respect to the argument we just made, it's clearly arguable that this is a national security issue because it affects the RCMP nationally and impacts national security. Is this going to remain your work? If so, to what extent, and to what extent would NSIRA become involved in the question of workplace harassment?

[Guy Bujold]

I'll make a few comments, and then I'll ask Ms. Gibb to add her own thoughts to this.

As you correctly point out, this was a significant investigation by the CRCC into harassment in the workplace at the RCMP. I'm not sure that it has a national security dimension to it. We certainly saw it as something much broader than that and therefore examined it using that kind of a frame.

As is the case with all reports that the CRCC does, it is our practice to return to the recommendations and the observations that we had made at the time to determine whether or not there had been movement in the RCMP to deal with any of those recommendations. We are monitoring the way that the report's recommendations have been implemented.

Joanne.

[Joanne Gibb, Director, Research, Policy and Strategic Investigations Unit, Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

The workplace harassment report was the first time the commission exercised its new mandate further to the amendments that were made in 2014 to the RCMP Act, so we put the report out. There were nine findings and 10 recommendations, including two that were made to the government as opposed to just the RCMP.

My understanding is that there is some work being done within the RCMP and within Public Safety to look at the report, to respond to it, and to answer the recommendations, but we do not at this point have a written response. I am aware that there are some considerations to those recommendations.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

I wanted to broach the question of youth policing in context of the question of potential radicalization of young Canadians or them being vulnerable to radicalization by foreign or even domestic terrorist organizations, both right-wing and others.

Is this work that your commission has intersected with, and if so, how does that play into the question of whether this is a national security issue or something that is dealt with on more local levels within the RCMP structure?

[Guy Bujold]

I'm not aware that we've actually dealt with it as a specific subject. In a world where Bill C-59 did not exist, it would be an issue that would be on our list of systemic review issues that we might want to consider looking at in the future. Therefore, in the new context where the new agency is created, they might very well, using their own powers, do a review of that subject. Yes, I think it would be in that case definitely related to national security, certainly the way you framed the question.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

That's helpful.

I think that's my time. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Spengemann.

Mr. Dubé, 14 minutes, please.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Hello.

I am pleased to hear that I have 14 minutes.

Thank you for being here today. I have a number of questions and I would like them to pertain to the bill, but certain issues relate to your organization and the RCMP, broadly speaking, and to the topic under consideration.

My first question relates to the lack of consistency across Canada. There are a lot of questions about the way police action is investigated, in Ontario and Quebec in particular, which have provincial police services. We have even heard that the police services in Toronto, Montreal, and other cities have significant involvement in all kinds of anti-terrorism work. Could the lack of consistency in evaluating police work and handling complaints, in both legal and practical terms, be problematic for these national investigations?

[Guy Bujold]

Thank you for your question. It is very interesting and it is something our agency is concerned about, whether in relation to national security or otherwise, and which has been brought to our attention through complaints from members of the public. As you said, it is not just the commission. There are similar organizations in the provinces which are also responsible for reviewing surveillance by various police services.

There is an association of the heads of those organizations. They meet fairly regularly to discuss common issues. As you rightly pointed out, Mr. Dubé, how can we ensure consistency and a standard approach to complaints that have been made about an officer from the Sûreté du Québec, the Ontario Provincial Police, or the RCMP elsewhere in the country, so that the complaint is reviewed in a similar way, regardless of the police service involved. There are conversations between these various groups to make sure that—I will use the English expression—

if it walls like a duck, it talks like a duck, looks like a duck, therefore we're going to treat it as a duck. We should treat all of them as ducks.

That is how we go about it.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Dubé, I have had a liberal interpretation of Mr. Spengemann's question on Bill C-59, and I've had a liberal interpretation of your question. Could we somehow or another tie the interaction to Bill C-59 and ask witnesses to bear that in mind when responding to members' questions.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

I appreciate that, Chair. I'm just looking at the way police oversight happens in the context of...I think we've heard witnesses talk about that, but I appreciate that point.

The Anti-terrorism Act, 2015, provided for the sharing of information, further to Justice O'Connor's recommendation that we follow the trail. Has that changed the way you work? I can imagine that information or complaints might hypothetically be forwarded to the RCMP or, conversely, that the RCMP might forward them to CSIS.

You cannot get into the details, of course, but has this changed your approach regarding actions by the RCMP in situations that also involve other agencies?

[Guy Bujold]

I will ask Ms. Gibb to provide further information if necessary, but I can say that there are no problems with the sharing of information between the RCMP and the commission at this time, nor do we expect there to be any either when the changes in question come into effect. Under the current act, we have very broad powers to obtain the information we need to conduct investigations.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

I'm sorry, perhaps my question was not clear.

Let's say you receive a complaint related to an action by the RCMP involving the sharing of information as set out in the former Bill C-51 and as amended, in a sense, by the current bill.

What do you do if you follow the trail from the complaint and arrive at the information forwarded by CSIS, for instance, and you find that it is the actions by CSIS that are the object of the complaint?

[Joanne Gibb]

We don't have any public complaints of that nature, but I'll add that our ongoing national security review into Justice O'Connor's recommendations is looking at domestic information sharing as it is currently done by the RCMP.

When that's complete, we should have a better answer for you on whether or not Bill C-51 affected how they share information, but I'm not aware of any public complaints regarding information sharing in that regard.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

As to sharing information with our allies, the example that comes to mind is Operation Hemisphere, I think it was called. We received information from the DEA, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.

When the information comes from another country, does that complicate the commission's work?

[Guy Bujold]

No. Actually, we would not receive much information about the review of a complaint.

[Joanne Gibb]

I'll add again, just to promote my investigation, that foreign information sharing is also part of that ongoing review.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

As regards national security, you made recommendations about how to proceed in this context and the need for a stronger definition. If I understand correctly, however, the ideal would be for you to work together rather than passing the buck back and forth.

You conduct parallel investigations, is that correct? How do you see this?

[Guy Bujold]

First of all, we want to meet the legal requirement, under the act, to refer cases involving national security to the new agency. However, in an investigation relating to a worrisome national security issue, if we find that an RCMP member did not fulfill their obligations, their conduct would be an issue. In our view, the commission should be able to continue that investigation. That would mean sharing information with the new agency and would allow us both to conduct our investigation to arrive at a conclusion.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

If I understand correctly, in the case of death or serious injury—

[Guy Bujold]

That is not our responsibility.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Is that a change that should be considered to broaden the commission's mandate?

[Guy Bujold]

No. The commission does not deal with criminal matters at all. Its role is to determine whether an RCMP member's conduct is in violation of the policies, training, and legislation that dictate their conduct. If there are legal proceedings because of the conduct of an RCMP member, other authorities will become involved.