Public Safety committee  Yes. The government's designed intent there is that there not be a stage of judicial review between the conclusions of the commission and its recommendations to the minister or the deputy head of the agencies, because the commission's recommendation is not the final decision. The

Public Safety committee  The intent is that the commission exercises quasi-judicial powers in its investigative capacity. What you'll find in clause 64 is the commission's authority to make any recommendation “that it sees fit”. The commission is unfettered in that, but the decision-making authority to f

Public Safety committee  Generally, when these types of communications are received in the department, they're provided to the minister's office very, very quickly. In my experience, it's often the same day. The accountability could fall to the minister in the sense of reporting to Parliament about when

Public Safety committee  It's probably possible. Whether that's necessary in the context, I think, is a question for the committee in the context of examining the amendment.

Public Safety committee  My understanding of the amendment is that it would not bind Parliament. It could result in a situation where the two agencies, which both have law enforcement roles, would be, in an extreme case perhaps, subject to direction from an outside body that does not have the legislativ

Public Safety committee  This is a new provision, and legislating a timeline for the responses is, in the government's view, a very important new accountability measure that's being introduced here. The government is proposing six months for a few reasons. One is, as my RCMP colleague has said, that it

Public Safety committee  I can go first on that. A binding recommendation, which sounds a lot like an order, is very much outside the government's intent in the design of the entire review regime. The regime is predicated on an independent body that operates at arm's length but then makes recommendation

Public Safety committee  That would be one of the risks of giving the commission order-making power, yes.

Public Safety committee  You are correct. It would erode the authority of the deputy heads to administer their organizations and potentially erode the authority of the minister to issue directions to both of those agencies. The minister, of course, is now the only person who can issue a directive to the

Public Safety committee  I think we would suggest it's unnecessary. I don't know if we would conclude that it's a flaw.

Public Safety committee  I would agree. I think we would offer the view to the committee that the commission should in fact retain the discretion. This is in the “may suspend” section of the “Duty to suspend”. The commission should retain the discretion to suspend an investigation in an administrative

Public Safety committee  That's correct. It would align the English better with the intent expressed in the French version of the statute.

Public Safety committee  I think the intent of the clause before the amendment would have satisfied that in any condition, because there was nothing that would stand in the way of the commission's allowing union representatives to make representation provided they satisfied the other conditions for parti

Public Safety committee  Our understanding is that it ensures concordance with the previous BQ amendment.

Public Safety committee  It would change the intent. The question for the committee to consider is whether that's a desirable outcome.