Public Safety committee  Mr. Chair, I think we would observe that the government's preference was for the language that was presented in the bill in the form in which it was introduced. If it would be helpful to the committee, I can explain some of the considerations that were at play in the design of

Public Safety committee  We don't have a list. The amendment doesn't appear to include one. We can suggest that, in that case, it may be very open.

Public Safety committee  Our assessment, if we have understood correctly, is that CPC-20 would erode the protection around the commission's responsibility to deal uniquely with complaints and review of complaints. It may risk opening the door for the commission to deal with things that are better dealt w

Public Safety committee  We would offer at least two concerns about the amendment as presented. The first is that it would create an inconsistent condition between the commission's authorities related to the RCMP as found in subclause 52(2) and then, if subclause 52(3) were amended, the new condition cre

Public Safety committee  It also comes on top of the existing CBSA and RCMP check-ins that are obligatory in the act, to report to the complainant about the progress of their complaint and the status of the investigation.

Public Safety committee  Our assessment is that it could be a very onerous burden. A conservative assumption would be that it would create about 60,000 touchpoints a year, over and above the commission's existing workload, to check in with 5,000 complainants 12 times a year over a duration of an average

Public Safety committee  We would have the same concern, from our analysis. Clause 44 is not dealing with a broader right of the union to make representations on behalf of the employee. It is a much narrower ground, about making representation with respect to the conduct's impact on the person who is th

Public Safety committee  Again, we would just observe that suspension and things flowing from it are from the operation of another statute. They are from the operation of whatever labour statute applies and whatever collective agreement applies in that context. This amendment would impose on the commiss

Public Safety committee  In our view, I think that understanding is correct. The design intent behind the bill is that the PCRC not be brought into the realm of discipline. In the case of the RCMP, there is already a separate external body to deal with that. The act as drafted explicitly excludes the PC

Public Safety committee  I don't think we can offer you a view on whether it is rendered moot or would render moot the other amendment. We would just note that it is simply one of the conditions that is set out for the commissioner or the president to take into consideration under their grounds of the

Public Safety committee  I think the best view we can offer is that it appears unnecessary to us. The commission or the agencies may have more direct experience with that.

Public Safety committee  We offer that it is a foreseeable concern, but that the national security provisions in the act governing both the access of the commission to national security information and then any further public release of national security information.... The provisions that are already in

Public Safety committee  NDAs aren't generally used in a review process. They are a tool that is employed sometimes in the context of civil litigation and in settlements arising from civil litigation. There's no provision in the act whatsoever that an NDA would preclude the commission from having acces

Public Safety committee  I'll try my best to answer. When we look at the amendment to clause 35, which is to expand the grounds of who can, in essence, request the commission's assistance, it is consistent with a change made earlier in the bill that this be expanded to third parties. It does not change

Public Safety committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. As with the previous amendments, we see no problem with the intent. It is perhaps preferable for the committee to consider “third party” instead of “non-governmental”, since it is slightly broader in its application. Many third parties would not fall under