Public Safety committee  It will make it easier to hire people in NSIRA, and you'll see in the intelligence commission, it will be a lot better for them to attract the kind of people they need. There will not be any future procedural problems with people moving in or out of those agencies.

Public Safety committee  I would defer to my CSE colleague in particular as it's geared to CSE, but the suggestion is really around the structure of the organization, and the structure of the organization is more or less already on the website and already transparent. It will not likely change year to ye

Public Safety committee  Again, NSIRA's reports are always going to be unclassified. They're going to redact anything that could affect things in that way. I don't think that is so much of a concern.

Public Safety committee  No, I don't believe so.

Public Safety committee  The important thing here is proposed subsection 8(2) that was already mentioned. The mandate includes reviewing one aspect of the service's work in threat reduction. The concern, I guess, with the amendment is that proposed paragraph (b) implies a review of all applications for w

Public Safety committee  It's difficult to say. We can look at how the Security Intelligence Review Committee does its work on collection warrants and how they report on the statistics. It depends on the year and the review work plan. They will comment on how the collection warrant process works and so o

Public Safety committee  As we said the other day, the amendment's not completely necessary. It's implied that there will be a discussion with the lead agency, or law enforcement agency in this case. But if there's a desire to strengthen that, I think the language is okay.

Public Safety committee  Law enforcement agencies. We may need a minute to talk about this. I'm getting chatter behind me.

Public Safety committee  My understanding is that you're essentially codifying what is already going on, and already has gone on. In terms of meeting the threshold and understanding whether the threshold is met, you would have to consult the lead investigative agencies, to use your language, before you m

Public Safety committee  There would always be a lead investigative agency. Maybe one suggestion is to say “and in consultation with the agency leading such an investigation”.

Public Safety committee  Again, we're talking about a complaint investigation. If you are undertaking the complaint investigation, why would you not want to find out more information and understand what the situation is before you suspended it? I can't imagine a situation where you would not want to do

Public Safety committee  I think the word “agencies” instead of “organizations” may be better. The only concern I have with that is the word “investigative”. It may be confused with investigations. This is about investigating complaints, as you see in the act. I want to be clear that we're talking about

Public Safety committee  My understanding in the CRCC context is that it's well understood. It's a back and forth with the police agency and the CRCC. It's not a one-way decision. There's information exchanged and the threshold is met. If the police unilaterally had that ability to shut down complaints,

Public Safety committee  Excuse me, sir. The objective here is that the investigation would be suspended only in the context of complaints, so if an individual complains to the RCMP that he didn't like something, that investigation could be suspended if there is an ongoing criminal investigation at the s

Public Safety committee  First, the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission, the CRCC, which is the existing body attached to the RCMP, is the one that was quite concerned that the language in their act, the RCMP Act, was imported over to Bill C-59. They're the ones who brought it up as very important.