Public Safety committee  Yes, I think it would include that.

Public Safety committee  Yes. It's actually exceedingly rare that complainants seek judicial review in the Federal Court. The rare time that it does happen, it's almost never been a successful application.

Public Safety committee  No. It's not defined in the bill.

Public Safety committee  Yes. It's left open for interpretation. In this case, it would be the commission that would determine, possibly based on previous case law...as a determination based on the civil law.

Public Safety committee  The proposed amendment as written does not allow the subject of the complaint, through their representative, to give comment on the impact on themselves. It allows comment only on the impact of the victim, we'll say, the person impacted by either the RCMP member or CBSA employee conduct.

Public Safety committee  Yes. There's no provision in the act either allowing or prohibiting non-disclosure agreements, but they aren't typically used. Certainly the commission has never imposed a non-disclosure agreement. I suppose it could conceivably arise in the informal resolution process, at either the RCMP or the CBSA, but I'm not aware of it having been used.

Public Safety committee  Yes. I think you're correct. It could create confusion, because it would apply only to NDAs under the PCRC act. In fact, as you indicated, the NDAs agreed to in civil litigation would not be prohibited by this provision. Individuals might then be restricted in what they can disclose based on previous civil litigation NDAs.

Public Safety committee  I'm trying to recall certain situations. They would be, perhaps, cases in which the individual who was affected by the conduct is deceased, or in a situation in which the individual cannot be located. These are two situations that come to me off the top of my head. There are situations in which it's more appropriate for the commission, the RCMP or CBSA to exercise their discretion as to whether or not the matter should be investigated.

Public Safety committee  In practice the commission does verify whether there is consent, and in most cases there is, or perhaps in every case thus far. There are some situations in which it wouldn't necessarily be appropriate to ensure that there is consent, but as my colleague Ms. Gibb indicated, there are provisions currently in the act but also in Bill C-20 that provide discretion to the commission to refuse to deal with the complaint for various different reasons.

Public Safety committee  Yes. In Bill C-20 there's already the discretion for the PCRC to refuse to deal with complaints if the individual making the complaint, as I indicated, doesn't have a sufficient connection to the incident. As well, there's also a provision for the commission to refuse to deal if the complaint is considered frivolous, trivial, vexatious or made in bad faith.

Public Safety committee  That's correct.

Public Safety committee  The bill as written doesn't require consent, but there is discretion for the PCRC to refuse to deal with the complaint if the individual making the complaint—the third party—is not sufficiently connected to the incident or doesn't have the approval of the individual. As an example, they're not the parent or guardian.

Public Safety committee  I understand the intent of the removal of subclause 17(6) is to prevent the commissioner or the president of CBSA from refusing to provide certain information. In fact, that provision doesn't allow the commissioner or the president to refuse, it merely says if they do refuse, this is what they need to do in refusing it.

Public Safety committee  Yes.

Public Safety committee  Well, there are instances in which the current Civilian Review and Complaints Commission doesn't receive information in as timely a fashion as it would like—information from the RCMP—but I would say that, in the commission's experience, it is rare for that to be a willful intent to obstruct the process.