Public Safety committee  For privacy reasons we might, but I would suggest that it depends on the nature of the third party. As it's written, we don't need it.

Public Safety committee  The commission still has the discretion to refuse. A third party can make the complaint, but we would still have the discretion to refuse.

Public Safety committee  The commission remains the point of intake, even if the complaint is filed at a detachment or it's from CBSA. It would still come to us to deal with, so we could refuse to deal with a complaint if there was no connection to that third party. The agencies have the discretion to refuse to investigate.

Public Safety committee  Yes, it is.

Public Safety committee  The commission has the discretion to extend the time limit. We have a policy, on our website, on the circumstances under which we'll do that.

Public Safety committee  Yes, we accept third party complaints with the authorization of the individuals involved. We don't take a third party complaint if someone watches YouTube, sees RCMP enforcement and files a complaint. There's no connection there. They just watched it on YouTube. We would not take that complaint, because it's third party.

Public Safety committee  Yes. If an individual wants to make a complaint on behalf of someone else and has their authorization, we accept that third party complaint. That would include a non-governmental organization, which could file a complaint on behalf of an individual.

Public Safety committee  I was rather thinking of another form of wording that would make it clear there was nothing in the act that would prevent other parties from requesting a review. You could write something like that rather than specifically mentioning things like committees or unions.

Public Safety committee  I agree. Under our existing legislation we get requests somewhat regularly from non-governmental organizations, asking for systemic review.

Public Safety committee  I could just add a little more detail. This clause, when you read it in line with subclause 72(1), which is that the RCMP and the CBSA have to report to the minister on how they've implemented the PCRC's recommendations.... If our reports go at the same time, the PCRC doesn't have the benefit in its annual report of actually being able to comment on the degree to which the agencies have implemented our recommendations.

Public Safety committee  We might have to work overtime, but we'll get it done.

Public Safety committee  It amounts to the same thing, I believe.

Public Safety committee  I think that having a service standard for the investigation of a complaint by the agency—so, by the RCMP or the CBSA—in that first instance would be helpful. The commission has its own service standard. Once we get the complaint on review, we have our service standards. We have to report annually to Parliament on whether we meet those service standards.

Public Safety committee  I won't speak to the standard parliamentary language. I'll let Public Safety deal with that one. In terms of resolution, it means it's completed, in my mind. It doesn't mean the individual may be satisfied. A lot of times, I'm sure, they are not satisfied, but it has come to its full conclusion.

Public Safety committee  All complaints come to the commission. We're the point of intake. They can be made at a detachment, but the RCMP will then send that complaint to us. We do the intake, and the chairperson has the discretion to decide whether the RCMP will investigate or we will investigate.