Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 68
View Jim Eglinski Profile
CPC (AB)
View Jim Eglinski Profile
2019-06-17 17:27
Thank you.
I'd like to thank you for coming out today and for presenting. I'm very pleased to be able to support Bill C-98, but I do have a couple of a misconceptions, which I've had for a number of years, regarding the similar situation you had with the RCMP.
Under “Powers of Commission in Relation to Complaints”, with regard to the powers in proposed section 44, you were talking about service standards for the RCMP and certain guidelines. You can compel a person to come before you and administer an oath, etc. If a member of the border security were involved in a criminal case, say for an alleged assault or something like that or for excessive force, would you require them to do that before the criminal trial, or would it be set over until after the criminal trial so that they could defend their actions? Would the evidence they gave your organization under oath be able to be used against them in a criminal trial?
View Jim Eglinski Profile
CPC (AB)
View Jim Eglinski Profile
2019-06-17 17:29
That's the question I had. There is a kind of abeyance there because there is a conflict.
I have a second part for you, and I'd like you to answer fairly quickly if you could, because I do have another question.
I was there when you guys first started with the RCMP public complaints commission. There was a bit of resentment on the part of members of the RCMP with regard to trust, and I think there was a little resentment the other way; both of us kind of didn't trust each other. But as time went by—not a very long time—a trust was built up from us having worked very closely together. I would think you'd find the same thing moving into this new era. Are you going to set up a bit of an education program for the members of the Canada Border Services Agency so they understand really what you're about? There is going to be that little bit of suspicion on their side, so I wonder if you have a plan for educating them.
View Jim Eglinski Profile
CPC (AB)
View Jim Eglinski Profile
2019-06-17 17:30
Brian, you talk about service standards within the RCMP and completion of investigations. Do you believe that the service standards should go both ways?
I'm going back to 15 years ago when I was in charge of Fort St. John detachment. I can recall an incident where I had a member stationed there for four years who I never met. He was on a standby investigation. I never knew what it was about. I wasn't told what it was about, but he lived in my area. He never came to work. I wonder if you feel that there should be a service standard both ways.
View Jim Eglinski Profile
CPC (AB)
View Jim Eglinski Profile
2019-06-17 17:44
First of all, I couldn't support this amendment.
However, Mr. Talbot, I'd like you to clarify what you said a moment ago.
When you referred to RCMP officers, were you referring to past and present?
View Jim Eglinski Profile
CPC (AB)
View Jim Eglinski Profile
2019-05-27 15:49
Following through with the fines, if they can put their application in to have their record removed, then why would they ever intend to pay the fine? Have we consulted with the provinces on that?
If I can put the application in, did your program or your amendment have a process in there to follow back on the provinces? We're going to have a whole bunch of people owing money in provinces who don't have records.
View Jim Eglinski Profile
CPC (AB)
View Jim Eglinski Profile
2019-05-27 16:01
Let's get Ms. Dabrusin to clarify what she just said. Your last words were, “for simple possession”, and I thought before that you were referring to somebody who has an outstanding fine for simple possession asking for a record clearance. Is it something else?
View Jim Eglinski Profile
CPC (AB)
View Jim Eglinski Profile
2019-05-27 16:10
Thank you.
My amendment is basically that Bill C-93, clause 4, be amended by adding after line 12 on page 2 the following:
(3.11) A person who makes an application referred to in subsection (3.1) may do so using electronic means in accordance with regulations made under paragraph 9.1(d).
Right in our mission statement, or our title, it says, “expedited record suspensions”. The fastest way to do it is by electronics, or computer. According to my research, the State of California in one year eliminated as many records as we are told by Mr. Broom.... They got rid of 250,000 records in one year, by going to electronic means.
I do realize that was expungement, but I believe we would not be doing justice in this committee if we didn't encourage one of our government agencies to modernize and simplify the way it does business, and make it easier for our clients out there to make applications. I think that if we were to use an electronic program.... There are people out there who can develop them. We should encourage our government agencies to modernize and be as efficient and as fast as they can be.
If we do not go to some form of electronic monitoring or application, which can get rid of a lot of that groundwork initially—for example, to say if a person is eligible or not eligible—and do a lot of the work that we're now doing manually, I think we'd be doing an injustice. All I'm saying is to put a section in here that gives them the opportunity to look outside and develop a program that might work to make it much more beneficial to people out there, and much quicker for the RCMP and the Parole Board to get rid of these records.
View Jim Eglinski Profile
CPC (AB)
View Jim Eglinski Profile
2019-05-27 16:16
I'd like to make a comment, Chair. When California decided to go to their system, they went outside of their agency and had three different applicants write up programs. I understand that one of the applicants now has a very elaborate program that she says can work internationally on a number of different programs.
All I'm asking is that we look and not ignore it because it's out there. If we sit back, we're doing no justice. We can write all the stuff we want here, but we're not going any further or any quicker. Let's try to make it quicker. All I'm saying is, let's look at electronic aids and see if it can help your agency be more modern.
We can be like CPIC was before CPIC, recording everything by hand and passing it down. CPIC modernized things for us in the RCMP. All I'm asking for is to modernize your agency to help those people get this done a little quicker.
View Jim Eglinski Profile
CPC (AB)
View Jim Eglinski Profile
2019-05-27 16:18
To do it as a recommendation...?
I think we're in agreement to work with the committee, if we don't pass the amendment here, to put it in as a recommendation to give them the tools in the future to....
View Jim Eglinski Profile
CPC (AB)
View Jim Eglinski Profile
2019-05-27 16:20
Our suggestion is that we vote on it, and if it gets defeated, then we move to put it in as a recommendation. We'd like to have it on the record, please.
View Jim Eglinski Profile
CPC (AB)
View Jim Eglinski Profile
2019-05-27 16:20
At this time, Mr. Chair, I'd like to take that motion and work with the committee to put it in as a part of a recommendation of our report, so that it gives the Parole Board the opportunity to look into and research more modernized techniques.
View Jim Eglinski Profile
CPC (AB)
View Jim Eglinski Profile
2019-05-27 17:11
I'd just like to follow through. I understand that we're maybe overreaching and giving authority where we can't, but again, it's the following through of my earlier submission and the recommendation that we'll be putting forward at the end. We need to encourage our Parole Board to look at electronic means of recording this information to make it as simple as possible.
My research has shown that there are programs out there that meet the needs of multiple jurisdictions in the United States. All I am basically asking is that we allow the Parole Board to proactively hire a firm or look at design software to help eliminate the problem we have right now and make it more electronically friendly and quicker. That was the idea behind that, but I realize there's a cost to that and we do not have that jurisdiction.
View Jim Eglinski Profile
CPC (AB)
View Jim Eglinski Profile
2019-05-27 17:16
My concern is how we would know unless a trial was held and evidence was prepared at that time. Are you asking these guys to go as far back as the trial and the evidence to determine...?
Results: 1 - 15 of 68 | Page: 1 of 5

1
2
3
4
5
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data