Public Safety Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2012

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

That's fair enough.

[Richard Wex]

What this bill does is strengthen the accountability structures with respect to the RCMP.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much.

We'll now move back to Madame Doré Lefebvre.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Wex, I would quickly like to go back to something you said earlier. You mentioned that if a provincial body had to investigate the RCMP, but was not available—which is very rare—the RCMP would investigate itself.

Do you think that this shortcoming is also found in Bill C-42? Do you believe that public confidence would be undermined by the knowledge that a body not independent of the RCMP could carry out such investigations, even though it would only happen very rarely?

[Richard Wex]

If the commissioner had his preference, I think as he indicated it would always be a civilian investigative body or another police service that would investigate the RCMP, not because there is actual bias, frankly, based on the reviews that have been conducted from the CPC, who have done a review of police investigating police, but more because, as you've pointed out, there's always this perception.

The reality is that there are only so many investigative bodies or other police services that will have the capacity to undertake such reviews. It is foreseeable that there will be circumstances in which the only police of jurisdiction available that has the capacity to conduct the investigation in a timely way will be the RCMP. That said, because that is not ideal, this bill provides for mitigating measures, if you will, which includes the appointment of independent observers of the investigation, and other safeguards as well.

So even when the RCMP has to investigate itself—it may be geographically isolated, or there may be no other police service or investigative body to contain the scene—there will be safeguards put in place under the statutory regime, including the possibility of appointing independent observers, either by the province or by the new civilian review commission.

I don't know if the commissioner would like to add anything to that.

[Commr Bob Paulson]

I think it's important to understand that it is our practice now. We have a policy that very closely resembles this new legislation, in terms of declaring that we don't want to investigate ourselves.

So to the extent that the provinces, territories, or others can create these independent investigative bodies, we will always defer and refer our cases to them.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Wex, did you say that it was possible to have independent observers or that there would always be independent observers if the RCMP were conducting the investigation? Could you please clarify that?

[Richard Wex]

No, no, I did not mean to say that.

What I did mean to say is that the bill provides authority for a province or the new complaints and review body to appoint an independent observer to make observations about the impartiality of the investigation, should the RCMP or, frankly, any other police service other than a civilian investigative body investigate a serious incident.

One other point I would identify based on your question is that it is true that there are some jurisdictions that do not yet have civilian investigative bodies, which I think underlines one of the concerns you have.

First, it's interesting to note just how many new bodies have been developed over the past five years.

Second, even in those jurisdictions—and the member mentioned Yukon. Yukon has a relationship with Alberta through which they will refer the investigation to the Alberta Serious Incident Response Team.

Increasingly, we're seeing either one-offs or standing arrangements between jurisdictions that have these bodies and other jurisdictions that have yet to build one up, or, frankly, don't have the need to, and they will pay for or enter into an arrangement with a jurisdiction that does.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

We'll now move back to Mr. Leef, please.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Commissioner, you spoke about streamlining discipline. We'll move back to that briefly.

A lot of times when we talk about the RCMP we get this image of just a huge organization. Of course, it's the sum of its parts, and in some locations in this country those parts are very small.

I've travelled around the Yukon this whole summer talking to detachment commanders, some of varying ranks. Some detachments are run by sergeants, some by corporals. They express gratitude for this in terms of being able to deal with discipline at the lowest possible level. I've heard a number of stories where a discipline issue might arise, and because it can't be resolved in a timely fashion, a member needs to be transferred out of the detachment at tremendous cost, simply because there is no mechanism to resolve it, although it probably could have been resolved under this new legislation.

We have a cost factor there, but we also have detachment commanders now being very happy that they're able to deal with these things at the lowest possible level, and they think they can move forward without incurring those costs, without incurring bad feelings and ill will. Conversely, now, you might have some concern for members saying, “Okay, now I might be subjected to a very close relationship and discipline in that area”.

What strategies do you see you're going to be able to employ to ensure that consistency in the discipline process across some very rural, small, urban-style detachments across a very large country?

[Commr Bob Paulson]

Thank you for that question.

There are some things that we will do, and in fact are doing. One thing is recognizing that the nine-point-something million dollars that we talked about is going to training all of these detachment commanders and supervisors in the requirements for administering the conduct regime that we're talking about.

The other thing we've done is we've implemented a conduct reporting system that allows for the conduct authority in each division to monitor and review what's going on, plus we have the existing chain of command that will review and monitor the application of the conduct regime. Members will continue to have access to the SRR program, their representatives—to participate in that. I have a relationship with the executive of the program, who are not at all shy about raising shortcomings that they see, that they have reported up through their system, in the various initiatives that we have in the organization.

I think you raise a good concern, and one that we've anticipated in terms of changing behaviours, to the point where supervisors are going to be administering this and they will have to create records of how they engage with their members, and so on, so that those can be reviewed.

We're alive to that concern, but I think with everybody pitching in, it should go smoothly.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

All right. Thank you.

Proposed subsection 20.2(1) of the bill says:

The Commissioner may

(a) determine the learning, training and development requirements of members and fix the terms on which the learning, training and development may be carried out;

Maybe you can just speak to us a bit about how important it is for you as a commissioner to be able to start some of this shift right in Regina, right at Depot. At what level will this act be introduced to the members taking training, so they understand this right at the very beginning of their careers?

[Commr Bob Paulson]

That's exactly right. We're blessed with a central training area, Depot, that we have all of our members go through. It's six months, but it's an action-packed six months. They do get exposed to a number of the major initiatives in the force. We also have field monitoring systems, once recruits are released from Depot out into the field, where they continue on a training regime.

This bill also calls for an enhanced probationary period for our members, to provide for the ability to modify their conduct and to engage them in the training regimes they need to engage in.

The other question that I think comes from having training laid down in the act like this is the need to be able to set standards for the force and the conduct of our members, and how we deliver policing services across this country.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much.

We'll move now back to Ms. Ashton, please.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Thank you.

Commissioner, getting back to what is an issue that has gripped Canadians, that of sexual harassment...we're talking about the bill, and it's obviously an expansive bill that seeks to tackle a number of areas. We've talked about the gender-based audit.

I wonder what the RCMP's plan is to be able to, yes, deal with this culture in which harassment takes place, but also to send a strong signal to Canadians that it's happening. I have to say, a lot of what we do in the House, or even in committee, is “inside baseball”, and Canadians have been shaken. Certainly there is a gender experience in that. Canadian women particularly want to see it, and we want to see a strong signal. Part of it is from your end, but I was also hoping that the minister's answer would have indicated a specific policy in this very area.

But I'd like to hear from you with respect to the RCMP: how can you send that signal to Canadians?

[Commr Bob Paulson]

I'm trying to send that signal to Canadians every day, by innovating our policies and practices with respect to gender, to not only come up to the industry standard in terms of how people in Canada, in the various workplaces that we have in Canada, are approaching gender-based issues, but to exceed it, to try to get...not to a point where we're talking about harassment all the time—although people want to be reassured that there are systems and processes available to them to access—but for a respectful workplace, and to create a culture in the organization where people respect one another.

In fact, the initiative that was covered recently in the media, in terms of my commanding officer in British Columbia, where a lot of these cases have come from...has embarked on a very ambitious proactive grassroots campaign of engaging the employees in establishing a modern, respectful workplace.

The proposed legislation is very important towards the success of this, but it's also just in the day-to-day operations of the organization, deploying and enforcing compliance with reasonable policies; that is what I'm doing.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

To give you the support to do that, because we're talking about a comprehensive approach that is necessary, the issue of a culture that needs to be changed keeps coming up. This is a massive undertaking, and one would assume that specific funds ought to be allocated. We've heard about funds with respect to Bill C-42, but again, we've also heard about some of the challenges that the RCMP in general is having to deal with in terms of budgetary decisions.

When having to undertake this kind of huge initiative and having to send that signal to Canadians, and it's not just the words you're using, as commissioner, but that the work is happening all throughout, is there the money to back that up? Is there a commitment specifically around sexual harassment? I'm not speaking about the bill, but is there an understanding of the kinds of funds that are necessary?

That is my first question.

Secondly, are those funds available?

[Commr Bob Paulson]

The best way to answer that is to say that I don't see funding as an impediment to our fixing what we have to fix to address the cultural issues.

Since I've been commissioner, I've changed a lot of things in the organization. One of the things I've done is to change the way I interact with commanding officers, and how I create and deliver and demand accountability from my commanding officers on all of these things. I have weekly meetings with my commanding officers. They all directly report to me now. Formerly, they didn't do that, which is not to say that it turns on me, but it's just that tried and true systems of management and leadership and accountability are being applied very diligently these days in the RCMP, and they aren't impeded by the availability of funds.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Maybe as a follow-up...the question in terms of funding would be large-scale training, because here we're talking about abuse that's happening on the ground in detachments, not necessarily here in Ottawa or at Depot, for example. Is there the support for that kind of expansive training that is necessary to get into that question of culture?

[Commr Bob Paulson]

Yes, there is, and that turns on me, on the existing training budgets I have within this organization, on the content, and on the way they are delivered. We have a supervisory development course, a managers development course, an executives development course. All of those three training approaches have been modified to include what we're talking about here today.

So there's very little likelihood that anybody in this organization can say that they are not aware of the issues that—

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Can I ask when that—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

No, you actually can't, unfortunately. I've already given you half a minute more than I should have.

It wouldn't be so bad, except I did have one little question myself that I would like to pose.

First of all, Commissioner, our time is pretty well drawing to a close. I know you are aware, and Deputy Minister Wex is aware, that this is the first day that this committee has been taken with the responsibility of dealing with this bill here, in committee. It has been in the House. It's been debated. All sides have said, “Let's get it to committee. Let's ask the right questions.” And we want to do that.

I think Canadians, generally speaking, contrary to what you may have heard today, are optimistic with what they've seen, especially, Commissioner, with your approach from day one, where you named the issues, you named the culture, you named what you wanted to see accomplished in the short term, and perhaps even some in the longer term. Today you spoke about the culture that needs to be changed and that you want to see changed.

I think we're all a little optimistic that we're on the right road here. We just want to make sure that there aren't any idiosyncrasies that maybe we've missed as a committee.

You did make reference to Mr. Leef's question, and I guess I have a question: is there anything in this bill that you think would be a differential...or would be different as far as how complaints are dealt with in the rural compared with the urban?

We've talked about remote. I think in one answer, Mr. Wex, you said that, well, in some rural areas, they may not have the resources, or they may not.... But when we're dealing with complaints, a complaint is a complaint.

I live in a rural riding, in fact, where we have sometimes concerns that we don't see the dollars trickling down to some of our rural detachments that we'd like to have. I have one where a detachment building—and this is mainly provincial—was deemed unfit. You know, it's just hard to see some of those things responded to.

Is there anything here that maybe the rural or remote areas, such as the Yukon, need to be concerned with?

[Commr Bob Paulson]

Thank you, Chair.

I don't know that they need to be concerned with.... I think they need to be similarly optimistic, because I think the idea of empowering our supervisors at the detachment level to take care of business, as it were, in terms of managing the conduct of their employees goes a long way to getting the rest of the organization...which sometimes can be seen as an impediment to moving things along, certainly in conflict management.

So I guess the short answer is, no, I don't see any problems there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

All right. Thank you.

I see that our time is up.

We want to thank both of you for appearing on this day one. As we tell all those who appear as witnesses before committee, if there is something you would like to add to any of the testimony you've given verbally, please feel free to send a letter or to send whatever into the staff here.

We are adjourned.