Bill C-38 (Historical)

Ensuring the Effective Review of RCMP Civilian Complaints Act

An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment amends the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act to establish a new civilian review body to replace the existing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Public Complaints Commission, to improve the current complaints system and to establish certain requirements with respect to the investigation of serious incidents involving the conduct of individual members and others.
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police Review and Complaints Commission, consisting only of members who are civilians, has additional powers to review and report on the activities of the Force and to investigate the conduct of individual members and others appointed under Part I. The Commission may conduct a review of specified activities of the Force and report to the Minister on the Force’s compliance with applicable Acts, regulations, ministerial directives, policies and procedures. The Commission may also review and report on the activities of the Force in any province or territory that has entered into an arrangement with the Minister for the provision of policing services. The Commission has, for the purpose of conducting those reviews and for conducting investigations and hearings into individual conduct, a new right of access to all information, other than cabinet confidences, that is under the control of the Force or in its possession.
The current complaints system, which provides for complaints from the public as well as those initiated by the Chair of the Commission, has been improved by increasing the powers of the Commission and the involvement of individual complainants in the process. In addition to the new right of access to information, the Commission has the same powers as a superior court of record to compel and enforce the production of oral and written evidence relating to a complaint. The involvement of complainants is increased by permitting representations regarding the impact of the misconduct to be made and by providing the complainant with a right to receive regular updates on the progress of any investigation.
A new Part is added to the Act to establish certain requirements relating to serious incidents involving the conduct of individual members and others. If a provincial authority designates a special investigative unit or independent police force to investigate such a serious incident, the Force is required to refer its investigation of the incident to that investigative body or police force. The Force will only investigate a serious incident if no such designation is made and the Force, after reasonable efforts, is unable to identify an investigative body or another police force to investigate. Observers may be appointed to review and report on the impartiality of an investigation of a serious incident by the Force or another police force.
Finally, the enactment makes consequential amendments to other Acts.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Okay. Thank you.

In regard to Bill C-38, Ensuring the Effective Review of RCMP Civilian Complaints Act, could you explain how that will affect the RCMP? How will it strengthen and modernize the RCMP?

[William V. Baker]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will skip some of the very beginning--the welcomes--and go more into the substance of my opening remarks, just in the interest of time.

One of the recommendations was to create a council of external advisers to oversee the implementation of the task force recommendations. Consistent with this recommendation, three years ago the government established the RCMP Reform Implementation Council to provide expert advice on the modernization of the RCMP.

The council's mandate ended on December 19, 2010. In each of its five reports, this independent council provided a largely positive assessment of the RCMP's progress on its transformation agenda. In its last report, which was publicly released in January 2011, the council stated, and I quote, that “most of the specific problems identified...by the Task Force are being effectively addressed”.

This is a significant accomplishment given the breadth and number of Task Force recommendations.

I would also like to add that provinces and territories who contract RCMP police services have been actively engaged in the process of modernization and have expressed their support for RCMP reform efforts.

However, today I would like to focus my remarks on the RCMP modernization efforts that have been led by my department, Public Safety Canada, in the areas of external oversight and contract policing.

Commissioner Elliott will speak to the transformation agenda that he has been actively pursuing within the force, including his efforts to strengthen RCMP management.

To begin, allow me to address the issue of external oversight. After extensive consultations with partners and stakeholders, including provinces and territories who contract RCMP police services, Public Safety Canada developed a legislative proposal to address the concerns raised by many groups, including those of this committee in its 2007 report.

I'm pleased to report that Public Safety Canada's work on external oversight resulted in the 2010 budget announcement of $8 million over two years for a new civilian independent review and complaints commission for the RCMP.

It also led to the introduction of Bill C-38, Ensuring the Effective Review of RCMP Civilian Complaints Act, last June. This bill proposes the creation of a new commission for public complaints, which would replace the existing review body, the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP.

Under Bill C-38, the new RCMP review and complaints commission would have significantly enhanced investigative powers, including the power to compel testimony and evidence. In addition, the bill provides the new commission with broad access to information needed to fulfill its mandate, including expressly providing the commission with access to privileged information where it is relevant and necessary.

To my knowledge, this sets a new precedent for review bodies in Canada.

Bill C-38 also streamlines the complaints process, and provides the new Commission with other authorities, such as the power to share information and conduct joint reviews with others, including provincial police review bodies.

Bill C-38 goes beyond strengthening the RCMP public complaints regime. The bill also establishes a mechanism to improve the transparency and accountability of serious incident investigations involving RCMP members. It substantively addresses the issue of who is policing the police. This includes the requirement of referring such investigations, wherever possible, to other investigative bodies, such as Alberta's special investigative response teams, and appointing civilian independent observers to assess the impartiality in cases where the investigation is undertaken by any police force.

These requirements would build upon and formalize the RCMP policy on external investigations that was announced by the commissioner in February 2010. It is expected that this and other changes will contribute to strengthening the RCMP and ensuring continued public confidence in the RCMP.

Turning now to the issue of contract policing, my department has been actively negotiating the renewal of provincial, territorial and municipal Police Services Agreements, which are set to expire in March 2012.

The proposed agreements include mechanisms that will significantly improve accountability and modernize the relationship between the federal government and the contract jurisdictions. As you know, we have contracts in place with eight provinces, three territories, and about 200 municipalities.

One such mechanism is the creation of a new contract management committee to provide the provinces and territories with much greater opportunity to provide input on issues that impact the cost and quality of RCMP services in their jurisdictions. These negotiations are progressing well, and I hope we will have agreements in principle with the contract jurisdictions shortly.

Before closing, I'd like to comment on the one recommendation made by this committee in 2007 that has not yet been addressed. That is the recommendation to create a police accountability board, which we have come to call a “board of management”. While Commissioner Elliott may also wish to comment on this issue--and I'm sure he will--permit me to make a few observations.

As you may know, I worked with a board of management in my former role as Commissioner of the Canada Revenue Agency. The RCMP is, of course, a very different organization with a unique operating environment, and its governance framework must be considered with that in mind.

I recognize that there have been calls from the task force, the Reform Implementation Council, and many others to establish a board of management for the RCMP. Given the importance of this institution to the safety and security of Canadians, any major decision on RCMP governance can only be made after extremely careful consideration of the matter and meaningful consultations with stakeholders, including contract jurisdictions.

I'd like to underscore that given the breadth of issues on RCMP modernization that have been identified in a variety of reviews and reports, including this body's helpful 2007 report, we frankly needed to prioritize our efforts.

First, as a matter of priority, the RCMP addressed the many administrative and management issues that had been identified. The results of this initiative were recently highlighted in the RCMP September 2010 progress report entitled “Transformation of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police”.

Secondly, the government focused its efforts on strengthening external oversight of the RCMP, which of course resulted in Bill C-38, which I mentioned earlier.

In addition, Bill C-43, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Modernization Act, was introduced in Parliament in June 2010 by the President of the Treasury Board, with a view to modernizing the RCMP's labour relations regime.

Lastly, in terms of priorities, we have directed our efforts to contract policing negotiations, which include new relationships with contract jurisdictions.

We can now properly turn our attention to strengthening the internal oversight and considerations associated with a board of management and any other related governance changes.

Internal governance is an extraordinarily complex issue, and it is important that we take the time to get this right for the RCMP and for Canadians. The RCMP has been developing its views on this issue. We will soon be in a position to consider the work undertaken by the RCMP, and be in a position so that I can provide advice to the minister and the government.

I would note, of course, that any decision on governance is a machinery issue that ultimately remains the prerogative of the Prime Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd be happy to answer any questions after my colleague has spoken.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

I'm asking on Bill C-4, Bill C-5, Bill C-16, Bill C-17, Bill C-21, Bill C-22, Bill C-23B, Bill C-30, Bill C-35, Bill C-37, Bill C-38, Bill C-39, Bill C-43, Bill C-48, Bill C-49, Bill C-50, Bill C-51, Bill C-52, Bill C-53C-54, Bill C-59, Bill SS-6, Bill S-7, Bill S-10.

What are the costs? What are the head counts? What are the implications? Why won't you give them to Parliament?

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Okay. So the resources that have been provided over the last couple of years while under our government's watch have been significant.

I have a last question. In your opening comments you talked about an oversight board. I just want you to clarify this for me, because I know we've talked about a civilian oversight board--that's what Bill C-38 on the order paper is about--and you've talked about a board of management. Is that the same as a civilian oversight board? I believe there was a distinction made between the two in your opening remarks, and I'd like to understand what that distinction is.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

You both indicated that you support Bill C-38 and the civilian oversight that's contemplated in that bill.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Sure.

There was a workplace assessment done by former CSIS director Reid Morden, and he found, among other things, that the slow pace of reforms frustrated some Mounties. I think you both already touched on that.

We know that the labour relations reform that was necessitated by the Ontario Supreme Court decision in MacDonnell--no relation, I take it--in June 2010.... It was introduced by this government in June 2010. The civilian oversight of complaints against the police, Bill C-38, was introduced in June 2010, and there's been no movement by this government since then as those two bills languish on the order paper.

I wonder if you could comment on how important you think it is to start uplifting the morale of the force that those two pieces of legislation be brought forward and passed?

[Deputy Commissioner Raf Souccar, Deputy Commissioner, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

Good morning, Mr. Chair, honourable members of the committee.

It is a pleasure to be here this morning.

I'd like to thank you very much for inviting us here today to answer your questions and to set the record straight to the extent possible.

Let me start by saying that I'm hopeful, Mr. Chair, with the announcement this past Friday that Bill Elliott will be stepping down this summer, that the committee will be looking forward instead of backward.

That said, I recognize that the committee is interested in last summer's events, and therefore I am prepared to say a few words on this matter, after which Mike and I will be prepared to answer all your questions to the best of our knowledge and recollection.

I have been very concerned over the media attention the RCMP received this past summer on the internal issues inside the force. With respect to this matter, and specifically to Bill Elliott's behaviour, I wish to say that the behaviour issues were long-standing. I am aware of many members of the then senior executive committee who had tried to deal with Bill Elliott's behaviour by speaking with him individually. I know that I have spoken to him face to face on several occasions, as well as by e-mail, to try to get him to be more respectful in his dealings with the RCMP membership.

Unfortunately, although he acknowledged openly during senior executive committee meetings, as well as via force-wide broadcast to some 30,000 employees, that his behaviour and actions did have a negative impact on RCMP employees, he either refused to change or could not change.

I have to tell you that I had so many people complain to me about Bill Elliott's disrespectful behaviour that my very position required me to act. As a member of the senior executive committee in the RCMP, I could no longer point the finger at upper management and criticize them for their inaction. I was one of them, a member of the senior executive committee.

Mr. Chair, I looked at and I took my position very seriously and was not willing to stand by and watch two of our very core values—respect and compassion—be nothing more than words hanging on the walls in our buildings across Canada. When I and others got no results from speaking to Bill Elliott face to face, I was left with one option, and that was to speak to the very folks who put him in the position, to let them know that morale in the RCMP was sinking to an all-time low and that something had to be done. Someone had to stand up, and I chose to do so, along with others. I believed then, as I do now, that this was the right thing to do, the honourable thing to do, and in fact my duty to do.

RCMP employees deserve to be treated with respect. I want to make it very clear, Mr. Chair, and I want to be on record as saying this: I did not leak this matter to the media, and I did not directly or indirectly influence anyone to leak this matter to the media, and I was not responsible for the groundswell or media hype. In fact I have received numerous media inquiries, and to this date continue to receive them. I have not once returned any of these calls, as I was hopeful that this matter would be resolved swiftly, without bringing undue attention to the RCMP.

This is important for me to go on record as saying, Mr. Chair, for the following reasons. There were some who felt that this complaint against Bill Elliott was made for self-serving reasons and leaked to the media for that very purpose. On October 7, 2010, at 1500 hours, I met with Bill Elliott in his office. This was the first time that he informed me he would be removing me from my position as deputy commissioner of federal policing. At that time Bill Elliott said to me, and I quote, “You are widely seen as the person who brought this matter to the press”. I responded to that accusation by saying that I had no part in getting this out to the media and was prepared to take a polygraph test if there was any doubt in anyone's mind as to my truthfulness. And that offer still stands, Mr. Chair. In fact, I would invite any media person—and there are many here today—who has obtained any such information from me to step up and say so.

Mr. Chair, I have always spoken the truth without fear or favour, as I swore to do when I was engaged in the RCMP a little over 32 years ago, and I will continue to do so.

I should also tell you that the complaints lodged against Bill Elliott had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he came to the RCMP as a civilian.

During his first three years as commissioner, we did not see one complaint against him from inside the RCMP. Although his behaviour was the same from day one as it is now, we chose to work with him and support him, instead of complaining about him. Three years later, with nothing changed and his behaviour getting worse by the day, it boiled over and resulted in the situation that we found ourselves in this past summer.

I can tell you that there were many more employees, police officers, civilian members, and public servants who wanted to stand up and speak. Many did. However, once they saw what happened to me, many backed off, fearing that they would be removed from their positions the way I was.

I felt it important to provide this background, as I felt that my integrity and motives, as well as those of others, were being questioned. In any event, with the announcement this past Friday, I'm hoping that this is now behind us and we can focus on the future, rather than looking back.

If the RCMP is to progress, governance and management of the force will have to be key issues for the government. The RCMP needs to become better, stronger, more transparent, and able to adjust more quickly to the unpredictable nature of police work. One example is the creation of a board of management that can assist and even challenge the commissioner on non-operational matters.

This was a recommendation made in 2007 by the task force on governance and cultural change in the RCMP. It was later supported by the reform implementation council. I dare say that if a board of management had been in place, this whole affair of last summer would not have happened.

The other important requirement for the RCMP to be successful is for it to gain autonomy from government in financial and human resources. In order to do that, a separate employer status is undoubtedly the preferred option.

The RCMP Act will also need to be amended to allow for a swifter discipline process. In other words, we need the ability to get rid of the bad apples in a shorter timeframe.

In respect of civilian oversight, although we have made some progress in the investigation of serious incidents involving RCMP members, the introduction of Bill C-38 and the creation of an independent civilian review and complaints body with more power would be an improvement and go a long way towards accountability and transparency.

The RCMP's next commissioner will have to be a strong leader who can rally the troops, someone everybody can believe in and support.

As to whether this person should be a civilian or a police officer, there no longer appears to be a debate on this question. The next commissioner should be a police officer. That person does not necessarily have to be a member of the RCMP. However, knowledge of the RCMP, given its size and diverse mandate, would be a huge asset.

I'm hopeful that the RCMP can put forward at least a half-dozen strong candidates. Failure to do that would reflect poorly on our officer development efforts over the last three years.

The position of RCMP commissioner is by no means an easy one. In fact, it is likely one of the most difficult positions to hold, because of the size and diverse mandate of the organization. In addition, modern policing is very complex, and problems often arise.

The sign of a strong leader will be how this person deals with problems as they arise, along with the level of accountability, transparency, and willingness to admit to errors when they occur. Corrective measures would then have to be implemented and communicated to the public.

The next commissioner will also have to be secure enough in his or her position to be able to listen to what others have to say, and not be afraid of being challenged. In the end, strong leadership will win the day.

That concludes my presentation, Mr. Chair.

Mr. McDonell and I would be happy to answer the committee's questions.

Thank you.

Business of the House

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I will start with the hon. member's last question first.

The member is right, that was an extremely long question. I pointed out to this place that the Liberals were making it a common practice of writing questions that should be divided into several questions rather than just one. The question that I read into the record of this House took over 15 minutes to read. It is an attempt by the Liberal Party, continuous attempts by the Liberals, to obfuscate, to delay the proceedings of this House and to, quite frankly, impede the ability of government departments to get on with important government legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that you, in your wisdom, will rule on that very important point of order as quickly as possible.

With respect to the business today, we will continue with the Liberal opposition motion and business of supply. Tomorrow we will hopefully complete the final stage of C-30, Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Shoker Act. Following Bill C-30, we will call, at report stage, Bill S-6, Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime Act.

On Monday, we will continue with any business not concluded this week, with the addition of Bill C-43, Royal Canadian Mounted Police Modernization Act, and Bill C-12, Democratic Representation Act.

On Tuesday, we would like to complete the third reading stage of Bill C-21, Standing up for Victims of White Collar Crime Act.

Next week, we will also give consideration to any bills that are reported back from committee. Further, if time permits, we would also debate next week Bill C-38, Ensuring the Effective Review of RCMP Civilian Complaints Act; Bill C-50; Bill C-51, Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act; Bill C-53, Fair and Efficient Criminal Trials Act; and Bill C-19, Political Loans Accountability Act.

Finally, on Tuesday evening, we will have a take-note debate on the trade agreement with the European Union, and on that subject, I would ask my colleague, the chief government whip, to move the appropriate motion.

Ensuring the Effective Review of RCMP Civilian Complaints Act

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-38, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)