Bill C-42 (Historical)

Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act

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

This enactment enhances the accountability of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police by reforming the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act in two vital areas. First, it strengthens the Royal Canadian Mounted Police review and complaints body and implements a framework to handle investigations of serious incidents involving members. Second, it modernizes discipline, grievance and human resource management processes for members, with a view to preventing, addressing and correcting performance and conduct issues in a timely and fair manner.
It establishes a new complaints commission, the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (CRCC). Most notably, it sets out the authority for the CRCC to have broad access to information in the control or possession of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, it sets out the CRCC’s investigative powers, it permits the CRCC to conduct joint complaint investigations with other police complaints bodies and it authorizes the CRCC to undertake policy reviews of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
It establishes a mechanism to improve the transparency and accountability of investigations of serious incidents (death or serious injury) involving members, including referring the investigations to provincial investigative bodies when possible and appointing independent civilian observers to assess the impartiality of the investigations when they are carried out by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or another police service.
It modernizes the Royal Canadian Mounted Police’s human resources management regime. In particular, it authorizes the Commissioner to act with respect to staffing, performance management, disputes relating to harassment and general human resource management.
It grants the Commissioner the authority to establish a consolidated dispute resolution framework with the flexibility to build redress processes through policies or regulations. It provides for a disciplinary process that will empower managers or other persons acting as conduct authorities to impose a wide range of conduct measures in response to misconduct and that requires conduct hearings only in cases when dismissal is being sought.
It also contains a mechanism to deem certain members as being persons appointed under the Public Service Employment Act at a time to be determined by the Treasury Board.

[Tom Stamatakis]

One concern is that there doesn't appear to be any distinction between the types of examples of conduct or misconduct that Mr. Hiebert is referring to versus allegations of criminal misconduct. That's one big concern.

The other thing is that in other provincial statutory regimes that exist to deal with police misconduct, there is an obligation to provide a statement. I would tend to agree that typically in an employee-employer situation, employees are obligated to account. In those provincial statues that have been established to deal with misconduct, there are also protections for the officers so that when those statements are provided in response to a complaint around rudeness or what would typically be viewed as minor or less serious misconduct, there are protections so that those statements can't be used in some other form. Bill C-42 doesn't appear to contain any of those similar kinds of protections.

We have to recognize that when you are dealing with police officers, it's not just going to be an investigation into misconduct within the context of a police act or within the context of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act; there typically will be a civil suit. There will probably be some kind of a coroner's inquest. There may be a public inquiry. There may also be a criminal investigation.

That's where you have to find the balance. You have to create the mechanism for an employer, whether it's the RCMP or some other municipal or provincial police force, to be able to get the information they need and to be able to respond to the public, but while doing that, provide some protection so that information can't then later be used in some other process that puts the police officer in a significant amount of jeopardy, and even the organization in some jeopardy, with respect to civil litigation or other risk management issues.

[Dr. Alok Mukherjee, President, Canadian Association of Police Boards]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Members of the committee, thank you for giving us an opportunity to offer our comments on this legislation that is very important to our organization, as it is to you and to the government.

The police boards and commissions that make up our members are responsible for the governance and oversight of more than 75% of the municipal police in Canada. They manage the police services of their municipalities, set priorities, establish policy, and represent the public interest to civilian governance and oversight. It is from this perspective of governance and oversight that we generally welcome Bill C-42.

It was over five years ago that we were consulted, and I was one of them, by officials of the Department of Public Safety regarding issues of governance and oversight for the RCMP. We believe that Bill C-42 is a good step forward in enhancing accountability, modernizing the force's human resources practices, and strengthening civilian oversight. It is to be hoped that these measures will increase public trust in the RCMP, which, as Minister Toews and others have noted, has suffered of late.

To this end, we applaud the objectives stated in the preamble to the proposed legislation.

Rather than dealing with any specific element of the bill, I wish to comment generally on some of the proposals with respect to governance and oversight in terms of the implications of certain provisions.

Our interest in effective governance and oversight of the RCMP is twofold. First, insofar as the RCMP provides contract policing to local communities, we believe that it should have a system of governance similar to that for municipal police services. Second, insofar as RCMP engages in joint operations and integrated policing with our municipal police services, we believe that it should be subject to effective oversight similar to that which exists for its municipal counterparts.

Local governance in jurisdictions where the RCMP provides contract policing is an important issue for us, as it should be for the force and the government. About 65% of the RCMP's budget, we are told, comes from contract policing. Further, in addition to providing policing services to provinces and territories, the RCMP serves more than 200 municipalities and 165 aboriginal communities across Canada.

The proposed legislation does attempt to address some local concerns. While beneficial, they are not measures that enhance local governance in contract policing jurisdictions. We would urge you to give consideration to this area in your deliberations. A report on RCMP municipal contract policing prepared for the Federation of Canadian Municipalities in 2009 makes the following observation:

A number of characteristics are generally accepted as essential to good governance; these include being accountable, transparent, responsive, effective and efficient, equitable and inclusive. Most respondents had concerns with governance in RCMP municipal policing on these fronts.

Accountability to the community is perceived by many municipalities to be a lower priority within the RCMP than accountability to RCMP headquarters.

Attention to governance generally, and not only to local governance, is largely absent from Bill C-42. We—that is, the CAPB—submit that strong governance would greatly enhance the RCMP's accountability and transparency. This is, for us, a matter of great importance, particularly given the increased powers proposed to be vested in the commissioner by Bill C-42. It is one that we have discussed extensively during our consultation with public safety officials.

We submitted a letter to your committee dated October 18 that deals with this subject at some length, so I will not say much more about it other than that in our respectful submission, adopting a modern, effective governance system for the RCMP will build confidence by ensuring greater accountability to elected officials, taxpayers, and most importantly, the communities served by the RCMP.

I would now like to talk about effective oversight as distinct from governance, particularly from the point of view of communities that do not have contract policing but whose police services are nonetheless involved in joint operations and integrated policing with the RCMP.

The current situation is unacceptable, as I discovered in my role as chair of the Toronto Police Services Board during the G20 summit in Toronto. While the police service that we oversee--that is, the Toronto Police Service--was held accountable by a system of provincial and local oversight, the RCMP was not subject to anything that came close for its role in this highly sensitive integrated policing project with significant national security implications.

The current oversight mechanism, the CPC, as has been noted by several witnesses appearing before you, is woefully inadequate. I believe that the provisions in Bill C-42 will go a long way in filling this gap. We are heartened by the fact that the proposed CRCC will have the power to undertake reviews of the RCMP's policies and procedures, have access to more documents than is the case at present, be able to compel evidence, and deal more expeditiously with public complaints.

We are also very supportive of the ability of provincial ministers responsible for policing to initiate investigations and of provincial oversight agencies to undertake independent and joint investigations. These are good measures and should contribute to greater public confidence.

We do, however, share the concerns that have been expressed already about some of the other provisions of the bill. We fear that they could undermine true, effective oversight. In particular, we would urge you to review the justification for the limits on what documents the CRCC may not have access to, the ability of the commissioner to cause an investigation to be suspended because of the possibility of a criminal investigation, the ability of the commissioner to refuse to investigate a complaint that in the CRCC chair's view it would be in the public interest to investigate, the absence of service standards requiring the force to take timely action when such standards are envisaged for the commission, and the lack of what interim CPC chair Ian McPhail in his comments to you called “a robust review regime”.

We share Staff Sergeant Abe Townsend's concern regarding the concentration of that much power in one office, on the one hand, and the inability of the commission on the other to make compelling recommendations. Those are Staff Sergeant Townsend's words.

Finally, we take issue with Director General Mark Potter's characterization of handling of public complaints as CRCC's core business and with Bill C-42's subjecting of reviews to availability of resources, among other considerations. Unless these imbalances are fixed, we are afraid that despite all the enhanced powers given to the new commission, it will be seen to exist on the sufferance of the very institution and the very head that it is supposed to oversee. We do not think that this will contribute to achieving the objective that Bill C-42 seeks, namely greater public trust through greater accountability.

I'll be glad to answer any questions, and thank you very much.

[Tom Stamatakis, President, Canadian Police Association]

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for providing the opportunity to address you today regarding Bill C-42, the Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act.

I'm speaking today on behalf of the Canadian Police Association, an organization that represents over 50,000 front-line law enforcement personnel across Canada in over 160 member associations, including some members of the RCMP.

I have just a few brief opening remarks, and then I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have.

I'd like to begin my remarks by saying that as police officers, whether within the RCMP, a provincial police force, or a municipal police force, having the confidence of the public we serve is of paramount importance. While there's no doubt that recent events have put our colleagues within the RCMP under the microscope, we cannot emphasize enough that the men and women who make up Canada's national police force are, by and large, a credit to our country and the communities they represent.

Bill C-42contains a number of positive elements. However, there are some areas of this proposed legislation that cause concern, and I'd like to take this opportunity to briefly highlight those, particularly from the perspective of a front-line police officer.

The first area I'll touch on is that there is no doubt that streamlining the discipline and grievance process for RCMP members is a desirable goal. Bill C-42provides the commissioner with extraordinary powers in this regard, powers that go beyond what one might find in other police services across Canada.

For example, in Ontario, a police officer who is subject to a disciplinary process retains the right to appeal the decision to the independent Ontario Civilian Police Commission, a quasi-judicial body that provides an impartial review of the process and ultimately a decision.

Without any additional, and most importantly, independent avenue for appeal, I would suggest there is a possibility that RCMP members could lose faith in the impartiality of a process against them, particularly in situations in which the commissioner has delegated his authority for discipline.

Clause 40 of Bill C-42 is another area of serious concern, as it deals with investigations when an RCMP member has contravened the code of conduct within the force. First, the legislation specifies that an officer can be compelled to testify against herself or himself. Second, the legislation sets out the conditions under which a warrant can be issued under the RCMP Act to potentially search the residence of an RCMP member, under the direction of the commissioner of the RCMP or another officer who has been delegated that authority. That's particularly troubling when we're dealing with largely an administrative process designed to deal with conduct issues that arise through the RCMP officer's employment.

Unfortunately, both of these provisions, while hopefully well-intentioned, are seemingly violations of the basic Charter of Rights and Freedoms that all Canadian citizens enjoy and that should not be ignored simply because someone is a member of the RCMP. In fact, I can only imagine the public outcry that would follow should our front-line officers conduct their own criminal investigations under provisions similar to those included within Bill C-42.

A final area that I'd like to highlight comes out of the testimony this committee has heard regarding avenues of redress that RCMP members might be able to take following a ruling that calls for the dismissal of an officer.

Officials from the Department of Public Safety, including Mr. Richard Wex and Mr. Mark Potter, pointed out that judicial review was always available for an officer who wished to appeal a commissioner's ruling under the new provisions of this legislation.

Unfortunately, this runs up against a long-standing issue that the Canadian Police Association has been trying to address, which is that the RCMP remains the only police service in Canada that continues to be denied the right to associate.

There's no doubt that judicial review is an important aspect, but, as this committee knows, taking a case through the court process is not without cost, and without an association to represent the member or to help defray the cost, this avenue may be beyond the means of an officer who has just recently lost employment based on a discipline judgment in what most often will be largely an administrative process.

Obviously this is only a brief overview of the concerns that the Canadian Police Association has on this legislation. I'd be happy to expand on or clarify any of these areas for the benefit of committee members during our question and answer period, or on any other areas I might be able to assist members with before you begin your substantive deliberations on this legislation.

To conclude, there's no doubt that our colleagues within the RCMP face unprecedented challenges, but there needs to be a sense of balance. We cannot take steps to restore or enhance the public's confidence with the RCMP at the expense of weakening RCMP members' own confidence with their employer. There is room for management and front-line officers to come together, as evidenced by the collective agreements arrived at with provincial and municipal police forces across Canada. I hope this committee is able to amend Bill C-42 at this stage in order to best find that balance that allows the RCMP to continue its role as Canada's national police service.

Thank you for your time, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

[S/Sgt Gaétan Delisle]

I think they're going to let me speak.

Let's not delude ourselves here. The point of Bill C-42 is to give the commissioner of the RCMP more power. But, as you can see from our brief, he already has all that power. Conversely, if we had independent labour relations tribunals or other specialized tribunals, you would see a major change in labour relations.

The committee has heard from division staff representatives such as Mr. Townsend. They told you first-hand that they were responsible for labour relations and represented all the members of the RCMP. And yet, all of them told you that they weren't consulted on Bill C-42. Imagine what kinds of work relationships occur in an organization that has 17,000 officers across Canada. Don't kid yourselves. These individuals don't represent members because they are paid. These people work for the organization and are promoted from within. I know, I used to be one of them.

But you won't see regular members coming here to testify. In fact, I tip my hat to my colleagues who have already appeared before you. The reason is quite simple. My colleague, André Girard, who was also a division staff representative, and I have both been the targets of harassment complaints. My colleague wasn't even able to represent himself. Mr. Girard had sent a letter to the solicitor general expressing his views on certain practices within the RCMP. Don't kid yourselves. It has to be done.

Do I still have a minute or two?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I call this meeting back to order.

In our second hour, we have a panel of witnesses today as we continue our consideration of Bill C-42.

We’ll hear from the Quebec Mounted Police Members' Association. Gaétan Delisle is the association's president, Staff Sergeant André Girard is the treasurer, and Mr. James Duggan is the association's legal adviser.

We also have Tom Stamatakis from Vancouver, the president of the Canadian Police Association, ready to testify. Also to testify by video conference, we have Alok Mukherjee from Toronto, the president of the Canadian Association of Police Boards.

We welcome each of you.

We will begin with the Quebec Mounted Police Members' Association. Please give us your prepared statements. Then we'll move on to statements from others and then to a round of questioning.

Monsieur Delisle, go ahead.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

You're basically saying that this isn't something that changes with Bill C-42.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much.

Before we go to the next question, I have one question that I would like to put.

Earlier you were talking about the ordered statement. Your concern was that you felt that the ordered statement could be used against you in a further civil or criminal code charge. However, the act already says that you're compelled to give a statement but that the statement can't be used against you. That's what the RCMP Act says now.

How do you believe that this bill changes that? I can't see any change in Bill C-42 that would change that. In the old act it says you're compelled to give a statement but that the statement, under no circumstance, can be used against you in a criminal charge or civil suit.

[Cpl Patrick Mehain]

It may, but part of the problem is that it's management, whether that's a non-commissioned officer, a corporal of my rank, or all the way up to the commissioner. We're generally the ones who are conducting the harassment, because you're the supervisors.

There is a big fear among the membership to say anything against their bosses for fear of being classified as a troublemaker, a problem child, or whatever. Those managers, whether they're corporals, sergeants, staff sergeants, officers, or whatever, continue to harass through giving them negative duties to do, or assignments they don't really want to do, or making belittling comments, or going over their work with a fine tooth comb, simply making it generally troublesome for them coming to work. It happens today. It's still going on. Members have told me, prior to my coming here, that they won't be complaining; there is no point in complaining, because nothing is ever done.

With regard to Bill C-42, if members aren't allowed to speak or aren't allowed to blow the whistle, nobody is going to be talking, so while you've effectively muzzled the RCMP and got rid of the problem by shutting us all up, it doesn't take away the difficulties.

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

Even if Bill C-42 were to give the commissioner more power, it would not change the facts or necessarily prevent harassment within the RCMP?

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

Thank you kindly, Mr. Chair.

I want to start by thanking the witnesses for joining us today, both in person and from Whitehorse, up north.

If you don't mind, my questions will be for the gentlemen who are sitting around the table today, Mr. Creasser and Mr. Mehain.

Bill C-42 supposedly tackles sexual and psychological harassment, or workplace harassment in general, within the RCMP. Will it really change anything in terms of the sexual and psychological harassment that goes on?

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Okay, thank you very much.

I think it's important to make that distinction. Some people, such as the average civilian who is not a police officer working within the police community, wouldn't understand that.

To go back to Bill C-42, I am interested to know why you don't believe that a timely resolution to problems or complaints wouldn't be in the best interests of the officers themselves. This committee has heard evidence from other witnesses....

Mr. Creasser, these questions are for Mr. Mehain, since he's a serving member, but please feel free to kick in if necessary.

In your opening statement you said it has taken up to seven years. Under proposed Bill C-42, many or most of these complaints would be dealt with in a far more expedient manner. I'm interested to know why you don't think that's a good thing.

[Corporal Patrick Mehain, President, British Columbia, Mounted Police Professional Association of Canada]

The issue we see with Bill C-42 is that streamlining takes away from the due process that all members should be entitled to with regard to a fair hearing, etc.

The way we look at it is that the commissioner and his officers are able to make decisions based on whether you provide a statement or not. They could make a decision that could affect your career, fire you, or do anything they want, so you either have to testify or ultimately you could face a decision of being fired.

One of the problems with the grievance system we have is that, as the RCMP, we can grieve anything. If I don't like anything, I can grieve absolutely anything.

We agree that this whole process needs to be speeded up and addressed and certain things designated that can or cannot be grieved. The problem we have, as you stated, is outside the scope of this bill. There is too much that isn't addressed or isn't under our collective agreement that we can understand. As a member, I can say I understand I can do this or that, and management can say they understand they can do this or that.

One of the problems we have had historically is that we're supposed to be governed by the Treasury Board, yet there is a caveat in every part of the RCMP Act that allows the commanding officer or the officer in charge to change that ruling simply because it makes his business line much better or more effective, regardless of the fact that we're supposed to be governed by Treasury Board. The way we see it is that the bill, as it is now drafted, provides the commissioner too much power. As Rob stated earlier, the commissioner has always had the ability to fire people. That has never been an issue.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Yes, it does, absolutely.

In part of those meetings, now or in the future, will the public there be made aware of any of the recommendations and changes in Bill C-42, outside of the efforts that I make in the territory?

[Rob Creasser, Media Liaison, British Columbia, Mounted Police Professional Association of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and this committee for recognizing the need to hear the views of the rank-and-file members with regard to Bill C-42.

My name is Rob Creasser, and I am the national spokesperson for the Mounted Police Professional Association of Canada and a retired 28-year member of the RCMP. With me is Corporal Patrick Mehain, a current serving member in Coquitlam, B.C., with 15 years of service.

One major problem that exists in the RCMP is the tremendous power imbalances within the organization. Bill C-42, rather than mitigating these issues, will only make them exponentially worse.

Staff Sergeant Abe Townsend, when asked about whether the staff relations representatives were consulted on Bill C-42 during the drafting stage, stated they had not been, yet in the commissioner's own testimony before the Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence in Ottawa on June 21, 2012, he stated that he views the SRR program as vital in the RCMP.

This dichotomy is not a surprise to us, because this is the way the consultative process works in the RCMP. Management only consults when they want their directives transmitted to the rank and file, yet the staff relations representatives still hold out hope of meaningful consultation. In the meantime, members of the force continue to face bullying, harassment, and undue delays in resolving their grievances.

While there are many provisions of concern in the bill, we will focus on four major headings under the following: charter violations, independence of the RCMP from political interference, extreme powers given to the commissioner, and women's issues and harassment. We will also provide three simple steps to remedy the major issues of harassment, intimidation, and bullying in the RCMP while making it more accountable.

Under charter violations, with reference to ordered statements and proposed subsections 40(1) and 40(2), the requirement that compels a member to make a statement even if it is self-incriminating is contrary to charter rights and must be removed.

Ex parte warrants for the discipline process under proposed subsection 40.2(1), again, are a violation of the charter rights of members against unreasonable search and seizure. It is surprising, because by Commissioner Paulson's own testimony police officers had a vital role to play in drafting this bill and yet these very obvious charter violations, which RCMP members would not be allowed to commit during criminal investigations, are somehow okay when it comes to dealing with citizens who are members of the force.

On independence from political interference, the appointment of the commissioner and deputy commissioners at pleasure in proposed subsection 5(3) opens the office of the commissioner up to the problem of political interference in police matters. The commissioner and deputy commissioners of the RCMP should serve at the pleasure and be answerable to an independent bipartisan parliamentary committee in order to prevent the RCMP from being used to promote political motives.

Chief Superintendent Craig MacMillan highlighted various problems in the RCMP in his doctoral thesis, “A Modern Star Chamber: An Analysis of Ordered Statements in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police”, yet Chief Superintendent MacMillan has completely gone against his own research into the culture of the RCMP in helping draft Bill C-42.

This highlights yet another of the main issues that Bill C-42 does not actually remedy, this one being that the current promotion system has been used very effectively to silence those members who point out issues, first by promising promotions and then, when that does not work, by threatening their careers by withholding job and promotional opportunities.

On national security, under proposed subsections 31(1.3) and 31(1.4), the Minister of Public Safety has the right to direct the RCMP to take an action under the guise of national security, but the minister does not have to provide any evidence of the threat. The RCMP has been ordered to violate existing Canadian law in terms of the use of torture-related info. As police officers, we are sworn not only to protect life and property but also to bring those who violate our laws to justice.

Terrorism is a concern, but we can draw from the experience of our compatriots across the pond in the United Kingdom and set up a national security committee, which would include members from all political parties in Parliament and would also have as members the heads of the RCMP, CSIS, CBSA, and CSE, as well as special judges who would hear the evidence the government has and make the final decision. That way we involve those entrusted with national security and also those who are sworn to protect Canadian and international law decisions.

On power given to the commissioner, here we refer to proposed paragraphs 20.2(1)(c), 20.2(1)(e), 20.2(1)(g), 20.2(1)(i), and 20.2(1)(k) and proposed subsections 20.2(3) and 20.2(4). The Commissioner of the RCMP has always had the ability to get rid of members who have contravened their sworn duty to uphold the law. We agree that this process needs to be streamlined, but Bill C-42 gives the office of the commissioner much too much power. The RCMP has had problems with commissioners who have abused this power in the past.

We also have concerns with the requirement for a member to attend a doctor of management's choosing.

On firing people for economic efficiency, the force spends tens of thousands of dollars to recruit, train, and equip members, and then it fires these members, thus essentially flushing the money spent and the investigative experience gained by these members down the drain. When times improve, we have to spend taxpayers' money to start the process all over again. This provision also leaves the employment of members open to the problem of becoming another tool for harassment and bullying by managers.

Another issue is the power of the RCMP commissioner, under proposed subsection 20.2(4), to delegate authority to subordinates for dismissals. The RCMP is predominantly made up of small work sites—detachments—so quite low ranks could be making decisions that reflect the entire force, yet training is sorely lacking.

Finally, on women's issues and harassment, there can be no grievance in respect of the right to equal pay for equal work under proposed subsection 31(1.2). Gender discrimination and harassment are two of the most troublesome areas in the RCMP. This provision in the bill actually works to legitimize the problem of treating female and minority members in the RCMP as being unequal members in the force.

Under Bill C-42, there is no provision for the protection of whistleblowers within the force. Bill C-42 expressly prohibits a member from speaking publicly about issues within the force and lays out sanctions that the member will face for doing so.

If Bill C-42 is passed in its current form with the charter violations and avenues for continued abuse of power by managers, rather than correcting the issues that have plagued the RCMP, our Parliament would be promoting the bad behaviour and cronyism by legitimizing this type of behaviour.

In Chief Superintendent MacMillan's doctoral thesis, he stated:

One finding from the research is that the form of employee representation in the R.C.M.P., which was created, paid for and run by management, contributes to the actual or perceived vulnerability of members. Unlike other police employees who enjoy some protection by membership in an employee association, this feature is lacking in the R.C.M.P. Members simply do not have the numerical, moral or financial support to challenge improper actions by management. Denying the right to choose the form of employee representation by members undermines the R.C.M.P.'s newly proclaimed empowerment and management philosophies.

If Parliament is truly interested in beginning the process to address the problems that currently plague the RCMP, there are three simple and yet powerful steps that can be taken.

The first step is to bring in a process of collective bargaining to deal with employer/management-labour relations in the RCMP.

The second step is to bring in a process of independent binding arbitration to resolve grievances that cannot be resolved between management and labour. Make sure the arbitrator is independent of the influence of government, Treasury Board, RCMP management, and RCMP labour representatives. In the Vancouver Police Department, for example, grievances take, on average, a maximum of 28 days to be settled. The RCMP process takes much longer, and some have gone on for seven years or more.

Finally, the third step is to enact legislation that repeals section 96 of the RCMP Act and thereby allow the members to have the ability to have a free and truly democratic vote to elect independent, member-funded labour representatives.

The rank-and-file members of the RCMP are proud to serve the citizens of this country in all capacities, from the municipal level to international areas. All we ask is to be treated with the same dignity and be afforded the same rights as every other Canadian citizen.

Thank you.

[Thomas Ullyett]

Well, then, Mr. Chair, I will continue.

Like many places in the country, Yukon is now working under a new police services agreement. As you know, there is a new 20-year agreement in place. These changes come at a very opportune time. In fact, during the negotiation for the new agreements we now have, the need for reforms about many of the things contained in Bill C-42, including public complains and internal disciplinary systems of the RCMP, were raised by the Yukon government and other contract partners. Certainly in terms of the discussions we had with our colleagues at Public Safety Canada, we anticipated that the RCMP's legislative regime would be changed. That was our understanding, so we are happy to see that come. We're also aware of the Reform Implementation Council's work and their recommendations made in that regard.

We certainly support the concept that it's difficult for an organization, much less a police organization, to change and move forward into the 21st century with archaic legislation. That's another reason we are supportive of the changes. As I mentioned a moment ago, Mr. Chair, Yukon had conducted extensive public consultations in 2010 on policing as part of the policing review. That policing review was instituted as a result of an in-custody death in police cells of a gentleman named Raymond Silverfox in 2008. That led to the RCMP, the Yukon government, and the Council of Yukon First Nations to collaborate on an extensive policing review, resulting in the report called “Sharing Common Ground” two years ago.

During the course of that review, we heard from members of the public about the internal discipline system and what they felt was a baffling and very opaque system, a system they generally found to be remote and inaccessible. This is what we heard from Yukoners with respect to the complaint process. It was also a system that did not seem to be tuned in to the cultural sensitivity and realities of policing in a northern remote area of Canada.

Many of the 33 recommendations, Mr. Chair, that are found in the “Sharing Common Ground” report relate to the very changes being made in Bill C-42, such as the internal disciplinary system and the public complaints system. As I mentioned, we are supportive of the changes because the Yukon public asked us to make changes, and we know the changes fall within federal jurisdiction. You would certainly hope that the new civilian review and complains commission will shore up what is seen as a gap in terms of complaints and by complainants with the system.

Here in Yukon, we ventured into arrangements with Alberta to establish a regime for the investigation of serious incidents involving RCMP members, utilizing Alberta's serious incident response team—ASIRT, as it is called. Certainly Bill C-42 is in sync with that, providing independent investigations for serious incidents and changing the policy into legislation.

Finally, Mr. Chair, I would say that the implementation of these legislative changes, we hope, will strengthen the partnership that we have as a contract partner with the RCMP and that the actual practice on the ground will be mirrored by the very good intentions that are set out in Bill C-42.

Those are my opening remarks. Thank you.