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.

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

You talked about the perception of the RCMP by the population, in connection with human resources. Bill C-42 would help to improve the perception...

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you very much.

Mr. MacMillan, before I turn the rest of my time over to Mr. Norlock, could you comment on a couple of things? I'm not sure if you were here for Mr. Kennedy's testimony with regard to the new civilian review and complaints commission. Could you comment on some of his opinions, and if you agree or disagree?

Perhaps you could also tell us from where you are and what you have seen in terms of dealing with RCMP discipline, with member discipline, and the adjudication services, if Bill C-42 will help and will have a positive effect on the RCMP as well as Canadians' trust in them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Kennedy.

Our time in this first hour has come to a close.

We want to thank both of you, Mr. Plecas and Mr. Kennedy, for your submissions today, and for your attendance via video conference and your presence.

We're going to suspend for about one minute to allow Mr. Kennedy to make his exit and to invite our other guests to take their place.

In our second hour, we're going to continue our consideration of Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts. We're hearing from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police today.

We have Chief Superintendent Craig MacMillan, who returns with a little different hat today as the director general of adjudicative services. We also have Alain Jolicoeur, chair of the audit committee.

I would invite each of you to make a brief opening statement, and then we'll proceed with a round of questioning by members of the committee.

Mr. Jolicoeur.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I need to clarify a couple of things for the record.

Many of the recommendations in Mr. O'Connor's report are in Bill C-42, and I'm reading from the bill:

45.39 (1) Subject to sections 45.4 and 45.42, the Commission is entitled to have access to any information under the control, or in the possession, of the Force that the Commission considers is relevant to the exercise of its powers, or the performance of its duties and functions, under Parts VI and VII.

We move along to where it says:

45.4 (1) In this section and sections 45.41 to 45.48, “privileged information” means information that is subject to....

It lists client-lawyer privilege, the witness protection program, the security of Canadians, and then medical information. Even if that is deemed to be privileged, that decision would then go to:

...a former judge of a superior court of a province or the Federal Court or an individual who is a member of a prescribed category of individuals to review the information and make observations to the Commission and the Commissioner.

I do understand, Mr. Kennedy, that you think the commission should have complete unfettered access at all times to all the information. There is some protection for all Canadians, that they are innocent until proven guilty. There is some protection for Canadians regarding privileged information.

With regard to when investigations that the commission would be looking at when they cross over to criminal investigations, it would appear that you would agree they should be suspended. You're just saying that you believe the commission should have the ability to say that, and the commissioner should have no ability to say that. I guess, under this bill, it would also give the commissioner of the RCMP the ability to say, “This is a criminal investigation. We're going to move it now to...”. If it's a serious incident, there are several processes to set up, whereby there will be investigations.

I think that we are in agreement that with the spirit and intent of this new bill—and Mr. Plecas, I'll come to you as well—we are moving forward with some much-needed changes to the RCMP. We're giving the commission many more powers, tremendous powers that they've not had before, as well as the commissioner, the ability to do his or her job.

Mr. Plecas, you said things like, the desire to be remedial is so strong, that there's a high level of tolerance for misbehaviour. When you look at modernizing the disciplinary processes whereby the RCMP right now are able to discipline complaints of lesser seriousness, do you think that with the ability to deal with things at a less serious level, it will send the message? It's like the broken window analogy, where you deal with things immediately and you deal with things, sometimes with education, sometimes with mediation, sometimes with discipline. Will it send a signal. Do you think your research shows that there would be an effect? Would members see that accountability is now required under this new act?

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

Thank you.

Mr. Kennedy, in the bill, proposed new clause 45.74 provides that the new commission must suspend any inquiry at the request of the RCMP commissioner if that person considers that the inquiry interferes with an ongoing criminal investigation.

You have a lot of experience in this area. Honestly, are you in favour of that provision in Bill C-42, or do you think it interferes with the autonomy of the commission that is going to be created?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Plecas and Mr. Kennedy, I want to thank you for having come to share your point of view on Bill C-42 with us. We greatly appreciate it.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Yes, I think most people would probably agree with that.

One of the things they're trying to do with Bill C-42 is push the disciplinary authority down to the lowest possible level, presumably to speed it up and so on.

In your reviews of this process, did you look at that at all with respect to the training required down to the detachment commander level? Whether it's a corporal or a staff sergeant, whoever is commanding the detachment and has the authority to administer discipline would presumably need some kind of training and guidance to make him or her more effective.

[Paul Kennedy, As an Individual]

I certainly want to thank you for offering me the opportunity to comment on Bill C-42.

I will be making comments with respect to parts VI and VII, which deal with the civilian review and complaints, as found at approximately page 35 of the bill.

To be effective and credible, a review body must, as of right, be able to access any information held by the RCMP that it deems necessary and relevant. The provisions of Bill C-42, at pages 40 to 44, establish an elaborate regime that authorizes the commissioner of the RCMP to withhold from examination and review by the civilian review body a broad range of privileged information. The proposed regime calls for the designation of a third party, who will be afforded access to the information, and, following receipt of submissions, will offer observations concerning the relevance of the information to the review undertaken by the civilian review body. Throughout the entire process, the review body will be kept in the dark as to the nature of any information that it has in fact requested.

I envisage that these provisions would have greatest application in respect of the federal mandate of the RCMP as it pertains to provincial, interprovincial, and international organized crime, economic crime, terrorism, and a host of investigations that entail collaboration with foreign agencies both in the police and national security areas.

The scheme as outlined in the proposed legislation is a direct repudiation of the policy recommendations made by Justice O'Connor of the Ontario Court of Appeal, who sat as a commissioner on the Arar inquiry, as well as the observations of Mr. Brown in respect of his task force report of December 14, 2007, on governance and cultural change in the RCMP. The existence of such a regime in the legislation fails to take note of the abuse to which such claims of privilege can be put by the RCMP, which abuse was a subject of severe criticism by Justice Major, formerly of the Supreme Court of Canada, in the Air India inquiry. This provision also stands in stark contrast to the power of access afforded the Security intelligence Review Committee in respect of information held by CSIS.

Of some concern as well are the provisions of proposed section 45.74 as found at page 64 of the bill. Proposed subsection 45.74(1) authorizes the chair of the civilian review body to:

suspend an investigation, review or hearing with respect to a complaint if, in the Commission’s opinion, continuing it would compromise or seriously hinder an ongoing criminal investigation or proceeding.

Proposed subsection 45.74(2) covers the same factual situation, but states that the chair of the civilian review body shall—it's mandatory—suspend the process if “requested to do so in writing by the Commissioner” of the RCMP.

One must ask oneself how much credibility the civilian review body would have in the public eye were it to have its review process terminated by a letter authored by the head of the organization over which it purports to exercise review. I would submit that it would have no credibility.

The bill provides for service standards respecting time limits with which the review body will deal with complaints. Other than a provision found in proposed section 45.63, which is on page 57 of the bill, the RCMP has no firm timeframes. The only obligation imposed on the RCMP is to respond as soon as feasible. Inordinate and unjustifiable delay was the hallmark of the RCMP during the four-plus years that I was chair of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP. I should note it wasn't just because I was the chair. When I was there I inherited a situation where there were backlogs of five years. The first case I signed was 10 years old. It was a cell death case and I was writing a letter to the family members of someone who had died 10 years before. It was not a very good situation.

I believe that an essential role of civilian review is to restore and maintain the public's confidence in the police. Delay in resolving complaints erodes the review body's ability to fulfill that function.

I believe that the chair of the review body should be appointed for a fixed non-renewable term. Ideally, the chair should be an officer of Parliament, in light of the national role the RCMP fulfills in the three territories and eight provinces.

Thank you for your kind attention.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Good afternoon, everyone. This is meeting number 53 of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, on Monday, October 22, 2012. Today we are continuing our consideration of Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

In our first hour, we will hear from Mr. Paul Kennedy, who is appearing as an individual. He has been in the Department of Public Safety in the past.

Also, by video conference from Upper Fraser, British Columbia, we have Darryl Plecas, Royal Canadian Mounted Police research chair and the director of the Centre for Public Safety and Criminal Justice Research at the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of the Fraser Valley. He is also appearing as an individual today.

I would invite each of you to make your opening comments. Mr. Kennedy, I would invite you to go first. Then we will proceed with rounds of questioning from all parties and from different individuals around the table.

Welcome, Mr. Kennedy. Welcome, Mr. Plecas.

Mr. Kennedy, go ahead, please.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Just so we're clear, Bill C-42 will not affect the work you do and your ability to continue to have external review processes of decisions.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

I see, so it could actually be the complainants within the RCMP.

What I'm quite pleased with in Bill C-42 is that it looks like there's a real modernization of the way discipline is dealt with. A move more towards education, towards dealing with things immediately, conflict resolution—some of the basic tools that most human resource managers have in just about any organization in the country.

Do you anticipate fewer appeals, more satisfaction of outcomes, and fewer cases going to an adjudication board? Do you anticipate that things would result in a more satisfactory manner for all parties?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

And thank you, Ms. Ebbs and Mr. Paradiso, for being here with us today.

I think for a lot of Canadians watching, it can be a bit confusing—all the different review boards and types of processes whereby the RCMP are able to file a grievance, or even further back, if there's discipline required. I think for most people the entire process is a bit confusing.

I'll tell you what I understand it to be, and you can tell me if I'm confusing things as they are currently. Then we can compare and contrast what the process will be under Bill C-42 and the role you will continue to play.

Our understanding is that if discipline is required for a specific member of the RCMP, many times it's not been able to be dealt with in a quick and efficient way. It has to go to an adjudication board, and it can take quite a long time for that to be determined. If the member is not satisfied, that's when it comes to you.

Am I correct?

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

How exactly will the reform set out in Bill C-42 change the process? Will you have the authority to do more than just make recommendations? In other words, which changes will affect you the most?

[Catherine Ebbs]

As I just explained, we know that the commissioner accepts our recommendations in the majority of cases. Under the current legislation—and this will not change after Bill C-42 is passed—if the commissioner ever decides not to accept our recommendations, he must provide his reasons in writing. That is the current procedure.

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

To your mind, will Bill C-42 lead to a fairer and more equitable process?