Public Accounts Committee on Sept. 6th, 2007

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Kennedy.

Mr. Fitzpatrick is next, for four minutes.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you very much.

I appreciate the information that all three witnesses have provided to this committee today. Thank you for being here.

I'm starting to come to the conclusion that out of our committee there's one thing we could almost have unanimous agreement on, which is that a one-year limitation period for serious code of conduct infractions is ridiculous.

From what I can gather from the Brown report, the conduct was very serious, and because this arbitrary one-year rule was in place, procedures couldn't be implemented. I think that's most unfortunate. Some limitation periods can go as high as 10 years for serious things--seven years, five years--but one year just seems to be a very low standard.

I'm curious, Ms. McLellan; would you have any comments or suggestions on what the committee should be looking at in terms of a limitation on something like that--or the task force, as far as that goes--with your expertise?

[Anne McLellan]

I agree that the limitation period is too short.

We can all probably surmise why it's a year. You're dealing with code of conduct, internal discipline, and you want these matters dealt with as quickly as possible, because they can be debilitating for the morale of your organization, whether it's a law enforcement organization or any other. So people want to try to deal with these issues that could lead to discipline as quickly as possible, but I think we also know that sometimes you simply can't get all the facts, interview all the people, and get to the bottom of what happened.

Here, as Mr. Brown outlines, for example, Deputy Commissioner Braun stepped aside; he retired, and that's a perfectly legitimate personal choice on his part. There was even a delay of two or three months, I think, until Deputy Commissioner Sweeney stepped in as the appropriate officer. That's why I think a year just doesn't recognize the reality of fact-finding and the human dimension that sometimes enters into fact-finding, and why there could be delays that are nobody's fault, although I agree with Mr. Brown when he says that it was extremely careless on the part of the force to permit that limitation period to lapse.

I would think that at least a two-year limitation period would be reasonable, but I have no doubt that Mr. Brown will probably be looking at this in his task force report.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you very much for those comments.

Mr. Kennedy, you wanted to add something.

[Paul E. Kennedy]

I just want to point out that I believe in the province of Quebec they have a procedure where the clock doesn't run. What you run into sometimes with code of conduct offences is that they're also criminal--

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

When it's discovered.

[Paul E. Kennedy]

Well, whether or not there are criminal charges. So you have to let the criminal charge process run its course before you do the other. I believe they have a process where the clock does not start to run if there's an ongoing criminal investigation.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I have another observation, and I think Mr. Brown has it right on this point too.

If you were in the RCMP organization, the way it was structured then, and you found something that was wrong, really seriously wrong...I mean, talk about a catch-22 for the people who tried to deal with that. They took things to MPs. They took things to ministers. They took things to the Auditor General. They took things to ethics advisors. Maybe they tried to give stuff to Ms. Ebbs here, who was told that she couldn't hear them. It just went on and on. Talk about going around in a circle.

Really, what's sad is that they took the information, in some cases, to the wrong people. I mean the wrong people in the sense that it became a career-ending move for these individuals. I think of Colonel Klink in the old TV series. The message to people inside this organization, the way it was running, was, “I see nothing, I hear nothing, I do nothing”, which seems to be the whole effect of this.

Something else that I think is very clear too is that there were some things being done, but the structure in the RCMP was such that they didn't have the decency to go back to these folks and actually tell them, communicate to them, that things were being done, which might have alleviated some of the personal feuds that got going inside the organization.

It seems like such an elementary thing, but this paramilitary command structure just doesn't fit with a lot of these modern-day relationships that we have inside a large organization. These problems have to be addressed.

I'd be curious what your comments might be on that, Ms. McLellan and Mr. Kennedy and, I guess, the other lady as well.

[Paul E. Kennedy]

There's no doubt that the architecture has to be looked at to make it more relevant to the modern world. I think the present commissioner is probably wrestling with that. I think there is a world of difference between bringing in a 28-year-old or 29-year-old person to the Depot and making them a police officer, and bringing in an 18-year-old who lives in a paramilitary structure. They work side by each with other police forces where there are different life experiences.

It's going to be difficult to modernize and rejuvenate the force. It can be done and it must be done. I think we are in fact part of the solution here.

I'm sympathetic to Catherine Ebbs in terms of the comments, because we are what are called creatures of statute; we are what you make us. I've said before that I can't pretend to have a big long powerful arm if in fact it's cut off at the shoulder or if it's a puny little arm. You want more powerful or effective oversight to deal with these issues.

Only Parliament, through creating statutes, can give us those powers to make it more relevant. It's as simple as that. I'm glad you latched onto the issue with the tenacity that you have, but at the end of the day, if Parliament doesn't do it....

I can tell you in 1992 or 1993, I know in terms of my mandate, Peter Milliken, as an MP, put forward private member's legislation in response to a request for 33 legislative amendments. It was put forward in the second year that my commission was created. The then chair said, “This thing doesn't work”. There were 33 recommendations, and nothing has happened. Milliken tried once as a private member. Nothing has happened since. We have what we have because other things are obviously of greater priority.

So seize the moment.

[Anne McLellan]

If I may, I'll add to Mr. Kennedy's comments.

You will remember that with Mr. Justice O'Connor's report, there was a second part. We asked him to review the possibility of new review or oversight mechanisms for the RCMP as it related to their national security activities. Mr. Kennedy has already commented on that.

What we had obviously hoped to do was take Mr. Justice O'Connor's report and at that point take the opportunity to refashion the public complaints commission. We understood after 9/11 that it was because of the expansion of the RCMP's role as it related to national security and the emphasis on pre-emption and prevention and detection, much of which cannot be transparent but has to be covert and so on, that we needed to take a serious look at review and oversight.

Mr. Justice O'Connor was requested to do one piece of that, and he did an exceptional job. I was very pleased to see Minister Day indicate, after the public inquiry put in place during our tenure, that he was going to move on Mr. Justice O'Connor's recommendations. I think that now is the time, based on what we've learned from O'Connor and other things—what we're learning here—to take a really thorough look at what kinds of review mechanisms you need for a modern, 21st century police force, with all the challenges it faces.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Christopherson, you have four minutes, please.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I'm also going to help Ms. Ebbs raise her profile a little, but it will be very painless, I assure you.

I'm curious. You mentioned, if I understood correctly, that the commissioner really doesn't have any choice; everything is prescribed in law, as to what gets referred to your committee or not. My question would be, does it make sense to have that step in there? Or why is the step of the commissioner there if it's already clearly prescribed as to what goes where?

[Catherine Ebbs]

What you're really referring to is the fact that at the stage where a grievance or a discipline has been brought to the next level, the committee is a recommending body. The decision-maker is the commissioner at those levels for those cases; that's the reason the act reads that it's the commissioner who is the decision-maker, who refers the case to the committee for a recommendation.

In other words, the reason it's in that order is that the law does not give the committee the final decision-making power. It's a recommending body.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

We're confusing things. I'm going to go there too, but I'm at the early stage, as to whether or not you get something. My impression was--and please correct me if I'm wrong--that the commissioner has no discretion—

[Catherine Ebbs]

That's right.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

—and that the law says, this goes to the committee, and this doesn't; it goes elsewhere.

I'm just asking why, then, the step is even there, to go through the commissioner. Why, through the process, doesn't the last senior manager who has it just send it straight to you, if it's in the law and there's no discretion to be used? Why does it go to the commissioner? It seems like a silly step that's unnecessary. I'm wondering, is there something I'm not getting?

[Catherine Ebbs]

I think the simple answer is that the act is set up so that, for example, in a discipline case the member appeals to the commissioner. That's the way the act is set up. So the file goes from here to there. I think that's the only reason the file is routed there first, before it comes to the committee. I don't think there's really any significance—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

But it's fair to say—my words—that it's a sort of moot, redundant, unnecessary step. The same result would still happen, because the law is clear.

[Catherine Ebbs]

That's right.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Fair enough. I appreciate that.

The next point is this. You said that if the commissioner does not.... I'm going to go to another question, because I'm really short on time; because I want the answer to this one instead.

If somebody doesn't like the answer the commissioner makes, the only course of action left is to go on judicial review. That seems strange to me. My background is the labour movement, so I have dealt with these things in my younger life, and it seems strange to me that you go from one person to a body and back to a person.

Normally, when you have a body such as yours, it's to ensure that there isn't too much power vested in one place, and so the process would be reversed: the commissioner would make a ruling; there would be a determination of whether or not there would be an appeal; and if there were, it would go to your body, and then your body's decision would be the binding decision. Instead, it seems to go from the commissioner, for no particular reason, then to your board, then back again to the commissioner. Then, from there, you have to leap all the way to the courts.

Is that correct? Does that make sense to you?

[Catherine Ebbs]

Again, it's the issue of whether a body like ours should be a recommending body or a decision-making body. When the committee was created, based on the report of Justice Marin at the time, he felt that our function should be recommending. I know there are other jurisdictions where there are mechanisms such as ours that provide decisions rather than recommendations, and that is something that Mr. Brown and his task force will probably examine in the course of their work.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Do individuals know your recommendation?

[Catherine Ebbs]

Do you mean the parties?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Yes, the parties involved.

[Catherine Ebbs]

Yes. We also have summaries of all our cases on our website for the public at large.