Public Accounts Committee on Sept. 6th, 2007

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I appreciate that and understand that we can't change everything overnight. But part of the goal here is to structurally change things so we can minimize the possibility that we'll end up in a fiasco like we're in now.

I'm disappointed, Assistant Commissioner, with respect, that I'm not hearing anything concrete. Saying that you have the support of the commissioner.... I've got to tell you, if you sat in my seat and heard all the people who swore under oath that they were full of integrity and everything was appropriate, and if you asked their kids, they'd say they were people with great integrity...but that wasn't the issue. The fact of the matter is that the system failed the officers of the RCMP just as much as the individuals did. It's our job to try to shore up the structural part, and I'm just not hearing that.

On the incident case now, I want to ask you one more time to please, very clearly, give me something concrete. Don't just tell me that everybody's concerned. I've heard that many times. We had Chief Superintendent Macaulay, Staff Sergeant Frizzell, and Denise Revine. These people were royally shafted. If they came to your office, or if this issue came up during your time, what would be different in terms of protecting these three RCMP employees--Canadian citizens to boot--to prevent them from facing the same sort of turmoil they have?

[A/Commr Sandra Conlin]

I think Assistant Commissioner Spice said it very eloquently: it is all about the leadership at the top. It is the integrity of the people who are there.

I can't tell you today that the policies have changed; they haven't. But we are reviewing them right now. I realize that is probably not the answer you would like; however, this is an ongoing process. We are looking now at the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, which came into effect in April 2007, with the reprisal mechanism. We are working with the different areas to ensure that our policies are going to be reflective and that these types of issues get the attention they require.

As I said, it's the integrity of the people who are in the office, and that's paramount to it.

[John Spice]

When I was here in May, I indicated that I believed there was a need for an ombudsperson role to deal specifically with these sorts of situations. You can't have individuals going forward presuming that they're going to be heard when nothing is being done, careers are being ruined, and so forth, because people always allow their egos to get in the way. Yes, if we have altruistic people in positions, if their integrity is never in question and something is going to be done, that's great. The ethics office is critical to the organization, but I believe there is a need for an ombudsperson, or whatever moniker you want to give it. There's a necessity to have something outside to oversee those decisions and ensure that everything is as it should be.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Christopherson.

Before we go to Ms. Jennings, I have a question I want to follow up on from the last answer, Mr. Spice--and to you, Assistant Commissioner Conlin.

You answered a number of questions by saying it depends on the integrity of the people in the office. You people have obviously been following this sequence of events over the last six or eight months. We had an ethics officer. The evidence was, Mr. Spice, that they came to you. You didn't have much in the way of resources or capacity, and there wasn't much done. That was reflected in Mr. Brown's report:

The Ethics Advisor had no established role, very limited resources to support the function and no regional presence. Further, the high turnover rate--six individuals in six years--further limited the confidence members could develop in the person of the Ethics Advisor.

I want to get a comment from you on the structure of the organization. I disagree with Assistant Commissioner Conlin about the integrity of the people. There may be integrity now, but you have to have a system that protects the system. There has to be governance and a challenge function.

The basic establishment of the RCMP is paramilitary or command and control--whatever you want to call it. It's probably fair to say that it has worked over the years, but when things go wrong they go very wrong, and there's nothing to bring the train back onto the rails. That's what we've seen here. I really disagree that it depends on the integrity of the individuals. There has to be an organizational structure so that when things veer off, there's a self-correcting system and they veer back onto the road. We haven't seen that here. Certainly there's a lot of power in the position of the commissioner, and when things go wrong they go very wrong.

Have you watched this, Mr. Spice, retired assistant commissioner, over the last six months? Do you have any comments as to how the organization could be better structured so this will never happen again? As Mr. Lake pointed out, I think that is the objective of everyone in this room.

[John Spice]

Frankly, Mr. Chair, I haven't been watching it perhaps to the extent that I ought to have been. It's not that you aren't doing great work; it's just that I've had other things on my plate.

As I said earlier to Mr. Christopherson, I believe that the role of the ethics advisor within the RCMP is a critical one and it should remain a high-profile position. I forget what you called it, Mr. Christopherson, but it's an advisory position; it's not part of the hierarchy of the SEC. You're there as an advisor to the SEC and not as part of the decision-making process.

Having said that, I'd only be regurgitating what I've indicated. I agree with you; there have to be checks and balances. There has to be some structure apart from the force in those rare cases. Hopefully, they'll be like the Maytag repairman. In the instances when there has to be some scrutiny, you need a body to do that. You can't continually come back to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, for example, to deal with these issues.

Those are my comments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Do you have any comment, Assistant Commissioner Conlin?

[A/Commr Sandra Conlin]

One of the roles of the ethics advisor is to also perform that challenge function. That is one of the roles, and it was there when the retired assistant commissioner, John Spice, was there as well. My role is to challenge, to play that challenge function with the commissioner as well as with the senior executive committee. But you're right; my role is an advisory role.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Before I leave, you say that it was there when Assistant Commissioner Spice was there. But it didn't work when Assistant Commissioner Spice was in his office. These people went to Assistant Commissioner Spice. Ms. Revine went there. Chief Superintendent Fraser Macaulay went there. The system was totally dysfunctional.

On your answer to the questions on the integrity of the people involved, that is not going to work unless there is some systemic overhaul of the system, and I don't see that. I don't want to be confrontational, but from your evidence, you're saying that it depends on the integrity of the people involved and that we like the commissioner now. That's all very well, but if a governance structure is not correct--and I don't see anything in your office or any changes that would give me confidence that this is coming--then I think there's a possibility, and I do hope that it's not the case, that we could be back here in two years with a very similar situation.

[A/Commr Sandra Conlin]

If I may say so, sir, we are also looking at the different models and structures. This is some of the ongoing work. I realize that I'm repeating myself when I say that this is all ongoing, but as a result of Mr. Brown's report, these are some of the things the organization is looking at. The organization is looking at how we are structured. What is the governance?

For me to say that we have this structure all down pat would be premature. This is an ongoing work in progress, but these are all things we are looking at with the SRRs. We are researching the position of an ombudsperson. These are all things that are open to us, sir. We haven't closed the door on any possibilities, but right now they are in the research stage. We are working with a myriad of people inside and outside the organization to look at these things. I know I'm repeating myself when I say that we don't have anything down pat yet, but we are looking at this. These are the possibilities we have. It's too premature for me to say which model we will adopt at the end of the day, but it will be done in consultation with the SRRs and the employees. It will be done.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much.

We'll go to Ms. Jennings for eight minutes.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Eight minutes? Why, thank you, Chair. I like this committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

First of all, I'll welcome you back, Ms. Jennings.

Ms. Jennings was a member of this committee in, I think, the 37th Parliament. We certainly enjoyed having her.

We welcome you back, Ms. Jennings.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Welcome back, Ms. Jennings.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Fitzpatrick.

Thank you both for your presentations and your open and frank responses to all of the questions that have been asked of you.

One thing that has become clear from your testimony is that the role of the ethics advisor is precisely that: an advisor. You have no authority to actually implement or to force implementation of decisions that you believe are the proper ones, procedures that you believe should be carried out and followed, etc.

Mr. Spice, given your experience, I assume you are familiar with oversight bodies and systems that exist in other jurisdictions here in Canada as well as in other countries.

There is the Canadian Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement here in Canada, which regroups members of civilian oversight bodies. One of the primary goals of that association is to convince governments to create independent civilian oversight bodies with actual legislative power. We have that in Quebec. We have had that in Quebec since 1990.

I was the deputy commissioner for police ethics for the province of Quebec. Under that legislation there is a code of ethics, which is in the legislation itself, that applies to all members of police services in Quebec who come under provincial jurisdiction, including special constables, and any person, including a police officer or a civilian working for the police or a member of the public, can bring a complaint to the police ethics commissioner if they believe there have been possible violations of the code of ethics. That covers a wide variety. It could be excessive force, it could be abuse of power, it could be nepotism, you name it. Everything is pretty much covered.

The commissioner has exclusive jurisdiction to investigate that and has the powers to actually go into police stations to get all of the documentation necessary, to require the cooperation of the members of the police force, civilian and police, and if, upon investigation, the commissioner believes there is sufficient evidence that there have been violations of the code, to cite the individuals concerned and bring them before an independent police ethics tribunal.

That system has existed in Quebec for 17 years. It celebrated its 17th anniversary on September 1 of this year.

In British Columbia they also have a system of investigating complaints against the police. Those complaints could be from members of the public, from fellow police officers, or from civilians working for the police.

It's clear from your own testimony when both of you have repeatedly stated that it's the integrity of the individuals—I think the chair pointed that out. That's all very well and good, but at some point there needs to be some oversight mechanism with real teeth. If, God forbid, the RCMP finds itself again in a position where you have members of that force who are not necessarily people of integrity or who do not have the courage to withstand pressure that's being brought to bear possibly by superiors and therefore are in fact committing acts of conduct that are not acceptable, there needs to be some kind of mechanism outside that has the teeth in order to go in and determine that, so that two years from now it will not be in front of the public accounts committee.

Mr. Spice, you talked about a possible ombudsman. The problem with an ombudsman, as you know, is that the role itself has only the power of recommendation. It does not have the power to actually impose either sanctions or policy changes, etc. I would ask what your view is about a possible recommendation from this committee that the RCMP be actually significantly reformed so that there is the creation of a civilian oversight mechanism with authority.

I'm just going to end by saying that Mr. Paul E. Kennedy, who's the chair of the public complaints commission of the RCMP, has publicly stated that his commission does not have the teeth to provide a real independent oversight mechanism of the RCMP.

[John Spice]

Thank you. I was wondering whether or not there was a question anywhere in there, but I'm pleased that you finally got to one.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

I'm noted for my own soliloquies, but I usually do manage to end it with an actual question.

[John Spice]

And it was very informative. Thank you.

I certainly have no role to play in this, but I agree totally as far as the ombudsperson and the whole notion of making recommendations and so forth is concerned.

When I was here in May, one of the recommendations that I made to this committee was to re-examine, reopen the RCMP Act. I do believe a variety of things can be done by reopening the RCMP Act.

Monsieur Laforest, you spoke about the limitation of action. You indicated it was decreasing. My recommendation was to increase the limitation of action. We're worse off if we decrease it.

But yes, I agree with you that something ought to come from this group, and reopening the RCMP Act and making amendments to it would fit in that vein. That would be an excellent idea.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Thank you.

[A/Commr Sandra Conlin]

Madam, I'd like to inform you that we spent two days...Inspector Barb Hayduck, from my office. As I said to you before, we are researching all options to look at a model that could work for us. The last two days of last week were spent with la Sûreté du Québec and le Service de police de la Ville de Montréal exactly examining the systems they have and the roles they play. So it is one of the areas we did go to and we are researching them.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

At that point, I advise you not to simply stop at meetings with the Sûreté du Québec and the Montreal Police Service, but also to meet with the Quebec Police Ethics Commissioner, the Public Complaints Commissioner in British Columbia and the director of the Special Investigations Unit,

the Special Investigations Unit of Ontario, go and meet with the actual people who have the authority to implement legislative dispositions concerning alleged misconduct and ethical lapses on the part of members of police services across Canada.

[A/Commr Sandra Conlin]

That was just our first stop, madam, in many of our areas that we will be researching, and it came to light when we did speak to la Sûreté de Québec and le Service de police de la Ville de Montréal. As a result, those are some of the areas we are further investigating.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Ms. Jennings.

Mr. Fitzpatrick, eight minutes.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to follow up on the theme that seems to be emerging here. I'm a firm believer that if there's a failure in an organization, it's a failure of the system.

Dr. Deming, who in the world of private management is probably viewed as the equivalent to Einstein in science, was a firm believer that if you're getting bad results out of an organization, it's defects in the system, and you've got to change the system if you want to get better results. It was his view that good people stuck in a bad system, no matter what they do, are helpless to get the system changed and get the results done. In this episode I think we see many examples of bad results and failures of the system.

When I look at Mr. Brown's report--and I've read the report three times--I think he's going at it the right way. He looks at the issues in the system, and he's looking at systemic changes so that these problems will not occur in the future. It's not based on just changing people in the system; it's changes.... I'm referring to chapter 8, “Rebuilding the Trust”, and a task force dedicated to dealing with these systemic problems. One of his main points for the task force is “ensuring that the RCMP's workplace disclosure policy is appropriate and that mechanisms are in place with adequate resources to ensure protection from reprisal and a commitment to clear and decisive corrective measures”.

It seems to me that we're on the path to making good systemic changes to the RCMP. I think everybody on this committee understands that it's the system that has to be dealt with. Knowing Dr. Deming as I do, I think you're not going to get good systemic changes without really good, strong leadership at the top who are dedicated to bringing those changes on.

I would like to ask Assistant Commissioner Conlin whether she believes Commissioner Elliott is up to the job.

[A/Commr Sandra Conlin]

I firmly believe Commissioner Elliott is up to the job. He has my full support and he has the full support of the senior executive committee.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I think a good solid task force has been set up to deal with these issues and make specific proposals for systemic change.

Mr. Spice, I think you have some good ideas in this area. Are you willing to maybe make submissions to this task force, providing some of your input on how the Office of the Ethics Advisor could better function within this paramilitary organization?