Public Accounts Committee on Sept. 6th, 2007

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

--while before the committee, under Mr. Williams' chairmanship--

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I do have a point of order. A point of order does interrupt that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

But is it a point of order?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Yes, it is a point of order.

You have a tendency to interrupt comments from members that you feel are extraneous. Here's a clearly extraneous remark going back three years now, I think, on a totally separate matter. You've not intervened. I'm just asking that you restore some balance in your chairmanship.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

It's not a point of order.

Mrs. Jennings.

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

Thank you.

My comments are not extraneous. The chair was making the point that it would be important to have some kind of process, and Mr. Williams was doing the same, for how to deal with witnesses who are agreed upon to appear. I was giving a clear example of experience of this same committee in a previous Parliament, under Mr. Williams' chairmanship, where as a result of exactly what Mr. Williams was alluding to, the committee ultimately came to a process where it was in camera and selected representatives from the different parties to sit down with the witnesses prior to their actual testimony before the committee. I'm proposing that this committee may wish to look at that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Okay, Mrs. Jennings.

I want to remind members who are making these comments and have concerns that you just gave Mr. Wrzesnewskyj unanimous consent. I didn't give unanimous consent; it was the people around this table. That is something you might want to consider, because I believe, as others do, that this issue would be better dealt with at the steering committee, where all parties are represented. It can be discussed in camera, and then we can go forward. If any member does not agree, or disagrees with the decision of the steering committee, that member can bring it to the committee as a whole. But that's not what has happened.

I'm going to hear from the NDP, and then I'm going to put it to a vote.

Mr. Christopherson, you have up to one minute, please.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Again, let's differentiate between supporting the right of someone to place a motion versus whether or not you're going to support the actual motion. These are two different things.

Here's my concern, and I hope you will give the mover of the motion an opportunity to respond. We already know that there's conflicting testimony around what happened in terms of what orders were given or not given and rescinded or not rescinded. That's not in question.

I have a whole list of other issues. I think this whole committee does, for the most part, because we overwhelmingly supported the notion that we need a public inquiry. We believe this because we know that a lot of work has not been done. We're not going to be able to conclude all of it through this committee. So my concern is not that the issue isn't justified, but that there are many issues that would come under that same category.

We've already said there needs to be a public inquiry. The government has disagreed. We're dealing with what they have the power to put in front of us. Could you please give Borys a chance to respond? Why would this be any different from a whole myriad of unresolved issues that many of us believe would be properly dealt with by a public inquiry, and only by a public inquiry?

But that is not going to happen. That's my concern.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I'm prepared to give Mr. Wrzesnewskyj 30 seconds to respond.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

As Mr. Christopherson knows, we've been calling for a public inquiry as well, because we don't believe this committee has the resources and capacity to get at all the details of this particular issue. Unfortunately, the government is preventing a public inquiry. Consequently, we have no choice but to address these issues as they arise.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Okay, Mr. Wrzesnewskyj.

Since we didn't hear from the Bloc, I am prepared to hear from Monsieur Laforest for one minute, please.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Chair, I am in full agreement with Mr. Christopherson: a public inquiry would allow us to fully understand. But while we are waiting, I think that the motion made by Mr. Wrzesnewskyj is perfectly valid. I am going to vote in favour of the motion. When he made it earlier, I recall him telling us that, given today's evidence, having Mr. Constant and Mr. Watson appear would help us arrive at the truth of the matter. Once again, we seem to have conflicting versions of the facts. I agree completely, and the Bloc will vote for this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

We've heard the motion, and I'm going to put the question.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 8; nays 3)

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Okay, I'm going to adjourn for 10 minutes, and then we're going to resume in camera. The meeting is adjourned.

[Proceedings continue in camera]

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I'd like to call the meeting to order.

I want to welcome everyone to this afternoon's meeting. Bienvenue à tous. This, colleagues, witnesses, and visitors, is the continuation of the RCMP report, the Report of the Independent Investigator into Matters Relating to RCMP Pension and Insurance Plans, raised on June 15, 2007.

We're very pleased to have with us this afternoon Paul E. Kennedy, chair of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Welcome, Mr. Kennedy.

We also have with us Catherine Ebbs, chair, Royal Canadian Mounted Police External Review Committee.

Also, as an individual, we have the Honourable Anne McLellan. Ms. McLellan is the former Minister of Public Safety. I should point out that she has already appeared before this committee on this particular matter and has given testimony beforehand.

I want to welcome each and every one of you. I want to thank you for appearing.

I understand, Ms. Ebbs, you have opening remarks and you do not, Mr. Kennedy.

Ms. McLellan, of course you have come before us, so you have nothing further. Is that correct?

[Anne McLellan, former Minister of Public Safety, As an Individual]

No, I don't.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Ms. Ebbs, I invite you now to present your opening comments.

[Catherine Ebbs, Chair, Royal Canadian Mounted Police External Review Committee]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The creation of the RCMP External Review Committee arose out of the report of Mr. Justice René Marin, head of the Commission of Inquiry Relating to Public Complaints, Internal Discipline, and Grievance Procedure within the Royal Canadian Police in 1976. The report identified the need for more independent labour relations in the RCMP. The committee was created in 1986 to fulfill the role of providing an independent review mechanism with regard to labour relations issues. The RCMP External Review Committee is an independent and arm's-length labour relations tribunal established by part II of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.

The mandate of the committee is to review grievance, discipline, and discharge and demotion cases referred to it by the RCMP and to provide recommendations on these cases to the RCMP commissioner. The committee's reviews are intended to ensure transparency, fairness, impartiality, and independence in the internal RCMP labour relations process.

As Justice O'Connor recently stated in the Arar commission policy review report, a primary objective of external review is to maintain public confidence in the agency subject to review, and it also ensures that the agency respects the law and human rights.

The committee's jurisdiction is with respect to regular and civilian members only. Public servants employed by the RCMP have separate labour relations processes. These remarks will focus on the committee's work in the area of discipline and grievances. Committee representatives would be happy to provide further information on the discharge and demotion process if requested.

At this time, the committee has one member who is both the chair and the chief executive officer, appointed by the Governor in Council for a term not exceeding five years. Under the act, anyone who sits on the committee cannot be a member or former member of the RCMP. The committee also has one person who is executive director and senior counsel, and five other public servants. The committee has a budget of approximately $1 million.

In 2006-2007, the committee reviewed 42 grievances and issued 40 recommendations, compared to 34 cases reviewed and 30 recommendations issued in 2005-2006. In 2004-2005, 24 cases were reviewed and 23 recommendations were issued.

The committee issued five recommendations on appeals on disciplinary measures. No recommendations in the area of discharge and demotion were issued. The committee dealt with no cases related to matters raised in the Brown report.

The committee does not have authority to initiate reviews. The cases must be referred to it by the RCMP commissioner. The act sets out the types of cases that require committee review.

As well, the committee does not have investigatory powers. In all grievance, discipline, and discharge and demotion matters referred to it, the committee bases its review on the record before it. This includes all of the original documents, the decision made, and the submissions of the parties.

Where the review involves an appeal of a disciplinary or discharge and demotion matter, the transcript of the board hearing is also before the committee, as well as any exhibits entered at that hearing.

The chair may request that the parties provide additional information or submissions. If this is done, the other party is given the chance to respond. As well, the chair has the authority to hold a hearing if it's deemed necessary, although use of this option is rare. The chair reviews all the evidence, legal issues, relevant legislation, and case law in coming to the determination on the matter.

After consideration of all the issues, the chair of the committee provides findings and recommendations to the RCMP commissioner, who is the final decision-maker in the internal process for these cases, as well as to the parties. If he decides not to follow them, the law requires that in his reasons he give an explanation for not doing so. The RCMP commissioner's acceptance rate of committee decisions is in the range of approximately 85%: in the area of grievances, 89%; disciplinary matters, 70%; discharge and demotion, where only four recommendations have been issued in the history of the committee, 75%.

The committee has a very distinct mandate. Over the years, the RCMP has made changes in a number of areas because of recommendations made by the committee. Specific areas of concern have been raised, leading to policy changes with regard to medical discharge, suspension without pay, and harassment. Procedurally, the committee has raised diverse issues, such as maintaining and protecting procedural fairness, ensuring access to information, preventing bias or the appearance of bias in the decision-making process, and protecting the right to be heard.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Ms. Ebbs.

We're going to have two rounds, colleagues. On the first round we can go eight minutes, and on the second one I believe we can go five minutes.

I'm going to start with Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, but before I do that I'm going to urge all members to keep their questions short and relevant to the issues we are studying. Secondly, I'd ask all witnesses to keep their answers to the point and as brief as possible.

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Ms. McLellan, in regard to the pension insurance fund chapter of the Auditor General's report, when you were previously here Mr. Williams questioned Mr. Zaccardelli. He asked whether or not Mr. Zaccardelli.... In his words: ...you mentioned...you kept the minister informed. Do you actually recall talking to the minister, or was it just a departmental briefing?

To this, Mr. Zaccardelli responded: I do not specifically recall speaking to Minister McLellan. I do recall...discussions with Minister Day.

Does that correspond with your recollections? And could you once again go through what occurred when you were made aware that there were some serious problems in the pension insurance funds?

[Anne McLellan]

Thank you very much.

I think the record would show—and when I was here last I outlined it very clearly—when I became aware of the situation surrounding irregularities related to the pension and insurance fund. I also outlined at that time the steps we took when I received Mr. Lewis's communication, sent via the Treasury Board Secretariat, and my office's communications with the commissioner's in relation to the fact that there would be a criminal investigation undertaken. That took place in, I think, less than a week, if I remember correctly, of my office contacting the commissioner's office.

In terms of direct communications with the commissioner on this matter, as I think I indicated in response perhaps to a question of Mr. Christopherson the last time I was here, I think again the record speaks for itself. Nothing has changed in that regard.

When I became minister in December 2003, obviously I went through extensive briefings, many of those in writing. Clearly, every agency and department outlines the issues of concern, and challenges, and so on. At that point, sometime in that mid-December to mid-January or late January, I became aware of the fact that there was this issue and that an audit had been done, a management plan had been developed, and the plan was being implemented.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Kennedy, in his report Justice O'Connor came up with a number of recommendations for oversight mechanisms for the RCMP. Are you familiar with those? The current minister publicly stated that he would implement them. Has anything been implemented in regard to those recommendations?

[Paul E. Kennedy, Chair, Commission for Public Complaints Against the Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

I am familiar with the recommendations. I appeared before Justice O'Connor myself and made suggestions, and with a colleague I actually drafted what I thought was an appropriate legislative model, which I shared with Justice O'Connor before he published his document. The two largely run in parallel. That document is up on the web.

At this point in time, no, nothing has been done vis-à-vis the legislation. We have the same legislation we've had since 1988.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Another concern has been raised, one that we haven't particularly spent a lot of time on in this committee. It's the issue of political interference. Every commissioner, when asked, states quite clearly that there is no political interference in our national police forces, but the issue keeps coming up over and over again.

You've made a number of recommendations. People have talked about civilian oversight, a body to look into internal complaints or public complaints against the RCMP. Has there been any thought about the creation of an administrative body that would still allow for government oversight of the federal police force, but at the same time would act like a firewall to prevent political interference in either direction, either from the national police force into the realm of politics, or by the government into the RCMP? As we've seen, those situations can be quite corrosive for democracy. Do you have any thoughts about how that type of body could be structured?