Public Safety Committee on April 15th, 2010

[Ian McPhail]

In my opinion, the policing at the Vancouver Olympics was a superb example of cooperation amongst various police forces. There were members of the RCMP, the Vancouver police, and police forces from across the country engaged in that event.

To get back to the previous question on what I have been doing, we spent quite a bit of time being prepared for an onslaught of complaints as a result of the Olympics. That onslaught never occurred. We had a total of 10 complaints, and not one was what one might consider an accusation of a major transgression. I hesitate to characterize any complaint as minor, because it's important to the person who made the complaint, but I believe that was a remarkable record.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Yes. I was in Vancouver, and I agree, policing seemed to be very successful.

One of the next policing initiatives that Canada will have to deal with will be the imminent G-8 and G-20 meetings. I'm curious as to what role, if any, the commission will be playing, in terms of coordinating complaints following those events where protestors can be anticipated.

[Ian McPhail]

Torontonians may be more difficult than Vancouverites; I'm not certain. We've already begun to coordinate with the provincial force and with our provincial counterpart, and we expect to be fully up to speed well before the event occurs.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

In February of this year, the RCMP implemented or announced a new policy of referring investigations of its members involved in incidents related to serious injury or death to external investigative agencies.

I'm wondering if you've had a chance to contemplate that and if you have an opinion or a preliminary assessment of that new policy.

[Ian McPhail]

My preliminary assessment was to welcome that announcement. I believe it went a long way towards the recommendations of this commission. I think a further step that would be helpful would be to maintain a national register of complaints so that the public, the commission, and the RCMP would be able to ensure greater national standards as to how investigations are conducted, how these matters are resolved.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

So that would be a databank of complainants for various oversight agencies?

[Ian McPhail]

I'm thinking specifically of the RCMP.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

That's good. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Holland]

Thank you very much.

I turn to Mr. Lee for five minutes.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Thank you.

Over the last many years there have been times when the PCC complained that its mandate didn't allow it to compel certain types of information from the force, specifically matters involving security intelligence-gathering, national security, perhaps criminal intelligence.

Is there in existence now at the PCC an inventory of cases that were impaired, or current cases that may be impaired, because of the inability of the PCC to get all of the information it believes it needs?

[Ian McPhail]

The short answer to that question would be no. The problem is that we don't necessarily know what we don't know, as a commission, and in terms of the public perception of the process, if the public believes that the body being investigated is free to withhold information, that's not positive for the public perception of that institution.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

So the policy designers now haven't taken that up with your agency at all, with a view to either fixing it within your agency or pre-empting that by dealing with some other new agency construct that would provide a different type or level of oversight.

I'm just confirming whether or not you and your agency have taken that issue up with the minister or ministers who would be looking at this now, at the policy changes.

[Ian McPhail]

Yes, I've been invited to make my views known on these subjects. I have, and will continue to do so, both generally and in greater detail.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

But it's not a current irritant for you and the agency now?

[Ian McPhail]

No. I can say very definitely we are not currently looking at any case in which the RCMP has refused to provide information.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Holland]

Thank you, Mr. Lee.

Mr. Petit, you have five minutes.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, Mr. McPhail, Mr. Brosseau and Ms. Banulescu.

I have a fairly simple question for you. You know as I do that in different provinces you have limited jurisdiction. There are provinces where your mandate is broader and others where it is not so broad. For instance, in Ontario and in Quebec, your mandate is very limited. In the document that you read out for us earlier, a passage got my attention. I will read it out to you in French, because it is the version that I have, but you yourself wrote: “The commission should be able to share information and reports with provincial ministers and their provincial counterparts or other similar bodies. When relevant it should have the authority to conduct joint investigations, inquiries, reviews or hearings when circumstances warrant.” If I understand correctly, this is one of your suggestions that becomes very important, because if Ontario and Quebec refuse to cooperate with you at all, you will have big problems. How have your relations with the various ministers of Ontario and Quebec been since you have been in this position?

[Ian McPhail]

Mr. Chair, through you to the honourable member, you're quite correct that Ontario and Quebec will not be as affected by these proposals as the other contracting provinces will, because the RCMP doesn't assume the role of the provincial police forces—the OPP or the Sûreté du Québec. Indeed it doesn't fulfill the role of the municipal police force, which it fulfills in some 200 municipalities and another 400 Indian reserves.

In terms of our being able to share information with the provincial ministers, I'm more concerned about those provinces in which the RCMP does act as a provincial force, for a very practical reason. There may be an issue in any province where the RCMP is the provincial force. A complaint can be made. We advise the RCMP. We advise the complainant. We advise the member. But we don't advise the minister who is going to be the one responsible for responding to the public. In my opinion, that's just not appropriate.

What we can do.... Let me give you an example of our ties with ministers. One of the authorities that is currently given to the commission is the power to initiate a review of a matter. Since I've been the acting chair, it has come to my attention and to the attention of the commission that it was certainly an issue in Nova Scotia, where an individual threatening suicide very tragically lost his own life in a confrontation with the RCMP. It did appear appropriate to institute an investigation into this matter. In that instance, as the complainant, we could communicate with the appropriate officials, but we cannot normally do so. That's a significant concern.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Holland]

Mr. McPhail, I'm going to go back to some of the questions Mr. Oliphant was asking with respect to your mandate, because I think they're fairly germane. They're central to the discussion we need to have here today.

In your response to one of the questions Mr. Oliphant posed, you said that it's up to Parliament to make those decisions. I'm wondering whether you see it as your role to be an advocate. In other words, where you see problems, where you see things that are not working correctly, do you see it as your job to be a spokesperson on those issues and to advocate for change? If so, why would you make the comment that it's up to Parliament? Of course, obviously, it's up to Parliament to implement. But is it not up to you and your office, as was done by Mr. Kennedy, to expose areas of weakness, to criticize them, and to advocate for change?

[Ian McPhail]

I totally agree with you, Mr. Chair. The credibility of the process depends, to a very large extent, on the credibility of the body of the oversight agency. That's why, as a starting point, I've outlined five areas where I think it's important to strengthen the oversight mandate.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Holland]

Outside of oversight, what are two areas that you feel are urgent or important to change right now?

[Ian McPhail]

Do you mean at this very moment? I wouldn't say that there are two that are urgent. I'd start from the point of view of first principles, and the first principle would be credibility. Credibility is, I think, developed through thorough and impartial investigations. So the commission must have the tools to do the job, and it must have those tools as a right. They shouldn't be dependent on the discretion of other parties.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Holland]

You feel that those tools are currently not in place.

[Ian McPhail]

The tools can certainly be improved upon.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Holland]

Okay, so first is independent oversight. Second is the issue you've just raised now. Is there anything else?