Public Safety Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2012

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

We will now go to Mr. Payne, and then over to Mr. Scarpaleggia.

Mr. Payne.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Commissioner and Mr. Wex for coming.

Commissioner, you did talk about your code of conduct, workplace behaviours, and certainly that you need to make some cultural changes. I'm wondering what your process is going to be for all of that. Can you give us more information on the code of conduct and the change to culture? How do you see that happening, and how long do you think it will take to get it done?

[Commr Bob Paulson]

The process will be one, as I have said a couple of times today, where we are going to want our front-line supervisors and managers to deal with the lion's share of conduct-related matters. That will require some training and it will require a different sort of approach than we have right now. I think that will take between six months to a year to achieve. Of course, coming into force, we'll be living the act when and if it happens, but we need to train our members to do that.

The benefit there, and how I extrapolate it to the cultural change that will occur, is that rather than seeing the organization and seeing senior managers as some sort of distant rulers of a kingdom who make decisions that are detached from the realities of current policing, the supervisors and managers will be making those decisions. There will be much more of a team approach on the ground for regulating conduct, especially in those instances where we are not seeking dismissal. We don't want to be off in some protracted legal hearing about whether or not we should take two days of pay or three days of pay from a member.

In a nutshell, that is how I think we will extract the cultural benefit for the organization, but we will also make sure that members see the organization attending.... We're going to make mistakes. Police work is very difficult. It's dangerous, it's stressful. We expect our members to make mistakes. I expect my supervisors to help them get over those mistakes, set them right, and keep going.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Can you speak to the accountability and transparency of the process?

[Commr Bob Paulson]

With respect to discipline cases, what would happen in an ordinary, run-of-the-mill discipline case under this new legislation would be that a supervisor, apprised of conduct that he suspects contravenes the code of conduct, would assemble whatever material he needs to inform himself or herself of the contravention. They would have the member come into a meeting with him or her. The member could have their staff representative, the association member—it's the wrong word, but the SRR—come with him, or any other person could accompany the member to that meeting, where they would have a discussion around remedial steps that need to be taken. Discipline would be administered there. If it were a reprimand, it would be administered. If it were a day's pay, it would be administered. The member could object. Maybe there would be circumstances the member would want to put forward. All of that would be documented. The decision would be there. If the member wanted to appeal that, he could do so to a line officer, and off we go.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you.

Mr. Wex, I wanted to go back to the new complaints commission. My first question is, how many members will there be, and will they all be full time?

[Richard Wex]

I will have to check the actual bill, but my recollection is that there is a chair, a vice-chair, and up to three other members. The chair is full time and the other members can be part time.

Subject to confirming with the bill, which I will do when the next question likely goes to the commissioner, I will take a look and confirm that.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Okay. Can you maybe speak to the enhanced investigative powers, that they have access to records? Are there any records they may not be able to have access to?

[Richard Wex]

One of the major drivers for enhancing the civilian review body was to strengthen its powers and broaden its mandate. There were three main areas, as I mentioned earlier, at a high level.

The first is to have much greater access to information. One of the criticisms of the current review body has been that it simply doesn't have access to all of the records that it felt it needed to, to get to the bottom of the matter. While the wording of the act was appropriate when it was drafted some 25 years ago, subsequent reviews had given the body greater access. So greater access to information, greater investigative powers—the body will now have the ability to summons individuals, force them to appear, and compel them to provide evidence in testimony, which in the past was not the case, and therefore, again, they weren't able to get access to all the evidence they needed.

The last point, Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Very quickly.

[Richard Wex]

The last point is that, importantly, the new body will be able to expand its mandate to conduct policy reviews, not only deal with complaints, but undertake policy reviews. This was a major recommendation of a number of reports, similar to the member's question with respect to SIRC.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Wex.

We'll go back to Mr. Scarpaleggia, please.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

If officers are dismissed, they can go through the courts, I guess, like any other Canadian who's dismissed from a position?

[Commr Bob Paulson]

Yes. Before that, though, they would have a path through our External Review Committee.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Right.

If I understand it, when a matter is referred to provincial jurisdiction for investigation, it's only as a last resort that a police force in that jurisdiction can investigate the matter if the civilian body in that jurisdiction....

It's interesting to note, though, that the minister was not always of the view that civilian bodies should be investigating serious incidents. As a matter of fact, in an appearance before this committee in March 2010—and this is just for the record, Chair, because I know the minister is not here—he said police should investigate police, because sometimes they're the ones with the expertise to investigate.

Obviously, the government doesn't buy that anymore. I would suggest that you would not agree with that statement.

[Richard Wex]

Maybe I can simply add I don't know the context within which that was said. It could very well have been said “in the absence of”, because there are cases where there are no civilian investigative bodies available to do the investigation. In those cases, the next best thing is a police service. You definitely want someone who has major crime or investigative capacity to investigate the serious incident. It may have been in that context, I'm not sure.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

No, actually, it wasn't. He said the new body for civilian oversight of the RCMP that he, the minister, intends to establish will not be charged with investigating allegations of serious injuries or death involving RCMP.

[Richard Wex]

Oh, yes, that is true. The new civilian review body is only dealing with public complaints. It is not dealing with criminal investigations. It is the provinces, under the administration of justice, that are responsible for policing—

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

But I think you get my point.

[Richard Wex]

I was just trying to clarify.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Two years ago it was okay for police to investigate police.

Now we've been talking a lot about sexual harassment and other kinds of harassment, but there have been other instances of misconduct or lack of judgment that have made the headlines in the last few years, and they have been quite damaging to the reputation of the force. Of course, the Maher Arar case is one in point. Obtaining a warrant to enter Ottawa Citizen reporter Juliet O'Neill's home was a lack of judgment, or something to that effect.

Will these new mechanisms change the culture enough to prevent these kinds of incidents from happening again, or are these what you referred to earlier as “accidents will happen, mistakes will be made” kinds of situations?

[Commr Bob Paulson]

No, as I said, I think this proposed legislation will go a long way to help me in building a culture of managers who have to manage and police officers who have to do police work. I think the responsibility around those judgment issues that you've described falls squarely on my shoulders.

I am engaged in changing how the organization views accountability and leadership. Those two principles have been my priority since my appointment. We have succeeded in a number of big, complex, public interest-style investigations lately, and I feel good about how that's going.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

We know that intelligence gathering and the investigation of matters that can have international implications is a very complex world. Justice O'Connor, in response to that, recommended the creation of an integrated national security review coordinating committee whose members would be the chair of the new entity recommended for reviewing RCMP activities, the chair of SIRC, and the CSC commissioner.

Are there any plans to establish that kind of coordinating committee? I know the government didn't really want to establish a security czar, a national security adviser in the Prime Minister's office. Does that unwillingness extend to not creating that kind of coordinating committee?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

You have about 30 seconds.

[Richard Wex]

Mr. Chair, I would simply say that it's a question better posed to the government.