Public Safety Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2012

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Let me speak very briefly, and then I'm going to turn it over to the commissioner.

What happens now in the organization is that because of the delay in resolving what are sometimes fairly straightforward problems—not that they aren't serious, but they're straightforward—that could be resolved very quickly...the $15 grievance becomes a seven-year process. That has all kinds of negative ramifications, aside from the expense of the resolution of that kind of disagreement. There is unhappiness inside the RCMP, there is tension, there are disagreements between a commanding officer and officers under his or her command. That then detracts from focusing on the job of policing.

The current legislation, in fact, impedes quite significantly a cultural change in the RCMP, so let's get that impediment out of the way. Then, with a new legislative framework and the positive policies that this commissioner is putting in place, in terms of tackling issues of harassment, including sexual harassment...I think that will go a long way in terms of dealing with the issue of cultural change.

Commissioner.

[Commr Bob Paulson]

I would add briefly, Minister, that the biggest challenge I have today is dealing with 99% of my membership, who are incredibly dedicated professionals who are going to bat for Canadians day in and day out. They repeatedly raise with me the idea that they are getting tarred with the same brush as some of these other more notorious cases, which, as the minister points out, linger on and are seemingly resistant to quick, just, and fair adjudication. So the sooner we can have a system that reaffirms a fair conduct management regime within the RCMP, then 99% of the members who love this job will be much happier.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Commissioner.

We'll now move back to the opposition, and we'll go to Mr. Scarpaleggia, please, for seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Welcome, Minister, Commissioner, and Mr. Wex.

Commissioner, when you were appointed to the position, I remember you came to committee and said to us that you were going to use your obvious leadership skills and bring order to the force; you were going to be decisive and really put your foot down. Of course, we were all happy to hear that.

Did you know at the time that the systems you were dealing with would not be adequate to allow you to do your job? As I understand the timing of things, it was after you took the position that you published the letter to the minister, calling on the minister to bring in this kind of legislation.

My question is, were you not aware of the problems that existed with the clashing systems, or intertwining or overlapping systems, when you took the job? What made you all of a sudden realize that you had to have a bill here if you wanted to solve this, that you had considerable leadership skills and you were dedicated, but that just wouldn't be enough?

[Commr Bob Paulson]

I can almost point to the moment in time when my concern crystallized. It was in the inability to appeal what I felt was a ridiculous outcome in a disciplinary case. I had observed discipline issues throughout my career in the force and had always tried to stay away from them, but I never understood the problem from the commissioner's point of view in trying to transform this organization and to bring about meaningful change in the short term.

When I gave instructions to my staff to not let that decision stand, they said, “Well, it's too bad, Commissioner. There is nothing you can do about that because that's just the way it is.” I don't think I wrote the minister to say that. We had met several times and the minister was alive to the challenges that the force was facing.

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

We're talking about some pretty fuzzy concepts. Understandably, changing culture is always a very hard thing to define, and we're talking about management systems that are very complex. I was reading the current grievance process, and I had to reread it several times, because, as you say, it's extremely complex and tortuous and so on. We're dealing with some pretty fuzzy concepts that are hard to grasp.

It would seem to me that the cases we're concerned about here are the flagrant examples of misconduct: stealing, as you said—you gave an example of stealing—or sexual harassment. These are not grey areas; they're really black and white. I'm wondering whether you would really require a change in management systems to communicate these rights and wrongs to officers.

I take your point that 99% of the officers are wonderful and are doing great work, but how would you compare the problems at the RCMP with problems in other police forces across the country, municipal and provincial police forces? Are they worse? Are they better? Do the other forces have better systems that create better cultures?

What is your comparison? What is your benchmark?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Let me jump in there.

If you look at almost any modern, professional police force, there is a flexibility in their grievance process, in their ability to discipline, which the RCMP simply does not have.

While the concept of sexual harassment might be clear in certain cases—and it's not always clear, because there are subtleties, sometimes, with the way these things are perpetrated—sometimes, even if it's clear, an officer can say “I want a grievance process”, and the board is established and it becomes an issue for years, rather than letting a line commander say to this individual, “This conduct is unacceptable, and it will stop today.”

You don't have the clear authority to do that. This legislation, I believe, will give that clear authority.

I didn't want to steal your thunder, Commissioner. I don't know whether you have anything to add.

[Commr Bob Paulson]

I would agree with you, Minister, but I would add that one of the principles in this legislation is to have my managers manage. I need my supervisors and my leaders to do their jobs. Having this elaborate, big machine that is seen as the monolith that you go into to try to get your disputes resolved, and maybe seven years later you'll get them figured out, is just not doing it, and it is contributing to the dysfunction in the culture.

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

Have you estimated how much your new complaints body will require to do its job? It's one thing to have a law and it's one thing to have a complaints mechanism in place, but if it doesn't have the resources it needs, you're still going to have problems down the line. It's all about enforcement. I'm sure I don't need to tell you that.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I indicated in an answer to Ms. Bergen's question that the base will be brought up to $10.4 million a year from $5 million. I pointed out also that there has been supplemental funding that brought it up to $8 million or so.

So there are additional resources, in recognition of exactly the problem you have identified.

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

Do you think the RCMP should have access to the same kinds of information as the Security Intelligence Review Committee? I'm told there's a problem there: that the SIRC is not restricted in certain information it can access, whereas under this legislation, according to Mr. Kennedy, for example, the complaints commission might not have the same latitude as the SIRC.

I was wondering whether you could tell me why.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Please respond very quickly, Mr. Wex.

[Richard Wex, Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Public Safety]

This is a recommendation that came out of many reports, to increase significantly the access the body would have to information.

One of the problems at the moment is that the current review body has access to relevant information, but it's not clear who decides what's relevant. The new bill proposes that the new body will, if it deems it is relevant, have access to it.

There are a couple of exceptions, including with respect to privileged information. At the moment, the current complaints body does not have access to privileged information. Under the new bill, the new body will have access to privileged information if it's deemed to be relevant and necessary. So much greater access to information is an area that this bill addresses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Wex.

We'll move back to the official opposition and Madame Doré Lefebvre.

You have five minutes.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Minister, a number of reports and several former commissioners have called for greater independence for the public complaints commissioner. Mr. Minister, when you were thinking about creating a new civilian review and complains commission, why did you decide to have it report only to you, rather than directly to Parliament?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I don't review any complaints.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

No. Under Bill C-42, that commission will report directly to you, rather than to Parliament. Why was it decided to proceed in this fashion in the bill?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Oh, I understand. You're saying that ultimately the report is provided to the commissioner and to the minister.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Yes, rather than it being presented directly to Parliament.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I see. I thought there was some kind of suggestion that I was adjudicating complaints. I want to assure you that I'm not involved in adjudicating complaints.

The report comes to the commissioner essentially in order for the commissioner to look at the recommendations, because the commissioner is responsible for the administration of the RCMP and the administration of the force. That commissioner has to determine it: “Is this recommendation something that is consistent with the overall management of the force?”

Now, he can implement that recommendation, or if he doesn't implement that recommendation, then he has to put in writing why he doesn't agree with that recommendation. But in that process, I don't have any involvement. The report comes to me. I'm answerable in Parliament for the RCMP. That's my function.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Okay.

I was also wondering if you consulted the members who will be directly affected by Bill C-42 before it was drafted.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

This has been a work in progress—even before the commissioner came onto the scene. The predecessor bill was a much larger bill and encompassed the issue of unionization. As you will recall, certain decisions of the courts came out that talked about the constitutional right to unionize, which created significant confusion because of the lack of clarity in those decisions.

We waited for a long period of time for the courts to clarify that. Ultimately we said no, that we were going to proceed without that unionization issue. Subsequently, the courts did clarify it, after we had tabled the legislation.

But in respect of the unionization issue and various issues, not only have I had extensive discussions with members of the RCMP, but the commissioner has, and certainly, through Public Safety, I have had extensive briefings on every aspect of this bill, including the three main components that I'm bringing forward today in the form of Bill C-42.

I've had informal discussions with RCMP officers as late as this summer, when I travelled from Labrador to the Northwest Territories, discussing issues of discipline and sexual harassment and concerns about the RCMP that they might have, and I have invited them to bring those concerns forward.

But generally speaking, I think the sense I got was that these reforms were welcome, and we were urged to bring them forward as quickly as possible.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

So there were no official consultations with members regarding this bill before it was introduced.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

There were certainly significant and formal consultations with the provinces and the territories on this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

You have 15 seconds.