Public Safety Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2012

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Good afternoon, everyone. This is meeting number 50 of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security on Wednesday, October 3, 2012.

This afternoon we're beginning our consideration of Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

We have a number of witnesses appearing before us today. Our first witness is the Honourable Vic Toews, Minister of Public Safety. We also have Commissioner Bob Paulson, Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. As well, from the Department of Public Safety, we have Richard Wex, the assistant deputy minister.

Our committee wants to thank all of you for coming back. You have appeared a number of times before our committee. Actually, you have appeared when we have asked. We very much appreciate that. Thank you for coming back at your earliest convenience.

The way the committee is going to work this afternoon is that the minister will be giving an opening statement. After one hour, he will have to leave. The commissioner and Assistant Deputy Minister Wex will stay and answer any questions we may have. What we will do is suspend after one hour and allow the minister an opportunity to leave, and then we will reconvene in one or two minutes.

Again, we want to thank Minister Toews. Because we are televised today, I would remind all members to kindly turn your cellphones off if they are by the microphones, or at least put them on silent or vibrate mode. That just makes things a lot easier. To all those in the audience, perhaps do that as well.

Minister, welcome back. We look forward to your comments.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for your invitation to speak about Bill C-42, the Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act. I am pleased to be accompanied by the RCMP commissioner, Mr. Paulson, and the assistant deputy minister, Richard Wex, of the Department of Public Safety.

I would like to also mention that these two individuals had a lot to do with the completion of the 20-year contract signed between the RCMP and the various provinces. They put in a lot of hard work. The fact that all the provinces signed back on to the RCMP, with some changes in the contract, is a good indication of the satisfaction of all provinces with the RCMP. It is also a credit to these two individuals and their staff and the work they did in that respect.

Mr. Chair, it is essential that Canadians have full confidence in the RCMP. However, this confidence has been tested over the past few years, which has highlighted certain challenges in the RCMP. As Canada's national police force, the RCMP must overcome these challenges and regain public trust. In particular, over the past number of months, Canadians have heard some extremely disturbing reports about the conduct of some RCMP officers. That's why our government made it clear that we would work closely with the commissioner to take action to restore pride in Canada's national police force.

Part of the problem is that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act has not evolved to allow the organization to keep pace with changes in modern police management, or, frankly, to meet public expectations. In fact, the RCMP Act has not been significantly amended in almost 25 years. Over the last decade, a number of stakeholders, committees, and inquiries have called for changes to the RCMP's accountability framework. The RCMP has made some changes to address these deficiencies, including implementing an external investigations and review policy, instituting operational response and readiness policies, and enhancing the conducted-energy weapons policy.

While it is clear that a culture change is needed within the RCMP, changes to the RCMP's legislative framework are also required.

The legislative amendments in Bill C-42 focus on three key areas. First, Mr. Chair, the bill creates a modern and independent civilian review and complaints commission for the RCMP, essentially referred to as CRCC, to replace the existing Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, the CPC, and it provides it with enhanced powers.

Second, it imposes statutory obligations on the handling of criminal investigations of serious incidents involving RCMP members, which are designed to improve the transparency and public accountability of these investigations.

Third, the bill modernizes the RCMP's discipline, grievance, and human resource management framework, while also aligning the RCMP commissioner's human resource authorities with those of public sector leaders and other senior police executives.

I'd like to take a few moments to outline each of these three components, beginning with the new RCMP public complaints regime.

As committee members may know, complaints against the RCMP are currently handled by the CPC. However, there have been increasing concerns expressed by the public contract jurisdictions, parliamentary committees, public inquiries, and others that this commission lacks sufficient powers to effectively investigate public complaints about the conduct of RCMP officers. The proposed legislation responds to the key recommendation flowing from all of these groups.

Specifically, it would create a strengthened independent civilian review and complaints body for the RCMP that provides the new body with powers and authorities similar to other modern international, federal, and provincial review bodies. It also grants the new commission broad access to RCMP information, strengthens the commission's investigative powers, and allows the new commission the power to conduct policy reviews into RCMP activities, including those relating to national security.

Consistent with judicial inquiries and all other federal review bodies, such as the Security Intelligence Review Committee, the Auditor General, and the offices of the information and privacy commissioners, the new commission will make non-binding findings and recommendations to the commissioner and the Minister of Public Safety.

Mr. Chair, let me address this point clearly: the RCMP commissioner is held accountable for the operations of the RCMP and must decide whether to act on the findings and recommendations of the commission. The commissioner is accountable and responsible for the operations of the RCMP, and we will not undermine that accountability by making recommendations binding. However, consistent with the existing legislative requirements, it's also clear that whenever the RCMP commissioner decides not to act on commission recommendations, he must explain, in writing, the reasons for doing so to the new commission and to me.

While some have called for binding recommendations, others, such as Justice O'Connor and the RCMP Reform Implementation Council, support the approach of non-binding findings and recommendations.

Separate from the complaints process, Bill C-42 sets out a statutory framework to improve the transparency of serious criminal investigations of incidents involving RCMP members that result in death or serious injury. The RCMP will now be required, by statute, to refer serious criminal cases involving RCMP members to an independent provincial investigative body, where one exists—for example, British Columbia, Alberta, and Nova Scotia. This is in keeping with the provinces' authority for the administration of justice in their jurisdiction. In provinces and territories where such bodies don't exist, these investigations must be referred to another police service. Only in rare instances, and as a last resort, where neither of these options is available, would the RCMP undertake the investigation itself.

This framework is designed to address public concerns about the impartiality of RCMP members investigating other RCMP members who are involved in a serious incident. Some have called for the creation of a national investigative body, but what has been proposed in that sense would create significant redundancy in jurisdictions where a civilian investigative body already exists, while consuming resources and delaying investigations. The most important consideration is that the provinces and the territories, which have the constitutional responsibility for policing and the administration of justice, have not called for this.

We will continue to work with the provinces and territories in this regard.

Mr. Chair, the last component of the bill modernizes the RCMP's discipline, grievance, and human resource management framework. The current processes embodied in the RCMP Act lack flexibility and are disjointed. Discipline and grievance processes carry heavy administrative burdens and can be drawn out for years.

For example, an RCMP member was suspended from duty after being arrested and charged with uttering threats and weapons offences. While the member was not permitted to work, he stayed on the payroll, receiving salary for 18 months. This is clearly a problem. Under Bill C-42, managers will be given the authority to impose remedial measures, like counselling and corrective sanctions, when performance and conduct are not acceptable.

The bottom line is that this legislation would also empower managers, allowing them to deal with issues before they turn into big problems. An example I've used before is this one. In August of 2004, a grievance was filed over a dinner allowance claim of $15. Under the current system, it took seven years to obtain a final decision on the matter. Under this bill, that would be streamlined and dealt with in a matter of weeks. This is a vast improvement over the current system, where all formal sanctions must be handled through a time- and resource-consuming discipline board. Only in those cases where dismissal is being sought would the issue be referred to a conduct board.

Under the current grievance system, a formal, resource-intensive, paper-based process is the norm. With this legislation, front-line managers would have access to a less formal conflict management and resolution system that would allow for matters to be dealt with quickly, fairly, and effectively.

Similarly, we are proposing changes to the current authorities of the RCMP commissioner. Under the current regime, the commissioner, in contrast to other police chiefs, lacks the authority to directly make determinations on certain human resource processes that are necessary to effectively manage the organization.

Bill C-42 would enhance accountability by now permitting the RCMP commissioner to both appoint and promote the majority of the officers of the RCMP below the rank of deputy commissioner. That being said, the federal cabinet process, through orders in council, would be used to appoint the commissioner and all deputy commissioners.

The commissioner would be given the authority to establish a system to create a seamless way to respond to harassment complaints in a timely, transparent, and fair manner that would be specific to the investigation and resolution of complaints where a respondent is an RCMP member. This would help to overcome the current challenges of attempting to simultaneously apply the Treasury Board harassment policy and the RCMP Act to addressing harassment concerns.

Finally, Mr. Chair, we propose changes to the current human resource structure in which the RCMP employees are divided into three categories: regular members, civilian members, and public service employees. This requires three different human resource systems, making it difficult to manage human resources efficiently and effectively across the organization.

To increase human resource efficiencies, the proposed legislation provides a mechanism through which Treasury Board may convert current civilian members to public service employees, thus reducing the number of categories of employees by one.

In conclusion, Mr. Chair, the proposed changes to the RCMP Act are designed to enhance the accountability of the RCMP and to support the implementation of the new 20-year contract agreements entered into with the provinces and territories this year, which I mentioned at the onset of my comments. Accountability and oversight were focal points for the provinces, territories, and municipalities in the announcements of the new police service agreements. In fact, the British Columbia justice minister has stated that she is “very pleased” and thinks it's a very positive first step.

We have listened to our provincial and territorial counterparts and recognize that in order to keep pace with changes in modern policing, reform of the RCMP's legislative framework is required. I have spent the summer consulting RCMP members, community leaders, and Canadians on this bill. The response has been encouraging, and I believe this bill addresses the concerns I have heard.

Mr. Chair, even David Eby of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association has said that—and I quote—“it's good to see these changes coming”.

In closing, thank you for giving me the opportunity to provide you with an overview of this important legislation designed to help bolster confidence and accountability in the RCMP. I look forward to following your deliberations on the bill and possible amendments. Our goal is to ensure we have the best bill possible.

I'm now happy to answer any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.

We'll move into the first round of questioning, a seven-minute round. We'll begin with Ms. Bergen, please, for seven minutes.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for being here, as well as Commissioner Paulson and Mr. Wex. We appreciate your time.

Mr. Minister, it's unbelievable, actually, that the RCMP have had to operate under such an old piece of legislation that has not been updated, and they have had to function. I think it's a credit to their leadership and to the members that they have been able to operate with such success.

As you mentioned, certainly there have been some challenges over the last little while, things I know members themselves want to see corrected, but I think as we look at what they've had to deal with under the old piece of legislation, it's good to see the new bill come forward and see the changes it will make.

One thing that I didn't hear you address, Minister, and I am wondering if you could talk a bit about are the costs associated with Bill C-42, specifically with the new complaints review commission, as well as modernizing the human resources framework. Do you have any comments you can make on that?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you, Ms. Bergen.

The new Civilian Review and Complaints Commission, the CRCC, will be given an increase of approximately $5 million, giving the new commission base funding of $10.4 million per year. I think the base funding is $5 million, but they've been appropriating about $8 million to do that, so we're simply moving the base to $10 million, which reflects the costs for that particular commission, we believe.

In terms of the RCMP human resource regime, the RCMP will receive up to an additional $9.8 million to enhance their discipline, grievance, and human resource management framework.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you very much for that.

In relation to modernizing the framework, one of the problems that has arisen over the last few years would be the accusations and complaints of harassment. I'm thinking specifically about sexual harassment, which has been quite a problem, and for all Canadians it's disturbing to think that anyone would have to deal with sexual harassment in the workplace, and especially our RCMP.

You did talk a little bit specifically about how under the old regime a complaint would be dealt with, whether it would be an issue of a dining receipt, which I think you mentioned, or something as serious as an accusation of harassment.

Can you explain to us how under the current legislation, the current act—because I think most Canadians are not aware of how drawn out and how difficult the whole process is—harassment and issues like that are dealt with, and how modernizing this will really bring it into line with pretty well every other sector and every other organization that deals with human resources issues?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I'll make a few introductory comments, and then perhaps either the commissioner or Mr. Wex can take it from there.

As I understand it now, the RCMP has met with the challenge of essentially having two regimes that govern that type of complaint. It would be the Treasury Board guidelines and the RCMP Act. So they're trying to mesh two different systems in terms of dealing with this type of a system.

But with the complexity of dealing with a sexual harassment complaint, even where the complaint is straightforward and the evidence is straightforward, it becomes a very complicated, adversarial-based system that literally drags on for years, and that's not good for the health of the organization or the culture inside the organization.

Commissioner, I don't know if you have anything to add.

[Commissioner Bob Paulson, Commissioner, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

Thank you, Minister.

What I would add is that under the existing statute, the current approach probably gives rise to a lot of criticism about the culture, because in the case of harassment, the Treasury Board does have pretty clear policies respecting early recognition of harassment and engagement at the earliest opportunity to try to resolve the conflict.

Then you have a culture of police concerned about accusations of harassment, and confusion arises about how to handle the suggestion that there is misconduct in the workplace. So you will have code of conduct investigations launched while harassment initiatives are under way. They conflict with one another and cause a good deal of confusion for our managers and our supervisors, who, under this new approach, are going to be asked to manage that conduct at the first opportunity.

What we're doing is streamlining and getting rid of the need to have this bifurcated approach to these instances.

The act also calls for an early conflict resolution mechanism that will have to be applied and deployed by me, so that we deal with behaviours in the workplace as behaviours in the workplace.

Many of the incidents in the public consciousness right now shouldn't be understood as sexual harassment or harassment issues. Many of them are in fact accusations of criminality.

We want to get to a workplace that is respectful, and to one where, when conflicts arise in the workplace, our managers are able to manage and deal with them in the first instance.

I think it will go a long way towards not only streamlining our response but also helping fix the culture of managing the workplace.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

You have about three quarters of a minute.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Okay, thank you.

Minister, can you comment further on the consultations that have taken place with provinces and stakeholders, as you described them?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

One thing that the provinces and territories wanted was a system that is responsive to local conditions. It's for this reason that they welcome the idea that their own civilian bodies would be able to take over the complaint investigation, which gives a local flavour and a sense of local accountability. Even though, ultimately, matters are dealt with at a federal level, the actual determinations of these bodies, at that local level, I think can be very helpful in restoring confidence and local accountability.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Minister.

Thank you, Ms. Bergen.

We'll move to Madame Doré Lefebvre, please, for seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will be sharing my time with Ms. Ashton.

Thank you for being here today, Mr. Minister. We are delighted to be studying this bill in committee, to be taking the time to examine it properly and to see how we can work together to improve it.

Mr. Minister, you have said that amendments at committee were needed. We would like to see amendments focused on three main areas: first of all, a truly independent oversight agency and independent investigations; second, a balanced approach regarding disciplinary provisions and labour relations; and third, adequate measures to address harassment in the workplace.

We believe that the RCMP must be modernized in order to restore public confidence in that organization. Lastly, like Commissioner Paulson, we believe that this legislation is not enough to uphold public confidence. Substantial reforms aimed at changing the underlying problems regarding the RCMP's corporate culture are needed in order to foster a more open, co-operative and respectful work environment for everyone.

The minister has obviously not been able to provide the leadership needed in order to address the broader issues facing the RCMP, and this must change. The NDP believes that we need to go even further regarding these issues, particularly the issue of sexual harassment.

I will end there and give the floor to Ms. Ashton.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Ms. Ashton, go ahead.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Thank you very much, Ms. Doré Lefebvre.

Thank you, Minister Toews and Commissioner Paulson, for being with us today.

Minister Toews, we've heard statements on this bill for a few days now, but I am concerned that your opening statements don't actually refer to the words “sexual harassment”, which is in fact the elephant in the room that so many Canadians are talking about and wanting to see direct action on. There is reference to legislation not being enough and this being about a change in culture.

Have you asked the RCMP for a specific policy on sexual harassment?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Let me deal with some of the issues that your colleague brought up, because I don't want to leave those unanswered.

The issue of the national body, for example, that the NDP is asking for has not been asked for by any of the provinces or territories. In fact, that would be exactly counter to what the provinces and the territories have wanted, because they want more accountability at a local level. That national body would again be Ottawa dictating or conducting proceedings that I think would be inappropriate. We need to ensure that it is much more responsive at a local level. This is in keeping with what the provinces and the territories want.

With respect to the issue of cultural changes that your colleague raised, I think what we see now in the legislation—this deals with the issue of sexual harassment—is the fact that the present legislation impedes our ability to make cultural changes.

There are such inordinate delays in the process and a lack of clarity in the process. Conduct that should be corrected immediately is not corrected.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Could I pick up on that concept in terms of a deadline? I think you're touching on a key point around changing culture. What kind of timeframe are you looking for as minister, and certainly Canadians are looking for, where we can see that kind of cultural change?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Look, we're dealing with an organization of some 30,000 people. This is not something that will happen tomorrow, but certainly the process has already begun.

One of the major stumbling blocks to get that culture change is the current legislation, no question about that. The sooner we get this legislation in place, the more we can take the blocks away from changing that culture and dealing with the issue of sexual harassment.

I know the RCMP does gender-based audits to ensure that what they are doing is appropriate. I think that audit is currently under way. I think this is all part of the issue of how we deal with sexual harassment at the organizational level, or the issue of sexual discrimination at the organizational level, so that we can deal with some of the more immediate or localized problems.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

If I could follow up on the kind of investigating that's happening right now, we know current investigations will be completed by the old system. We're concerned about the progress of reports, such as the ongoing public complaints investigation on issues of workplace harassment within the RCMP.

We've heard about several layoffs under the old CPC. We're concerned and we want to know how will that hinder progress on these investigations while the RCMP, with this bill passing, will be integrating a new complaints commission. What will that mean for the investigations taking place now?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

As a general rule, you can't impose new standards on an old process—I think you would know that from any legal context, any grievance context—without the consent of the parties involved.

Obviously there is a transition period, and the RCMP and the department are working with that.

Commissioner, do you have any specific comments that you could add to what I've already stated?

[Commr Bob Paulson]

With respect to investigating complaints...was that the origin of the question?

There is the internal sort of investigation of complaints that are made—public complaints—there are harassment complaints, and then there is the CPC's managing of complaints. So we're talking about a number of spheres of complaints.

Since 2005, the RCMP has received approximately 1,100 harassment complaints. It may be interesting for the committee to understand that of those 1,100 or so harassment complaints, 93% of them are predominantly around misuse of authority and personal comportment issues. The sexual harassment complaints, which are in the public concern right now, comprise about 3% of those.

Those complaints are being investigated right now. I've talked to this committee, I believe, about what I've done since I've been commissioner to try to streamline, centralize, and action any complaints so that the membership has confidence, first of all, that there is a viable complaints system, that the complainants are kept apprised of those things.

I'm not sure I got the full gist of your question, but—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Commissioner.

We will now move to the government side.

Mr. Leef.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Thank you very much, Commissioner, Minister, and Mr. Wex for attending today.

Minister, I'm just going to quickly read back to you from your statement:

Over the last decade, there have been a number of stakeholders, committees, and inquiries that have called for changes to the RCMP's accountability framework.

Later in your statement you say, “We've listened to our provincial and territorial counterparts....”

I have an example of a review that was done in the RCMP. It's from my riding in the Yukon. It's called “Sharing Common Ground”. I recognize not everybody will be familiar with the document. For the benefit of the commissioner and all Canadians, one of the things they highlight early in their executive summary is that we have heard many accounts of policing excellence, including stories of RCMP members acting above and beyond their normal duties. The purpose of the review is to improve the quality of policing services for all citizens in the territory. Certainly, I know from my constituents in the Yukon that the RCMP play a valuable role, and will continue to do so well into our future. We thank you for that commitment and dedication to service in the Yukon.

On the point raised by the opposition, Mr. Minister, about a national body reviewing these things, you spoke directly to the point that this would be counterintuitive with respect to the recommendations and things you've heard. To support that point, I would like to read a couple of sections from that executive summary.

They say “...to ensure that community needs and values are reflected in territorial policing policies and practices” is a key theme of “Sharing Common Ground”.

They highlight that “Citizens want...an effective complaints process and they want to ensure that an independent investigation will be undertaken when the RCMP is involved in a death or serious...investigation”. They want “greater input into establishing...priorities for “M” Division”, which is what Yukon's division is called.

It says, “Citizens expressed significant support for a local and responsive complaint process, and had considerable interest in the issue of 'police investigating police'”. They want input into that.

This executive summary essentially highlights what you were talking about a little earlier: that a national body would run counter to what is written here in a territorial review on policing services in M Division. Have you seen that as a similar reflection of public opinion in other provinces and other reviews?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Absolutely. That statement is a very good summary of what I heard right across Canada from all of the jurisdictions. In fact, I am not aware of any jurisdiction that has advocated having some kind of a national body to do this. One of the hold-ups in the negotiations, as Mr. Wex can testify to, was that this process was outside their jurisdiction. Remember, when we talk about the RCMP, it's not simply a national police force. When we sign an agreement with British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, and Manitoba, our national police force becomes a provincial police force in that jurisdiction. It's answerable to the attorney general in that jurisdiction. There are then further agreements with municipalities. The RCMP then becomes a municipal police force as well. Taxpayers are saying, “We're paying for this at a municipal level. We're paying for it at a provincial level. Why wouldn't we have some level of accountability?” This legislation was designed to answer that. One of the strongest advocates was British Columbia. Your summary from the Yukon report would reflect that. I am not aware of anyone who would take a different position other than the federal NDP.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

We spent some time talking about restoring public confidence in the RCMP. Can you highlight how this will restore confidence in the RCMP for the members of the force?