Public Safety Committee on Oct. 15th, 2012

[C/Supt Craig MacMillan]

Presently, under the RCMP Act, when a grievance is filed in relation to a promotion matter, there is a requirement under the act that information that is relevant and necessary to establish the grievance or deal with the grievance is to be disclosed to the member.

There are some limitations, such as national security and other things. It's very expensive to develop testing instruments for promotional processes. What this is designed to say is that you would get access to other relevant information, but the test itself, where the criteria met are established, would not be disclosed. My understanding is that this exists in the public service regime as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much.

We'll now move back to the government side and Mr. Norlock, please, for five minutes.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and through you to the witnesses, thank you for attending.

My questions will be directed primarily towards Chief MacMillan. On page 3, you indicate that:

Bill C-42 provides a framework that permits and empowers managers closest to the incident to identify and respond more promptly and more effectively to the vast majority of incidents....

First, are you able to speak to the difference in the time to investigate offences or breaches of conduct, etc., under the old system as compared to the new system proposed under Bill C-42? Could you walk us through why you are saying it is going to be much faster?

[C/Supt Craig MacMillan]

Presently, if you were talking about anything that's formal—we're talking about formal discipline and you're asking for more than a reprimand or a one-day forfeiture of leave—it's required to go to a board. For informal and formal discipline, depending on the nature of the case, it would probably average about one year to do the investigation. Bill C-42 will address that. The commissioner will have the ability to make rules around timelines and other matters relating to investigations.

Moving into the next step, which is the formal adjudication board, the data shows we're averaging between 12 and 16 months. The members said, “We think you did something bad. Here's your notice. We're taking it to a hearing.” It's about 12 months before that matter is actually going to get to a hearing, so you're already up to about 24 months in total.

If the discipline that's imposed upon the member in the formal process is appealed to the commissioner, it would go to the external review committee. At present, it's two years for the external review committee to review a matter. It then goes to the commissioner, and there's been anywhere from six months to a year to do that process. Since Commissioner Paulson has come in, we've managed, through his dedicated attention to these matters, to get the timeline for formal discipline appeals down.

Under Bill C-42, the vast majority of these matters, which are below dismissal, are not going to require a formal adjudicative process.

Recurring in any reports that we've had is that it's too legalistic, too formalistic, and it's seen purely through a lens of a legal process. Rather than trying to deal with the performance and conduct that's at issue at the local level—they're going to have to have checks and balances involved in that process—the idea is that we should be talking about a matter of days or weeks, not months and years.

I'd say that roughly 98% of our discipline should be dealt with through the more informal process that will be proposed under Bill C-42. It creates the framework around which, through rules, regulations, and policies, you can create a process that can adapt to the changes.

It relates to what Mr. Potter was talking about when you're trying to resolve public complaints. There is an ability to marry these things together. We'll be required to inform public complainants about what discipline is going to be imposed.

I can see managers having the confidence now because they know that on the one hand they have the ability to resolve public complaints; on the other hand, if there's performance or conduct that's at issue, they can resolve that as well. It's not leaving their hands and going into a formal process where they have no control, and really it's not dealing with the conduct at the level that it should be.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you.

I have a follow-up question to do with the code of conduct. Bill C-42 addresses a code of conduct. Are you able to speak to what this will be? It's nice to say “code of conduct”, but without being too specific, and yet giving an overview to Canadians who will be looking at this, what would be some of the conduct that would be required? What would be in that code?

[C/Supt Craig MacMillan]

What's proposed under Bill C-42 is that there will be a regulation that can create the code of conduct. Our current code of conduct is very formal. It is written in legal language and there are a lot of sections. The proposal is that through consultations with the stakeholders, employees, external partners, and others, we'll come up with a conduct code that I can envision being a page and a half. It will be stated more as positive ethical principles and obligations on responsibilities and performance.

Britain has some experience with that. We've looked at what they've done, and they've come up with a positive statement that members “will” instead of members “shall not”, and then getting into a series of specifics. It's more in keeping with reforms that are happening generally.

Am I correct that the code is regulation, or is it CSO?

[Supt Michael O'Rielly]

It is a regulation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Norlock.

We'll move back to Mr. Rousseau. You have five minutes, please.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I have many questions about the disciplinary measures. In one sentence, which jumped out at me, it says that the new act will force managers to manage. I thought there already was an ethics code. However, under the new bill, it is as if this code had never been applied, and did not allow managers to manage.

In particular, my questions are about disciplinary measures and the ranking of sanctions. How will the appeal process work? How will the valid reasons that may trigger disciplinary measures be defined?

[C/Supt Craig MacMillan]

If I've understood, there would be three parts to your question in terms of a code of conduct.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Yes, sorry about that.

[C/Supt Craig MacMillan]

That's okay.

There currently is a code of conduct, you're correct. We intend to modernize and upgrade what we have as a code of conduct, so it's more relevant to how human resource processes have progressed.

In terms of managers being able to manage, as I've explained, the difficulty is that if you're looking for more than a reprimand, essentially you don't have an ability to deal with that. It's off into a formal process that's going to be occurring outside of your immediate area. So the notion that you're managing it...yes, we have managers who are managing, but the problem is once it gets to a certain level, it's out of their hands. If we bring it down to the most appropriate level, that allows them to effectively deal with it. If there are performance issues, if there are wellness issues and other things, it's really keeping it where it ought to be, and not pulling a piece of it away and they're caught in this timeline where it could take months or years for a matter to be resolved. Again, if it's not a dismissal matter, I think most people would accept that it's more appropriate that it be dealt with at the lowest and most appropriate level in the organization, which is your direct manager.

In terms of appeals, an appeal process will be created. One of the things we're anticipating is that any decision to impose measures will be subject to an appeal. Right now we do have certain disciplinary actions that are not subject to grievance or appeal, such as counselling or recommendation for transfer, but we're proposing that all those things be subject to appeal and it will be one level. But if you're going to be getting a financial penalty of more than one day because of the importance of having externality and independence, it will go to the external review committee and they can have a look at that.

In terms of cause, we've now moved out of the dismissal context. We're into other administrative processes for discharges. Processes will be created, which this legislation would enable us to do. An example of a cause would be if you're an employee or a member and you lose your security clearance. There's a reason you lost your security clearance. That would provide cause. But we currently don't have the authority to dismiss an employee because they don't have a security clearance. That's an example of where we'd modernize a process to recognize that it's not just for any reason; there's a specific reason that has to be established why they don't have a security clearance. That's a requirement for employment, and that would be a grounds for cause.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Thank you very much.

You also refer to a change in culture within the RCMP police force. The leaders of the organization will need strong will to provoke a change in culture, a change in conduct and, mostly, a change among individual members. How will you apply that out in the field? Are RCMP officers and workers on the ground calling for this change? Or rather, is it due to public pressure that you are considering this change?

[C/Supt Craig MacMillan]

I think it's an ongoing process. There have been a series of reports and examinations covering a wide swath of activity by the RCMP, from operations to human resource practices. Certainly civil actions have been started. We've had grievance processes and we've had complaints. I would say to you, yes, we do have employees who are saying we need to have processes that are more effective and more timely. And part of that process is getting them to have trust in the processes we have and that the organization is being effective.

If it's taken five years to dismiss an employee who clearly ought to be dismissed, that's not going to instill a lot of trust and confidence.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

It's not very effective.

[C/Supt Craig MacMillan]

And our surveys show us that. The employees say they're untimely and they're not doing that. We are responding to our own internal surveys and other examinations that have demonstrated that trust and confidence are things we need to work on. I think an element that most would agree on is that if it's timely, it will proceed more quickly, and that will instill a change in culture because people will believe that things will be acted upon.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much. That was a good question, Mr. Rousseau.

Let's move to Mr. Hawn, please, for five minutes.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to all the witnesses for being here.

I want to clarify something, just to be 100% sure it gets reflected correctly, Mr. Potter. It reflects back to a question from Madame St-Denis. Just confirm that 85% of complaints are satisfied at the first level and only 15% have to move on to further action. Is that correct?

[Mark Potter]

That's correct.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Okay, thank you.

How have these changes been received by members in the field, Chief Superintendent MacMillan or Superintendent O'Rielly?

[C/Supt Craig MacMillan]

You'll be hearing from our staff relations representatives.

I think there's some anxiety because there's change and we're in a bit of a catch-22. We need the framework, which is what we want, which provides adaptability and the ability to change, but at the same time we can't nail down the details. We have to consult. This is going to be a consultative process; we'll be involving our representatives and our employees. We don't want to come out with the widget built, because then you're accused of not consulting. So it's a catch-22.

My general sense is that there is positive support for the changes when you talk to employees and they understand that the most appropriate level in their organization will have more authority to deal with that, but we need caution. You've got to have checks and balances on that process.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I guess my next question follows along with that.

Will that consultation then work its way back to this committee for amendments?

[C/Supt Craig MacMillan]

No, I'm sorry.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

It is going to follow on....

[C/Supt Craig MacMillan]

That would be post-enactment.