Evidence of meeting #51 for Public Safety and National Security in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was commissioner.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Senior Director, RCMP Policy Division, Law Enforcement and Policing Branch, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Yes. We'll be moving with regulations that will prescribe those kinds of complaints that couldn't be resolved informally.
NDP
Senior Director, RCMP Policy Division, Law Enforcement and Policing Branch, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Exactly.
As we do those regulations, we'll be consulting, and there will be the ability to comment, etc.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
I think those are some important improvements in the bill with regard to the informal complaints.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you very much, Mr. Garrison.
We'll go to Mr. Payne, please, for five minutes.
Conservative
LaVar Payne Conservative Medicine Hat, AB
Thank you, Chair. Thanks to the witnesses for attending today.
I have some questions about the membership of these independent bodies.
I know there have been some ongoing discussions with the various provinces. I'm wondering if you could tell us what you've done in terms of a review of those independent bodies. Do we know what kind of membership they have and the types of individuals who might be on those bodies? Are they former RCMP? Are they police officers? What kind of membership do they have?
Director General, Policing Policy Directorate, Law Enforcement and Policing Branch, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Thank you very much.
I think you're referring to the criminal civilian investigative bodies, such as the ones in B.C., Alberta, and Nova Scotia.
Director General, Policing Policy Directorate, Law Enforcement and Policing Branch, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
It would be very useful for this committee to hear directly from them.
I can speak a little bit about, for example, the one in B.C., which was just started a month ago. They went through a public process of soliciting individuals who could head that organization. They found someone. He's an individual who has a lot of experience in that field. He has worked in Denver and some other places in the United States in a very similar role. He is a civilian with a legal background.
In staffing that organization, clearly they want individuals who can conduct competent investigations. Often, in the current environment, that means you're looking at former police officers. However, I know that in B.C., through the justice training they're doing, and in other jurisdictions, they're trying to train more civilians to conduct investigations, so that when someone joins a body like that they have no previous link whatsoever to a previous police service.
We're not there yet. But I think the goal is to ensure that there is absolutely no potential perception of partiality with respect to these individuals and any background connections they may have, even if they're extremely remote or distant. That is the goal, but we're not there yet in terms of training those individuals with the required skills.
Conservative
LaVar Payne Conservative Medicine Hat, AB
Thank you.
I also have some questions around harassment and the complaints.
Those were fairly general, and I would like to get a little more specific information in terms of harassment, particularly around civilians.
What is the process? Is it a normal complaint? How is that managed, if there are harassment complaints to the RCMP?
C/Supt Craig MacMillan
It depends on who the parties are. If the respondent is an RCMP officer, regular member or a civilian member, the RCMP Act has to be considered and applied in terms of the conduct. If it's a public servant who is the respondent, it's generally the Treasury Board policy that applies. If it's between two public servants, it's clear that the Treasury Board policy applies.
That's one of the considerations—who is making the allegation and who is responding to the allegation—in determining which process you are going to be under.
If you are under the RCMP process, I am aware there is dissatisfaction from the public service employee side. There is a view that there should be more active participation and disclosure of certain information as part of that investigative process. That's not presently provided for under our code of conduct investigations for regular and civilian members, and that causes some tension in that regard.
I see quite a few of these in my current capacity. You try to work with the spirit and intent of the Treasury Board policy, which is trying to resolve this in the workplace, but under the statute it says that if it appears there's a contravention of the code of conduct, that's the process you're supposed to be using.
You're trying to balance the rights and interests and responsibilities of the parties involved, but it can become difficult if somebody wants to use a code of conduct and insists that is how it has to happen. It closes the door to dealing with the other complaint more informally.
Now that's not to say there aren't attempts to mediate and resolve issues, but there are these kinds of jurisdictional issues that arise in the investigative process. You can go all the way through the Treasury Board process and not be successful in resolving it, and then you're triggering a code of conduct process. People will say, “Okay, I gave a statement on that. What are you doing with that? Where does that apply? I didn't know you were going to use that here.”
It's a complexity that doesn't have to exist. The rule-making authority that will be granted to the commissioner will allow him to meet the needs of Treasury Board and respectful workplaces that are trying to resolve conflicts, while at the same time making sure there's some rigour in making sure the member's interests are protected and dealt with properly.
Conservative
LaVar Payne Conservative Medicine Hat, AB
What would happen in the case of John Doe Public having a complaint of harassment?
C/Supt Craig MacMillan
That could be a public complaint. It could be reviewed by the CRCC. That whole process would be triggered, if they wanted to go that route and they were dissatisfied with the investigation done by the RCMP.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you very much.
I want to thank all of you for appearing before our committee today. Certainly I think you've been a good help. The questions have been good and your answers have been good. We appreciate your being here.
We will suspend for about one minute and ask our next guests to take the stand. We look forward to their comments.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
I'll call the meeting back to order. We're going to continue our consideration of Bill C-42.
In our final panel today we're going to hear from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police staff relations representative program. We have two members of the national executive here: Staff Sergeant Abe Townsend and Staff Sergeant Mike Casault.
We invite you to make a brief opening statement, and then we'll begin with seven-minute rounds again.
Mr. Townsend.
Staff Sergeant Abraham Townsend National Executive, Staff Relations Representative Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and ladies and gentlemen. We thank you for the opportunity to appear before your committee today on behalf of the 24,000 regular and civilian RCMP members who serve across Canada and internationally, to provide their perspective and input.
My name is Abe Townsend. I am in my 32nd year of service. With me is Mike Casault, in his 23rd year of service. We are the national executive of the staff relations representative program.
During my service I have served in four different provinces and two territories. My duties have included general duty policing, federal policing, and major crime investigation. My last uniformed posting was as a detachment commander in Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, at the rank of staff sergeant.
I have been an elected representative since 2004. Mike has served in the province of British Columbia, and was elected to represent our members in 2008.
The staff relations representative program is the non-union labour relations program for all 24,000 members of the RCMP. The program is authorized by law, and is the officially recognized program of representation on all issues that affect the welfare and/or dignity of RCMP members.
Our program is comprised of 42 representatives, democratically elected by and from the membership in all territories and provinces. The program has its own constitution, attached to this submission as appendix A, and a formal agreement with the commissioner, attached as appendix B.
We welcome the parliamentary hearings and your consideration of our feedback in relation to Bill C-42. We were not consulted during the drafting of Bill C-42. We look forward to providing this committee with our members' perspectives as well as updates on the outcomes of your work.
While there are some aspects of Bill C-42 that we appreciate, we have some fundamental areas of concern that we wish to express on behalf of our members.
We have heard much criticism directed towards the present RCMP Act and the need to change. Unfortunately, there has been no reference to the report of Mr. Justice René Marin. His report was the framework for the RCMP's current disciplinary and grievance system. I have attached as appendix C the historical overview taken from the RCMP Internet site. The emphasis was to have discipline administered and dispensed at the lowest possible level. The 1988 act brought into play procedural fairness and natural justice. Emphasis was on identifying weaknesses and unacceptable behaviours and taking appropriate remedial action—corrective action versus punitive action. Grievance rights and processes were introduced, as was the external review committee.
We believe some managers at all levels of the organization did not do what the act encouraged and empowered them to do, and we find ourselves here today.
Accountability is no stranger to our members. As peace and public officers, they are accountable to the rule of law. Accountability touches every aspect of our job. The vast majority of our members meet and exceed these expectations.
Our members execute their duties realizing the dangerous and conflict-ridden environments in which they serve.
We realize that internal and external review may be the byproduct of honourable service.
Legislation must serve their unique interests as they serve the community.
The present act contains the necessary authorities, but they have not been utilized properly. Managers at all levels have not been held accountable for their behaviour, action, and inaction. What will change with new legislation?
Unfortunately, I can speak of instances where internal processes of the RCMP have failed individual members, and by extension the force and the public we have sworn to serve. I can speak of a young member, a single mother who endured almost a decade of suspension, only to be reinstated, after appeal, by Commissioner Paulson. I venture to say that this female member, under the provisions of Bill C-42, with the stay provision removed from the act, would no longer be employed with the RCMP. Where is the fairness?
I can speak of a female member who alleged sexual harassment and faced roadblock after roadblock in seeking resolution.
I can speak of the file of a member who was accused of sexual assault. This member was investigated by the RCMP and criminally charged. Only later was the truth revealed: there was no assault. In the meantime, the RCMP member's career and personal life were in ruins. Yes, there was a public apology by the attorney general of the province involved, but it was too late. What would happen to this member under Bill C-42?
There has to be protection for such instances. We have far too many cases of harassment left to drift aimlessly, and we have conduct investigations and decisions associated with those investigations that are delayed beyond reason—delayed by bureaucratic obstructions and avoidance. It has been my experience that these failures were not always due to faults with or restrictions imposed by the present act.
My purpose is not to focus on failure. The vast majority of our members will not come into conflict with the RCMP Act during their career—the majority will serve with distinction without internal challenge—but for the few who do, we must have legislation that will serve in a fair and constructive manner. Our managers must be trained to properly utilize the authorities available.
There has been much debate in relation to the RCMP culture. Millions of taxpayer dollars have been spent to examine the RCMP on many important issues. This is an investment in our national police force. My concern is not with the investment, but with our ability and desire to pay real attention to the recommendations of those various reports: the Brown task force and the reform implementation committee reports, the reports of Dr. Linda Duxbury, or the RCMP Pay Council report on discipline. All are reports having been made with the goal of advancing our organization.
As we focus on discipline, I am left to wonder: if the recommendations of the pay council report on discipline had been implemented when written in 2005, would the criticism and frustration we now realize have been avoided?
Bill C-42 will see the commissioner given broad authority to make rules. These rules must have accountability on outcome. We look forward to working constructively in building these rules. Principles of procedural fairness and natural justice must remain. The legislation and the rules that follow cannot simply be about dealing with the very few bad apples, but must nourish the entire orchard. We must invest through learning and development.
I would like to draw specific attention to areas of the proposed legislation. The first is grievance procedures and discipline appeals. In Bill C-42, the commissioner makes the final decision on grievance procedures and discipline appeals.
On behalf of our membership, we believe grievance procedures and appeals for discipline cases should be expedient and impartial. Further, the decision-maker should have expertise and broad experience in labour relations. We have attached appendix D for your consideration.
With regard to the code of conduct, we commend the authors of this act for their proposed section 36.2. As a member, as a former detachment commander, and as a representative, I believe that if we adhere to these principles, we will find success.
With regard to the authority under the code of conduct for investigation of warrants, our members have expressed fear and apprehension in relation to this new authority provided under proposed section 40.2 of Bill C-42. We urge your consideration: remove or amend this section as suggested in our appendix E.
On conduct boards, under proposed section 43 of Bill C-42, we believe conduct boards must be reserved for the most serious of alleged breaches of the code of conduct. In these cases, legislation should clearly articulate the implicit right to an oral hearing wherein evidence can be examined and cross-examined.
In relation to the CRCC, the enhanced authorities provided to the CRCC in Bill C-42 will only serve to reassure the Canadian public, in their eyes, of our members' accountability.
We invite external review; however, we must express our concern and objection in relation to the escalation of powers provided to the CRCC in proposed section 45.65, specifically the authority to order a statement during an investigation. While there are protections offered, we believe these protections against self-incrimination do not go far enough. We have similar concerns with proposed section 45.56.
In concluding my opening statement, I wish to make one final comment.
The “category of employee” issue has been with us for several years. We would also like to see a time when all employed in the RCMP are just that—employed under the authority of, and accountable to, the RCMP Act.
Thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you very much, Mr. Townsend.
We'll move into the first round of questioning.
Just before we do that, Mr. Townsend has referenced appendices A, B, C, D, and E in his presentation. It was in one official language, so we will get that translated....
It is in both?
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Andrew Bartholomew Chaplin
I'll make copies of his appendix E—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
All right. It's just a matter....
We will get it to you. There were some things that I think we didn't have a chance to circulate, so it will be circulated and you will get it.
Mr. Leef, please, for seven minutes.
Conservative
Ryan Leef Conservative Yukon, YT
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to both gentlemen for appearing today.
In previous committees I had the opportunity to ask the commissioner specifically about training. We talked about the RCMP being such a big organization, with diverse postings. Their promotional boards and the way in which people are promoted.... They don't always come through a necessary stream of supervision or leadership. There are a number of ways you could be promoted, and a number of postings and positions in which you never had to actually supervise anybody.
I personally was encouraged by the commissioner's remarks that they see building in, and I think you mentioned it, as part of promotion, as part of recruitment for selection for supervision, that necessary training for detachment commanders in small rural detachments, right up to supervisors who are promoted in large municipal policing settings, to undertake the kind of training that might lead to some of the concern you're highlighting.
Can you just build a little bit on your input there? You talked about concern around that, and we'd like to hear about those challenges.
S/Sgt Abraham Townsend
During my 32 years, I've worked in everything from a fly-in two-person detachment to a major municipal detachment, and the demographics of our policing are much different from what you see in your normal urban environment. We have a detachment commander who is a corporal, and that corporal could have seven to ten to twelve years' service. They have a good handle on core policing skills. Administrative and human resource management skills—that wasn't their bailiwick. All of a sudden they're put in command of a unit. They have the authority to discipline, under the current RCMP Act, up to and including the highest levels of informal, or under a proposed new act in relation to the conduct regime that has yet to be developed.
I think where we have failed in the current regime is that there was never any training. I was a commander, as a corporal in a small detachment, with nine years' service. I'll be honest: I knew very little, if anything, about the conduct regime of the RCMP Act. To me, it was just common sense.
As I progressed in my career, to the point where I was a staff sergeant running a unit with 40 members, unfortunately—or fortunately—I was able to dispense informal discipline, and I was able to refer misconduct that I felt, in my heart of hearts, was way beyond the scope of informal, up the chain of command to the appropriate officer or the commanding officer. I had those fortunate and unfortunate experiences as a commander. But there was never.... You learn as you go. You learn through osmosis.
If, under a new regime, we are going to push this down to the most appropriate level, there has to be learning and development and mentorship in relation to conduct authorities, giving commanders the knowledge, skills, and ability to do what the legislation intends us to do.
That was missing in the 1988 act. We can't go through that error again.