Public Safety Committee on Oct. 15th, 2012

[S/Sgt Abraham Townsend]

I am satisfied that there will be meaningful consultation. Nothing that has taken place since the bill was tabled would indicate otherwise. At the end of the day, the proof would be in the pudding, but so far I base a lot of what I do on goodwill and the honest and spoken word.

As for the development of the tools that will operationalize this entire act, it will be the rules around our probationary members, the rules around conduct, the rules around learning requirements, and the rules around discharge requirements, like loss of basic requirements. All these things have yet to be developed. We went through the list. There were 16 broad areas of development that we're looking forward to meaningful consultation on to make this bill operational within our working environment.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

You asked a rhetorical question. You talked about a couple of cases, and you talked about the sexual assault that dragged on for years—the guy was ruined, and so on.

You asked what would have happened under Bill C-42. Let me ask what you think would have happened under Bill C-42.

[S/Sgt Abraham Townsend]

My concern in that regard—and I think I made reference to a similar concern when I talked about the female member who was suspended for 10 years—is that under the current act, the board's decision, the appeal process through the external review committee, and then the final decision of the commissioner are all internal processes. The current act serves to stay the board's decision to allow the appeal to take place, and then the commissioner makes a final decision.

Under the current act, that member does stay on the books, and I think you heard the commissioner mention something along the lines that somebody was on the books for seven years and how does that benefit Canadians.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I'm asking you what would have happened under Bill C-42.

[S/Sgt Abraham Townsend]

Under Bill C-42, that stay provision is eliminated, so that person would have to fight their appeal as an outsider. They would no longer be a member of the force, based on the first decision, and they would have to fight their appeal from the outside. The appeal is an internal process and the RCMP controls the timelines of the appeal.

I listened to Chief MacMillan talk about these timelines—a year to do an investigation, two years for the ERC—and I was thinking that once the allegation is made, the member controls none of these timelines. They're all internal to the RCMP.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

You are suggesting that nothing would effectively change for the member under Bill C-42.

[S/Sgt Abraham Townsend]

Under Bill C-42, with the stay provision gone, the member would be an outsider.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I understand.

[S/Sgt Abraham Townsend]

They'd be out of the force, and all the internal appeal process would happen, and meanwhile....

We take young Canadian men and women and move them from one end of the country to the other. They have one core skill, and that's in policing. They can't go to the next town and say, “Well, I'm going to get a job as a policeman here and await my appeal.” It's huge, in our eyes.

I hope we can front-load the process so that the investigation doesn't take a year and the conduct authority doesn't take another year. Front-load the process, front-load the appeal, because it serves nobody's interest to leave somebody dangling, whether they're paid or unpaid, for an excessive length of time.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

What we heard earlier is that the aim of this is to in fact shorten that process.

[S/Sgt Abraham Townsend]

If they front-load the process, then I believe there's no reason that the stay provision couldn't remain. They've said here that they want to get it done as quickly and as fairly and as judiciously as possible.

Front-load the process; keep the stay provision, given that we're taking young Canadian men and women and putting them into policing environments from coast to coast to coast. They will get to the end of the road of internal processes without being an outsider.

[Staff Sergeant Michael Casault, National Executive, Staff Relations Representative Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

If I could add to that, I think that's part of the scenario with the 1988 act: the process was never looked at as what we have today. But it has been abused. I'm not saying there were built-in delays, but there were no expedited measures or timelines, and we're now stuck with a seven-year process.

With regard to this act, if we stay the person's wages and stuff, we may not have that ability to say, yes, today it's going to be two years or two months; in 10 years, it might be delayed to seven years again.

There have to be some timelines, as Abe said, built into the process, so that it's effective and timely.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Okay.

I'd give you half a minute, Rick, but you probably couldn't do much with it, so I'll take the half a minute and ask the question that was stated earlier—if I'm remembering it correctly. Under Bill C-42, the feeling was that 98% of the grievance cases and so on would be dealt with more quickly.

Would you share that assessment?

[S/Sgt Abraham Townsend]

Under Bill C-42, they anticipate that when the regulation is finally built they'll be able to deal with 98% of the grievances. I won't disagree with that.

Our current grievance system has an early resolution phase that encourages alternative dispute resolution. Unfortunately, it only encourages that; it doesn't mandate it. We have paid little attention to alternative dispute resolution. That said, we have attained some really huge and good results, timeline-wise, on grievances under what we have presently.

Under Bill C-42, I believe we'll work at building a regulation that will mandate alternative dispute resolutions and facilitate a reasonable answer that will improve on what we have now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much.

For the final questioning of the day, we will go to Madame St-Denis.

[Lise St-Denis, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

You ended by referring to categories of staff. Could you tell us a bit more about that? You did not seem to be in favour of them, but you did not say much about it.

[S/Sgt Abraham Townsend]

In the RCMP, in today's world, there are three categories of employees: public servants, civilian members hired under the RCMP Act, and regular members hired under the RCMP Act. It is our position that an employee of the RCMP is responsible for policing in the broadest context. Our position is that all employed by the RCMP would be employed under and accountable to the RCMP Act. The category of employee issue has been divisive within our organization, our different categories. If we had all of our employees responsible and accountable to the RCMP Act, and employed given the uniqueness of the service we provide Canadians, I believe it would take our organization to a place of contentment on the category issue.

[Lise St-Denis, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

I would like to get back to the grievance process. You did not seem to support decisions being made by the commissioner. You seemed not to want to have the commissioner making the ultimate decisions on grievance-related matters. Can you expand on that?

[S/Sgt Abraham Townsend]

Under the current RCMP Act and under Bill C-42, the commissioner is the final decision-maker. It has always been a frustration for our members that the external review committee only makes recommendations. Our members quite honestly have concern with that much power in one office. It has been the feedback from our members that they see that power being dispersed more broadly into an external board that would be able to make compelling recommendations as opposed to simple recommendations.

The challenge beyond the commissioner is Federal Court, judicial review. While individuals have the ability to do that, it's a limited ability. Quite honestly, in my opinion, it's not a good way to operate a human resource aspect of any organization. If you rely on judicial review as your only external point of resolution, it's a difficult way to get along as people within an organization. If in fact the legislation, Bill C-42, is amended in such a way so that some of the power the commissioner has, which is uniquely his, is dispersed to a board that is focused and unique to the RCMP, it may go a long way to serve the best interests of the organization, of Canadian people, and of the members.

[Lise St-Denis, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Madame St-Denis. You still have two or three minutes, if you have another question. We will take it right to the end. Otherwise, we will come back to the NDP.

[Lise St-Denis, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

I am done.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Garrison, you don't have any?

Madame Doré Lefebvre, for one minute.

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

Thank you very much for your attendance here today. It is good to hear your comments, those of members on Bill C-42 and potential impacts.

You said that under current legislation, it was very difficult to manage sexual harassment issues within the RCMP. What changes would you bring to this bill to make it easier to manage the situation? Can we get there through legislation? Is the solution not rather an internal culture change within the RCMP?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Madame Doré Lefebvre.