Evidence of meeting #52 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 rcmp.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:45 p.m.
Chair, Royal Canadian Mounted Police External Review Committee
No, not before Bill C-42 was drafted.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC
You were not advised of its content until after it was drafted?
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC
Let's say you had to improve the ERC, to turn it into the ideal organization as you envision it. I understand that you endeavour, on the basis of facts, to be as impartial as possible and to represent everyone, a bit like a tribunal. It's great to present the facts. But you don't really have any power; all you can do is make recommendations.
When you are doing your job and the facts lead you to determine that a problem exists with a member, isn't it discouraging that all you can do is make recommendations?
4:45 p.m.
Chair, Royal Canadian Mounted Police External Review Committee
Today, an independent agency has a number of intervention models at its disposal. Regardless of the model chosen, however, the external review process must remain rigorous, transparent and fair to all parties.
At the ERC, we are glad to see that the bill bolsters the importance of the external review process of systems.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC
To your mind, will Bill C-42 lead to a fairer and more equitable process?
4:45 p.m.
Chair, Royal Canadian Mounted Police External Review Committee
The current process is already fair and equitable. I am sure that will remain the case.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC
If you had to turn the ERC into an ideal organization, what would you do to make it, not more productive, but more efficient, more to your liking? Would you change how the system worked? It's a hypothetical question.
4:45 p.m.
Chair, Royal Canadian Mounted Police External Review Committee
It's tough to say. Discussions on how systems are developed will take place. The updating and renewal process has just begun. I am very hopeful that we will be part of those discussions. Clearly, any system can always be improved. Those discussions will give us an opportunity to contribute to the process.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC
I sincerely hope you will take part in the next round of discussions on system improvement. That would be greatly appreciated.
Right now, does the commissioner follow your recommendations adequately? Even though they are only recommendations, the upper echelons of the RCMP or the commissioner can still implement them appropriately. Does the process follow the proper course?
4:45 p.m.
Chair, Royal Canadian Mounted Police External Review Committee
As I just explained, we know that the commissioner accepts our recommendations in the majority of cases. Under the current legislation—and this will not change after Bill C-42 is passed—if the commissioner ever decides not to accept our recommendations, he must provide his reasons in writing. That is the current procedure.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC
If he does not follow your recommendations, then, he has to have a good reason for not doing so.
4:50 p.m.
Chair, Royal Canadian Mounted Police External Review Committee
That he does not accept our recommendations?
4:50 p.m.
Chair, Royal Canadian Mounted Police External Review Committee
Of course, it happens. The statistics show that 85% of the time, the commissioner accepts our recommendations. The rest of the time, he provides a written explanation of why he chose not to.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC
Does anyone assess the appropriateness of the commissioner's decision, or does the process simply end there?
4:50 p.m.
Chair, Royal Canadian Mounted Police External Review Committee
No, the process does not move beyond that point. The commissioner is not obligated to accept our recommendations, but he does have to take them into consideration. If he rejects them, he has to explain his reasons.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC
How exactly will the reform set out in Bill C-42 change the process? Will you have the authority to do more than just make recommendations? In other words, which changes will affect you the most?
4:50 p.m.
Chair, Royal Canadian Mounted Police External Review Committee
The appeal process will not change much. The case will be sent to the ERC, which will conduct an impartial and neutral review. The ERC will then prepare a report for the parties and the RCMP commissioner, who is required to take our recommendations into account. If he decides not to follow through on them, he must explain his decision in writing.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you very much.
We'll now move back to Ms. Bergen, for seven minutes.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
And thank you, Ms. Ebbs and Mr. Paradiso, for being here with us today.
I think for a lot of Canadians watching, it can be a bit confusing—all the different review boards and types of processes whereby the RCMP are able to file a grievance, or even further back, if there's discipline required. I think for most people the entire process is a bit confusing.
I'll tell you what I understand it to be, and you can tell me if I'm confusing things as they are currently. Then we can compare and contrast what the process will be under Bill C-42 and the role you will continue to play.
Our understanding is that if discipline is required for a specific member of the RCMP, many times it's not been able to be dealt with in a quick and efficient way. It has to go to an adjudication board, and it can take quite a long time for that to be determined. If the member is not satisfied, that's when it comes to you.
Am I correct?