Public Safety Committee on Oct. 17th, 2012

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

We'll now move back to Mr. Scarpaleggia, for seven minutes.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

Ms. Bergen asked some of the questions I was intending to ask, and your answers provided some clarification. You are basically a labour relations tribunal. If the employee—in this case a member of the RCMP, a civilian or an officer—wants to pursue a grievance further, it will end up at your committee at the very last resort.

[Catherine Ebbs]

Yes, that's right.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

The commissioner makes all final decisions.

[Catherine Ebbs]

That's right.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

He or she accepts your recommendation 85% of the time. In the 15% of the time that he doesn't, out of curiosity, why would he reach a different conclusion? Does he have more facts or information, or does he just see it differently?

[Catherine Ebbs]

We work on exactly the same record, so we both base our findings and recommendations on exactly the same record.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

It's a leadership call on his part, I guess, using his experience and his intuition, but using the same facts as you.

[Catherine Ebbs]

He's using the same facts, yes.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Every decision by the commissioner can be appealed to a court.

[Catherine Ebbs]

That's right.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

What will change under Bill C-42, other than the processes that lead to a case being brought forward to your committee perhaps being simplified and made more efficient? What will change, from your point of view? Will your mandate change? Will your method of operating change? Will this bill impact your day-to-day decision-making reality in any way?

[Catherine Ebbs]

The process of appeal stays, and our external review is part of the appeal, as it is now. With the modernization and renewal and developing new systems internally, there will be changes to the first level of decision-making. It is possible that whenever changes happen at the first level, there could be some changes at the appeal level, but we don't know that yet because those details are still to be worked out.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

What kinds of changes could you foresee? You would still get a case with facts and someone saying they were wrongly disciplined or whatever; it's just that it might take less time for it to get to your level. But you would probably be dealing with the same issues, would you not, or would some of the issues be whittled out of the case before it got to you?

I just don't see how the bill is going to change the way you do your work, or the way your committee does its work.

[Catherine Ebbs]

Essentially it doesn't change a lot about how we do our work.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Okay.

Do you have access to all the information you need when you are deciding a case? A previous witness mentioned that sometimes the RCMP may balk at giving over certain information. Do you run into that kind of problem?

[Catherine Ebbs]

No, that has not been our experience.

It's a very different environment. We have the record of what went on at the first instance in those cases.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Other than disciplinary issues, what kinds of issues would you be dealing with?

[Catherine Ebbs]

In addition to our work on disciplinary cases, we do an external review of grievance cases. Those cases can deal with a range of issues. Those cases are presented by a member who's not satisfied with the decision that's been made by the force in his regard. Those can deal with issues such as the details of relocation, travel, or isolated posts. They include harassment. They include the decisions related to stoppage without pay. They have a wide range.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

I see. That's interesting.

I don't have any further questions, Chair. You gave me a minute more before, so I'll give it back to you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Well, thank you very much. You are making me look good here amongst my colleagues. I appreciate that.

We'll now move back to the NDP, to Mr. Sandhu.

Welcome back, Mr. Sandhu.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Thank you. It's great to be here again.

Thank you for being here today.

I come from Surrey, British Columbia, and we have the largest detachment of the RCMP in the entire country. I can tell you first-hand that the district commander for my area, for the riding I am from...they do a wonderful job there, and the RCMP has a very good relationship with the community.

I just want to go back and be clear on this. You mentioned that you make recommendations to the commissioner and that the commissioner will make the final decision. If he doesn't accept the recommendation, he has to provide a written response. What does that written response look like? Why is he not accepting your recommendations?

[Catherine Ebbs]

For every case at the External Review Committee we have to provide our findings and recommendations in writing. We present a very comprehensive report. Likewise at the stage where the commissioner makes his decision, he provides full written reasons. If he has decided not to follow the ERC recommendations, then in those reasons he will add a part that gives an explanation as to why he thinks differently.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Who looks at those reasons? Where does that letter go?

[Catherine Ebbs]

The reasons of the commissioner first go to the parties in that matter. They are also available internally in the RCMP. Of course, we get copies as well.