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.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Okay.
Would that have been in response to the Dziekanski incident?
4:15 p.m.
Interim Chair, Commission for Public Complaints Against the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
It was, but the commission didn't try to revisit the same areas that Mr. Justice Braidwood did in his report. The commission looked at the state of usage of tasers and made certain recommendations, in essence that the RCMP improve its training and adopt appropriate policies.
We've monitored taser usage each year since that time, and I would certainly not suggest that it's only because of the commission's report. Obviously the strong public reaction had a great deal to do with this. However, I do believe that the commission's report and ongoing contact and feedback, both ways, with the RCMP have contributed to the change in culture.
As you may have seen from our recent report on taser usage, there has been a consistent and measurable decline.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Yes.
In terms of access to information, what kind of information—since we're not dealing with national security issues typically, when you're investigating—
4:15 p.m.
Interim Chair, Commission for Public Complaints Against the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
We're not typically, although we could be.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
For example, you're dealing with public complaints vis-à-vis the comportment of an officer, or you're dealing with, I guess, criminal acts by an officer. Is that correct? Those are the kinds of things you'd be dealing with?
4:15 p.m.
Interim Chair, Commission for Public Complaints Against the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
I wonder if I could jump in here.
4:15 p.m.
Interim Chair, Commission for Public Complaints Against the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
This is a tricky area, certainly for the public. There are three broad areas of disciplinary actions that can be taken.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
I'm going to take that pause right there, because I got asking a question of our analysts here about the bill and I gave the Liberals a minute and a half more than I should have. That's a terrible thing. I can't let that happen again.
Mr. Rousseau, you have five minutes.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Jean Rousseau NDP Compton—Stanstead, QC
I want to thank you for being with us, Mr. McPhail.
New section 45.37 authorizes the commissioner to establish service standards and time limits with which the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP must comply. Yet no cooperative agreement with the RCMP has been concluded.
We are imposing service standards on the commission, but not giving it the ability to, in turn, impose time limits on the RCMP in their response to complaints. Do you not see that as a contradiction?
4:15 p.m.
Interim Chair, Commission for Public Complaints Against the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Yes, and this was one of the points I raised, and I expressed the hope that the committee would consider that absolutely there must be service standards. It's a good thing they're legislated for the commission.
The commission over the past while has established very aggressive service standards. In addition to establishing these service standards, we report publicly on the extent to which the commission meets those.
My earlier question was, shouldn't the RCMP have service standards as well?
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Jean Rousseau NDP Compton—Stanstead, QC
Precisely.
We know that more than 50 commissioner's notices are currently pending. That means more than 50 outstanding responses to the reports by the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP. Mr. Paulson said he wanted to respond swiftly, but no deadline was set under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.
Will that still be possible?
Since the idea is to rebuild the RCMP's credibility with the public, shouldn't the RCMP commissioner have to adhere to a time limit under the act in responding to the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP? Would that not ensure the integrity of the public complaints process?
4:20 p.m.
Senior Director, Operations, Commission for Public Complaints Against the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
I'll answer your question. There's just a problem with the translation here.
There were 51 commissioner's notices at the beginning of the fiscal year that remained outstanding. I believe Commissioner Paulson spoke to this committee and talked about increasing his effort in that area. We can certainly say that there has been evidence that the effort has started to pay off and the pile is coming down. We're looking now at 36 outstanding commissioner's notices, 12 of which have been outstanding for more than a year. The number is coming down.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Mr. McPhail, there was some exchange earlier to help us clarify very good questions from the other side on the relationship between provinces and the new commission. I wanted to touch on that a bit. There are clear features of the bill that basically hand off investigative authority to provincial agencies. Then you work your way back up the chain. If the provinces at various different levels don't want to do it, then eventually you'd get back with some kind of RCMP-based investigation.
I have two questions there. There are only a few provinces—maybe it's four or something—that actually have proper, independent investigation offices of the sort really needed here. Others don't, and yet the legislation would allow the province to appoint a regular police force in the province to engage in the investigation. In some areas of RCMP responsibility, especially, for example, areas that touch on or are very close to national security, aren't there reasons to be concerned about the knowledge levels, the competence levels, and the background experience of provincial bodies to investigate this, and if there is some reason, is there any way out?
4:20 p.m.
Interim Chair, Commission for Public Complaints Against the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
That's a good question. Actually—
4:20 p.m.
Interim Chair, Commission for Public Complaints Against the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
—it takes us back to the exchange Mr. Scarpaleggia and I were having. I suggest you look at the areas of investigations. They fall into three broad categories. One would be internal discipline, which is clearly a matter for the RCMP commissioner. The second would be criminal or accusations of criminal conduct. Regardless of who is being investigated, those are quite appropriately a matter—
4:20 p.m.
Interim Chair, Commission for Public Complaints Against the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
—for the police force having jurisdiction. The third is public complaints. That's where the commission comes in.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you. We'll just leave it at that. We're over again.
We'll come back to Mr. Hawn, please.
October 17th, 2012 / 4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for being here.
Mr. McPhail, back in 1988-89, the RCMP received about 95% of the complaints and the CPC received about 5%. Over the next 22 years, that changed. In 2010-11, the CPC received 74% and the RCMP received 26%. Can you step me through that? Was that just decreasing trust in the RCMP handling of it or more confidence in CPC? Will that change going forward?