Public Safety Committee on Oct. 17th, 2012

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Dismissal of members.

[Catherine Ebbs]

I'm not sure whether that is a connection that would lead to results on its own.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much.

We'll go to Mr. Norlock, please, for five minutes.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Through you to the witnesses, thank you, for appearing today.

I must say I grew up in a different kind of policing system. We had a grievance system that was as a result of the bargaining unit.

When I look at your organization, I guess you would be the equivalent, and you can correct me if I'm wrong.... At the end of the grievance procedure that I'm most familiar with, when you got to an impasse, it went to an arbitrator.

Would I be correct in saying that in the absence of a collective agreement, you are an arbitrator of the grievance procedure?

[Catherine Ebbs]

I would say that's a reasonable explanation.

The outside independent review was considered essential because of the fact that the RCMP is not unionized. So yes, I think that's a reasonable explanation.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Of the 30 or so settlements, we'll call them, that you do, you said—if I remember your statement, I think it was to Mr. Hawn—that you're the only person who actually makes the final decision in your organization.

Would I be correct in saying that you split up your investigations to roughly five or six per person in your unit? They would look into the facts, get all the pertinent information—in other words, do the investigation—present to you the issue, as their investigation has led pursuant to your rules of engagement, we'll call them, and in the end you review that file and make the final decision.

Would that be the way it works, roughly?

[Catherine Ebbs]

It's a little different because we don't do investigations—

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Walk me through the process, please.

[Catherine Ebbs]

We don't do investigations. Our review is based on the record that we've received. In a grievance, for example, at the first level, there would be written submissions by the parties. We would receive anything that was part of the record at the first review, and we base our review on that.

At this point in time, the act does give us the opportunity to hold a hearing, but that is very rare because records we receive from the RCMP, both on the grievance and the discipline side, are very complete.

Our staff assist. We don't collect facts. All the facts are in the record. We do an analysis of the grounds, because there are a number of different grounds that have usually been presented on either side. The staff that we have assist me in analyzing and reaching conclusions.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

I think you've mentioned that of the 30 complaints a year, you may have one or two hearings or even fewer than that?

[Catherine Ebbs]

No, we haven't had hearings in quite a while.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

And the reason is that the records are so complete. Would I assume that the reason you would say the records are complete is that the RCMP would ensure that the member sign off on some kind of form or paper saying, “I have reviewed the records that are being forwarded to you, the external review folks, and they accurately reflect the process according to the griever, the employee”? Is that how you determine the thoroughness of the information you receive?

[Catherine Ebbs]

In grievance cases, when the record is sent to the ERC, an exact copy of that record is sent to both parties at the same time. That's an assurance that the parties know what records we have received.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

And both parties, by virtue of the fact that you don't hear otherwise, agree to the accuracy of the records? I guess I'm trying to determine how you find out if the records are accurate if you don't do an investigation or you don't have a sign-off by both parties.

[Catherine Ebbs]

I think the sign-off is that the parties know what records we have received.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Have you ever had an employee, or management for that matter, challenge the accuracy of those records? In other words, you say, “I want the records”, the records are sent to you, you make your determination, and a person comes back and says, “But I don't believe you received all of the information you should have in order to make this decision.” You've never had that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Norlock.

You can answer, yes.

[Catherine Ebbs]

I don't recollect any such instance, but I don't want to say no because I'm not sure if that's ever happened.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

All right. Back to the NDP, to Mr. Scott, please.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, would our colleague Mr. Hawn tell us what the four service standards are, list them and read them into the record so that we can all look at them a little later?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Okay. Do you have it there?

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Service standard number 7 specifically says, “The RCMP will willingly give advice and assist in the resolution of complaints against the RCMP or its employees and all complainants will be kept informed of the progress.”

Service standard number 6 speaks to the privacy aspect of it: “Information will be released unless it compromises privacy, investigational information and techniques, suspects' rights or sources of confidential information.” So it sets some parameters around releasing information.

Service standard number 11 in general says, “All investigations will be conducted in a professional manner and will be based on principles of law and ethics.” It doesn't just speak to investigations of a Criminal Code nature. All investigations would be translated there.

And service standard number 13 says, “All victims and witnesses will be treated with sensitivity and understanding and offered referral to other helping agencies.” This includes the complaints commission, so public complaints against the RCMP. Any time they're not satisfied with those services, the service standard directs the RCMP to provide that information for them.

And then in general, which I think would be probably where the complaints would even start to stem from in the first place, would be service standard number 16: “The RCMP recognizes that it will be held accountable for the applications of these service standards.” I would assume that where they fail to do that is what probably triggers a claim in the first instance.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Thank you.

I think one of the issues this committee, of which I'm not a regular member, might want to come back to is whether those are sufficiently specific for what is meant by “the absence of service standards” in the context. I think proposed section 45.37 talks about specific service standards around time limits, and one of the concerns is whether there are time limit service standards on the commissioner.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We have a minute or two left. It looks like we're pretty well finished here.

Thank you very much for appearing before us today.

Forgive us if it would seem that the committee is still a little uncertain about different commissions that are always set up. We realize that many different models can work, but they can't always work at the same time. Sometimes we were talking about the former way of doing things compared to the new bill. You seemed to handle it very well.

If you recollect any of the questions in days ahead and you feel you could have answered a little differently, please feel free to e-mail or send us that testimony and we will definitely send it to our members.

Thank you.

Committee, we are adjourned.