Public Safety Committee on Oct. 24th, 2012

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Good afternoon, everyone. This is meeting number 54 of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

It is Wednesday, October 24, 2012. This afternoon we are continuing our consideration of Bill C-42, an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act .

We have two witnesses before us today. Hon. Warren Allmand is a spokesman for the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, and he was also a former solicitor general here in Canada.

Yvonne Séguin is the executive director of Groupe d'aide et d'information sur le harcèlement sexuel au travail de la province de Québec. We welcome you here. Madame Robichaud is a board member of the said group. Welcome.

We look forward to your opening comments. Mr. Allmand, you know how the process works. We hope you will be open to some questions after your opening statement.

[Warren Allmand, Spokesperson, International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group]

Unfortunately, the clerk took my remarks to have them photocopied and he didn't bring them back yet.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I never thought I'd ever see Mr. Allmand speechless.

[Warren Allmand]

I can say a lot of things, but I want to be relevant.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Maybe we could go to Madame Séguin.

[Yvonne Séguin, Executive Director, Groupe d'aide et d'information sur le harcèlement sexuel au travail de la province de Québec]

Good afternoon. My name is Yvonne Séguin and I am the executive director and founder of the Groupe d'aide et d'information sur le harcèlement au travail.

I wanted to provide you with a brief presentation to explain why we think that our comments may be of interest to your committee.

Our support group was established 32 years ago with the primary objective of breaking the isolation and wall of silence surrounding people who have experienced or are experiencing sexual or psychological harassment in the workplace, and to raise public awareness of this problem.

The organization pursues various objectives, as set out in its charter: to raise awareness of the problem of sexual harassment in the workplace; to counsel women on the steps to follow; to help women overcome the problem they were or are facing; to prepare, publish and distribute documents, manuals, periodicals and, more specifically, any literature on sexual harassment in the workplace; to raise funds through donations and organize cultural activities.

The organization was founded in 1980. From 1980 to 1984, we were merely a committee affiliated with the organization Au bas de l'échelle, in Montreal. We were known as the Comité d'action contre le harcèlement sexuel au travail du groupe Au bas de l'échelle. However, given the magnitude of the problem of sexual harassment, we found that it was necessary to develop a specific approach. It therefore became apparent that we had to become an independent group.

In 1984, we incorporated under the name Groupe d'aide et d'information sur le harcèlement sexuel au travail de la région de Montréal.

In 1993, the support group received provincial status and its name changed to Groupe d'aide et d'information sur le harcèlement sexuel au travail de la province de Québec inc.

Since 2002, the GAIHST is also known as the Groupe d'aide et d'information sur le harcèlement au travail. Our group's name refers to both psychological and sexual harassment.

We serve Montreal and the surrounding area. The support group currently has no point of service, but we are trying to open another office in Saint-Jérôme. We should point out that, in many cases, the clients who turn to our group are in so much distress that they cannot travel to Montreal. It is too stressful for these people.

Since the support group provides a range of services, the clientele is quite varied. In terms of victims of sexual and psychological harassment, our clients are primarily women, although the number of men contacting the centre is growing. We have clients of all ages, from all walks of life and from all ethnic backgrounds. In order to benefit from our services, clients must be between the ages of 16 and 65.

I'm now going to talk about the clientele of these awareness and training sessions. Our training sessions are available to all companies, including SMEs, private and para-public organizations. Providing awareness sessions was not the primary objective of the support group, but over the years, more and more companies have contacted our organization in order to obtain information.

Our services include listening to clients over the phone, individual, group and legal interventions, information and references, and an in-house newspaper.

To effectively fulfil its mandate, the GAIHST offers four types of services: the complaints department, the support and information department, coffee meetings and the education department, which works with companies.

The client's first contact with us is through the support and information department, which provides moral support and guidance to victims of workplace harassment as well as information on the options available and on the coffee meetings service.

Coffee meetings allow our members to meet with anyone who has experienced or is experiencing harassment in the workplace. They can come here to meet with one another, validate what they have experienced and share this with other people. Often the topics are selected by the clientele who comes to the support group. Such topics may include, for example, post-traumatic stress disorder, employment insurance, art therapy, common law spouses or movie evenings. The clientele chooses the topic based on requirements. We also offer a coffee meeting that focuses on legal matters, such as issues involving hearsay. We should point out that, when clients decide to take legal action, they often hear a great deal of hearsay. We try to show them that this is not something that is acceptable to the courts.

The complaints department provides short, medium and long-term file follow-up. The department employs one lawyer and four articling law students. These lawyers come from McGill University and the Université de Montréal. This service enables us to conduct research and advocate for our clientele.

As for our education services, information sessions are provided to people who have experienced harassment or who have had knowledge of such a situation. The purpose of these sessions is to demystify the problem. We often hold these awareness sessions in schools and community centres.

Training sessions are offered to individuals who work in the area of sexual harassment prevention. These sessions are often given in small companies. We can help these individuals draft an in-house policy and develop investigative procedures.

We also have a small in-house newspaper, called Info-GAIHST, which is produced by the support group. We send out information to members and ensure that harassment files are updated.

Individuals who call our support group can quickly speak to an advocate. Although our workload is growing, the wait time is never more than 24 hours. The support group has been instructed to call people back in less than 24 hours. Do we have a wait list? No, that is impossible. Everyone who calls is provided with quick service. There are no charges for providing services to victims. Everything is free.

I would like to provide you with some statistics on the types of calls received last year. We received approximately 6,000 calls. Of these calls, 73.3% were made by clients and were for the complaints and support and information departments, 1.7% were calls about awareness sessions, 0.4% were calls about the coffee meetings and 24% were about other matters. These calls could have been requests for information, enquiries about the cards, etc.

Who provides our services? We have two employees working in the complaints department and one in the support and information department. Each year, we take on at least six interns in law, criminology and sexology. We also have a receptionist who works with the entire team and a policy advisor who works on special projects. Lastly, we have a director general who oversees the smooth operation of the centre. In all, we have a staff of six permanent employees who work with six to eight interns each year.

The support group relies on the support and dedication of a number of honorary members. These are women from various professional backgrounds who are dedicated to fighting sexual harassment in the workplace.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Excuse me, madam, our time is somewhat limited here, and we're just coming up to the 10 minutes. I know you have a section dealing specifically with Bill C-42.

[Yvonne Séguin]

Yes, I can go right to that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I think that might be best. It certainly sounds like you're involved in the community with sexual harassment a great deal, and you're to be commended for that, but perhaps we could move more to the bill.

[Yvonne Séguin]

I'm told you have a copy of the documents I submitted to you. If you don't, I have them here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Yes, we do.

[Yvonne Séguin]

Okay.

We’ll go to page 5.

In our opinion it would be important that our presentation include the definitions provided by the help and information centre. You will find them on page 5 in both French and English.

On page 6, you will also find the definition for psychological harassment.

The comments and suggestions provided by the Groupe d'aide et d'information sur le harcèlement sexuel au travail de la province de Québec pertaining to Bill C-42 deal first of all with the proposed section 9.2: 9.2 The commissioner's power to appoint a person as a member or to appoint a member, by way of promotion, to a higher rank or level, includes the power to revoke the appointment and to take corrective action whenever the commissioner is satisfied that an error, an omission or improper conduct affected the selection of the person or member for appointment.

To this we propose the following addition: "or if he is convinced that the member sexually or psychologically harassed another member".

Section 12 of the bill says: "12. Every member who has contravened, is found contravening... may be suspended from duty by the commissioner". In our opinion, this should be replaced by the wording used by the Commission des normes du travail du Québec: "must take the necessary steps". We believe the bill does not have teeth and must be strengthened.

Paragraph 20.2(1)(l) says, and I quote: "The commissioner may establish procedures to investigate and resolve disputes relating to alleged harassment by a member". This should be replaced by the following: "The commissioner shall establish procedures to investigate and resolve disputes relating to alleged harassment by a member...".

The bill should describe in greater detail procedures that the commissioner must follow in cases of harassment complaints. That should be a stand-alone provision in the bill rather than a subsection.

In short, the will to increase the RCMP's accountability is a good thing. However, this increase should involve the RCMP's duties and obligations, not its rights. In other words, the commissioner would receive too much discretionary power. If any recourse implemented is to be effective, complaints of harassment in the workplace must be dealt with as an obligation and not an option.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much.

[Yvonne Séguin]

Was that fast enough?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

You did very well. Thank you.

We'll now move to Mr. Allmand, please.

[Warren Allmand]

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am here today on behalf of the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, which is a pan-Canadian coalition of civil society organizations that was established in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

This coalition brings together 40 international development and human rights NGOs, unions, professional associations, and faith groups. Its purpose is to monitor the impact of anti-terrorism legislation on human rights standards, and to advocate against abuses and violations. The ICLMG was an intervener in the Arar inquiry, the Iacobucci commission, and we appeared before the Supreme Court of Canada in the security certificate case relating to Adil Charkaoui.

Our comments in response to Bill C-42 are based on our experience before the Arar commission, and the findings and recommendations set out by Judge O'Connor in his two reports following his inquiry into the Arar incident.

In his first report, tabled in September 2006, Judge O'Connor found that Maher Arar's detention by U.S. officers in New York in 2002, and his surreptitious transfer by them to Syria a few days later, where he was imprisoned and tortured for approximately one year, was in large part due to the negligence of the RCMP who incorrectly labelled Mr. Arar as an Islamist extremist linked to al-Qaeda, and then irresponsibly shared this inaccurate information with American authorities. Judge O'Connor was especially critical of the RCMP for its failure to gather and verify correct information, for its sharing of inaccurate information, and for its inadequate direction and oversight of the investigation team.

In his first report, Judge O'Connor made 23 recommendations to correct these failures and shortcomings. In his second report, dated December 2006, also to correct the problem cited above, Judge O'Connor proposed a new review agency for the RCMP, and a new review process for five other federal agencies carrying on security and intelligent activities.

As a result of his inquiry, Judge O'Connor discovered that there were 24 federal agencies in Canada involved directly or indirectly in the security and intelligence business, the principal ones being CSIS, the RCMP, Communications Security Establishment Canada, Canada Border Services Agency, Transport Canada, DFAIT, DND, Immigration Canada, the PCO, Justice, and the Coast Guard. He discovered that there were 247 agreements by which intelligence information was shared internationally and within Canada.

In addition, he found that there were an increasing number of joint intelligence operations known as INSETs, integrated national security enforcement teams, made up for example of CSIS, the RCMP, provincial police forces, and municipal police forces. With all this sharing and with all these joint operations, it is easy to understand how errors and mistakes by the RCMP and other agencies might escape review and go undetected. The problem is that the existing review bodies—the CPC, the Commission for Public Complaints, SIRC for CSIS, the CSE commissioner—have different, limited powers and mandates, which in each case are only directed at a single agency. Therefore, how do you get at problems resulting from joint operations and sharing arrangements?

Some of these review bodies have the power of subpoena and some do not. Some have the right to audit and others don't. Some, such as the Canada Border Services Agency, have no review body whatsoever. This leaves us with an impossible situation where issues and violations can easily fall between the cracks.

In chapter 10 of the second report, Judge O'Connor asked the question, “Is the status quo adequate?” He said, “Categorically, no”. He said that the RCMP internal controls were not adequate. The existing powers of the Commission for Public Complaints, CPC, were not adequate, and the powers of other accountability bodies were not adequate. He therefore proposed a new body to replace the RCMP's CPC, to be known as the independent complaints and national security review agency. The name doesn't matter. For what you're proposing in this bill, that name would do as well. The purpose of this new body would be to review the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency, with increased powers to audit and to investigate complaints.

He also proposed that SIRC be given additional powers to review the security and intelligence operations of Immigration Canada, DFAIT, Transport, and FINTRAC, in addition to CSIS. He leaves the CSE commissioner as is to review the activities of the Communications Security Establishment. However, to coordinate these three bodies, to review all national security practices, and to make sure that nothing falls between the cracks, he proposes an integrated national security review coordinating committee.

Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, six years after O'Connor's two reports, we have Bill C-42. Since it is a very large and complicated bill, some 120 pages, amending nine major statutes, I have not had the time to examine and analyze all parts of the bill. Therefore, today I will deal specifically with those issues raised by the Arar commission, that is, the work done by the RCMP and others in security and intelligence, and especially in joint operations such as the INSETs. I will deal with both joint operations and sharing within Canada, as well as cross-border.

There are two parts of the bill that might be relevant in this respect. Proposed section 45.75 states:

45.75 (1) If a complaint concerns the conduct of a member or other person appointed or employed under Part I and a law enforcement officer of any other jurisdiction, whether in or outside Canada, the Commission may conduct an investigation, review or hearing of that complaint jointly with the authority in that other jurisdiction that is responsible for investigations, reviews or hearings with respect to complaints against law enforcement officers. (2) The Governor in Council may make regulations respecting investigations, reviews or hearings conducted jointly under subsection (1).

The problem is, do the words “any other jurisdiction” include the other review authorities under federal jurisdiction, such as SIRC, the review agency for the CSE, and so on? That has to be clarified. I say that because most of the RCMP joint operations include two or three of the other federal security authorities. I remind you that Judge O'Connor found that there were 24 of them. Does the application of this article regarding joint reviews, the purpose of which is good, extend not only to provincial and non-Canadian authorities, but also to the other authorities under federal jurisdiction?

What about those federal agencies, such as the Canada Border Services Agency, which has no review or oversight whatsoever? How do we investigate joint operations between the RCMP and CBSA, of which there are several? Judge O'Connor said that the new review agency should deal with both the RCMP and CBSA.

As a result, this article may require amendments and clarification. We should also know more about what the government means by “regulations” under proposed subsection 45.75(2).

In the same vein, we should seek clarification of part VII.2, starting with proposed section 45.88 and following. This part is entitled “Review of Integrated Cross-Border Law Enforcement Operations”.

First of all, in reading the bill, I can't quite understand the relationship of these proposed sections with proposed section 45.75 to which I just referred. Will these sections, for example, allow the new civilian review and complaints commission, CRCC, to investigate, review, and hold hearings on cases like those of Arar, or El Maati, Almalki, and Nureddin, who were dealt with under the Iacobucci commission?

I read the minister's testimony before this committee, and it is my view that the minister should be invited back to the committee and asked to clarify these articles that I've referred to about joint reviews—joint reviews within Canada and joint reviews cross-border--and, if necessary, propose amendments.

I think the government had the right intention in mind in allowing for joint reviews with other oversight bodies, but those sections are not clear at all. There must be clarification. Maybe amendments will be required.

The cases studied by Judge O'Connor and Judge Iacobucci should not be overlooked and forgotten. Judge O'Connor spent three years. Judge Iacobucci spent two years. They used millions of taxpayers' dollars to look into these cases. They cannot be ignored.

I would like you to remember that Judge O'Connor was able to get to the bottom of the Arar tragedy because he had full powers to look at all agencies, joint operations, and all information-sharing agreements. If this new CRCC is to do its job correctly, it must have similar powers.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Allmand.

We'll go into our first round of questioning, which is a seven-minute round.

Ms. Bergen, please.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you to both the witnesses for their presentations.

I have two areas to cover, so I'll try to be quick.

I first want to talk to you, Ms. Séguin, in regard to harassment. I know you deal specifically with sexual harassment and work with individuals who are victims of sexual harassment. You see the consequences, the aftermath, and the long-term effects it has on people who have to deal with that in the workplace.

It seems to me that you would support what the bill is doing, which is to modernize and to provide more accountability to the RCMP and to those who hold the RCMP accountable through various investigative bodies.

If I'm hearing you correctly, though, you would like to have a subsection that deals specifically with sexual harassment. Is that correct?

[Yvonne Séguin]

Yes, to make it a lot clearer.

I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not sure about the law. I did read it; it's very complicated. It's not easy to find the sanctions that apply if somebody is found guilty of sexual harassment, the interventions that are taken, or the steps that have to be taken.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

I'm happy that you brought that up. There are a couple of things that I think are important.

First of all, whether it's in a private workplace, a government organization, or a small business, it's important to have certain procedures in place to deal with harassment of all kinds. There should be zero tolerance for harassment, whether it's sexual harassment, racial harassment, sexual-orientation harassment, or any other kind. Strong businesses and private and public organizations have policies in place to deal with that.

What's happened under the RCMP is that the complaints process is so onerous. It's a very long process. Direct supervisors cannot deal with issues like this when they arise, and that's been a huge problem. What Bill C-42 does is it modernizes the whole system. It gives direct supervisors an ability to deal with it.

My concern with your suggestion is that if we start pulling out different types of harassment and try to deal with them in a piece-by-piece way, we would not be dealing with the foundational premise, which is that all harassment is wrong.

I wonder if you could comment on that, the idea that no harassment should be tolerated. If we start to break it up, it could become confusing, or we might miss a piece.

[Yvonne Séguin]

I would certainly suggest that we do break it up and that we do talk specifically about the sexual harassment. WIth respect to the cases that came up this summer in the RCMP, when you find that people have been sexually harassed for two decades, then you know there is a problem. When you hear that 150 female Mounties have gone through the process of pressing charges a in civil suit, it's screaming out loud that the system doesn't work. I know that for a long time it was popular to try to group all the harassment charges together and call it maybe “violence at work”. But I think as long as there's sexual harassment in the workplace, as long as there's not the necessary education in place, we should be very specific.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

I know the bill is a big piece of legislation, but it gives not only individual supervisors, but also the RCMP, the ability to enact procedures for discipline, education, mitigation. I think when you put something like that directly in the legislation, as opposed to later on in the regulations, it can become more detrimental.

I really appreciate your comments and your commitment to this.

Mr. Allmand, on the issue you brought forward in regard to investigating a cross-border incident, it doesn't have to do with CBSA officials. Right now, we have a pilot project and we're moving forward in an integrated way to police the borders, where the RCMP can work together with American law enforcement officials on different cross-border issues. This would include those RCMP in this entire process. Does that clarify it?

[Warren Allmand]

No, it doesn't. There are two parts to the bill. I referred to them. Proposed section 45.75 talks about joint reviews with other oversight bodies.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Yes, I knew that was important.

[Warren Allmand]

It says within and outside of Canada. Then there is part VII.2, which refers to cross-border law enforcement operations. In other words, it refers to oversight. There seems to be some lack of clarity.