Public Safety Committee on Oct. 29th, 2012

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

But if the minister has the power to dismiss the commissioner—

[Rob Creasser]

Does he?

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

Well, we were talking about how the commissioner serves at the pleasure of the government, so he or she has the power to dismiss, I would think. However, that's something you disagree with, because you feel that compounds the problem in some way, so I'm not clear on what the answer is.

You say that a committee of Parliament should do the hiring of the commissioner for a fixed term, but as a practical matter, if you have a majority government, the government is going to be a majority on the committee. It's simply an extension, in many ways, of the will of the government, so it's not clear to me where the answer lies from your point of view.

[Rob Creasser]

The view of the association would be that you keep government out of it. If you're going to hire a leader, you create a board made up of, say, police chiefs from across Canada. You shortlist a bunch of candidates and come up with the best candidate, and you keep Parliament out of it.

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

I think that is the way it works in municipal forces.

[Rob Creasser]

Yes.

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

That's fine, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

You still have time for an answer if you want to elaborate.

[Rob Creasser]

Well, he's correct. It does work that way in other....

I'm concerned, and our membership is concerned, about politics interfering with our organization at the highest levels.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

We'll now move to the second round of questioning. These are five-minute rounds.

Madame Doré Lefebvre is first.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you kindly, Mr. Chair.

I want to start by thanking the witnesses for joining us today, both in person and from Whitehorse, up north.

If you don't mind, my questions will be for the gentlemen who are sitting around the table today, Mr. Creasser and Mr. Mehain.

Bill C-42 supposedly tackles sexual and psychological harassment, or workplace harassment in general, within the RCMP. Will it really change anything in terms of the sexual and psychological harassment that goes on?

[Cpl Patrick Mehain]

We haven't seen any change since Commissioner Paulson came in and said he was going to get rid of the dark-hearted people. It continues today.

The commissioner sent an email to Staff Sergeant Chad out in British Columbia because he responded to a video message the commissioner sent out to the RCMP talking about his concerns related to the force. Staff Sergeant Chad responded, and the commissioner took it upon himself to belittle him in an email, telling him he was doing a disservice to him and asking how he dared to talk to the commissioner in that manner.

If that isn't rank with intention of harassment in asking exactly who he is in talking to the commissioner, I don't know.

It starts at the top. The commissioner hasn't done anything yet, and it may be because he doesn't have the power and the processes in place. That really doesn't help the situation, but there has been no serious change in regard to what's going on.

Several complaints have gone ahead; it's all been window dressing, saying how they're going to deal with it, yet nothing has been done. It still goes on. There are still multiple complaints coming forward.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Even if Bill C-42 were to give the commissioner more power, it would not change the facts or necessarily prevent harassment within the RCMP?

[Cpl Patrick Mehain]

It may, but part of the problem is that it's management, whether that's a non-commissioned officer, a corporal of my rank, or all the way up to the commissioner. We're generally the ones who are conducting the harassment, because you're the supervisors.

There is a big fear among the membership to say anything against their bosses for fear of being classified as a troublemaker, a problem child, or whatever. Those managers, whether they're corporals, sergeants, staff sergeants, officers, or whatever, continue to harass through giving them negative duties to do, or assignments they don't really want to do, or making belittling comments, or going over their work with a fine tooth comb, simply making it generally troublesome for them coming to work. It happens today. It's still going on. Members have told me, prior to my coming here, that they won't be complaining; there is no point in complaining, because nothing is ever done.

With regard to Bill C-42, if members aren't allowed to speak or aren't allowed to blow the whistle, nobody is going to be talking, so while you've effectively muzzled the RCMP and got rid of the problem by shutting us all up, it doesn't take away the difficulties.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

I understand.

When you read Bill C-42, you see that it gives the commissioner the flexibility to go back on decisions made by the review committee further to its recommendations. That is already the case. In my view, that is what happens most of the time. One witness told us that more than half the cases were reviewed by the commissioner after the recommendations had been made.

Do you think a measure like this will help change the culture internally? A number of members have told us that a cultural change on the inside is necessary. Will Bill C-42 and its measures help bring about that cultural change within the RCMP?

[Cpl Patrick Mehain]

I guess time will tell.

As you said, the commissioner already has the ability to review and agree or disagree with the external review committee. Honestly, I don't know. I'm hopeful.

We would like the bill in place to modernize the RCMP Act, but we have concerns with certain aspects of it. Our concern is that it gives management, specifically the commissioner, much too much power. He has to have his power reduced, in our opinion, as opposed to increased.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Briefly, I want to come back to sexual harassment cases. Unfortunately, there have been many in the RCMP. It's a shame to see. I know that in other police forces, things proceed more quickly and sexual harassment cases are largely prevented. That isn't the case with the RCMP.

Do you have any comments on that or solutions you can suggest?

[Cpl Patrick Mehain]

The investigations are still ongoing. Every time something has come forward, a sexual harassment complaint or a harassment complaint, it is taken fairly seriously. That is my perception of the situation.

You know, investigations need to be investigated. One of the problems has been that members have not come forward with those harassment complaints or sexual harassment complaints because they felt it was pointless, nothing was going to happen, and the member perpetrating the harassment wouldn't be dealt with fairly or properly, so why would they put their career at risk?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much.

Before we go to the next question, I have one question that I would like to put.

Earlier you were talking about the ordered statement. Your concern was that you felt that the ordered statement could be used against you in a further civil or criminal code charge. However, the act already says that you're compelled to give a statement but that the statement can't be used against you. That's what the RCMP Act says now.

How do you believe that this bill changes that? I can't see any change in Bill C-42 that would change that. In the old act it says you're compelled to give a statement but that the statement, under no circumstance, can be used against you in a criminal charge or civil suit.

[Cpl Patrick Mehain]

It is. It is on a regular basis. Regardless of what that says, it's used on a regular basis against the member, no matter what the legislation says. Regularly, we're investigated.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

You're basically saying that this isn't something that changes with Bill C-42.

[Cpl Patrick Mehain]

No, and that's something that needs to be addressed. There has to be something that will hold the RCMP accountable, to say this isn't going to happen any more.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Okay, thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Hiebert, please.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for taking the question right out of my notes. I appreciate you jumping in and opening the door for this, because I have a similar question.

You made the statement that it's unfair or unwise or unconstitutional for a member to self-incriminate. I'm trying to put my mind to the situation in which, let's say, a serious action has taken place. If somebody's been part of a criminal activity and wasn't in the RCMP, that person would be asked to make a statement, or they would hire a lawyer, but in this case, how do you get to the bottom of the complaint if the person involved is not put in a position of having to respond?

[Cpl Patrick Mehain]

We've always had to provide an account of our actions. What this is saying is that you must provide a statement now. It says you will sit down with me, I'm going to interview you, and you're going to provide that statement.

An account of my action is, “ I got on duty; I went to the scene; this is what happened; here are all my notes; here's my report, and this is my action. If you have some more questions, here's my lawyer, we'll answer those questions for you”, and there you go.

You're right that they're the same protections a citizen has. If you commit a murder, I will ask you questions, but you have that right not to talk and you have a right to speak to a lawyer, and if you can't afford a lawyer, a lawyer will be paid for.

As we've seen in the RCMP, the commissioner will review every time you're under investigation and he may withdraw that support. He may withdraw that legal funding for your lawyer to protect you under certain self-incriminating investigations.