Public Safety Committee on Oct. 29th, 2012

[Thomas Ullyett]

Yes, Mr. Garrison, that is certainly the case. The great majority of police officers here are under the police services agreement, but some are not.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

You referred to your agreement with Alberta to have civilian investigation of use-of-force incidents. Is that agreement only for those who are covered under your contract, or does that include all of the incidents that might take place in the Yukon?

[Thomas Ullyett]

Just give me one moment, sir, to make sure I have an accurate answer for you.

We believe the agreement with Alberta concerns all serious incidents.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

That's whether or not it was someone policing under the contract or doing federal policing.

[Thomas Ullyett]

That's our understanding.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

The question we asked other witnesses who work at the national level was whether or not that provokes any problems with federal policing across the country, but that's not really a question I can pose to you. Thank you for clarifying that point.

I'd like to turn to our other witnesses and say very much how we appreciate your being here. We have had very little chance to hear from rank-and-file RCMP members. I appreciate that it may not always be the most comfortable position to come and testify before a parliamentary committee, whether you're a retired member or a serving member, so thank you very much.

I think it was a very clear presentation. Some of the things you talked about are actually beyond the scope of the bill, unfortunately. The questions of collective bargaining and the repeal of section 96 are, I think we've agreed at the committee, beyond the scope of this bill for various reasons.

What we're trying to look for on our side are some improvements to the bill. One of the things that others have expressed some concern about is whether the streamlining of the disciplinary process would allow time for dispute resolution or adequate appeals for the members.

Could you say a little bit more about this streamlined process?

[Corporal Patrick Mehain, President, British Columbia, Mounted Police Professional Association of Canada]

The issue we see with Bill C-42 is that streamlining takes away from the due process that all members should be entitled to with regard to a fair hearing, etc.

The way we look at it is that the commissioner and his officers are able to make decisions based on whether you provide a statement or not. They could make a decision that could affect your career, fire you, or do anything they want, so you either have to testify or ultimately you could face a decision of being fired.

One of the problems with the grievance system we have is that, as the RCMP, we can grieve anything. If I don't like anything, I can grieve absolutely anything.

We agree that this whole process needs to be speeded up and addressed and certain things designated that can or cannot be grieved. The problem we have, as you stated, is outside the scope of this bill. There is too much that isn't addressed or isn't under our collective agreement that we can understand. As a member, I can say I understand I can do this or that, and management can say they understand they can do this or that.

One of the problems we have had historically is that we're supposed to be governed by the Treasury Board, yet there is a caveat in every part of the RCMP Act that allows the commanding officer or the officer in charge to change that ruling simply because it makes his business line much better or more effective, regardless of the fact that we're supposed to be governed by Treasury Board. The way we see it is that the bill, as it is now drafted, provides the commissioner too much power. As Rob stated earlier, the commissioner has always had the ability to fire people. That has never been an issue.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Would you think it would be a significant improvement if the external review committee recommendations, when the committee was dealing with disciplinary measures that might involve dismissal or some other serious impact on a career, were made binding on the commissioner?

[Cpl Patrick Mehain]

We're always seeking an independent, binding resolution. Too often we hear the commissioner or senior management or whoever is making that decision say it's nice that you're giving me this recommendation, but I don't really necessarily agree with it. If it's binding, absolutely. If it's binding, fair, and independent.... Our fear is that it's going to be a binding recommendation made by a group of officers or people who have some sort of influence on the actual situation. That's the fear we have.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

But you would be happier if it were the external review committee.

[Cpl Patrick Mehain]

Absolutely.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Okay.

What I was going to ask you about you have talked about already, and that concerns the powers of the commissioner. When you raise these charter questions, do you see those two things as related? In other words, do you think it gives the commissioner too much power to order those things that would violate rights? Are those two linked?

[Cpl Patrick Mehain]

Absolutely. The charter allows due process for the average citizen of the country, so simply because we wear the red serge does not mean that we aren't entitled to that same process. Whether it's an internal process or a criminal code process, that doesn't mean we shouldn't have those same protections under the charter.

If you give a man supreme power to make absolute decisions without due process, due consultation, you'll inevitably run into situations in which that charter or those rights have been violated.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

You'll have to excuse me, but are these new powers that you are saying do not exist at the present time?

[Cpl Patrick Mehain]

The commissioner already has the power to fire people, so this is expanding his power by removing a few policies that are in place that make him go through certain steps to ensure due process.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Right now there is not an ability to compel statements, but if you don't give a statement, the commissioner could still fire you.

[Cpl Patrick Mehain]

Yes, if you don't provide a statement the commissioner can still find against you.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Yes, but right now he can't technically compel a statement.

[Cpl Patrick Mehain]

It's not written in there that—

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

It's not in the law.

Can you say a bit more about the ex parte warrant? Is that about search and seizure of evidence in a complaint or a disciplinary charge against the member?

[Cpl Patrick Mehain]

That's correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Time's up, but go ahead.

[Cpl Patrick Mehain]

In the bill the commissioner or the investigator would have the power to go to court and say there's evidence of something in this officer's house and they need to go in and seize all his property, based on the RCMP Act internal complaints process, whereas--unless you correct me--I do not believe you can do that at present.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

All right. Thank you very much.

We'll come back to Mr. Norlock, please, for seven minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Through you to the witnesses. Thank you for appearing today, both by video conference and in person.

Having 20 years of police experience, I think I can relate to some of the things you're saying.

With regard to the charter and making statements, under the police act in some provinces, such as the Police Services Act in Ontario, as a condition of your employment you keep a notebook. That notebook is owned by the citizens of Ontario, not the individual officers, and what you put in there is basically a work record. I think it is necessary, therefore, to state that when we're sometimes talking about an officer giving information against himself, 90% of the time it's the information contained within the notebook, or the notes relating to your investigation. That investigation is a matter of work record.

You mention the charter. I always speak as if we're speaking to the people at home who don't understand. In Ontario, of course, it's a little bit of a different situation, so when you say charter rights, are you referring to a police officer who has been charged with a criminal code offence? Is that what you're referring to—that it's against the charter for that officer to give information against himself?