Public Safety Committee on Oct. 29th, 2012

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

So you're distinguishing between an account and a statement?

[Cpl Patrick Mehain]

That's correct, yes.

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

An account is your activities, but how was the statement different again?

[Cpl Patrick Mehain]

If you ask me to come in for a statement, we'll sit down, and you will say, “Okay, tell me what happened”, and I'll give you my account of the story. Then you will start interviewing me on what you may consider are inconsistencies or ask other questions you want me to further explain.

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

It’s like a cross-examination.

[Cpl Patrick Mehain]

Exactly, yes.

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

You don't have a problem giving information from your book, as my colleague has suggested; it's this additional investigation that poses questions to you without your having counsel that you're concerned about.

[Cpl Patrick Mehain]

That's correct, absolutely. We should all have to account for it. We've said that all my notebooks aren't mine; my notebooks belong to the RCMP, and they're kept for 100 years.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

I apologize, Mr. Hiebert, but our time is up on this. We have to go in to our next hour and the next round. When I pose a question in a case like that, it's a question that our table has. In order to prepare the study, sometimes I'll jump in, and it will be from the table.

To both witnesses today, from Whitehorse and here, we very much appreciate your input to our discussion and debate and consideration of this bill. We thank you.

After you leave here, if you think you wish you had answered a question in a different way or that you would have expanded on it if you had more time, please feel free to submit those to our clerk. He'll be certain that we get those extended answers. We'd appreciate it.

We thank you, folks. We're going to suspend. We invite our next guests by video conference to prepare.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I call this meeting back to order.

In our second hour, we have a panel of witnesses today as we continue our consideration of Bill C-42.

We’ll hear from the Quebec Mounted Police Members' Association. Gaétan Delisle is the association's president, Staff Sergeant André Girard is the treasurer, and Mr. James Duggan is the association's legal adviser.

We also have Tom Stamatakis from Vancouver, the president of the Canadian Police Association, ready to testify. Also to testify by video conference, we have Alok Mukherjee from Toronto, the president of the Canadian Association of Police Boards.

We welcome each of you.

We will begin with the Quebec Mounted Police Members' Association. Please give us your prepared statements. Then we'll move on to statements from others and then to a round of questioning.

Monsieur Delisle, go ahead.

[Staff Sergeant Gaétan Delisle, President, Quebec Mounted Police Members' Association]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I retired from the RCMP 3 years ago. I was a staff sergeant at the time. I spent 40 years with the RCMP, 33 of them as a division staff representative, meaning I represented members internally. Initially, you heard from Mr. Townsend. I did the same type of work he did. I spent 33 years representing RCMP members. I think I am well-placed to describe what happens in harassment cases, disciplinary measures and so forth.

However, I would like to point out that the current version of the RCMP Act was initiated in 1976, in response to the famous Marin report, put out by the commission headed by Justice René Marin. I hope you have a look at the report and the 200 or so recommendations it made. Two of the main recommendations called for the independence of both the external review committee for public complaints and the external review committee for RCMP member grievances. The report recommended not only that they be independent, but also that their decisions be binding. It took 10 years for that recommendation to become law. It did not happen until 1988. So a tremendous amount of work went into that component.

In addition, two years ago, Bill C-43 was introduced in the House of Commons. My colleague will cite a few passages from it later. That said, since the legislation was passed, this is where things stand.

One of the things I want to draw your attention to is the fact that multiple reports have been prepared: the Brown report, the Université de Montréal report and the submissions pertaining to the task force. I have them all here so you can look at them. You will see precisely what the RCMP's problems are as regards harassment, intimidation and the inability of senior management to show accountability in this area. I say “show accountability” because all this time, these people have not been held accountable to anyone, as my colleague pointed out.

That is why, as parliamentarians, you always have this ambiguity on your hands, in terms of how to handle a large organization like the RCMP. They are not formally accountable to anyone.

For comparison purposes, a police chief is accountable to a board. So a group of individuals review his or her decisions. Those decisions are made independently. As you can see, the brief we provided to the committee was prepared with organization and concision in mind. We wanted you to understand exactly what we mean.

I will give you an example of the kind of decision made regarding grievances filed by members. Decision TG-192—which I will leave with you—says this:

This grievance also challenged a Force decision not to uphold a member's complaint of harassment.

That's just one example of a decision, but you'll see there are many.

The decision rendered reads as follows:

The Commissioner disagreed with the Committee's finding of harassment with respect to the first incident and denied the grievance.

That has always been the case at the RCMP because the committees aren't independent in their ability to make a decision. That's what happens when you leave the decision to a person in a position of authority. That is how things work at the RCMP now, and this bill won't change a thing. You'll see the same kinds of situations triggering all the investigations that have taken place and that will continue into the future.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

You're at about cinq minutes. You have 10 minutes for the whole group.

[S/Sgt Gaétan Delisle]

I think they're going to let me speak.

Let's not delude ourselves here. The point of Bill C-42 is to give the commissioner of the RCMP more power. But, as you can see from our brief, he already has all that power. Conversely, if we had independent labour relations tribunals or other specialized tribunals, you would see a major change in labour relations.

The committee has heard from division staff representatives such as Mr. Townsend. They told you first-hand that they were responsible for labour relations and represented all the members of the RCMP. And yet, all of them told you that they weren't consulted on Bill C-42. Imagine what kinds of work relationships occur in an organization that has 17,000 officers across Canada. Don't kid yourselves. These individuals don't represent members because they are paid. These people work for the organization and are promoted from within. I know, I used to be one of them.

But you won't see regular members coming here to testify. In fact, I tip my hat to my colleagues who have already appeared before you. The reason is quite simple. My colleague, André Girard, who was also a division staff representative, and I have both been the targets of harassment complaints. My colleague wasn't even able to represent himself. Mr. Girard had sent a letter to the solicitor general expressing his views on certain practices within the RCMP. Don't kid yourselves. It has to be done.

Do I still have a minute or two?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

You have three minutes.

[S/Sgt Gaétan Delisle]

Mr. Girard will take over.

[Staff Sergeant André Girard, Treasurer, Quebec Mounted Police Members' Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Distinguished members, we cannot thank you enough for the opportunity to address you today. I am going to speak rather quickly since we're short on time.

As my colleague mentioned earlier, I retired from the RCMP in early June 2011. I served the force for 35 years, retiring at the staff sergeant level. I spent over 30 years, 20 of them immediately prior to my retirement, as a division staff representative, and I was elected a total of eight times, almost consecutively.

I want to bring up an issue that has caused me some confusion. Bill C-42 stems from Bill C-43, which made its way to second reading on December 13, 2010. That bill was called An Act to Enact the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Labour Relations Modernization Act and to Amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to Make Consequential Amendments to Other Acts.

The bill was sponsored by a key Conservative minister, Stockwell Day. Mainly, the bill sought to establish an entire labour relations regime where an independent arbitration system would be governed by the Public Service Labour Relations Act.

When introducing the bill in the House, Minister Day referenced an Ontario court ruling. He said and I quote:

It is an act that would meet the demand of the court and say that certain provisions would have to be followed, certain constitutional guarantees of representation by members would be put in place, but it would leave that choice to RCMP members. That is the nub of the issue. Those are the minister's very own words.

He went on to say:

There are a number of grievance- and disciplinary-related areas in th[is] particular modernization that would assist the public and assist RCMP members.

Finally, he said:

I believe there is some support for having this legislation in place pending a final ruling [because, at the time, the matter was before the Court of Appeal for Ontario] so that whatever happens, the members of the RCMP, the men and women who have committed their lives to keeping us safe, to serving us as admirably as they do, will have the assurance that a mechanism will be in place that will not leave their concerns unattended whichever way the final ruling in court goes....I would invite careful analysis of this particular modernization act. I hope that we will find support for it. This is being done in a non-partisan way....

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much.

You came in 10 seconds under the wire. That was very well done.

We'll move out to Vancouver, please, to Mr. Stamatakis and the Canadian Police Association.

[Tom Stamatakis, President, Canadian Police Association]

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for providing the opportunity to address you today regarding Bill C-42, the Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act.

I'm speaking today on behalf of the Canadian Police Association, an organization that represents over 50,000 front-line law enforcement personnel across Canada in over 160 member associations, including some members of the RCMP.

I have just a few brief opening remarks, and then I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have.

I'd like to begin my remarks by saying that as police officers, whether within the RCMP, a provincial police force, or a municipal police force, having the confidence of the public we serve is of paramount importance. While there's no doubt that recent events have put our colleagues within the RCMP under the microscope, we cannot emphasize enough that the men and women who make up Canada's national police force are, by and large, a credit to our country and the communities they represent.

Bill C-42contains a number of positive elements. However, there are some areas of this proposed legislation that cause concern, and I'd like to take this opportunity to briefly highlight those, particularly from the perspective of a front-line police officer.

The first area I'll touch on is that there is no doubt that streamlining the discipline and grievance process for RCMP members is a desirable goal. Bill C-42provides the commissioner with extraordinary powers in this regard, powers that go beyond what one might find in other police services across Canada.

For example, in Ontario, a police officer who is subject to a disciplinary process retains the right to appeal the decision to the independent Ontario Civilian Police Commission, a quasi-judicial body that provides an impartial review of the process and ultimately a decision.

Without any additional, and most importantly, independent avenue for appeal, I would suggest there is a possibility that RCMP members could lose faith in the impartiality of a process against them, particularly in situations in which the commissioner has delegated his authority for discipline.

Clause 40 of Bill C-42 is another area of serious concern, as it deals with investigations when an RCMP member has contravened the code of conduct within the force. First, the legislation specifies that an officer can be compelled to testify against herself or himself. Second, the legislation sets out the conditions under which a warrant can be issued under the RCMP Act to potentially search the residence of an RCMP member, under the direction of the commissioner of the RCMP or another officer who has been delegated that authority. That's particularly troubling when we're dealing with largely an administrative process designed to deal with conduct issues that arise through the RCMP officer's employment.

Unfortunately, both of these provisions, while hopefully well-intentioned, are seemingly violations of the basic Charter of Rights and Freedoms that all Canadian citizens enjoy and that should not be ignored simply because someone is a member of the RCMP. In fact, I can only imagine the public outcry that would follow should our front-line officers conduct their own criminal investigations under provisions similar to those included within Bill C-42.

A final area that I'd like to highlight comes out of the testimony this committee has heard regarding avenues of redress that RCMP members might be able to take following a ruling that calls for the dismissal of an officer.

Officials from the Department of Public Safety, including Mr. Richard Wex and Mr. Mark Potter, pointed out that judicial review was always available for an officer who wished to appeal a commissioner's ruling under the new provisions of this legislation.

Unfortunately, this runs up against a long-standing issue that the Canadian Police Association has been trying to address, which is that the RCMP remains the only police service in Canada that continues to be denied the right to associate.

There's no doubt that judicial review is an important aspect, but, as this committee knows, taking a case through the court process is not without cost, and without an association to represent the member or to help defray the cost, this avenue may be beyond the means of an officer who has just recently lost employment based on a discipline judgment in what most often will be largely an administrative process.

Obviously this is only a brief overview of the concerns that the Canadian Police Association has on this legislation. I'd be happy to expand on or clarify any of these areas for the benefit of committee members during our question and answer period, or on any other areas I might be able to assist members with before you begin your substantive deliberations on this legislation.

To conclude, there's no doubt that our colleagues within the RCMP face unprecedented challenges, but there needs to be a sense of balance. We cannot take steps to restore or enhance the public's confidence with the RCMP at the expense of weakening RCMP members' own confidence with their employer. There is room for management and front-line officers to come together, as evidenced by the collective agreements arrived at with provincial and municipal police forces across Canada. I hope this committee is able to amend Bill C-42 at this stage in order to best find that balance that allows the RCMP to continue its role as Canada's national police service.

Thank you for your time, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Stamatakis.

We'll now move over to Mr. Mukherjee, please. He's the president of the Canadian Association of Police Boards.

I'd also say before we begin that in one of those rooms there seems to be a fair bit of background noise that makes it a little difficult to hear as clearly as we would like. If you can straighten that out on your end, it would be appreciated.

Please go ahead, Mr. Mukherjee.

[Dr. Alok Mukherjee, President, Canadian Association of Police Boards]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Members of the committee, thank you for giving us an opportunity to offer our comments on this legislation that is very important to our organization, as it is to you and to the government.

The police boards and commissions that make up our members are responsible for the governance and oversight of more than 75% of the municipal police in Canada. They manage the police services of their municipalities, set priorities, establish policy, and represent the public interest to civilian governance and oversight. It is from this perspective of governance and oversight that we generally welcome Bill C-42.

It was over five years ago that we were consulted, and I was one of them, by officials of the Department of Public Safety regarding issues of governance and oversight for the RCMP. We believe that Bill C-42 is a good step forward in enhancing accountability, modernizing the force's human resources practices, and strengthening civilian oversight. It is to be hoped that these measures will increase public trust in the RCMP, which, as Minister Toews and others have noted, has suffered of late.

To this end, we applaud the objectives stated in the preamble to the proposed legislation.

Rather than dealing with any specific element of the bill, I wish to comment generally on some of the proposals with respect to governance and oversight in terms of the implications of certain provisions.

Our interest in effective governance and oversight of the RCMP is twofold. First, insofar as the RCMP provides contract policing to local communities, we believe that it should have a system of governance similar to that for municipal police services. Second, insofar as RCMP engages in joint operations and integrated policing with our municipal police services, we believe that it should be subject to effective oversight similar to that which exists for its municipal counterparts.

Local governance in jurisdictions where the RCMP provides contract policing is an important issue for us, as it should be for the force and the government. About 65% of the RCMP's budget, we are told, comes from contract policing. Further, in addition to providing policing services to provinces and territories, the RCMP serves more than 200 municipalities and 165 aboriginal communities across Canada.

The proposed legislation does attempt to address some local concerns. While beneficial, they are not measures that enhance local governance in contract policing jurisdictions. We would urge you to give consideration to this area in your deliberations. A report on RCMP municipal contract policing prepared for the Federation of Canadian Municipalities in 2009 makes the following observation:

A number of characteristics are generally accepted as essential to good governance; these include being accountable, transparent, responsive, effective and efficient, equitable and inclusive. Most respondents had concerns with governance in RCMP municipal policing on these fronts.

Accountability to the community is perceived by many municipalities to be a lower priority within the RCMP than accountability to RCMP headquarters.

Attention to governance generally, and not only to local governance, is largely absent from Bill C-42. We—that is, the CAPB—submit that strong governance would greatly enhance the RCMP's accountability and transparency. This is, for us, a matter of great importance, particularly given the increased powers proposed to be vested in the commissioner by Bill C-42. It is one that we have discussed extensively during our consultation with public safety officials.

We submitted a letter to your committee dated October 18 that deals with this subject at some length, so I will not say much more about it other than that in our respectful submission, adopting a modern, effective governance system for the RCMP will build confidence by ensuring greater accountability to elected officials, taxpayers, and most importantly, the communities served by the RCMP.

I would now like to talk about effective oversight as distinct from governance, particularly from the point of view of communities that do not have contract policing but whose police services are nonetheless involved in joint operations and integrated policing with the RCMP.

The current situation is unacceptable, as I discovered in my role as chair of the Toronto Police Services Board during the G20 summit in Toronto. While the police service that we oversee--that is, the Toronto Police Service--was held accountable by a system of provincial and local oversight, the RCMP was not subject to anything that came close for its role in this highly sensitive integrated policing project with significant national security implications.

The current oversight mechanism, the CPC, as has been noted by several witnesses appearing before you, is woefully inadequate. I believe that the provisions in Bill C-42 will go a long way in filling this gap. We are heartened by the fact that the proposed CRCC will have the power to undertake reviews of the RCMP's policies and procedures, have access to more documents than is the case at present, be able to compel evidence, and deal more expeditiously with public complaints.

We are also very supportive of the ability of provincial ministers responsible for policing to initiate investigations and of provincial oversight agencies to undertake independent and joint investigations. These are good measures and should contribute to greater public confidence.

We do, however, share the concerns that have been expressed already about some of the other provisions of the bill. We fear that they could undermine true, effective oversight. In particular, we would urge you to review the justification for the limits on what documents the CRCC may not have access to, the ability of the commissioner to cause an investigation to be suspended because of the possibility of a criminal investigation, the ability of the commissioner to refuse to investigate a complaint that in the CRCC chair's view it would be in the public interest to investigate, the absence of service standards requiring the force to take timely action when such standards are envisaged for the commission, and the lack of what interim CPC chair Ian McPhail in his comments to you called “a robust review regime”.

We share Staff Sergeant Abe Townsend's concern regarding the concentration of that much power in one office, on the one hand, and the inability of the commission on the other to make compelling recommendations. Those are Staff Sergeant Townsend's words.

Finally, we take issue with Director General Mark Potter's characterization of handling of public complaints as CRCC's core business and with Bill C-42's subjecting of reviews to availability of resources, among other considerations. Unless these imbalances are fixed, we are afraid that despite all the enhanced powers given to the new commission, it will be seen to exist on the sufferance of the very institution and the very head that it is supposed to oversee. We do not think that this will contribute to achieving the objective that Bill C-42 seeks, namely greater public trust through greater accountability.

I'll be glad to answer any questions, and thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you all for your testimony.

We'll move into our first round of questions. We're going to cut it back a little bit to about six minutes. Everyone will have the opportunity to ask a question.

Go ahead, Mr. Hiebert, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In the previous round of testimony we heard the witnesses and some of the questioners ask about the use of statements, and in my last and only question it was in reference to criminal investigations. I would like to bring it back to the area of code of conduct investigations.

The statement was made that it was improper to compel a member to provide a statement in that scenario as well. I would like to hear from everyone on the rationale behind that, because my understanding in looking at the code of conduct content is that this is the kind of information or disclosure that would be necessary to address a public concern, which is what we're trying to do here.

We're talking about rude or disrespectful behaviour, making a false statement, or misusing alcohol or drugs. This is the kind of behaviour that any employee would be held accountable for in any employment setting. I'm wondering why a police officer engaged in this kind of activity should not be compelled to provide a statement and answer questions as to why they were engaged in this behaviour when almost any other employee would face the same questioning by an employer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thanks, Mr. Hiebert.

Go ahead, Mr. Duggan.

[James Duggan, Legal Advisor, Quebec Mounted Police Members' Association]

I would have to take issue with you, Mr. Hiebert. Almost all employees, including the employees who work in the public service, have a right against self-incrimination and are not obliged to provide a statement that could result in their being disciplined or being dismissed.

I think that we would all agree with you that where the public interest is involved, a balance has to occur, and that the balance has to reflect some of the concerns expressed by several of the witnesses here, including Mr. Mukherjee, the witness for the CPA, and Mr. Townsend, as well as in the question from Mr. Scarpaleggia.

What you have as a difficult task here is to balance the rights of the members of the RCMP against being subject to absolute and arbitrary power by a commissioner who is in fact judge, jury, and executioner while at the same time balancing the public interest in making sure of the institution.

The RCMP was a great pride to our country and has fallen into disrepute because of the actions of a few members, so you don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. That's what you're going to be doing if you give more power to somebody who already has absolute power. To me your question about forcing members of the RCMP to give up all of their rights and incriminate themselves in that context, with great respect, betrays an ignorance over how the system actually works. Section 5 of the RCMP Act says that the commissioner has absolute authority and power over members of the RCMP. Can you tell me why somebody in that position needs more power?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Perhaps we would hear from some of the others as well. Only two minutes are left.

Let's go to Mr. Stamatakis.