Public Safety Committee on Oct. 29th, 2012

[S/Sgt Gaétan Delisle]

Okay. It's with regard to any power that he has over the administration of the force. A member can go before a grievance process; give that independence to the grievance advisory board. It would be the same thing that is in the RCMP act right now. Do the same thing on discipline. You have an external review committee; it's exactly the same thing. Take away that power.

The commissioner has the power to suspend someone. I was suspended without pay for having been elected mayor in Saint-Blaise-sur-Richelieu. It was done just like that. That same situation can happen tomorrow morning with anybody.

The issue, though, is when you want to appeal that decision, where do you go? Right now you go to the commissioner, so if you want an example, take away that decision-making after the external review committee, just as any other type of employee-employer relationship.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

So the commissioner is not part of that appeal process or that review process, in your view?

[S/Sgt Gaétan Delisle]

He is the last person.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

But he's still there. You're not taking away his ultimate power.

[S/Sgt Gaétan Delisle]

Why do you have an external review committee? It's to review a situation that has arisen. If you have some people who are paid to do a job and they come to their conclusion, that conclusion should stand.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Okay, I don't disagree, but then you just said the commissioner still has ultimate authority above that. Did I misunderstand what you said?

[S/Sgt Gaétan Delisle]

That's the truth.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

And you're saying that's right or that's wrong?

[S/Sgt André Girard]

What happens is that the commissioner has the last say. You heard Madam Ebbs testify in front of the committee. The committee members around the table gave an opportunity to Madam Ebbs on many occasions to say what she would like to have in a perfect RCMP Act, as seen from her point of view. She never answered the question properly.

Instead of asking to have a power to render decisions that would be binding and not just recommendations to the commissioner, she did not said that. That leads me to the impression that the only thing she was concerned about was protecting her own job. Unfortunately, it has to go much further than that in order to create that balance between the membership and the organization, in which, as Mr. Delisle mentioned, the commissioner has ultimate powers right now.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you.

Mr. Stamatakis, I'll ask you this, but anybody else can chime in.

We talk a lot about the culture of the RCMP. People talk about the bill changing the culture. I would submit that a bill at best would be a framework for a culture change; the change in culture has to come from the people, not the bill. That starts with the leadership and works its way down.

I think it ultimately comes down to a matter of a culture of trust in both directions, trust up and trust down, which I think needs to be led by the leadership initially. That's just personal opinion.

Do you agree with that? Do you see any sense of commitment to change the culture within the leadership of the RCMP, or do you get any sense of a willingness to go a step in that direction by the membership, to eventually come together in the middle and change the culture?

I think only people can change the culture. A book can't change a culture.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Hawn.

Go ahead, Mr. Stamatakis.

[Tom Stamatakis]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I agree with you. I'll answer by touching on the question he just asked.

I don't think it's an issue of restricting the authority of the commissioner at all. I think the commissioner, like any police chief in a municipal or provincial environment or any CEO of a private company, has to have the appropriate authority in order to run that business or provide that service.

It's about giving people who are involved in the dispute or who disagree with the commissioner's decision—particularly with respect to a conduct issue that could lead to dismissal—an opportunity to go to an outside independent body or person to have that dispute adjudicated and to get to a final and binding decision that everybody then lives with. This is exactly what happens across this country in every municipal police force and every provincial police force.

If you get into a scheme that has those outcomes, it will build the relationship between the front-line police officers and the leadership, who have to take the leadership role in the positions they're in, so that they can come to an appropriate working relationship in which there is no tolerance for inappropriate behaviour or conduct, but there are fair and appropriate systems in place for those matters to be dealt with properly. Then you can get to outcomes that allow for a productive working relationship, which ultimately allows for better service to the public, increased public safety, increased morale, and a better quality of life in our communities across this country—and that is what every police officer wants, including the front-line officers with the RCMP and the leadership of the RCMP.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Stamatakis.

Probably our last question of the day will go to Mr. Scarpaleggia. You have six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for their statements.

Once again, it was very educational. In fact, this is the first time we have heard from officers on the ground.

I realize that you believe the external review committee lacks independence. The commissioner can reject a recommendation. But, aside from that, would you say the grievance or complaints review system as a whole is overly complex? Does it have too many steps right now?

We often hear how long it takes for a case to work its way through the system. If someone isn't satisfied with a decision at one level, that person can file an appeal at another level. Then, at the very end, the person can take their case to the external committee, but it takes a very long time to get to that stage.

Do you think the system needs some streamlining so that cases can move along more quickly?

[James Duggan]

I would like to respond, if I may.

There is no need to reinvent the wheel if you want the RCMP commissioner to have the decision-making authority and to assume his responsibilities.

For example, let's consider a dismissal case. Normally, in labour relations, the responsibility for running a business lies with the employer. The employer makes the decision to dismiss an employee, who can then file a grievance or use the system to challenge the dismissal. The system works quickly. The employee or officer can access an independent tribunal.

Usually, a decision in a dismissal case takes between 6 and 12 months. I practice labour law. I have argued hundreds of dismissal cases involving the RCMP. On average, it takes 7 months for a case like that to be settled.

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

If the commissioner took swifter action and dismissed the person in the very beginning, would the case go directly to the external committee? Would it happen sooner? I don't understand.

[James Duggan]

Perhaps I condensed my answer too much. I was trying to compare the commissioner to a business owner, who is in charge of making the necessary decisions. If there's a bad apple, as they say, and someone poses a problem from the RCMP's perspective, then the commissioner must assume his responsibility.

That system applies in every other police force in the country. The commissioner has the absolute authority to suspend someone without pay and get rid of the problem officer. By the same token, the dismissed officer can file a grievance, which goes before an independent tribunal.

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

Instead of going through several steps at different levels.

[James Duggan]

Yes, the steps set out in the RCMP Act give the officer in charge one year, from the time the identity of the problem member and the alleged contravention become known, to request an investigation.

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

I see.

[James Duggan]

Once that year is up, the recommendation is submitted to three RCMP officers who hold a hearing. It takes three years before the hearings begin.

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

I don't mean to cut you off, but I'm short on time.

If I understand correctly, then, former minister Stockwell Day held a view that was at odds with the approach taken in Bill C-42. He didn't share the same view. It would't be the first time, for that matter. In fact, on Bill C-30, which deals with Internet surveillance, the minister at the time, Mr. Day, did not agree with the position taken by the current minister, Mr. Toews.

Your comment speaks precisely to the fact that Mr. Day saw things differently.

[James Duggan]

With all due respect, it's what they call “Romnesia” in the United States. That's the situation of having accepted certain principles, but flip-flopping from one day to the next and doing the opposite.

In Bill C-43, what this Conservative government provided for was access to collective bargaining and for a balanced and fair approach for members. After a decision in the Ontario Court of Appeal, Bill C-43 was completely disregarded, and now we have Bill C-42.

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

“Romnesia”. I like that. That's good.

Am I done, though, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Yes, you're done. Thank you very much.

I want to thank all the witnesses for appearing before our committee today.

Actually, you have...I don't know if it's the honour of saving the best for the last or whatever the deal is, but this will be the last of the testimony that we hear before our committee.

To our committee, I would remind you that we begin clause-by-clause study on Bill C-42 on Wednesday.

I would also remind all members here of the original motion that was agreed to. I'll just read the last part of that motion or what was agreed to:

That amendments to Bill C-42 be submitted to the Clerk in both official languages before 9 p.m. on Monday, October 29, 2012, and that these amendments be distributed to members in both official languages before the end of the day.

Just so you're completely aware of what this means, it means that our clerk will be working here. He's brought in extra staff to work here as long as he has to, to make certain that the amendments are circulated and in your mailboxes tomorrow.

We've agreed to have these amendments in today. Please honour that.

With that, I again thank each of you for your testimony.

The meeting is adjourned.