Thank you, Mr. Chair, and this committee for recognizing the need to hear the views of the rank-and-file members with regard to Bill C-42.
My name is Rob Creasser, and I am the national spokesperson for the Mounted Police Professional Association of Canada and a retired 28-year member of the RCMP. With me is Corporal Patrick Mehain, a current serving member in Coquitlam, B.C., with 15 years of service.
One major problem that exists in the RCMP is the tremendous power imbalances within the organization. Bill C-42, rather than mitigating these issues, will only make them exponentially worse.
Staff Sergeant Abe Townsend, when asked about whether the staff relations representatives were consulted on Bill C-42 during the drafting stage, stated they had not been, yet in the commissioner's own testimony before the Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence in Ottawa on June 21, 2012, he stated that he views the SRR program as vital in the RCMP.
This dichotomy is not a surprise to us, because this is the way the consultative process works in the RCMP. Management only consults when they want their directives transmitted to the rank and file, yet the staff relations representatives still hold out hope of meaningful consultation. In the meantime, members of the force continue to face bullying, harassment, and undue delays in resolving their grievances.
While there are many provisions of concern in the bill, we will focus on four major headings under the following: charter violations, independence of the RCMP from political interference, extreme powers given to the commissioner, and women's issues and harassment. We will also provide three simple steps to remedy the major issues of harassment, intimidation, and bullying in the RCMP while making it more accountable.
Under charter violations, with reference to ordered statements and proposed subsections 40(1) and 40(2), the requirement that compels a member to make a statement even if it is self-incriminating is contrary to charter rights and must be removed.
Ex parte warrants for the discipline process under proposed subsection 40.2(1), again, are a violation of the charter rights of members against unreasonable search and seizure. It is surprising, because by Commissioner Paulson's own testimony police officers had a vital role to play in drafting this bill and yet these very obvious charter violations, which RCMP members would not be allowed to commit during criminal investigations, are somehow okay when it comes to dealing with citizens who are members of the force.
On independence from political interference, the appointment of the commissioner and deputy commissioners at pleasure in proposed subsection 5(3) opens the office of the commissioner up to the problem of political interference in police matters. The commissioner and deputy commissioners of the RCMP should serve at the pleasure and be answerable to an independent bipartisan parliamentary committee in order to prevent the RCMP from being used to promote political motives.
Chief Superintendent Craig MacMillan highlighted various problems in the RCMP in his doctoral thesis, “A Modern Star Chamber: An Analysis of Ordered Statements in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police”, yet Chief Superintendent MacMillan has completely gone against his own research into the culture of the RCMP in helping draft Bill C-42.
This highlights yet another of the main issues that Bill C-42 does not actually remedy, this one being that the current promotion system has been used very effectively to silence those members who point out issues, first by promising promotions and then, when that does not work, by threatening their careers by withholding job and promotional opportunities.
On national security, under proposed subsections 31(1.3) and 31(1.4), the Minister of Public Safety has the right to direct the RCMP to take an action under the guise of national security, but the minister does not have to provide any evidence of the threat. The RCMP has been ordered to violate existing Canadian law in terms of the use of torture-related info. As police officers, we are sworn not only to protect life and property but also to bring those who violate our laws to justice.
Terrorism is a concern, but we can draw from the experience of our compatriots across the pond in the United Kingdom and set up a national security committee, which would include members from all political parties in Parliament and would also have as members the heads of the RCMP, CSIS, CBSA, and CSE, as well as special judges who would hear the evidence the government has and make the final decision. That way we involve those entrusted with national security and also those who are sworn to protect Canadian and international law decisions.
On power given to the commissioner, here we refer to proposed paragraphs 20.2(1)(c), 20.2(1)(e), 20.2(1)(g), 20.2(1)(i), and 20.2(1)(k) and proposed subsections 20.2(3) and 20.2(4). The Commissioner of the RCMP has always had the ability to get rid of members who have contravened their sworn duty to uphold the law. We agree that this process needs to be streamlined, but Bill C-42 gives the office of the commissioner much too much power. The RCMP has had problems with commissioners who have abused this power in the past.
We also have concerns with the requirement for a member to attend a doctor of management's choosing.
On firing people for economic efficiency, the force spends tens of thousands of dollars to recruit, train, and equip members, and then it fires these members, thus essentially flushing the money spent and the investigative experience gained by these members down the drain. When times improve, we have to spend taxpayers' money to start the process all over again. This provision also leaves the employment of members open to the problem of becoming another tool for harassment and bullying by managers.
Another issue is the power of the RCMP commissioner, under proposed subsection 20.2(4), to delegate authority to subordinates for dismissals. The RCMP is predominantly made up of small work sites—detachments—so quite low ranks could be making decisions that reflect the entire force, yet training is sorely lacking.
Finally, on women's issues and harassment, there can be no grievance in respect of the right to equal pay for equal work under proposed subsection 31(1.2). Gender discrimination and harassment are two of the most troublesome areas in the RCMP. This provision in the bill actually works to legitimize the problem of treating female and minority members in the RCMP as being unequal members in the force.
Under Bill C-42, there is no provision for the protection of whistleblowers within the force. Bill C-42 expressly prohibits a member from speaking publicly about issues within the force and lays out sanctions that the member will face for doing so.
If Bill C-42 is passed in its current form with the charter violations and avenues for continued abuse of power by managers, rather than correcting the issues that have plagued the RCMP, our Parliament would be promoting the bad behaviour and cronyism by legitimizing this type of behaviour.
In Chief Superintendent MacMillan's doctoral thesis, he stated:
One finding from the research is that the form of employee representation in the R.C.M.P., which was created, paid for and run by management, contributes to the actual or perceived vulnerability of members. Unlike other police employees who enjoy some protection by membership in an employee association, this feature is lacking in the R.C.M.P. Members simply do not have the numerical, moral or financial support to challenge improper actions by management. Denying the right to choose the form of employee representation by members undermines the R.C.M.P.'s newly proclaimed empowerment and management philosophies.
If Parliament is truly interested in beginning the process to address the problems that currently plague the RCMP, there are three simple and yet powerful steps that can be taken.
The first step is to bring in a process of collective bargaining to deal with employer/management-labour relations in the RCMP.
The second step is to bring in a process of independent binding arbitration to resolve grievances that cannot be resolved between management and labour. Make sure the arbitrator is independent of the influence of government, Treasury Board, RCMP management, and RCMP labour representatives. In the Vancouver Police Department, for example, grievances take, on average, a maximum of 28 days to be settled. The RCMP process takes much longer, and some have gone on for seven years or more.
Finally, the third step is to enact legislation that repeals section 96 of the RCMP Act and thereby allow the members to have the ability to have a free and truly democratic vote to elect independent, member-funded labour representatives.
The rank-and-file members of the RCMP are proud to serve the citizens of this country in all capacities, from the municipal level to international areas. All we ask is to be treated with the same dignity and be afforded the same rights as every other Canadian citizen.
Thank you.
