Status of Women Committee on Nov. 20th, 2012

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Sexual harassment would absolutely be included in that.

[Supt Michael O'Rielly]

Yes.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Absolutely.

[Supt Michael O'Rielly]

Yes, absolutely.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Okay. Thanks. I just wanted to make sure that no one was in any way concerned about the wording used in Bill C-42.

You mentioned also—

[The Chair, NDP, Marie-Claude Morin]

Pardon me, Ms. Ambler, but I must stop you there. That is all the time we have for this panel of witnesses. Today, we have five minutes less for each panel, since we have committee business to deal with at the end of the meeting.

Thank you ever so much for joining us today. Your remarks were very helpful.

I will now suspend the meeting, just long enough for our next panel of witnesses to take their places.

[The Chair, NDP, Marie-Claude Morin]

We will now resume the meeting, if you don't mind.

I want to welcome our second panel of witnesses. Joining us from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police External Review Committee are Catherine Ebbs, the committee's chair, and David Paradiso, its executive director and senior counsel.

You will have 10 minutes for your presentation, and then we will move on to questions and answers.

Without further ado, I turn the floor over to you.

[Catherine Ebbs, Chair, Royal Canadian Mounted Police External Review Committee]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

As you've just said, my name is Catherine Ebbs. I've been chair of the External Review Committee since 2005, and I'm happy to have with me Mr. David Paradiso, who's our executive director and senior counsel.

I have a very brief opening statement of about five minutes.

Madam Chair, distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.

I am delighted to be able to explain the RCMP External Review Committee's mandate, the scope of its powers, and the rationale for its existence and responsibilities.

The RCMP External Review Committee, or ERC, was created in 1986 to provide RCMP management and regular and civilian members with an independent, arm's-length labour relations tribunal. For almost 25 years the ERC has provided the RCMP with an objective and neutral service. We also offer the general public a unique window into the labour dispute mechanisms of the RCMP. Because the RCMP is the only non-unionized police force in Canada, the ERC's independence from the internal processes is essential to assuring that grievances and disciplinary rulings are examined in a fair and completely neutral manner.

Our committee plays an important role in maintaining the public's confidence in the RCMP, ensuring that the force respects the act and individuals' rights in labour relations.

Our committee is mandated to review grievances, disciplinary measures, and discharge and demotion cases referred to it by the RCMP. Following its review, the committee makes recommendations to the RCMP commissioner.

We conduct a full, impartial review. In all grievance, discipline, discharge, and demotion matters referred to it, the ERC bases its review on the record before it. This includes all of the original documents, submissions of the parties, and the decision made. In this respect, we operate somewhat like a court of appeal, as we only conduct our review on the record of evidence; however, unlike a court of appeal, our reports are not rulings, only recommendations. Our word is not law. We prepare recommendations and findings that are given to the parties, as well as to the Commissioner of the RCMP. The law requires that the commissioner consider our recommendations, but is not bound by law to accept them. The RCMP commissioner has the final say in all cases. Historically, the RCMP commissioner's acceptance rate of ERC recommendations is in the range of approximately 85%. If the commissioner decides not to follow them, the commissioner is required to explain in writing the reasons why our recommendations were not followed.

It is my understanding that the Standing Committee on the Status of Women is mainly interested in the perspectives of various experts on the roles and challenges of female RCMP members and public service employees.

Cases of harassment in the workplace, be it sexual or otherwise, are a major concern for all of us.

In its 25-year history, 99 cases related to harassment have been referred to the ERC for review. These 99 cases deal with such subjects as alleged abuse of authority, on-the-job pranks, peer-to-peer bullying, as well as sexual harassment. I would like to stress that it is the ERC's view that workplace harassment of any kind must be dealt with in a manner that is both timely and fair. Those with the responsibility of dealing with complaints need to be fully trained, and there needs to be consistency in how complaints are managed across all regions of the country.

We believe the focus should be on prevention, early detection, and intervention as a way of limiting all harassment.

Thank you. I would now be pleased to answer your questions.

[The Chair, NDP, Marie-Claude Morin]

Thank you kindly for your remarks, Ms. Ebbs.

We will now move on to questions.

You have the floor, Ms. Ambler, for seven minutes.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to both of you for being here today, and for your brief presentation. That gives us more time for questions, which we very much appreciate.

I just want to talk about numbers and statistics, which is where I left off in the last hour. You mentioned that 30 cases are referred to the review committee every year and you address about 25 of them.

I'm sorry, you didn't mention that. Sorry, I'm reading my own notes here.

I think you may have mentioned that at committee.

[Catherine Ebbs]

Yes.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

I was reading that in the committee notes.

Can you please tell me what happens to those five, and why they wouldn't be looked at?

[Catherine Ebbs]

We were talking about the number of cases, which can go up and down in any given year; it's not static. But on average, that is what the figures would be. So that would mean that in any given year we would receive 30, and in any given year we would work on and finish our recommendations on 25. But we're not talking about the same cases, because at the beginning of the year we would have cases that are still waiting that haven't been dealt with.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Oh, I see. I have it. It's not that some fall off the grid or don't get looked at.

[Catherine Ebbs]

We review every case that's referred to us.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

I heard you say that all complaints are investigated, and I couldn't figure out the math, but now I get it. Thank you.

[Catherine Ebbs]

The only time we wouldn't review a case is if the member withdrew, asked us not to review it. That would be the only reason.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Thank you.

I'm also trying to reconcile the zero tolerance policy with the continuum. The previous panel, also RCMP, mentioned the continuum of harassment. Is this something you are aware of? It's a new concept to help people who might be hesitant in bringing forward complaints. Is this ringing a bell at all?

[Catherine Ebbs]

As you know, the ERC is completely independent from the RCMP, and I don't know....

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

That's okay.

What I want to ask specifically, then, is do you keep statistics? What would be the result of one of the review committee's decisions? What happens? Does the commissioner prepare a report, make recommendations? What happens at the end of the process?

[Catherine Ebbs]

If we use, as an example, a harassment-related case, that case would have gone through a process internally before we saw it, and there would have been a decision made internally at the first level. We are involved at the appeal level.

If either party decided to bring it to the next level, then we would get the case. We would review it. We'd prepare a report and we'd provide findings and recommendations to the Commissioner of the RCMP. Then once the file reached the commissioner's desk, he would make a final decision. And as I said, the law is very clear that he must consider the ERC recommendation, and if he doesn't accept it, he has to explain why.

That's the end of the process, except if a member were to bring it to the court for judicial review.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Okay, so that's the one more step they could possibly take after the review.

Could you describe what a recommendation looks like, what type of recommendation is usual? What sorts of recommendations can the review commission make? Would they ever include training recommendations?

[Catherine Ebbs]

Generally speaking, the recommendation in each case relates to what we feel the commissioner should decide. After our review, the vast majority of our recommendations to the commissioner on a harassment grievance would be, for example, that he allow the grievance or that he deny the grievance, and then we would give our reasons why. A discipline case would be similar. We would recommend that he allow or refuse the appeal. The bulk of our recommendations are very specific to the case we're reviewing.

There are occasions where we have made recommendations that go beyond the case. For example, there are cases where we have found that in certain types of subjects.... I don't think we've done this in harassment cases, but in other types of cases we might say that the policy is very difficult to understand, and we would recommend that the commissioner order a review of that policy to see if it could be improved. They are those kinds of recommendations.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Okay. That's good to know.

Of the cases that you see in a year or over a period of time, do you keep statistics specifically on the types of cases that you see and how many are sexual harassment cases? Also, have you personally dealt with very many sexual harassment cases?

[The Chair, NDP, Marie-Claude Morin]

You have 30 seconds.