Status of Women Committee on Feb. 26th, 2013

[The Chair, NDP, Marie-Claude Morin]

Good morning and welcome to the 60th meeting of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. Today is Tuesday, February 26, 2013, and we are continuing our study on sexual harassment in the federal workplace, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2).

We welcome representatives from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Public Complaints Commission. Further to a motion tabled February 7, 2013, a committee member must move a motion in order to hear the three witnesses representing the organization.

Ms. Truppe, the floor is yours.

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I move:That, notwithstanding the motion adopted on Thursday, February 7, 2013, the Committee hear the testimony of more than two representatives from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Public Complaints Commission in relation to the study of sexual harassment in the federal workplace.

Thank you.

[The Chair, NDP, Marie-Claude Morin]

Thank you, Ms. Truppe.

I am assuming that all members are in agreement.

(Motion agreed to unanimously)

I would like to take this opportunity to make a few committee announcements before we hear the witnesses.

I wish to inform the members that the committee will be sitting on March 5 because one of the witnesses was available only on that date.

We will now proceed. From the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Public Complaints Commission, we will be hearing from Mr. Ian McPhail, Interim Chair, Mr. Richard Evans, Senior Director, and Ms. Lisa-Marie Inman, Director, Reviews and Investigations.

You have 10 minutes to make your presentation, which will then be followed by a question period. I will warn you when you have one minute remaining.

Mr. McPhail, the floor is yours.

[Ian McPhail, Interim Chair, Chair's Office, Royal Canadian Mounted Police Public Complaints Commission]

Thank you, Madame.

Madame Chair, honourable members, thank you for the opportunity to share with the committee the results of the commission’s investigation into workplace harassment in the RCMP.

Given how fundamentally important public support is to the RCMP's ability to carry out its duties and responsibilities, I felt it necessary to initiate a complaint and undertake a public interest investigation following reports that female RCMP members had faced systemic sexual harassment in the workplace.

The commission’s investigation focused on the handling of alleged workplace harassment. It included all forms of harassment, not just sexual harassment. The commission examined the adherence to RCMP policies and procedures, the adequacy of those policies, the thoroughness and impartiality of harassment investigations, as well as harassment-related training. In total, the commission reviewed 718 harassment complaints filed between 2005 and 2011. We did not make findings in respect of individual harassment complaints. Nonetheless, we assessed the handling of each complaint filed.

The investigation found that, overwhelmingly, the problem was with abuse of authority—in other words, bullying. The investigation also revealed that most of the alleged harassment occurred between regular RCMP members. Over 60% of complainants and 70% of respondents were uniformed police officers. The gender breakdown of complainants was virtually half male and half female, while respondents were predominantly male. The commission’s review also found that most of the harassment complaints were dealt with in accordance with the RCMP's harassment policy. However, that policy was capable of being interpreted in a number of ways, which resulted in it being inconsistently applied.

In undertaking this review, the commission was cognizant that the formal complaint files we received from the RCMP may not reflect all instances of harassment as some people may be reluctant to file a formal complaint for various reasons. In an effort to address potential under-reporting, as well as to elicit feedback, a call for public submissions was made. The commission received 63 submissions and, in turn, conducted a number of interviews with interested parties.

Although the empirical data presented to the commission did not support the belief that the RCMP has a systemic issue with sexual harassment, there is no proof to the contrary. Moreover, the simple perception of the existence of systemic poor treatment of employees by colleagues and supervisors, regardless of gender, has a huge impact on both public confidence and the manner in which the RCMP is regarded.

In addition, and perhaps more importantly, for those employees who suffered harassment or workplace conflict, there is a very real human cost. There is also a tremendous strain on the organization when such serious issues are not addressed in an effective and timely manner. As such, the commission’s report urged the RCMP to take a number of concrete and measurable steps to improve its handling of workplace conflict and harassment allegations, including revising the harassment policy to be more inclusive; instituting a system of centralized monitoring and coordination of harassment complaints outside of the divisional chains of command; and establishing an external mechanism for review of harassment decisions, separate from, but not exclusive of, the RCMP's labour relations process.

The commission also recommends that the RCMP develop a comprehensive method to evaluate respectful workplace efforts that is both measurable and quantifiable. The results of such evaluation must be publicly reported.

All of this is intended to enhance the transparency of the process because only if you have what RCMP members themselves see as a fair, open, transparent, and expeditious process will people be comfortable in stepping forward, and the public have confidence in its national police force.

Harassment is a complex problem requiring a complex solution. Policy statements and written procedures are not enough to address this issue. There must be intent on the part of the RCMP to cultivate a more respectful workplace, and that intent needs to be followed up with actions.

I am hopeful that the commission’s report and recommendations will help inform the RCMP in its efforts and further build on the commissioner’s recently released action plan.

With that, I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

[The Chair, NDP, Marie-Claude Morin]

Thank you.

We will now begin the question and answer period.

Ms. Truppe, you have seven minutes.

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madame Chair. I would like to welcome our guests today.

“Sexual Harassment in the Federal Workplace” is the name of our study, and that's what our focus is here. It's a very serious issue and why we're here today and have been here these past few months.

I will start with a quote from my colleague on the other side, Ms. Ashton, at the time of Commissioner Paulson's last visit. Ms. Ashton had indicated that “We all want to see full resources attached to an effort to eradicate sexual harassment and harassment in the force”.

I just want to make it clear that Bill C-42 does give the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP an extra $5 million and the RCMP $9.8 million, so there is some funding attached.

Mr. McPhail, or Mr. Evans or Ms. Inman if you would like to answer, what impact would Bill C-42, the enhancing RCMP accountability act, have on the organization?

[Ian McPhail]

Thank you, Ms. Truppe.

Bill C-42, in our opinion, will have a positive impact on the organization, which is to be recreated as a new civilian review and complaints commission.

Broadly speaking, Bill C-42 will provide the new commission with the power to compel witnesses and testimony. It will give the new commission the ability to instigate broad systemic reviews. It will enable the commission to work more cooperatively and to conduct joint reviews with our provincial counterparts.

All in all, it will result in a much more robust authority for the new body, which I believe will have a positive effect.

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you. You just said that it will give you a broader systemic review. Can you elaborate on that? What's the difference?

[Ian McPhail]

Yes, let me explain the difference between this particular report and a systemic review.

This report is based on the current authority of the commission to have what is called a chair-initiated complaint. It's not necessary to wait until an individual makes a specific complaint. If the chair of the commission is of the opinion that there is a particular matter that should be investigated, the chair has the authority to institute such a process.

The ability to conduct systemic reviews is broader. It's not necessarily dependent on their being a certain issue. Let me give you an example. Under the authority to be granted by BillC-42, the new review and complaints commission would have the ability to perform a systemic review of the RCMP's progress in implementing these recommendations and to do a broader review of attitudes and opinions of RCMP members to more accurately determine the full extent of this particular problem.

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, London North Centre, ON]

Great, thank you.

How does Bill C-42 address the issues outlined in your recommendations?

[Ian McPhail]

Bill C-42 gives the RCMP commissioner the authority to implement some of the recommendations. For example, one of the findings of the commission in this report was that there's a multiplicity of processes in place at the present time. For example, in our review of the files we found that complaint investigations took anywhere from two weeks to four years to be completed. Without knowing people's motivations, I think it's a reasonable conclusion to reach that the prospect of spending up to four years involved in a complex and often difficult and stressful legal process might well cause someone just to avoid the process altogether. What Bill C-42 does is give the commissioner the authority to streamline this process. What the commission has done has been to give the commissioner a road map for how to use these new powers. It's then up to the commissioner and the RCMP to implement them.

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, London North Centre, ON]

That's very good, thank you. I have one minute left.

You had mentioned that sexual harassment was not systemic. The report did not support the latter claim, though I think you said there was no proof on the contrary. How did you come to this conclusion? Could you give just a very quick response on that?

[Ian McPhail]

Very simply, of the files that we reviewed, a full 90% dealt with abuse of authority or bullying. Only 4% dealt with sexual harassment. We also made the point that there are three broad areas. One area is the complaint files themselves. That's what we reviewed. Secondly, there are complaints made that result in informal resolution. At this time there is no record kept of the results of those cases and we recommend that this be done. The third instance would be problems or complaints that aren't made for whatever reason, that is, the under-reporting that I referred to in my opening remarks. It's my belief that it's necessary to have the kind of fair, open, and transparent process that I referred to so that—

[The Chair, NDP, Marie-Claude Morin]

I am sorry, Mr. McPhail, but I am going to have to interrupt you. You have gone way past your speaking time already. You will no doubt be able to complete what you were saying in answering other questions.

Ms. Ashton, the floor is yours. You have seven minutes.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Thank you, Mr. McPhail, for joining us today.

The report you released mentioned that only 4% of the complaints came from women and were related to sexual harassment. On the other hand, we know that more than 200 women have started a class action lawsuit on sexual harassment in the RCMP. I'm wondering how you can explain that discrepancy.

[Ian McPhail]

Very simply, on the 4%, that's what we found from the 718 files we reviewed. Now very specifically, with respect to the class action law suit, we extended an invitation to the representative plaintiff in that lawsuit because we hoped to meet with her. On the advice of counsel, she declined to do so. In terms of the specific numbers joining in that lawsuit, until it's been certified in accordance with the rules governing class action lawsuits, we won't actually know specifically how many members or former members are joining in that lawsuit.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Do you think women are afraid to come forward?

[Ian McPhail]

We don't know. We do sense that there's an underreporting, and we've made that clear. That follows on what I was saying in response to Ms. Truppe's questions concerning what needs to be done within the RCMP in terms of the openness and the fairness of the process to make it clear to members of both genders and of any status within the RCMP that they should feel more confident in coming forward, that they will be dealt with fairly, and that their careers and their lives will not be put on hold for years to come.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

I think that's an important point. One of the things we've been hearing from people associated with the RCMP, but also more broadly in the federal workplace, is that when there isn't an indication that perpetrators will be dealt with accordingly and in a serious manner, obviously that is a disincentive to coming forward, amongst other reasons.

My issue is with the reticence to call this a systemic problem. We have a class action law suit. The country has been gripped by the allegations that have come forward. These are the people who we entrust our safety with, and yet even some of these officers' own safety is violated in the most gruesome way. Why were you so quick to say it's not systemic?

[Ian McPhail]

We weren't quick to say it's not systemic.

Now, if I can first address the initial part of your question, one of our recommendations dealt with the issue of retaliation. It's part of the complaint structure that we advocate. Very simply, we followed the evidence that was available to us. We acknowledge that the evidence we got did not necessarily provide a complete picture, but it was the best available. We're confident that we received all of the files for the period of time in question. Those files did not reveal a systemic issue of harassment. That having been said, we were very careful to say that because of potential underreporting and the fact that records are not kept in cases of informal resolution, it's not possible to say the contrary definitively either.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Your fourth recommendation reads, “That an external mechanism for review of harassment decisions be implemented.” Could clarify this recommendation, what you are talking about and why it's so important?

[Ian McPhail]

The key to credibility is independence. Now, the format for that external review can be a senior member of the RCMP, who occupies a position in senior management and is reporting directly. It could be somebody outside the RCMP. But that person should be independent of the divisional chains of command. It cannot be seen as being responsive to other pressures, so the exact format that independence should take is, I think, up to the RCMP.

Further with that, some people had suggested to us that the investigation of harassment complaints, the dealings with these, be completely removed to a separate body. We don't advocate that, and the reason is that we believe it would be a mistake to in effect contract out harassment problems to an outside body. If you contract them out, they're then someone else's responsibility. As part of the creation of a respectful workplace, harassment must be everyone's responsibility.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

On that note—this will be a quick question, because I know my time is running out—when it comes to training, do you believe that in-person training when it comes to harassment is necessary?

[Ian McPhail]

It's absolutely necessary. In terms of the kind of in-person training that takes place now, there's very good training of cadets when they undergo their training at Depot in Regina. The RCMP has an excellent module of training for managers, but unfortunately only a small minority of managers have taken that training. We advocate that it be rolled out to cover all managers and that follow-up online training be given to members on a regular basis.

[The Chair, NDP, Marie-Claude Morin]

Mr. McPhail, I am going to have to stop you there. I apologize.

We will now turn to a member on the government side.

Ms. O'Neill Gordon, you have seven minutes.