Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Security and Defence
Issue 15 - Evidence - Meeting of May 27, 2013
OTTAWA, Monday, May 27, 2013
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day, at 4 p.m., in public, to study harassment in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; and in camera for the consideration of a draft agenda.
Senator Daniel Lang (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence for Monday, May 27. Before we welcome our witnesses, I would like to begin by introducing the people around the table. My name is Dan Lang, Senator from Yukon. On my immediate left is the clerk of the committee, Josée Thérien, and, on my right, is our Library of Parliament analyst assigned to the committee, Holly Porteous. Dominique Valiquet, I assume, will join us later.
I would like to go around the table and invite each senator to introduce themselves and state the region they represent, starting with the deputy chair.
Senator Dallaire: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Roméo Dallaire, the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
Also, we will have Senator Moore coming in from Newfoundland and Senator Campbell coming in from B.C.
Senator Day: Liberal Senator Joseph Day from New Brunswick.
Senator Manning: Fabian Manning from Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Plett: My name is Don Plett, and I am from Manitoba.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: My name is Pierre Claude Nolin from the province of Quebec, more specifically, the Salaberry region.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, honourable senators. Today, we will continue our study of harassment in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Joining us in our first panel are Chief Rick Hanson of the Calgary Police Service, and Mr. Peter Merrifield, President of the Mounted Police Association of Ontario.
Before I begin, honourable senators, Mr. Merrifield has sent the clerk copies of two letters in English only, for the information of the committee. It was possible to have one translated in time for this meeting, and it has been distributed to you. Do you permit that the second letter be distributed now in English only and that the translation be sent to you tomorrow as soon as it is available? Agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Gentlemen, we have one hour with you, and I understand you have some opening remarks. Please proceed, Mr. Hanson, if you want to begin.
Rick Hanson, Chief, Calgary Police Service: It is an honour to be here. Thank you very much. Thank you for the opportunity to address this group on an issue of vital importance in policing today. I want to start by saying that is an ongoing and continuous challenge within policing. Having said that, my comments today will focus mostly on the Calgary Police Service.
As the nature of the workplace changes, not only do we have to continue to find ways to address age-old issues, but we also have to find solutions to emerging issues in the workplace.
On many occasions, I find myself shocked and surprised by the recurrence of an old issue that I thought had been resolved and put to rest. Inevitably, when these issues resurface, I realize that one can never take one's eyes off of the internal environment, and one must remain ever vigilant to these challenges.
I have specific examples of such events within the Calgary Police Service that I can share with you, if they are of interest to this committee, at the conclusion of my remarks. They outline what happened and how we, as a service, responded. Suffice it to say that, within a workplace environment, one can never assume that the development of policy is, in and of itself, a solution to the complicated challenges of the workplace environment today.
Within the Calgary Police Service, I am continually grateful for certain unique factors that allow for better communication of workplace issues, particularly around harassment and discrimination. These factors include a union, which will not hesitate to bring forward such issues in a way that is respectful but that is clearly bent upon the immediate remediation of the concern. Our relationship is exceptional and contributes greatly to identifying and resolving issues early.
We also have a psychological services section, which has been acknowledged in a recent report out of Ontario as being the model for the delivery of this type of service within the policing environment.
We have also had, for five years now, the services of an independent ombudsman who reports directly to the chief of police, who has the authority to protect, at all costs, the anonymity of complainants while bringing issues forward. The ombudsman, being a former union president, has the proven trust of the employees and has proven to be an immensely vital source of information relating to problems that have allowed for early intervention by me, if necessary, in a manner that protects the complainant.
I can say that, in a five-year period, this ombudsman has unearthed numerous serious issues in their very early stages. This has allowed for rapid intervention on behalf of management, which has resolved these situations and prevented them from escalating into bigger issues.
We are also blessed with the fact that the Calgary Police Commission, our governing body, does an annual employee satisfaction survey, conducted by a professional third party organization, that drills down into the issues and the concerns of members, both sworn and civilian. These survey results are tabulated, and I am held accountable to the Calgary Police Commission for addressing the concerns that are identified.
Over and above these measures, we have implemented a number of policies and training strategies for all levels and all ranks within the organization. The implementation of a respectful workplace strategy has been foremost on my agenda since I returned to the Calgary Police Service in late 2007. However, in spite of all these efforts, we have had our share of disappointing failures. This has reaffirmed in my mind the realization that senior management must be extraordinarily vigilant to the warning signs of workplace issues. The creation of a respectful workplace is a target that I now realize can never fully be achieved. There are so many complex factors at play in society today that every organization must retain this goal as a top priority in its business plan. There is much more I could say. However, I realize your time is valuable, so I welcome any questions you might have. I would also like to close by saying thank you for providing me with the opportunity to address you on this vitally important issue, especially in the company of Mr. Merrifield today.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hanson. Mr. Merrifield, do you have anything to add?
Peter Merrifield, President, Mounted Police Association of Ontario: Yes, I do. I prepared several minutes of a statement that I think should help to lay a groundwork for questioning. If it is all right with you, I will present that. I would like to also echo what the chief has said; I would like to thank you for this opportunity. It is a very important and timely issue that is imperative to the direction of the national police force.
As you know, my name is Peter Merrifield. I am the President of the Mounted Police Association of Ontario. I am also a 16-year veteran of the RCMP, and I currently hold the rank of corporal. I have served in both contract and federal policing, and I performed a range of duties, from elementary school talks to counterterrorism operations and nuclear proliferation investigations. In the course of my duties, I have been shot at, stabbed at and left for dead in a car wreck. I am proud of my service in the RCMP and equally proud of the 19,000 men and women who serve this country as members of the RCMP. I witnessed tremendous acts the courage, dedication and sacrifice by these members. I wish to state, for the record, that there are serious internal challenges within the RCMP regarding workplace harassment and bullying. This statement should not, however, reflect poorly on those individual members of the RCMP who act with integrity and respect each and every day. The misdeeds of the few should not overshadow the virtues of the many.
The Mounted Police Association of Ontario was established in 1990 and has worked toward obtaining collective bargaining rights for members of the RCMP. We are scheduled to be heard before the Supreme Court of Canada in November of this year regarding these efforts and rights. Make no mistake about it, we do not seek a union per se. It is not about pay, pension and benefits, but it is about drastically improving working conditions within the mounted police. MPAO is a professional association and does not seek the right to strike or to take job action. We do seek the right to engage in collective bargaining agreements and to provide effective mechanisms to achieve fair, timely, independent resolution of workplace concerns within the RCMP. The cost of harassment is enormous in both human and financial terms. It has a negative impact on individual and organizational moral. This can be long-lasting and difficult to reverse without significant cultural change. The impact upon members' personal lives, families and health are seldom considered as part of the serious cost of workplace harassment and bullying. Often, the first response of the RCMP to members coming forward with allegations of harassment is what I have categorized as the 3-D response: deny, delay, defer — denial of your allegation, delay of resolution and deferral of decision making.
Almost exclusively, this is the response used by the RCMP in every single case, which has resulted in negative media, legal action or long-term damage to the image of the RCMP and its members. Literally millions of taxpayers' dollars have been wasted by the RCMP and the Department of Justice denying members of the RCMP a day in court for a fair process. On one hand, the government publicly empowers the commissioner to take action on harassment. Then, on the other hand, through the Department of Justice, it slaps down those victims who stood up in the courts seeking accountability.
This abuse of public funds and lack of effective internal resolution seems intended to intimidate members of the RCMP against coming forward with their harassment and grievance issues. There is a large-scale lack of faith in the internal system by members of the RCMP. That speaks to this lack of internal accountability. When members see repeat offenders not punished and complaints dragging on, sometimes in excess of eight years in a grievance system, they lose faith. Most members could literally investigate, prosecute and imprison someone for murder in less time than it currently takes to resolve a harassment complaint inside the RCMP. This is completely unacceptable.
Once members come forward to lodge a harassment complaint, the standard cover-up tools of denial, bullying and retaliation are brought to bear. Other tactics include, but are not limited to, attacks upon professional integrity, false allegations of poor performance, false allegations of code of conduct behavior and good old-fashioned whisper campaigns to destroy credibility and create doubt.
A very personal experience of retaliation crossed the line into criminal obstruction of justice. In that situation, a commissioned officer attempted to persuade a confidential informant in a serious undercover investigation that I was operating to stop working with me because I was "not a team player, was suing the force and could not be trusted.'' This officer chose to risk a serious criminal investigation in the name of retaliation.
During the past eight years, five of my supervisors or line officers were repeat offenders with histories of harassment. Among their misdeeds were cases of sexual assault, sexual harassment, retaliation, and code-of-conduct offences ranging from disgraceful conduct to neglect of duty. In one memorable circumstance, I received information that my senior line officer was observed attempting to procure a prostitute from his car window. My questions inside the RCMP on this matter were never answered. Weeks later, I was interviewed by a third party police service wanting to know how I obtained information that an RCMP officer was observed by their vice unit speaking to an undercover female officer posing as a prostitute in a john sting.
In efforts seeking change, I have met and spoken with many political leaders, cabinet ministers and members of Parliament and have requested updates from the Prime Minister's Office on harassment and potential political interference committed by the RCMP. I have shared horrific stories in details with the hope of gaining support for legislative changes. To date, no significant legislation has been presented.
In my lawsuit for harassment against the RCMP, I was once forced into the position of having to sell my home to pay legal bills. My wife and three children were literally going to be forced from our family home to hold liars and bullies to account. I am not the same person I was in 2005, and my family and I have paid a heavy toll for being victims of harassment and bullying within the RCMP. Throughout these past eight years, I have suffered periods of depression, stress and anxiety, which have forced me off duty for periods of time. Each time I returned and continued to successfully conclude cases, which included death threats against a Canadian Prime Minister, a U.S. president and the first-ever conviction under the United Nations Act Iran Regulations on nuclear proliferation. What drew the crosshairs of harassment and bullying in my circumstance was having been the first serving member of the RCMP to run for Parliament.
In conclusion, there is a lack of self-adherence to and organizational enforcement of the core values of the RCMP. These values are honesty, integrity, professionalism, compassion, accountability and respect. These cannot be just posters hanging in the lobbies of RCMP detachments. They must be the absolute benchmark by which members are held to account and measured. Like well-known crime statistics, the majority of offences are committed by the minority of the population; and this is equally true inside the RCMP. While I would not categorize harassment as systemic, I would state that it is deeply entrenched and terribly dangerous. It is no longer acceptable to transfer and cover-up the sociopathic misdeeds of offending members of the RCMP. There needs to be a more generously applied use of demotion and discharge to handle these repeat offenders. The good members of the RCMP deserve so much better and so do Canadians.
The Chair: Thank you. I will turn to Senator Dallaire, Deputy Chair of the Committee for the first question.
Senator Dallaire: Mr. Merrifield, with regard to the position of President of the Mounted Police Association of Ontario, you were elected by how many people?
Mr. Merrifield: In the province of Ontario, it was by 350 members. There are also associations in the provinces of Quebec and British Columbia. We are not yet legally recognized by the employer.
Senator Dallaire: Although you have been through these traumatic experiences in the past that, as you say, affected you and your family, it did not deter your colleagues from voting for you to be their president and spokesman. Is that correct?
Mr. Merrifield: Correct, sir.
Senator Dallaire: Mr. Hanson, your police force is often seen as a very progressive one. I am wondering if you would mind giving a couple of examples that might situate how circumstances have occurred and the actions that were taken by your organization. I am looking for how much time outside the office do you and your senior officers commit to talking to the chain of command and ensuring that policies are being applied?
Mr. Hanson: To Mr. Merrifield, it is an honour to be here with him.
The reality is that the culture will always rule out over policy, training and procedures. Many of the issues, as Mr. Merrifield said, are a function of individuals in an organization who have to be dealt with and who have to be addressed. The responsibility lies with everyone within the organization and at a senior level.
I want to tell you a story. I mentioned to you how disappointed I was. When I came into the Calgary Police Service almost six years ago, there was a bit of a purge when some people left because they reflected a belief that they were entitled because of rank to do things that just were not acceptable. I have learned since then, and here is the story I want to tell you: There was a situation where one of our female members and a male member wound up having a bit of a relationship, which happens in the workplace. What was disappointing coming out of that relationship was the disparity of the response to the male member who was sworn and the non-sworn female member. What I learned when I started to get feedback from the workplace where the female member worked, was that a very senior member of my organization had misapplied the law in his exuberance to pursue what he felt was the right thing to do, and I will explain.
With the male and female involved in this situation, he authorized the information technology people to access remotely the female member's computer at home, which was entirely illegal and unlawful, not to mention inappropriate and, as far as I am concerned, immoral. He never chose to consult. When he finally came to me with the information that he had done this based on legal advice, the genie was already out of the bottle and the mistake had been made. It was clearly wrong, unethical and illegal and, in my mind and the minds of many others, constituted harassment of the female member over the male member.
Ultimately, the damage had been done. I turned the decision over relative to discipline because of the inappropriate investigation that was done, reinstated the female member, and did everything we could, including an apology. What that reaffirmed in my mind was that in spite of the best policies and the best training and best processes in place, it is so important for the head of the organization to always be vigilant and accessible to those who feel that they have been unfairly harassed. In spite of the fact that I was immensely disappointed by our senior member who made the decision to do an inappropriate thing in what he thought was the best interests of the service — the good that came out of it was that members at the lowest level felt that they had access to the top office to be able to voice their concern and alert me to the fact that in their eyes something totally inappropriate had happened.
That reaffirmed to me the need to have an ombudsman like we have; someone who is well known and accessible and can maintain confidentiality, so people can go to him and say, "Look, this is happening and I do not want to get burned.'' People live in fear in a paramilitary organization that if they come forward, they will get hammered.
Senator Plett: Thank you, gentlemen, for being here.
I have here the Public Interest Investigation into issues of RCMP Workplace Harassment; I am sure you have read that. In one of the surveys, 10 police services are listed. For the reported workplace harassment cases in selected Canadian police services, the RCMP ranked seventh out of 10, down to 0.11 employees per 100 employees that have been involved in harassment.
My question is for both of you, although part of this might be more for Mr. Hanson than for Mr. Merrifield. You both make the assertion that unions play a valuable role in dealing with harassment. Have you done a comparative study or analysis of harassment in unionized versus non-unionized police environments? If so, can you share that with the committee? Mr. Hanson, further to that, could you tell us where the Calgary Police Service would rank in these cases out of 100 personnel?
Mr. Hanson: I cannot say that we have ever done a formal study or a formal analysis comparing harassment in the workplace of a union environment versus a non-union environment. To be honest with you, I am not sure the results would be valid because I think in a non-union environment people would be reluctant to bring up issues of harassment.
I can tell you, though, that I cannot imagine running an organization, especially in this day and age, that did not have the ability of employees to raise issues through a union or an association because that provides a level of protection that cannot be offered if no union or association exists. Without doing the research, I would not want to run an organization that did not have access to a union or an association that would not allow that kind of communication to occur. It is totally vital.
Senator Plett: Before you answer, Mr. Merrifield, do you know where the Calgary Police Service ranks here?
Mr. Hanson: In the 100? No, I do not.
Senator Plett: Is it possible to get us that?
Mr. Hanson: Do you know who did the study? I will certainly try.
Senator Plett: It is the McPhail report. Mr. Merrifield, you were going to answer.
Mr. Merrifield: As far as the early part of your question, for comparison, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is the only police agency in Canada with more than 50 members sworn that does not have an association. Every single other municipal and provincial police force in this country has a member association. While I do not want to split hairs, the word "union'' often conjures up visions of strikes and job actions. There certainly were times in industries and periods when that had been important.
Within the professional police environment, I think one of the primary elements that an association brings is a sense of independence. The current staff relations program within the RCMP is a program that is elected by members to represent members. However, their report, their annual assessment and the review of their performance and possibility for promotion is reported upon by the commanding officer of the division. So it is not independent. It would be likened to the management-run unions of the 19th century in industrializing England. There are many different models of "professional police association.'' The North American model, which exists now in most member associations of the Canadian Police Association and most United States law enforcement agencies, is not the only model. In the United Kingdom, the Police Federation of England and Wales operates a hybrid system where they have an executive that is independent and supported by member dues, but they are much smaller than regular member dues of a police association because they are a smaller group of people that engage in collective agreement and collective bargaining on behalf of the membership. Then within the organizations, they have their non-associated employee representatives to deal with the lowest levels.
The concern with statistics, as you all know, is that statistics can be interpreted in many ways. I think the report by the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP was excellent, but there are also internal employee surveys done every two years within the RCMP. If you were to request them — because I do believe the RCMP would provide them to you — when you look at things like trust of the management, leadership in the organization, they usually score less than 30 per cent. I do not think I recall much where I have seen one over. It is not to indict the leadership — and I use that word loosely — but the RCMP has many, many managers. I question how many leaders that we have. Leaders lead through action. I do not believe that leadership is anointed with insignia or with rank, but it is absolutely highlighted in action. I think that absolutely, if the RCMP is to continue to succeed as the national police force of this country; and if they are to have the diverse mission that has been tasked by this nation. We do everything, as I said in the opening, from bike safety in contract policing to national security and international investigations and support for other signatory legislative bodies like the United Nations that Canada is involved with.
Put this into perspective, if you can for a minute: Of the 19,000 members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we constitute approximately 28 to 29 per cent of all sworn police officers in the country. Yet we are the only police force without an association. Without those independent mechanisms separate of management to bring forth and deal with in a respectful and fair environment, things will not get better. It does not matter how many commissioners we go through, it is not the commissioner. You can be the greatest leader in the world, but if the team does not pull the oars with you, it will not be different. That is about cultural change.
The Chair: Witnesses, could you shorten your responses?
Senator Plett: With all respect to Chief Hanson, I still maintain the RCMP is the best police force in the world.
Chief Hanson, you mentioned an annual employee satisfaction survey conducted by a third party organization. Could you provide an example of this survey and what it cost to conduct the survey?
Mr. Hanson: By "provide a sample'' do you mean send this committee a sample of the survey?
Senator Plett: If you would, through the clerk.
Mr. Hanson: I would absolutely do that. The cost, I believe, is under $3,000 a year to conduct the survey and get it analyzed. This is done by the Calgary Police Commission on the Calgary Police Service.
Senator Day: Gentlemen, thank you very much for your comments.
Chief, it is worth going back to your comment. I did not get the precise quote, but you said culture will win out every time over policies, training, et cetera.
Irrespective of how much we try to train members of the police force and we talk to them about the importance of respect for their fellow person, if the culture is not there, then all of the efforts are for naught; is that what you were saying to us?
Mr. Hanson: Policies and training mean nothing. I think Mr. Merrifield said it best. People look for actions, especially police officers. They will look to see what is written in policy and see what the training says. Then, when the first incident comes up, they will look to see how the boss reacts. What the boss does becomes the de facto policy.
This is where it has to be every senior member's responsibility. If you are an inspector, superintendent or deputy chief, it is equally your responsibility. It is not just the responsibility of the commissioner, in the case of the RCMP, or just my responsibility.
You can have all the policy in the world. It could be the best policy, but it is words on a piece of paper unless you act on them.
Senator Day: We recognize that there is a need for cultural change, and we have talked about it a lot in this committee. I would like to explore, with each of you, how to get there, so my question will be a little longer because we just talked about leadership from those in the higher ranks.
You have also talked about the importance of this ombudsman, which insulates the complainant or the member who has a concern from, I suppose, retribution and that kind of thing.
There was also the comment by Mr. Merrifield. Corporal, you indicated that it is important for the association to be recognized so that you could provide that insulation of the complainant, but you want to go further. In order to bring about cultural change, you would like to be unionized and have collective bargaining.
Are all of these factors — the ombudsman, collective bargain, associations — necessary in order to bring about cultural change?
Mr. Hanson: There is no one solution to any problem, but my answer is yes.
Mr. Merrifield: To some degree, life is a recipe. If you want to bake a cake, you can use different amounts of sugar, flour and flavouring, and how you mix those will create a different flavour.
What we currently have is not independent, and I think that statistics can be skewed by members being afraid to come forward.
I am also an ex-member of the Canadian Forces, prior to my service in the RCMP, and the Canadian military in the Afghanistan theatre saw a very senior commander be relieved of his command almost immediately upon them finding out that he had broken a policy with regard to a relationship with a junior member. That type of swift, independent and decisive action, regardless of rank, by an organization inspires confidence to the very bottom of an organization. Whether you are the private in the tent or the commander in the sandbag trailer, the integrity and the ethics of the rules are applied evenly. There is not a sense of entitlement. There is not a sense of aristocracy between the enlisted and the non-enlisted ranks. It is important in an organization that the justice be equal for all.
Senator Nolin: Thank you very much to both of you for the answers you just gave, specifically on the union. It is an interesting discussion, and today will not be the end of it.
Chief Hanson, I am concerned with two things: first, the data that I am sure you have from the Calgary Police Service. If I may, it is only one question but different data that I think the committee could be interested in. I will list them, and, after that, you can comment. If you do not have them, so be it, but, if you have that data, I would be interested in receiving from you, through mail or email, the exact answer to my request.
What was the number of complaints concerning your force, in the last five years, from the public or from a member or members against another member of the force? What was the number of complaints of harassment, of course including sexual harassment? The last one is a little bit tricky because it concerns complaints/offences constituted as offences under an act of Parliament, the Criminal Code, and referred to the Alberta Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
I do not need a specific answer right away, but, if we can get, in the next few days, answers to those questions, I would appreciate that.
Of course, I am basing my question on the fact that you are recognizing, in your own words in your opening remarks, that, in spite of all of these efforts — and you have listed the series of efforts — you have had your "share of disappointing failures.'' That is why I want to know if we can have that data.
Mr. Hanson: Sure. I will send the data.
For clarification, to me it is a huge disappointment, like the example I used earlier, when female members on to job do not feel they are treated with respect when it comes to accommodation, when they are looking for job sharing and things like that. I will get you those numbers.
Senator Nolin: I do not want to move into the grievance area because you have a union, and I do not think that it would be helpful to us. It is really the harassment area. I am sure you know exactly what we are trying to circle because we want to be able to compare one important police service, like yours, with the RCMP. That is why we need that.
Mr. Hanson: I will get the numbers.
Senator Nolin: My second question, if I may, Mr. Chair, will still be to Chief Hanson. Do you have a code of conduct?
Mr. Hanson: Yes.
Senator Nolin: I have many questions, but I need to circle that.
If you have a code, you have offences, but are there any penalties in that code?
Mr. Hanson: Yes.
Senator Nolin: It is all public? When I say public, I mean: Can the population of Calgary be aware of that?
Mr. Hanson: Absolutely. They are on the website.
Senator Nolin: The principle is that you are open, transparent and offering data to the public.
Mr. Hanson: Yes, sir.
The Chair: Perhaps I could ask a question, if you do not mind, honourable senators, to intervene. How does your code of conduct compare to the existing code of conduct of the RCMP? Perhaps give us a general overview. Have you ever looked at your code of conduct in comparison to that of the RCMP?
Mr. Hanson: When our code of conduct was created, it considered similar models in other police services, and, when we review it on a regular basis, we compare it to what is out there, including the code of the RCMP. It would be very close.
Senator Nolin: You have a code. You have penalties associated with the breach of the code. Do you maintain, also open to the public, some kind of jurisprudence of all of that to alert those who are breaching the code about how it was decided? Even though the names are not mentioned, do you have some kind of a how-to for the general public?
Mr. Hanson: On the website, there is "how to complain," but we do not keep a running tally, on the website, of who has been disciplined or anything like that, no.
Senator Manning: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I thank our witnesses for their presence here today and their very interesting conversation.
I want to get back to a comment that you, Mr. Merrifield, made, in our opening remarks, in relation to the time frame of how grievances are dealt with. You touched on the fact that it can take up to eight years, which is an astounding time.
What is the norm, as you understand it, in relation to that, and what would be an improvement to that process? If you had an association, would that shorten the time frame for grievances? It seems to me there is a structural problem here that you might want to address.
Mr. Merrifield: There is. Often, the dragging out of the grievances really boils down to the complexity, the will and the desire to resolve the grievance.
Unfortunately, certain timelines that are instituted currently within the RCMP's internal practice of reviewing the grievances are not always necessarily adhered to. Extensions are granted. The nature of our force by virtue of being national where members can be transferred certainly has an impact on the resolution of grievances. There were several court decisions. One came out of the Smith v. the Attorney General of Canada and the RCMP in the courts of New Brunswick. Another was Merrifield v. the Attorney General of Canada and the RCMP in the Superior Court of Ontario.
In both cases, and my case in particular, it was upheld in the Supreme Court of Canada. Mr. Justice Macdonald cited that there was a belief by the courts that the current grievance system was not attentive; that it did not mandatorily have to accept evidence, which is arbitrary by the adjudicator; that there was not independence in the review of the materials provided or the secondary appeal to any decision. There are certain particular cases historically that you can look back on, for example the case of Corporal Robert Reid of the RCMP, which you should familiarize yourselves with. The External Review Committee made its strongest recommendation ever in its support of Corporal Reid maintaining his employment in the RCMP. That was simply ignored by the commissioner-of-the-day, and he was terminated.
I would suggest that if an ombudsman were to be considered in a way to expedite and shorten grievance times, we might want to look further and consider an inspector general, where someone would have an equality binding power to that of the Commissioner of the RCMP to avoid any undue influence by the Office of the Commissioner of the RCMP. There would then be a truly independent and equal power to which members could take their grievances in a level two grievance after the failure of a level one. I think an inspector general would be a more useful tool to address some of the concerns existing in the RCMP.
Senator Manning: On a follow up to that, do you have an average time frame for grievances within the RCMP, or is this all over the place?
Mr. Merrifield: It truly is all over the place. A grievance on a meal claim may be resolved with a simple furrow of a brow and a signature on an expense claim. However, there seems to be a distaste to want to deal with harassment grievances. I do not think they are dealt with quickly and effectively. They tend to drag. Of the cases that I am aware of the more than 40 affidavits provided to the legal challenge, on average members were all in excess of four years; and that is unacceptable.
Senator Moore: I thank the witnesses for being here. I have a question for each of you.
Mr. Merrifield, I am looking at these letters that you handed out addressed to the Honourable Stockwell Day, then Minister of Public Safety, calling for an inquiry. You got no response to your first letter or your lawyers did not get one, who were representing the Mounted Police Association of Ontario; and no response to a 2006 letter. You wrote again, or they did on your behalf, in 2007. Did you hear anything back on that?
Mr. Merrifield: I believe there was a response from the office of the minister with regard to some of these issues being addressed by the Brown task force. While they did wonderful work and identified some areas of concern, I likened the Brown task force report, which was rushed, as a Polaroid snapshot of some of the problems of the RCMP as opposed to an X-ray or an MRI. It needed to dig deeper and identify the illness and not the symptoms.
Senator Moore: Mr. Hanson, you mentioned in your statement that you returned to the force in late 2007. Where were you prior to that?
Mr. Hanson: I was with the RCMP for two years.
Senator Moore: When you say that you have a psychological services section that has been acknowledged in a recent report out of Ontario as being a model, who in Ontario looked at your report and said that it is the model.
Mr. Hanson: I believe it was the ombudsman arising out of some concerns from the Ontario Provincial Police related to suicide.
Senator Moore: Was it an OPP ombudsman?
Mr. Merrifield: I do not know if it was the OPP ombudsman or the ombudsman for the Province of Ontario.
Mr. Hanson: Mr. André Marin, the Ontario Ombudsman did a report on the impact of psychological stress, post- traumatic stress disorder and the high rate of suicide.
Senator Moore: You said that you are blessed by the fact that the Calgary Police Commission, your governing body, does an annual employee satisfaction survey, the results are tabulated and you are held accountable to the Calgary Police Commission for addressing the concerns identified and implementing a number of policies as a result of that.
Are you required to take action within a year or other certain period of time? Do you have to report back? Are your reports and activities made public?
Mr. Hanson: Yes, it becomes part of my performance appraisal; yes, strategies are implemented; and yes, I report back yearly. I do not report it publicly but being reported to the commission makes it a public document, so it is available to whoever wants to see it.
The Chair: I want to follow up on the position of ombudsman. Perhaps, Mr. Hanson, you give us a further description of that position. I notice you speak positively of it. You have had experience in the RCMP, obviously, prior to the position you hold now.
Could you also let us know if all other police forces across the country have an ombudsman except for the RCMP?
Mr. Hanson: I am unaware of any force that has it. When I came back to Calgary in 2007, there was open warfare between the union and management-of-the-day.
You need a number of different resolution processes. What Mr. Merrifield has touched on is a reality in any business, policing or otherwise — fear of retribution, especially in policing. When people start with the same policing agency and stay with it for 30 years, it is not like you start with an oil company today and a year later you are working with another oil company. Loyalties and animosities continue to exist for years and years, and you need a way to get around that. One of those ways is an ombudsman because people feel comfortable going to him. As Mr. Merrifield said, people watch to see you handle it with the results. The worst thing you can do is burn a complainant, so you use the tools at your disposal, ranging from personal intervention, an outside human resource specialist to conduct an investigation of any complaint in the work place where objectivity is essential, and we use our own operational audit of an area. In that way, people do not know where the complaint came from or why it happened, but they see something happening. You protect the complainant that way and are able to use many tools to drill into the issue identified by the ombudsman.
The Chair: How many members are in the Calgary Police Service?
Mr. Hanson: There are 2,000 sworn and 800 non-sworn members: 2,800 in total.
Senator Dallaire: Mr. Merrifield, you raised a significant point regarding leadership and management. I mentioned to the commissioner that I have a real problem when the officer corps of the RCMP is called "management'' and you are called "employees'' in a paramilitary structure.
Do all policemen go through their experience and make their way through the ranks of the NCO cadre, then join the officer cadre, and then go all the way up? Is that the way it is done.
Mr. Merrifield: Yes, you are correct.
Senator Dallaire: Mr. Merrifield, is it done that way in your outfit?
Mr. Hanson: Yes, sir.
Senator Dallaire: What education, development, intellectual rigour is brought into developing the leadership skills needed as people progress up through the ranks in the RCMP and your organization?
Mr. Merrifield: There has been movement towards improvement in that. There has been a development of NCO management and leadership training because, as we have decided, the two are not the same. It is important at different levels.
In any organization, whether policing business or government, we have the supervisory level, the management level and then we seek to have leadership of any organization. One of the inherent weaknesses in the RCMP development system is that promotion is self-identified. It is the person, who puts their hand up and says pick me and then competes for the process.
We do not have a peer support assessment. We don't have a group of people saying yes, I would like to work for that person. It is the individual that says yes, I would like to be the boss. An exam-based system, a competency-based system — we have gone through more changes to the promotional system of the RCMP in the last 10 or 12 years and it is my understanding that more changes are being considered to try to improve it. That has been part of the problem and the obstacle in development.
As far as senior leadership and management development, at the inspector and superintendent level they are not considered senior management. From the rank of chief superintendent and above it is the equivalent of government executive level, which makes them eligible for a senior management bonus within the Government of Canada. The middle management of the commission ranks would be the inspector and superintendent; the non-commissioned ranks would be from constable all the way to staff sergeant.
Regarding the officer development program, having served in both organizations, both the Canadian military and the RCMP, I do not think it is robust or as focused on leadership as it could be and is perhaps an area that could require improvement.
Senator Dallaire: Mr. Hanson, how do you develop your leadership structure?
Mr. Hanson: It is the same thing. We sent our senior members to Bramshill in England, to the senior staff college there to be trained. We use senior management and police training in Boston, at Harvard; and we also use the FBI in the NEI, National Executive Institute training. They are developed using established training courses that exist throughout the world.
Senator Plett: Mr. Hanson, one quick follow up on what Senator Nolin asked earlier about your code of conduct being available. Is that something that I can go on the website and look at?
Mr. Hanson: I do not know what is on our website, to be honest.
Senator Plett: You do not know if it is available to me.
Mr. Hanson: It is available. Just ask; I will send it to you.
Policy manuals are so huge these days that if you put them on the website, no one will go to look for them. If they ask, we send it. That is probably the easiest way to do it.
Senator Plett: As the chief, are you part of the union?
Mr. Hanson: No.
Senator Plett: That makes sense.
If someone has a harassment complaint, the RCMP has a mechanism. Mr. Merrifield and others maybe do not agree with it, but it is fairly structured as to what the process is.
What would be the process for someone filing a harassment complaint against a senior officer, or any other officer for that matter? Where would they go?
Mr. Hanson: They can take two processes. They can go to our human resources section, which has a well-established process dealing with positive workplace and the variations and levels of complaints that can happen. There is a parallel process existing within the collective agreement whereby they can complain to the union and the union can take it forward in the form of a grievance.
Senator Plett: They would not go to a senior officer?
Mr. Hanson: The manager of the human resources area is a senior officer.
Senator Nolin: Mr. Hanson, one point of clarification first. Does your code of conduct include harassment and discrimination or is one left out of it? Are they both included or is it only harassment or only discrimination?
Mr. Hanson: As far as our code of conduct goes, I cannot say 100 per cent for sure whether harassment and discrimination is in the code of conduct or in the positive workplace policy, but it is there.
Senator Nolin: You can send us a copy, then, and we will check that.
My second question goes back to the jurisprudence. If those decisions are available publicly, it is not really the name but more of a record to establish the path for the future. That is, if someone wants to find out the penalty to do breach X, I know this is the jurisprudence in Calgary. Is there any kind of a public record of that available?
Mr. Hanson: All of our hearings in Calgary are public, with rare exceptions.
I am trying to think of the last time we had either harassment or a discrimination complaint, other than the one I referred to. I will get those numbers and get them to you.
Senator Nolin: I was not only talking about harassment but any breach of the code of conduct. Can you check that and get back to us?
Mr. Hanson: All of our hearings are public.
Senator Nolin: It is a principle of justice. You want to ensure that those governed by a law know the penalties for breaching those laws. That is my point.
The Chair: The question is whether, once a decision is made, the decision is made public so that the general public will know the consequences if an officer is put through a conduct hearing. I think that is the question.
Senator Day: I have some questions of clarification.
Mr. Merrifield, first, do you have to work a shift as an RCMP officer as well as do the association work?
Mr. Merrifield: Yes, I do. I do the association work on my own time, of my own accord, unpaid.
Senator Day: Can the association represent to management, or to whoever is in charge, a grievance on behalf of one of your members?
Mr. Merrifield: Currently no, we cannot. The RCMP Act allows for any member to represent another member in a matter of grievance, but we have elected full-time positions called the staff relations program. Those representatives, as I explained earlier, are not independent of management but they are there to help, assist and represent members.
From the association perspective, because we are not recognized, and because we carry full investigative or police duties; we do not represent other members.
Senator Day: You are not prohibited. You are just tolerated.
Mr. Merrifield: Correct.
Senator Day: Chief Hanson, is the ombudsman in uniform, a member of the force or separate from the force?
Mr. Hanson: He is not a uniformed member of the force. He is a contract member reporting directly to the chief.
Senator Day: Is there still the psychology of boys will be boys and you can forgive some of your officers for doing some minor things that might be offensive to someone?
Mr. Hanson: No, not at all. To clarify, because Mr. Merrifield whispered in my ear here, the process in Calgary is governed by the law. Any citizen's complaint, any complaint internally, gets filed and documented through our professional standards section.
There is an independent complaint monitor, as a function of the police commission, who reviews every single file. She reports to the police commission monthly on every file. The police commission has their own citizen complaint review committee that is separate, which reviews every single file on a monthly basis and holds us accountable. If someone disagrees with the discipline we administer, they have the right to appeal to the Law Enforcement Review Board, which holds public hearings that are reported on through the media. It is a full, public hearing.
If you, as either a member or a citizen, complain to the police service, it can be appealed through the police commission. It is reviewed by the citizens' complaint monitor and can be appealed from the commission to the Law Enforcement Review Board, where there is a full and public hearing held by a designated hearing officer appointed by the province of Alberta.
Senator Day: Represented by legal counsel?
Mr. Hanson: Yes, most are represented by legal counsel now. I do not want you to think it is secret.
Senator Nolin: I knew it was about that frame.
Mr. Hanson: Okay, and in answer to that question.
The Chair: I will allow one more question.
Senator Day: If you had to go to full appeal level, how long does it take to go from making a complaint first phase, to the second phase, to resolution?
Mr. Hanson: It can take a long period of time. The most recent one, and it is an exception, went eight years because there were some very significant issues that went outside the Law Enforcement Review Board to the Alberta Court of Appeal. That is the longest, but generally they are resolved within two to three years when they get up to the LERB on appeal.
Senator Day: That would be pretty expensive for an individual trying to pursue —
Mr. Hanson: They do not have to pay the costs. If it starts with the union, then the union can pick up the cost of any legal fees. If the service is proved to be wrong or if someone is charged and they are found not guilty as an officer, then it is within the collective agreement that the service has to reimburse the legal expenses. For an individual person, like in the case mentioned by Mr. Merrifield, once it is rectified and the person is exonerated, then the Calgary Police Service is responsible for paying the legal fees of the member.
Senator Day: What if he is not exonerated?
Mr. Hanson: Usually, if he appeals it and he incurs legal fees and he is not exonerated, then the union usually picks up the cost of that. I am not aware of anywhere they do not.
The Chair: Chief Hanson and Mr. Merrifield, you have brought very important information to our committee. We appreciate your attending. I thank you for taking the time to come to see us and for your contribution.
As it is now five o'clock, we will continue in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)