Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Security and Defence
Issue 8 - Evidence - Meeting of June 21, 2012
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 21, 2012
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 9:58 a.m. to examine and report on Canada's national security and defence policies, practices, circumstances and capabilities.
Senator Pamela Wallin (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome to this special session of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence. We do not usually meet at this time. Thank you all for making your schedules work.
Thank you also to our guest today. Our witness is the Commissioner of the RCMP, Mr. Bob Paulson. Commissioner Paulson's first appearance at a parliamentary committee as commissioner was here at our Senate committee on December 12 last year, just four days after he was sworn into office. He said then that he would be glad to return and report on progress with reforms inside the RCMP, and here he is with us today. There has been progress. Just yesterday, the Public Safety Minister tabled Bill C-42, the proposed enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police accountability act, to address many of the well-known issues and problems troubling the RCMP.
Minister Toews noted that Commissioner Paulson was deeply involved in helping to create the legislation and thanked him for his advice on that. That said, he is not here to be answerable for the legislation in that sense. That is the job of ministers and their officials. Since he is so familiar with it, and since he has been dealing with so many issues, we are very pleased that he would take the time this morning to be with us.
Welcome and thank you.
Bob Paulson, Commissioner, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: Thank you, senator. I am happy to be back. It seems six months goes by in a heartbeat.
The Chair: I bet it has. The general and overall concern, and this is not an issue unique to the RCMP in any way, shape or form, is our inability to deal with bad apples in almost any work situation. People have work protection and they have rights. In some of your open letters to the public over the last few months you have been very sharp and pointed in that regard. You found a lot more barriers than maybe you even realized were there.
Mr. Paulson: Yes, I have. It is always aggravated by the fact that we are the police force, Canada's police force and the national police force. That probably is an aggravating consideration in the minds of Canadians, and so we are particularly concerned to try to get that straightened out as quickly as possible.
The Chair: We will begin our formal questioning.
[Translation]
Senator Dallaire: You do not have a presentation?
Mr. Paulson: No, I am content just to answer your questions.
Senator Dallaire: I would point out, if I may, that looking back, especially to the 1990s, we see that the armed forces had tremendous problems, not all that unlike what you are going through now — in terms of changes in society, missions, tasks, the performance of your duties — at the national, provincial and municipal levels alike.
Following the commission's work, a number of recommendations were made. One area of particular concern for those in uniform, which ultimately helped the armed forces to evolve, was the creation of various civilian oversight committees dealing with a range of topics. Six were created, addressing issues related to officer discipline and development, recruitment and training, operations and basic institutional culture.
Although the bill does introduce a committee, do you think these bodies can strengthen your ability to bring about reform? I say "reform'', but perhaps that is not the term you would use. I am talking about the kind of reform that is necessary to realign the RCMP with the public's expectations.
Mr. Paulson: Yes, I am always happy and willing to take advice from the committees. We have committees across the country that work with us at the provincial level. I have committees that give me guidance. We are always open to taking advice and working with others.
[English]
To get to where we need to get to, I am always open to taking any advice and counsel from a host of committees.
You have to remember that we exist in four contexts: municipally, provincially, federally and internationally. Most of our detachment commanders have active community engagement groups and consultative groups. We do so as well at the provincial level. Nationally, I have a number of means of accessing Canadians who are in a position to give us advice. We are always open to that sort of advice.
Senator Dallaire: We know the different bodies that you just described and that provide you inputs. However, I was alluding more to the ministerial level where in fact these oversight bodies responded to the minister. There was a sense that the minister had to have an ability to influence and assist — in fact, that was the term used — the Chief of the Defence Staff in advancing the reforms that would be required to shift gears of the institution. If you remember, the Armed Forces, in the early to mid-1990s, were at about 17 per cent in public opinion polls. Now they are well into the 80s, by the fact that they spent a lot of years doing these reforms. Do you think maybe more ministerial guidance through these committees and tools that you can also refer to would be helpful?
Mr. Paulson: Yes. Let me say that a week and a half ago I was out in British Columbia, in Victoria, where I met with the contract advisory group, which is a series of assistant deputy ministers from across every province and territory in those areas where we provide contract policing. We are discussing these new accountabilities that are a feature of the new contract for contract policing. Front and centre in those discussions are the very things that are topical across Canada for the RCMP, including discipline, the cultural reforms, the administrative reforms and all of those things. I think there is a vehicle there that is tied directly to Public Safety, co-chaired by Public Safety, reporting to the minister. I think that will bring a new way of doing business for us in the contract context.
The Chair: Let us try to focus. I think the concern is in the public mind too that you have had a lot of issues over the last few months and you felt frustrated about your ability to deal with that. You did not seem to have the tools. In a very general sense, do you think this new piece of legislation now gives you more tools to deal with bad apples in a more efficient way?
Mr. Paulson: In a word, senator, yes. I am very hopeful. I am looking forward to the discussions that parliamentarians and Canadians will have on this proposed piece of legislation. I think it seeks to strike that balance between giving me those tools and ensuring that, where we can work with our membership to correct behaviours, that that is available as well.
The Chair: You have kind of put down some of that power, I understand. I know this is all new to many of us here. You have been able to put that down to a command level so that, in depots and in operations across the country, people can respond quickly.
Mr. Paulson: My thinking there was that there is another benefit that is available in this new approach to conduct, and that is to engage the Brown task force and others who have reviewed the RCMP recently and observed that our NCOs, our front-line supervisors, are somewhat removed from the process.
Pushing down that conduct and the responsibility for dealing with discipline and conduct that is correctable to the NCOs, with some very specific accountabilities, will do a couple of things. It will engage the front-line supervisors in their important responsibilities for the conduct of the force. It will allow the earliest possible intervention in some of these conduct areas, which, if allowed to fester, end up in this adversarial, protracted, interminable, in some cases, mess.
Senator Lang: I just want to follow up, if I could. At the outset, I want to say I very much appreciate your being here. It seems like yesterday when you were here, but it is six months.
I would make an observation to Senator Dallaire. I am a little concerned that if we start managing by committee, the results can be no decision when you start to manage an organization in that manner. I would be very careful exactly how far we go in that direction because I want to see the RCMP managed and managed properly, with decisions being made in a very expeditious manner, especially when dealing with some of the situations that you have faced over the last six months.
Could you give us an overview of what you have learned over the last six months with regard to the way the system is and how it will be better for the force and for Canadians? Are you satisfied that you will be able to deal with situations of misconduct expeditiously in a way that the public will believe that they are being dealt with?
Mr. Paulson: Thank you, senator. The last almost seven months have been a bit of a blur. I have been struck by something that I kind of knew intuitively and instinctively, and that is that the vast majority of members of the RCMP are doing incredible work every day on behalf of Canadians in all sorts of situations.
That heightens my resolve to sort some of these things out, because we owe that to the men and women of the RCMP. As I was explaining to someone just before the meeting, the members are as determined to get this behind us as is everyone else.
I was in Prince Rupert recently where the mayor was shaking my hand and thanking me for the service that we provide to that community. A nurse stood up in the middle of my speech at the Chamber of Commerce and made very gratifying remarks. Members are asking me in town halls to sort this out.
In the first six months of my appointment we have instituted a number of changes. One is with regard to the way the force is organized. I have centralized reporting from all commanding officers directly to me with a view to delegating some of those responsibilities to my headquarters deputies. That allows me to institute change rapidly, and I think change is coming in a hurry with respect to how we manage administrative and discipline aspects of our members' lives.
A balance has to be struck with respect to some of these outrageous events. I am hearing this from our members and from Canadians. We want to be able to act quickly and expeditiously in cases where members exhibit conduct that is absolutely inconsistent with the qualities and the core values of a professional police officer. However, as members have said loudly and clearly, we must also recognize that this is tough work and it takes a toll on people. We see the result of that with substance abuse, relationships breaking down or behaviours that manifest themselves as a result of the stress and tension that comes with police work. We have to be able to recognize that and quickly distinguish between those two categories of behaviour. We must ensure that we have a system that is supportive and corrective of those behaviours that goes to the front lines with the support of the organization. In instances of outrageous conduct, we need to be able to act quickly to reassure Canadians that we can distance the organization from that conduct in order to preserve the integrity of the force.
This proposed legislation is not the answer to everything. I have a lot of other work to do in terms of developing my officer corps and improving the leadership skills of my senior officers, but I think it will go a long way to setting the road for the future.
Senator Mitchell: Commissioner Paulson, there is no question that there is some potential for this legislation to help. It is certainly responsive on your part, and you are to be congratulated for this. However, as we found with the military, these organizations are very good at deflecting or stopping the puck, but we need a fundamental change of game. If the culture is not changing, this one-off could make it worse. What is to say that this firing power will not be used against the victims of harassment who complain? The superiors, who will have the power, could get rid of them easily.
Unless you address the culture, there is a real problem. There are some red flags. As an example, in the Donald Ray case, the tribunal found that he exposed himself, at least on one occasion, to a female subordinate. He drank in the office. He had sex with subordinates in the office and in a parking lot, and he actually falsified information on a security screening.
The tribunal said that they could have fired him. They had the power to fire him, but they decided not to because they got some good letters from what some people might think is the old boys' network. They ended up docking his pay and reducing him one rank, where he may still have women under his command, and sent him to B.C., where you can ski, golf, swim, water ski and drink wine on a patio all in the same day. Many people would not see that as punishment.
In addition to that, you make one of the people from this tribunal, MacMillan, the RCMP Ethics and Integrity Officer. Is that an indication that there is a real grip on the need to change the culture? The Ethics and Integrity Officer is someone who decides not to fire someone who could have been fired even though he exposed himself on the job and falsified security screening information.
One would think it cannot get much worse than that, and then we promote or put into an even more powerful position, that of being responsible for ethics and integrity, someone who believed that that behaviour was not so bad that it should result in firing. Is it not true that you have way more to do and that this promotion is an indicator that the message is not getting through?
Mr. Paulson: That is fair enough. I have expressed my views on the Ray case. I did not see that coming. The person I hold responsible for that is the commanding officer. The commanding officer is the appropriate officer in that province. It must be understood that Chief Superintendent MacMillan is a professional officer with a high level of integrity who was a member of the discipline board. He took evidence to establish the conduct, which is well reported on in that document. He took evidence on sanction as one of three members, and he was not the chair of the board.
I fundamentally disagree with the result of that board. Chief Superintendant MacMillan is professional and highly educated. He has a PhD in law. He understands the law and the process. The decision in the Ray case, which is a matter of record, is the result of a convoluted, legalistic, extended analysis that hears evidence on sanction and hears psychologists on the stress the officer experienced.
This new legislation will allow me and the appropriate officer or the conduct officer to appeal a decision with which we do not that agree. We will be able to take it to the next level; that will come back to me. Currently no officer in the RCMP, including me, can seek a greater sanction than what was imposed by the board.
That is fundamentally wrong. It is unfair, because it does not understand the organizational interest at play and it does not respect the values of Canadians.
Senator Mitchell: One problem that was discovered in the military, and Senator Dallaire was part of that, is that no matter what the intentions were at the senior-most level, the middle management in the military could torpedo efforts to change culture. Changing culture is extremely difficult. I would recommend talking to Doug McNally, the former Police Chief of Edmonton, who did a remarkable job of changing the culture there a number of years ago. He changed it right down to the organic roots.
When you first came into your position you spoke very powerfully about this. You told The Globe and Mail board that you would deal with this harshly. You sent a message to your senior staff and probably to lower echelon management as well. Three of these people on this tribunal, having heard all of that and that you wanted to deal harshly with these people, could have fired him and they did not. They sent him to B.C. Is that getting through or is that an absolute defiance of your authority? Is that something that you have to deal with at the grassroots level to get change so that this firing power is not used to fire victims, for example, and is not used to perpetrate something that is deflecting the issues and changing the game in the way it needs to be changed?
Mr. Paulson: In fairness to all involved in the Ray case, it preceded the disciplinary process.
Senator Mitchell: Their decision was after you started, though.
The Chair: Let him answer.
Mr. Paulson: You are right. However, once the board is under way and rolling, I cannot be seen — I do not think anyone wants the commissioner to be able to influence people who are being asked to apply their discretion and their review of evidence; otherwise, you have no process.
What I am hearing a lot of is, "Okay, look, commissioner. In this new world, do not exceed this procedural fairness threshold.'' It was not a defiance of my authority. This memo that I think I shared with the committee is very clear. I am holding commanding officers directly responsible. I think it was last week that they had by the end of the week to give me every outstanding discipline case.
Senator Mitchell: Did you raise this with the commanding officer? Has he been reprimanded? Has he been fired? Has he been shifted? Has he been sent to B.C.?
Mr. Paulson: Sent to B.C.?
Senator Mitchell: Well, I am just asking.
Mr. Paulson: No. He has been spoken to, and I have spoken to him. Again, this process preceded my appointment and this new regime that I brought in pending this new legislation.
[Translation]
Senator Dawson: I might be stealing a question from one of my colleagues, Senator Nolin, but in any case. At the beginning of June, an Ontario court overturned a lower court ruling, preventing members of the RCMP from forming a labour association. Given this additional authority that you have, would you not say this is the time to take a step, to institute some sort of check and balance aimed at bolstering the right?
You mentioned the mayor of Prince Rupert, whose police force is not allowed to unionize, but the mayor of Saguenay does allow it. We have two classes of police officers in Canada. For a while now, we have seen that denying people the right to unionize has, in some cases, led to an abuse of power.
Given your recent arrival and your enhanced powers, not to mention the tremendous progress you have made — for which I commend you — is the moment not ripe to consider the possibility of allowing officers to unionize?
Mr. Paulson: I do not think the court ruled that unions are not allowed in the RCMP; it ruled that our current association is constitutional. But, to your direct point, it is extremely important that the details of the desired improvement take the RCMP association and members into account, and that both sides be prepared to apply the legislation.
I want to be perfectly clear about this: I am very intent on having a fair and equitable process. That is certain. I can assure you that the association will work with our members and management throughout the process. There is more involved than just enhanced powers; it involves a more timely and effective process.
[English]
Senator Dawson: If we want to be fair, why should police officers in municipalities that are allowed to be unionized be compared to police officers in cities that you are responsible for in which they were not allowed to be unionized? That fairness certainly does not apply. When we compare cities to cities, am I to understand that it is not fair when one is allowed to be unionized and the other one is not.
Mr. Paulson: I do not think that is the sort of fundamental measure of fairness. Let us look at the conditions of employment. Let us look at the remuneration. Let us look at the benefit package. I think you have a very fair situation where our members are very well looked after. They have an active path to direct engagement with management. The association is independent from my ability to dominate their agenda. I have to be careful, too, because I do not have any role or mandate to say, "Hey, have a union; do not have a union.'' I think the association serves the interests of the members well. The members are probably the best judge of that, but they deserve to be represented and have an ability to be represented and engage with management and with the employer.
Senator Manning: I welcome the commissioner here again this morning. I want to reiterate some comments said earlier. I know in my own experience in Newfoundland and Labrador that the presence of the RCMP in our community creates a level of comfort and peace of mind for many of our citizens. This is a great opportunity to say that to you. With every organization, with every group, there are always bad apples. I certainly welcome the way you are doing things so far.
I want to touch on the proposed legislation that was announced yesterday. Government decides what the legislation will be and brings it forward. I am wondering about the opportunity that was given to you or to the RCMP in general, I guess, in relation to the development of that legislation. Were you consulted? Did you have an opportunity to participate? I do not know if you are in a position to say that there are some things that you would like to see there or not. Give us an idea of what your involvement was.
Mr. Paulson: Thank you, senator, for your comments at the beginning.
One of the other things that I have tried to bring to the RCMP in my new role is a more active management role for my senior officers. Consequently, we were very engaged, and I was actively engaged and actively represented, by some very competent, very smart and capable senior officers who participated with government and public safety, and others, at bringing this together and looking at all of the considerations, including fairness for our members, efficiency in the process, comparing with other police forces and how they do that. I am absolutely delighted by the ability we have had to both participate and then demonstrate to our colleagues in government that we can hold our own when it comes to doing this sort of management and this sort of policy work. I was completely satisfied. I am very excited to see how parliamentarians will engage on this matter and seek advice from Canadians in general.
Senator Manning: As always, the legislation is giving new authority and additional authority to you as commissioner. I do not mean "you'' personally, but whoever is in that position for years to come.
With regard to your knowledge of what we are looking at, how confident are you that the process will be able to stand up to challenges under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? There are always concerns when it happens to be Bob Paulson today that has this new authority.
Mr. Paulson: I think that is a good point. It is one we have considered carefully, and I know government has considered it carefully. Much of it turns on how we manage it, frankly, and what sort of checks and balances I am able to put in through commissioner standing orders to establish that sense of protection going too far. It will require training on my front-line supervisors — of that there is no doubt. We have worked that into our plan to up our training for front-line supervisors to be able to manage, document and understand the concepts at play.
I expect, as most people expect in any new system, that there will be some hiccups as we stumble around a bit, but it is a pretty straightforward scheme. It separates the two types of behaviours I have talked about and concentrates on correction, where possible. That is a good consideration and we have thought that through in how we have presented the material. However, I am certainly open to taking additional advice on that.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: Commissioner, thank you for agreeing to appear before us. For the sake of clarification, could you tell us what you mean exactly when you refer to the association; do you mean the association of divisional representatives?
Mr. Paulson: Yes.
Senator Nolin: Senator Dawson mentioned the Court of Appeal for Ontario decision. Does the ruling essentially mean that the association had the necessary independence to adequately represent members?
Mr. Paulson: Precisely.
Senator Nolin: We all know that the Supreme Court could agree to hear an appeal. For that reason, I will not dwell on the debate any further. I disagree with Ontario's appeal court. We will see what the Supreme Court decides.
Clearly, you are happy with this bill. You mentioned that when you were answering Senator Manning's question. You are going to have to change your practices, your internal procedures. The flip side to introducing new disciplinary measures is applying them: respecting individuals' rights, those of victims and potential perpetrators of wrongdoing, alike.
When you talk about instituting new procedures, what do you have in mind as far as protecting victims' rights goes? Obviously, the objective here is protecting victims and implementing a mechanism to ensure that those accused of wrongdoing are reprimanded swiftly and effectively. But what sort of mechanisms do you have planned to ensure rights are protected? We must bear in mind that, until proven guilty, those accused of violations do have rights.
[English]
Mr. Paulson: Thank you, senator. First, we will only have tribunals for dismissals. We will push everything else down to meetings that will include divisional representatives. They will be the front-line supervisors — perhaps it is the line officers, perhaps it is the commanding officer.
[Translation]
In all cases, officers would be entitled to legal representation or the advice of members of the divisional associations.
Even in court they have the right to legal representation, like everyone else. I am confident that officers' rights will be respected, especially since the most important principle is to correct behaviour, rather than punishing officers.
[English]
It is not to punish officers, but to correct them. In that sense, I think our officers' rights will be absolutely respected.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: When you talk about access to divisional representatives, it comes back to that whole issue of independence. Who appoints those individuals?
Mr. Paulson: The members.
Senator Nolin: Who directs them? Do you, yourself, have any involvement in the activities of the divisional representatives?
Mr. Paulson: No. The RCMP does have policies as far as the divisional representatives go, but I do not give them any directives or orders. There is an agreement between myself and the association's executive. Apart from that, they are completely independent.
Senator Nolin: Who appoints the association's executive?
Mr. Paulson: The members of the association.
Senator Dallaire: I have a follow-up question. These people are still part of the RCMP. They perform this duty, the execution of which could pit them against those in authority, and afterwards, they go back to their regular jobs. They carry out this function for a period of time. Is there a history of persisting tensions in that the person has to be cautious about future career development since they may be in conflict with those in charge?
Mr. Paulson: No. My experience has been that, for officers who enter the divisional association program, things are even more complicated than their career as an officer. When they go back to their jobs as officers, they are the better for it, better managers.
[English]
Senator Day: Commissioner, it is good to see you back again. I would like to follow up on the point that Senator Manning was making about Newfoundland and Labrador. I think it applies certainly in my province of New Brunswick, and probably all of the contract provinces in particular where the RCMP members in the small communities are held at a very high level of respect. They are similar to doctors in the communities. They recognize that, and I would say that 99 per cent and maybe even more of your members are trying to live up to that expectation that the public has of them.
There have been some setbacks — no question — that have somewhat tarnished the image of the RCMP. Therefore, each of them bears some of that. With your appointment, I think they felt that there was an opportunity to bring some of that self-respect back to the RCMP, which has been there for many years.
I want to ensure that you recognize the role as a new commissioner and the role that has to be played here. I recognize as well your comment to Senator Mitchell earlier that there were some matters that were in the course, like Staff Sergeant Ray — now Sergeant Ray — that were happening before you took on this position. You have to live with that, even though you were not able to influence it.
You mentioned a letter that you had sent around to all the officers, and I do not recall having seen that here. You were not sure if you had shared that with the committee. If you are able to, that would be helpful —
The Chair: It was public, I believe it appeared —
Senator Day: I read some newspaper articles; I do not want to read someone's interpretation.
Mr. Paulson: I think I have it with me. It was a letter I wrote on January 3 to all commanding officers to set up my expectations with respect to how they manage discipline.
Senator Day: If could you share that with us via our clerk, that would be helpful.
Please tell us of your earlier announced plan of 100 special investigators. Was that an interim thing that will not continue now that we have Bill C-42, or will that continue? I would like to understand what your plan is and how Bill C-42 fits into that plan to bring back that self-respect.
Mr. Paulson: The 100 officers were announced in British Columbia by the new commanding officer, Deputy Commission Callens. We have quite a few officers in British Columbia — about 6,000 sworn officers. You may have noted that some of these somewhat notorious cases come from British Columbia. We wanted to flood and get everything caught up.
You will recall me telling you, Madam Chair, that one of the things I did with respect to harassment was centralize the process and get the information, so that we could make a plan. That was part of that initiative. You will see next week; we will be making an announcement in British Columbia about where we are with our management of gender-related issues in British Columbia. I am looking forward to that announcement next week.
With respect to the new legislation, there is a plan. We have already started to institute some of these things. We have built an implementation team that will look at all and certainly respond to parliamentarians' inquiries as this thing goes forward into the end of the year and hopefully it gets refined somewhat in the process. We are also building the supporting mechanisms, policies and statutory instruments, such as commissioner's standing orders, that will have to give life to these systems. That is somewhat tedious. It is administrative — not tedious.
A lot of administrative classification work has to be done with respect to our categories of employees. We have been working very closely with Treasury Board and other government departments on that. There is also, of course, the new oversight body, which we have to be prepared to respond to. There is greater access to documents and to evidence, the "compellability'' of witnesses and a suite of policies and statutory instruments that have to be prepared. We are doing that.
Once the new legislation is put in order, we will have trained all of our front-line supervisors and so on. One of the very interesting features of the new conduct regime is that the tribunals — the discipline boards — will allow the appointment of any person rather than just a legally trained officer. We have to create some policy around how that will take place. We will have to ensure that they are well trained in the matters that they will be examining. Once the law is put into force, we will implement it.
Senator Day: Am I reading your comment correctly in assuming that this was in the works before you were appointed to the position that you now hold?
Mr. Paulson: No.
Senator Day: Bill C-42 is not a result of your initiative of saying we need to do some things?
Mr. Paulson: You are reading that incorrectly. There was some previous proposed legislation, but since I was here last, we have a tiger team put together and have rolled up our sleeves. This is mine.
Senator Day: That is what I wanted to know. Thank you.
Senator Plett: I will start by apologizing for my tardiness this morning. I came directly from another meeting that ran a little overtime. I apologize if the questions that I will ask now have been asked.
Let me also simply add my voice to what Senator Manning said and congratulate you and the entire force for the excellent work that you do. I am from Manitoba, and we are certainly one of the provinces that use the RCMP a lot. I certainly appreciate that.
The Civilian Review and Complaints Commission will, it says, consist of one chairperson and up to four additional fulltime or part-time members. Does "up to'' mean that it could consist of three, or will it consist of four?
Mr. Paulson: I cannot really answer that, senator. I think the common reading of it is that it sounds like it could consist of three.
Senator Plett: Who makes that decision?
Mr. Paulson: That is better directed to the chair, but I think that the chair and the minister do.
Senator Plett: Maybe you could answer this for me, then, or maybe this is also not for you. It says that members or former members of the RCMP will not be eligible. In the province of Manitoba, of course, we have other police departments. Would a member of one of the municipal police forces be eligible to sit on this panel?
Mr. Paulson: I think so. The RCMP has long been on record as being open to independent review. Those are sort of mechanisms to try to separate that from the police community, but it sounds as though they would welcome other forces because the other feature is that, in doing some of these investigations, you need some investigative skills.
Senator Plett: That would be my concern with just having civilians there.
Mr. Paulson: I think that is right. I think that it would be open to other law enforcement people.
Senator Plett: Wonderful. Thank you very much, and congratulations on wonderful legislation and your part in it.
Mr. Paulson: Thank you, sir.
The Chair: Could we have you go through an example for us? I know it is difficult when there are cases before you, but, if there is an allegation against an RCMP officer from another RCMP officer and they work together, what happens?
Mr. Paulson: That is another feature of this new approach to conduct. Presently, we have a very fragmented, repetitive and duplicative process for dealing with harassment. If someone makes a harassment complaint, which would be understood as bullying or, essentially, bringing conditions to their workplace that are not welcome and that are interfering with their right to enjoy their workplace, then there is a harassment investigation.
Typically though, in the RCMP, because we have this code of conduct, many allegations of harassment would constitute a code of conduct violation if looked at against the code of conduct. Then, of course, we have the Criminal Code, so we would have a number of disjointed and repetitive processes. That is why some complainants were thinking, "This is not very helpful. I will not go and complain about Corporal Bloggins bullying me every day if nothing is going to happen and if he will know that I complained about him.'' The new system seeks to consolidate all of these things and to allow for immediate movement into a code of conduct investigation, if it is warranted. It will be much more efficient.
By having things pushed down to the lower level of officers, we will expect that many of these things, which are generally relationship types of conflict, can be dealt with in the first instance, with direction to the offending supervisor or the offending member and maybe a separation of employees and apologies. Because the current process is so complicated, people get dug into their positions, and they never get a chance to get it fixed. We anticipate that that will relieve a number of these invested positions that people get into. Pretty soon, in a couple of years, everybody forgets what the actual spark or index event was because we are all invested in this adversarial and difficult situation. I am hopeful that that will streamline harassment and code of conduct matters and, if there are criminal elements to conduct, deal with those immediately, without a view to any impediments in administration.
The Chair: What I am getting at, in part, is whether there is any disincentive for the commander, the local guy who is trying to make this work out, to, if it is not working, go upstairs? He will not be punished for having to go upstairs?
Mr. Paulson: No, and that should never be the case. Unfortunately, there are isolated instances where I think that has happened. Complainants are left there and nothing happens, and maybe the boss gets promoted.
Conversely, the workplace, as we all know, is a very complex environment. There are instances where people use complaints as a bit of a weapon, a bit of retribution or a bit of an avoidance mechanism from being held to account.
I did a town hall meeting in Lower Sackville. I thought I was really hitting the groove and making this all clear to everyone, and then one of the corporals rolled his eyes back. I was talking about accountability, and he said, "I am afraid to counsel people for work productivity issues or conduct matters because they will go on sick leave or file a harassment complaint against me.''
It is a complex environment. I am not saying that that is endemic or anything, but I wanted to emphasize that it is a complicated area. We will not be able to solve it, in every instance, with rules and regulations. It is a cultural thing. Leaders have to lead. Officers have to command, and members have to participate.
The Chair: Thank you for shedding some light on that because there are always two sides.
We have about ten minutes left. We have people on second round, so I would ask for one concise question so that we can keep things moving.
[Translation]
Senator Dallaire: There have been changes that were aimed at shifting the culture. The process of introducing women into the forces was not necessarily as smooth as it could have been.
When you took over the reins, did you notice a change in the basic philosophy of RCMP leadership, possibly owing to the fact that more women are in supervisory or authoritative roles?
[English]
There is the example of the concept of boys will be boys, sort of thing. Has the leadership philosophy been affected, or is it in need of being shifted by the introduction of women in that leadership structure and their ability to influence it?
Mr. Paulson: Yes, I think it has shifted positively. There is work to be done. I was just at depot where I took a senior person from government for a graduation exercise, and I think I owe Madam Chair a trip. It was very illuminating. The number two in command at depot is female, a top drawer officer; a number of officers in the operations chain, female officers, top drawer; sergeant major on parade that day, female officer. Diversity is taking hold in the organization, and we are starting to hit numbers. Frankly, I am pretty proud of our numbers. We have some work to do in the executive corps.
I have never really been at risk of being marginalized or being ignored or being given lip service. I think there is still that boys will be boys mentality, that sort of male, ego-driven "machoism.'' I do not think it is pervasive by any stretch. There are pockets of that, and we need to work at correcting that.
It is a complex area as well. We cannot be gender neutral. A female officer just corrected me on that last week when I was talking about my ideal state would be a gender neutral organization. She said, "No, that is not it, commissioner.''
I think we are seeing changes. We have some work to do, particularly in our senior ranks. We just lost Line Carbonneau, an excellent officer and one of the champions, a female officer who would say to everyone, "Look, do not be promoting women just for the sake of being women, but make sure that the women that are performing are being recognized.''
Senator Lang: Once again, I think everyone around the table here would echo the respect for the RCMP, no matter which part of this country you come from. Of course, our concern is that it has been tarnished to some degree. We are looking at this corrective action that you have outlined to us. You talked about outrageous conduct, and I would like to go there, because it does reflect on all the members. I am sure they are just as concerned about it as anyone else, probably more so.
I want to get it clarified in my mind. I do not think this is the place to talk about cases personally. We can talk about them in generalities. Where that outrageous conduct has taken place, and it has been proven beyond a doubt that it has taken place, perhaps you could just clarify for the record how it will be dealt with now as opposed to in the past so that we understand clearly how this process would work with the new legislative framework you have.
Mr. Paulson: The outrageous class of conduct is one that is open to interpretation. We generally recognize conduct that would meet that test, but it is not always clear. In the memo that I will produce for you, I have tried to give some structure to that. I think essentially lying, cheating and stealing and conduct that is repeated over and over again can aggregate to a condition where the reasonably minded Canadian would say, "What is this person doing in the police force?'' I am thinking of a common sense understanding of what outrageousness is.
There will be a decision by the conduct officer to seek dismissal and go right there. The suspension without pay process is more efficient and administratively available, I suppose, when these conditions are met. It does not have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt; it has to be plainly made out.
First of all, there is the ability to suspend an officer, to remove his or her pay and benefits, if it is warranted, if it is plainly made out, if it meets the common understanding of outrageousness, and then to go immediately to a board that will not be bogged down with the adversarial process. The board can basically be the managers of their evidence. They can accept plainly evident evidence, like videotapes and so on. We do not have to go into big, protracted legal issues. They can take evidence and have witnesses cross-examined, and members can have witnesses cross-examined, but it will be a much more efficient process to dismiss.
Senator Mitchell: Commissioner Paulson, one of the legacies of these difficulties now is not a small group of people, many women in particular, who are suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome, and there is some question about the focus of the RCMP in really helping these people and focusing on that. Now that may even become a more remote possibility, given that Bill C-38 is trying to download the RCMP's medical process to the provinces. What are you doing for victims? Is there a chance for them to be heard, and are you listening to them? When you do town hall meetings, could you do one with the victims? Are you focusing on that PTSD? It is very corrosive.
Mr. Paulson: Agreed, and that is a feature of the nature of police work. I understand that PTSD and the stress that accumulates from years of police work, or sometimes days of police work, can be very traumatic. I would like to respond to your comments around the medical system.
With basic health care, we will use it as we do now, except we will not be billed as out-of-province residents and pay three times what we have to pay for basic health care. If I have a boil on my nose, I will pay the same price as everybody else with a boil on their nose pays, and the RCMP will not be triple billed for basic health care.
The supplementary health care and occupational health provisions, supplemental health care, will be managed by insurance professionals. Police officers can do a lot of things, but I do not know that we can manage supplemental health care. We are not going to reduce the benefits available to members harmed in the course of duties, and the occupational health care will not be harmed at all.
Members need to understand, and I have been running that down hard, that if they are harmed in the course of their duties, the RCMP will always be there to look after them and ensure that they are looked after. Similarly, with PTSD, I took a lot of heat over — police term for criticism — sorry about that. I took a lot of criticism. We are going into the employee assistance program. We have a member employee assistance program, and our members were very concerned and our representatives were very concerned that I was getting rid of that. No, I was going to a very professional employee assistance program that the Government of Canada operates and that the military and CBSA use. I am maintaining that peer-to-peer support process that is so vital to ensuring that we are in on the ground floor when members get hurt or they exhibit behaviours reflecting perhaps some traumatic stress.
I really cannot have, and I do not want, any of these initiatives to be understood as taking benefits away from our members, particularly the sort of risk that we put them in and that they voluntarily expose themselves to every day. We are going to look after them.
Senator Mitchell: Can I go to third round?
The Chair: No. We only have about a minute left.
Senator Dawson: We are lucky to have you here twice in six months, but we might not see you again for a long time.
[Translation]
I would like you to comment on the CBC report about the situation involving the Prime Minister's protection detail. You have an opportunity to comment here and now, in front of parliamentarians and the cameras.
[English]
Mr. Paulson: We did a management review. Someone leaked the management review. The management review was around the management of the Prime Minister's protective detail. The Prime Minister has never been at risk. His security has never been compromised. We have some members who have identified some less-than-ideal management practices. I am not minimizing that, because I do not know. That is why we did the managerial review. That was leaked to the public, and I guess that goes with the territory.
The officer in charge of our protective policing program, Assistant Commissioner Malizia has done a very good job of working with the officer, who is a great officer and has a tremendous history in the protective detail, top drawer. Everybody except his subordinates are fully supportive of him. We need to understand how we can make him a better manager. Good police officers do not always make good managers. They do in my particular case — I say that jokingly.
Senator Dallaire: I would prefer you using the term "leader'' rather than "manager.''
Mr. Paulson: Touché, senator.
The Chair: Thank you. We very much appreciate it. I know you turned your schedule upside down. Thank you for fulfilling your promise to be here, as you said you would, to shed light for us on this new proposed legislation. We will make you a regular and see you in about four months.
Mr. Paulson: Thank you, madam chair.
(The committee adjourned.)