Douglas Quan (Ottawa Citizen) – Opposition critics on Wednesday questioned whether the federal government’s proposed changes to sections of the RCMP Act dealing with discipline and misconduct issues will be enough to bring about “cultural change” within the national police force.
The question arose during a hearing of the House of Commons’ public safety committee on Bill C-42, the Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act.
“The bill, we feel, as it stands, does not inspire confidence in the public. There are cultural changes in the RCMP that must be made to produce a more respectful, co-operative institution,” said NDP MP Rosane Doré Lefebvre.
But Public Safety Minister Vic Toews told the committee that the proposed changes in the bill will help to bring about that cultural shift and restore pride in the force.
“The fact that there are such inordinate delays in process and lack of clarity in the process, conduct that should be corrected immediately is not corrected,” he said.
RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson, who took the helm of the force late last year when women were coming forward with accusations of rampant sexual harassment, told the committee that, under the current system, complaints can often get bogged down in a protracted and adversarial process with little effort to rectify the underlying problem.
“The complainant is often left unsatisfied,” he said.
That’s why legislative changes are needed – to bring the force in line with modern management practices, he said.
Under Bill C-42, the grievance process would be streamlined, and senior managers would be given a wider range of options to sanction members immediately, such as suspending pay.
More serious cases, such as ones that could result in dismissal, would still be referred to an internal adjudication board, but the board would have discretion to resolve cases without a formal hearing.
[Source]
There have been abuses
Quote
Have been is not accurate. The abuse is still continuing.
Having been involved with such reviews, I can tell you that the Federal Court does not care if the entity is the RCMP, Immigration, or anybody else. They review anything that is put before them on the principals DT outlines.
Quote
Having been involved in reviews you know that time and stress is a major factor regarding INDIVIDUAL RCMP Members involved. The differences we have is that you talk from the top down very seldom thinking of the stress on the member. I think from the bottom up. Is the member being treated fairly; terminated or not.
As for the culture of the RCMP, much is said inaccurately on that point. This is the RCMP culture:
http://bc.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=404&languageId=1&contentId=8875
Quote
No! This is not the culture of the RCMP. These are examples of INDIVIDUAL RCMP members doing a good job. Don’t confuse the terms. You argument may be accepted by an unsuspecting public who thinks that riding a horse in red serge relates to good management practises. I was on the inside with 28 years service with an emasculate record. I know the difference. I also have letters of appreciation, but I think of the member bing wronged.
I am for the INDIVIDUAL RCMP Member who has been wronged from the bottom up.
The street cop must be supervised, fired, rewarded, and protected as it relates to the core values of the RCMP. That is not happening.
Ah, sorry Gord but that is not RCMP Culture. A heavily edited feely good news clips would more fall under promotional propaganda. Culture is broader, it encompasses the Behaviours, Beliefs, Characteristics of a
There have been abuses Calvin, not nearly as widespread in my experience, as the detractors would have you believe. And being comprised of people, there will probably be some in the future, regardless of revision.
Whether or not you define ranges of sanction as “powers” is moot. As DT points out, all decisions are reviewable. This has always been the case, but it has not been used as much as in the past 10 years from my observations.
Having been involved with such reviews, I can tell you that the Federal Court does not care if the entity is the RCMP, Immigration, or anybody else. They review anything that is put before them on the principals DT outlines.
The changes being brought in are the subject of innuendo, gossip, and rumor, and there is always in such circumstances a fear of the unknown which can be interpreted by various minded persons in their own way.
To suggest that there will be some senior managers able to use the “powers” for no good is fear mongering. The Federal Court is not of a mind to follow anything but the law, and regardless of the changes brought in or the attempted use of them to the detriment of the members automatically just does not wash. To insinuate that is fear mongering.
As for the culture of the RCMP, much is said inaccurately on that point. This is the RCMP culture:
http://bc.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=404&languageId=1&contentId=8875
Under Bill C-42, the grievance process would be streamlined, and senior managers would be given a wider range of options to sanction members immediately, such as suspending pay.
Article Quote
DT, The statements that you are making are factual and relevant. I don’t believe that fear mongering is the right response. The RCMP has lost credibility. That is provable by examples.
The RCMP very rarely applies force policy, and directives, as it should be.
There has always been abuse.
The culture of the RCMP would suggest that given the power to managers of the RCMP would not be any different. It would be another tool in the tool box for abuse disguised as proper application of policy.
Past behaviour is a prediction of future behaviour.
Any decisions by the RCMP are reviewable by the Federal Court of Canada. The Court rules on the principals of fundamental justice and procedural fairness. Regardless of the processes in place or instituted, they are reviewable. The balance of the individuals rights such as Sec 7 of the charter and the procedural actions of the federal entity are weighed.
The “powers” you referred to are not really powers of law per se. They are levels of sanctions under the federal authority which removes the 10 days maximum pay being the last sanction before outright dismissal. In other words, 20, 30 or 60 days for instance, could be a range of sanction for a particular offense greater than 10 but less than dismissal. The removal of pay is a very serious interim sanction and would be closely scrutinized by the Courts in line with case law. As the new Act is tested in a Court, new case law will be eventually established limiting any abuse that you allude to. Just as a sitting Judge in a Canadian Court is bound by the Courts of Appeal and the SCC, the RCMP decisions will not be allowed to run amok of the justice system. To suggest it would is folly and fear mongering.
Oh my!
“Under Bill C-42, the grievance process would be streamlined, and senior managers would be given a wider range of options to sanction members immediately, such as suspending pay.”
Senior management is a big part of the problem and you want to give them more powers?
This is not the solution.