Bill C-42 (Historical)

Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act

An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment enhances the accountability of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police by reforming the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act in two vital areas. First, it strengthens the Royal Canadian Mounted Police review and complaints body and implements a framework to handle investigations of serious incidents involving members. Second, it modernizes discipline, grievance and human resource management processes for members, with a view to preventing, addressing and correcting performance and conduct issues in a timely and fair manner.
It establishes a new complaints commission, the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (CRCC). Most notably, it sets out the authority for the CRCC to have broad access to information in the control or possession of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, it sets out the CRCC’s investigative powers, it permits the CRCC to conduct joint complaint investigations with other police complaints bodies and it authorizes the CRCC to undertake policy reviews of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
It establishes a mechanism to improve the transparency and accountability of investigations of serious incidents (death or serious injury) involving members, including referring the investigations to provincial investigative bodies when possible and appointing independent civilian observers to assess the impartiality of the investigations when they are carried out by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or another police service.
It modernizes the Royal Canadian Mounted Police’s human resources management regime. In particular, it authorizes the Commissioner to act with respect to staffing, performance management, disputes relating to harassment and general human resource management.
It grants the Commissioner the authority to establish a consolidated dispute resolution framework with the flexibility to build redress processes through policies or regulations. It provides for a disciplinary process that will empower managers or other persons acting as conduct authorities to impose a wide range of conduct measures in response to misconduct and that requires conduct hearings only in cases when dismissal is being sought.
It also contains a mechanism to deem certain members as being persons appointed under the Public Service Employment Act at a time to be determined by the Treasury Board.

[Brian Sauvé]

Thank you.

My name is Brian Sauvé. I'm a regular member. I'm also a sergeant in the RCMP. I've been on leave without pay to found and start the National Police Federation. Presently, I'm one of the interim co-chairs.

For those who have been following from the sidelines, we made an application to certify the first bargaining agent for members of the RCMP in April 2017. We have been going through every hoop and hurdle imaginable thrown at us since April 2017. A certification vote was held with all 18,000-plus members of the bargaining unit last November and December. We are still awaiting a decision from the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board on that vote with a constitutional challenge.

That being said, with respect to Bill C-98, we wanted to have input to provide the RCMP members' perspective on the CRCC and part VII of the RCMP Act as it deals with public complaints. I'm open to questions on that.

At the time, I saw Bill C-98 as an act to amend the RCMP Act. There are a number of concerns that our membership has expressed with respect to the 2014 amendments to the RCMP Act, otherwise known as Bill C-42, that would be nice to be broadcast or provided questions on.

For example, in Bill C-98, there is an amendment to section 45.37 of the RCMP Act imposing time frames in consultation with the force, and the newly worded public review and complaints commission, as to how long an investigation should take, what should be the result and the consultation between the force and the investigating body.

It would really be nice, from our perspective, from an RCMP member's perspective, to expand that to deal with other areas of the RCMP Act. One of the areas that would be lovely to have some form of consultation on timelines would be the internal disciplinary processes or even grievances or appeals of commissioner's decisions on suspensions and such.

Our experience has been that whether it's a complaint under part VII or an administrative process under part IV or a grievance under part III of the RCMP Act, the RCMP itself is not equipped to deal with these issues in a timely manner. The issues tend to lag on for six months, a year, a year and a half to two years, which leaves the accused or the subject member of either a public complaint or a code of conduct or a griever in a grievance in limbo in an administrative process that takes forever.

Should your committee have questions on that, I'd be more than happy to answer, and we'll go from there.

That would be my presentation. I'm sure you're not going to study all of the submissions I would have on Bill C-42 and how it has impacted the membership of the RCMP, and the sweeping powers of commissioners and commanding officers.

I would love to get into that in more detail some day, but I don't think this legislation is the venue for that. However, timelines in section 45.37 would be something that we would definitely appreciate your looking into.

[Commr Bob Paulson]

Thank you. I'll try not to duplicate that, and I'll try to focus on the two areas that you had expressed interest in: harassment and workplace safety.

To emphasize that and to go back to the committee's observation in respect of shoes, there are ample and clear statutory requirements for management to have these committees and to attend these committees, which I do with the other unions right now, and had done with the former labour-management regime, the SRR. That's where our new policy on shoes came from. We spent a lot of time giving members freedom, and it came from representations in that committee, where they wanted the freedom to have different kinds of shoes. Those are the kinds of issues discussed there.

I digress a little bit.

Getting back to harassment, let me just put the frame around that: of all of our harassment complaints, 55% have male complainants, and the lion's share of our harassment relates to abuse of authority and interpersonal conflict in the workplace.

Male complainants file 55% of our harassment complaints, so obviously 45% have female complainants, but of that 45%, 16% are female versus female. That's not particularly instructive, but I think it's important to have some sort of context around the demographics of our harassment situation.

For us, harassment now has been linked with conduct, and I think that's the case in all police forces, and in fact many organizations across Canada. Conduct and harassment are excluded across the police universe, except in respect of how it's framed in some sort of expression of non-support for harassment in some collective agreements. The actual mechanics and the actual way in which harassment is being managed is subject to Bill C-42, which has joined our conduct regime with harassment.

What's important to understand, in the RCMP particularly, is that we had operated formerly under the Treasury Board's guidelines for harassment, and that had created two regimes. Bill C-42 was seen to be an effective and efficient means of joining the conduct regime in the RCMP with harassment.

Noting that harassment is, as all members of the committee have observed, a very important consideration, harassment in the RCMP has been given a sort of direct path to externality, an external review in the form of our external review committee. There is a path for complainants to go there, and there are specific provisions within our conduct regime to handle harassment in a way that is starting to give results and that we hope to improve upon.

Again, with harassment and even with conduct, there are committees that we will have to participate in. People from the bargaining agent will sit at that table and participate in the refinement, both in terms of specific cases and also in systemic issues that are raised to that committee and acted upon, with the authorities we already have.

There's nothing inconsistent with the profession in terms of conduct being excluded from bargaining, but it's also statutorily overseen and requires many of these opportunities for engagement with records, with accountabilities that fall directly to management and to some extent to the bargaining agent.

There is very robust backstopping to many of these issues that are being excluded.

[Paul Dupuis]

Bill C-42 will give Treasury Board the power to incorporate them into the public service at a later date. This is something that means that Bill C-7 contains specific provisions with regard to civilian members. And we do not know what the government's intention is concerning our civilian members. In our opinion, this is something else that must be discussed at the bargaining table.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Okay.

You said that the first incident in the ETU came pre-Bill C-42 and that the second came post-C-42. You've said Bill C-42 is helpful at getting at the root of these problems. Has the Accountability Act in that bill been widely communicated within the force, and are the expectations well known throughout the human resources organization?

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank you both very much, and through you to your organizations, I'd like to thank the men and women who are at the forefront of public safety and security for Canada. Their work is appreciated.

Certainly on this committee we also have to make sure that organizations conform with the law and with expectations, so please pass along that thanks and understand that's also what we try to get at through the committee.

My first question would be for you, Commissioner Paulson. You mentioned Bill C-42 in your presentation. In particular, the enhancing of the RCMP Accountability Act, which was passed by the past government, had a section on investigation of serious incidents of harassment and some of the very disturbing things we've heard. Has that act helped you internally to get at the root issues and advance the culture change you spoke about in your remarks?

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

I remember when I did that announcement and there were a few giggles or something in the audience at some of the comments, but once they saw the expression of the person who was reading on the other end it became silent in the room. I think that was the key to the Stop Hating Online campaign. Anyone who's listened to this committee simply has to go to the web and type in “stop hating online campaign“ and you'll find it. I think it's an excellent resource tool for parents to check out.

I have a question for the RCMP as well. The RCMP accountability act came into force this week. There was an announcement that you did with the Minister of Public Safety, not yourself, but the commissioner. I know with my previous committee work on the status of women, the commissioner was at that committee. He came in to testify. We were studying harassment in the workplace. I know that some of the things that were discussed in that committee have played into the RCMP accountability act with regard to some of new things that are involved in that act about the new code of conduct, and so on. I'm wondering if you could comment on some of these changes. I know it had significant changes because the act hadn't been significantly changed in almost 25 years with regards to harassment in the workplace, codes of conduct, and so on. Could you speak to that for a few moments?

Thanks.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I'm sorry for this unintentional loss of time.

I am always impressed when I appear before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, especially when I am surrounded by officials from agencies responsible for the protection and security of Canadians.

I am accompanied today by Harvey Cenaiko, from the Parole Board of Canada; Michel Coulombe, from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service; Mike Cabana, from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; Don Head, from the Correctional Service of Canada; Luc Portelance, from the Canada Border Services Agency; and François Guimont, who is the Deputy Minister of Public Safety Canada.

I would like to tell the members of the committee that these people work very hard, particularly when we were called to respond to the recent terrorist attack. We were in the House a few minutes ago, and I had the chance to meet the person who administered first aid to Warrant Officer Nathan Cirillo at the National War Memorial. We are currently preparing a proper and balanced response to this growing terrorist threat. Obviously, we are not going to overreact, but we are not going to stand idly by in the face of this threat, either.

Furthermore, I would like to publicly thank the heads of the agencies that help us to adapt. They have already taken concrete action to protect Canadians.

We are here today to make budgetary adjustments that will allow these important individuals to continue to ensure our protection. As you know, our department was created in response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Even now, I note that the priority for national security is fighting terrorism.

That said, we must not in any way neglect the other important aspects of public safety, which is why I am here this afternoon.

As you know, we have implemented many initiatives to move forward our government's ambitious public safety program. This involves cracking down on crime, improving the rights of victims and strengthening our national security. For example, I recently announced the coming into force of the Safer Witnesses Act, which will increase the effectiveness of the federal government's witness protection program for the individuals it protects, while meeting the needs of law enforcement agencies.

Furthermore, we just sent Bill C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts, back to the House for debate at report stage. This fundamental bill will change the way we handle justice in Canada and will put victims at the heart of our justice system.

I also want to thank the committee for its work on division 17 of Bill C-43, which amends the DNA Identification Act to create Lindsey's law. This important measure will create a DNA-based missing persons index to help provide closure to the families of missing persons.

I understand that Judy Peterson made a very emotional presentation to the committee. I would like to thank you all for your support on this important legislation that she has advocated for on behalf of her daughter.

Many of you may remember that November 16 was the sad anniversary of the disappearance of Julie Surprenant, in Terrebonne. Her sister, Andréanne, wanted to pay tribute to her on that occasion. It was a moving experience. It allowed us to remind the victims and loved ones of the families of missing or murdered individuals of the implementation of this act, which will help them to get through this type of situation and to find some comfort.

On other fronts, I have introduced measures to provide a simple and safe firearms licensing regime with Bill C-42, the common sense firearms licensing act. This bill was thoroughly debated one week ago. I look forward to this bill being referred to this committee for study in the very near future.

Just last week, I appeared before you regarding Bill C-44, the protection of Canada from terrorists act. I know the committee has completed its study, and has returned the bill to the House without amendments. As I said earlier, recent terrorist attacks are a reminder that the terrorist organization ISIL is a very real threat to Canadians. It is the reason we are working very determinedly to strengthen the tools available to the police and intelligence community in the areas of surveillance, detention, and arrest. The protection of Canada from terrorists act is just the first step in our efforts to do that.

My department and its agencies continue to give priority to efforts to fight terrorism and violent extremism, which includes working with our international allies.

Mr. Chair, I could speak more about the measures that we are implementing, but I would now like to move on to the Supplementary Estimates (B), 2014-15. Essentially, these are adjustments to the budget envelope that we were allocated and some modifications that need to be made to properly reflect the actual accounting and current expenses.

These estimates demonstrate our ongoing commitment to keeping Canadians safe from those who wish to harm them without creating billion-dollar boondoggles.

Allow me to provide some highlights of what I mean.

As the committee members can see, the Supplementary Estimates (B), 2014-15, aim to transfer $3.3 million from the Canada Border Services Agency to the RCMP to build a joint use firing range in British Columbia. It also aims to obtain a transfer of $5.2 million from the Correctional Service of Canada to the RCMP to support the renovations of C block at the RCMP training academy for correctional officer training.

These are prime examples of how we are using taxpayers' money. This way of operating is more effective. We are achieving this by grouping resources, while creating stronger ties within the department.

In addition, the estimates seek $5.2 million for CSIS in support of national security initiatives. I would also like to highlight two key items related to the RCMP. First, on November 28—as of Monday—the Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act came into force, bringing in a new era of modernization and accountability for the RCMP. In order to implement that act, these supplementary estimates provide for $7.9 million to the RCMP to implement new processes relating to grievances and public complaints.

Additionally, there is $710,000 to the RCMP External Review Committee to maintain the committee's existing operations. This entails the review of certain grievances and appeals of decisions and disciplinary and other labour relations matters involving members of the force. This is a very important accomplishment, Mr. Chair. We've been working on that for years. In less than two years, the RCMP has been able to implement this major shift. The deputy commissioner can expand on this later on, but this is certainly a great accomplishment. As you know, we now have beefed up—if you allow me this expression—the oversight of the RCMP.

Second, the estimates seek to transfer $41.9 million to the RCMP for policing services provided pursuant to the first nations policing program. This funding will further support policing services that are professional, dedicated, and responsive to the first nation and Inuit communities they serve.

In addition, $3.7 million is set aside for the national public safety campaign for the next phase in the fight against bullying, called “Get Cyber Safe”. I must tell you that we have had very interesting results in terms of market penetration and our ability to reach out to young people.

We are very proud of the success of this campaign, which is having a significant impact across the country. More than a million people have visited the “Get Cyber Safe” website, and there have been different initiatives in that respect. Of course, I encourage committee members to pass on these constructive messages on the importance of having healthy practices when visiting social media sites and using information technology or any electronic device.

In conclusion, Mr. Chair, it is clear that our Conservative government is taking strong action to keep Canadians safe. We are ensuring that victims are at the heart of the justice system and ensuring that child sexual predators face serious consequences. We are making our firearms laws safe and sensible, and we are making sure that our law enforcement and national security organizations have the tools they need to do their jobs.

The one threat that seems to run through all of these initiatives is that they have been delayed, obstructed, or sometimes opposed outright. But we are prevailing, Mr. Chair, and I am proud to say that we intend to stay the course. We have the protection of Canada act coming back into the House of Commons, and we intend to come in the near future with additional legislation so that we can tackle this evolving terrorist threat.

With that in mind, Mr. Chair, I would be more than happy to respond to questions from the members of this important committee.

Merci.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to speak to the latest Conservative omnibus bill. This bill is a product of a tired, old Conservative government that has lost touch with the challenges and opportunities of Canadians.

Bill C-43 is overflowing with changes that have no place in a budget bill, such as the petty change the Conservatives want to make to deny refugee claimants access to social assistance.

The Conservatives are actually using Bill C-43 in an effort to deny income support to refugee claimants, right after their attempt to limit refugee claimants' access to health care was struck down by the Federal Court. The court called that Conservative policy “cruel and unusual treatment” that “outrages (Canadians') standards of decency”.

A recent editorial in The Globe and Mail called this bill “an abuse of process and shown contempt for Parliament by subverting its role”. The Globe is right. It is anti-democratic for the Conservatives to once again use a massive omnibus budget bill to limit debate and ram through so many unrelated measures in Parliament.

In the last few years, the Conservatives have concocted and implemented a process that prevents MPs from all parties from doing their jobs in properly scrutinizing legislation. This is leading to a lot of sloppy mistakes. The Conservatives' general disdain for Canada's democratic institutions and their outright contempt for Parliament have led to countless errors being cemented into Canadian law.

This bill would try to fix a number of previous Conservative mistakes. I would like to give members a few examples of areas where the Conservatives are trying to use this omnibus bill to fix errors in previous bills.

First, the Conservatives forgot to include a tax credit in the last omnibus budget bill, Bill C-31, for interest paid on Canada apprentice loans. The Conservatives try to fix that in clause 35 of Bill C-43.

The second is that the government forgot to ensure that PRPPs are subject to similar GST treatment as RRSPs. The fix for that is found in part 2 of Bill C-43.

Third, they forgot to include a refund in Bill C-31 for duties paid on destroyed tobacco products. That correction is in Bill C-43, part 3.

Fourth, they forgot to change a legal heading when the Conservatives used Bill C-19 to transfer spending powers from the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. The Conservatives gave all of the powers in that section of the law to the immigration minister, but still named the section “Minister of Foreign Affairs”.

Fifth, they forgot in Bill C-38 to allow the Minister of Industry to publicly disclose certain information regarding the review process.

Sixth, they forgot in Bill C-31 to include foreign money services businesses as foreign entities under the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act.

Seventh, they ignored expert advice and capped the size of the Social Security Tribunal in Bill C-38, leading to massive backlogs in the system.

Eighth, they failed to realize in Bill C-4 that the amalgamation of the Blue Water Bridge Authority might not go as planned.

Ninth, they created confusion in Bill C-4 with various amendments related to public service labour, including a reference to the wrong clause number.

Tenth, they forgot in Bill C-45 to coordinate between RCMP pension rule changes in Bill C-42 and rule changes that raised the age for public service pensions in Bill C-45.

There are 10 examples of the the mistakes the Conservatives made in the previous bill that they are trying to fix in this omnibus bill.

The fact is that the Conservatives' game plan of limiting debate and ramming these bills through Parliaments is responsible for creating these mistakes. Parliament is denied its legitimate role to identify these flaws in the process of real parliamentary debate at committee and in the House and fixing them.

The reason these mistakes are made in the first place is because of the deeply flawed process surrounding omnibus legislation.

I would like to talk a bit today about tax policy, GST, EI, and the income-splitting proposal that the Conservatives had in their last platform.

Bill C-43 actually adds GST to some goods and services that are used by or provided by non-profit organizations operating health care facilities. When we asked officials for an example of what kinds of service might get caught up in this GST hike, the example they provided was of a health care facility that also runs a residential apartment building, such as an old age home. Adding GST to services purchased by or provided by old age homes means one of two things: either it will cut into the bottom line of the health care facility, or the old age home will have no choice but to pass the tax hike on to the people they serve. In the case of an old age home, it means that the government is getting ready to hike the GST and punish Canadian seniors, who are already struggling to get by on a fixed income.

In terms of employment insurance, Bill C-43 also gets it wrong. Bill C-43 offers a small EI tax cut to employers, but only if they agree to stay small. Instead of creating real jobs and growth, Bill C-43 would actually encourage businesses to stay small and would punish them if they grow and become more successful. Due to a design flaw in Bill C-43, the so-called small business job credit creates an incentive for some businesses to fire workers. That is why economist Jack Mintz has called it “a disincentive to growth” and why economist Mike Moffatt said “...the proposed ‘Small Business Job Credit’ has major structural flaws that, in many cases, give firms an incentive to fire workers and cut salaries.”

Even Finance Canada officials last night acknowledged that this tax credit creates a disincentive for some employers to hire.

Last month the PBO looked at this tax credit and found that it will only create 800 jobs over the next two years, at a cost of $550 million. That means it will cost taxpayers almost $700,000 per job.

In response to the need to encourage businesses to hire and to reduce EI premiums for businesses that do that or reward businesses that hire, the Liberals have proposed an EI holiday for new hires. This plan would only reward businesses that actually create jobs. The Liberal plan has been endorsed by Canadian job creators, including the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, which has said that the Liberal plan for an EI exemption for new hires “would create jobs”. The Restaurants Canada organization, representing restaurants across the country, said “This...proposal for an EI exemption for new hires would help restaurants create jobs.” The CFIB said it loves the Liberal plan to exempt small business from EI premiums for new hires, which has lots of job potential.

The same PBO report that looked at the Conservatives' tax credit and identified the flawed program that would cost $700,000 per job also identified that the Conservatives are collecting billions of dollars in excess of taxes in EI over the next two years and that the Conservatives actually have the capacity to cut EI premiums significantly.

The PBO estimates that artificially high EI rates under the Conservatives will cost the Canadian economy 10,000 jobs over the next two years. That is 10,000 more Canadians who will be out of work over the next two years because the Conservatives are using artificially high EI premiums to pad the books to fund pre-election spending. The Conservatives are ignoring the evidence and putting Conservative politics ahead of the Canadian economy and ahead of the interests of Canadian workers and employers.

Speaking of ignoring the evidence, the Conservatives appear ready to go ahead with their flawed income-splitting scheme that was introduced in their last platform. The idea that the Conservatives were putting forth in their last platform has been panned by everyone from the C.D. Howe Institute and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation to the Mowat Centre and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. It was even panned by the late Jim Flaherty himself.

It is being panned because, as articulated in their platform, fewer than 15% of Canadian households would benefit, most of them high-income households, at a cost of $3 billion per year to the federal treasury and another $2 billion per year to provincial governments. Provincial governments, as we know, are facing deficits and huge fiscal challenges.

Under the Conservatives' scheme, the Prime Minister, earning $320,000 a year and with a stay-at-home spouse, would save about $6,500 per year. Meanwhile, a Canadian earning the average industrial wage and with a stay-at-home spouse would save less than $10 per week, and most households would get no benefit whatsoever.

We have a different approach. The Liberal approach is that we need to build a plan for 2015 that would be focused on creating jobs and growth to strengthen the Canadian middle class. The status quo is not working. The current federal government is so preoccupied with day-to-day politics that it has lost track of and is out of touch with the challenges and opportunities facing Canadian families. Those are challenges such as aging demographics and a slow-growth economy, which some refer to as secular stagnation. Baby boomers are rapidly approaching retirement age, and as they exit the workforce, they will leave a shrinking tax base and labour shortages in their wake. They will also place a greater strain on health care systems as they age. We will end up with more Canadians using the social safety net and fewer Canadians paying into it. These demographic pressures are leading economists to predict that slow economic growth could become the new normal.

The Canadian economy, frankly, is already sputtering under the Conservatives. Job growth over the last two years has been extremely weak, consumer debt is high, infrastructure is in disrepair, and housing prices in our cities are inflated. Last year the Canadian economy created a paltry 5,300 net new full-time jobs across the country. The percentage of Canadians working today is still two full points lower than before the downturn. There are 200,000 more jobless Canadians today than before the downturn, and the number of Canadians who are considered long-term unemployed is twice that of 2008. More than 150,000 Canadians are unemployed and have been searching for work for a year or longer. As we all know, the longer they are out of the workforce, the harder it is for them to get back in.

On the other end of the spectrum, we have young Canadians who simply cannot get their foot in the door of the Canadian labour market. Recent grads are facing huge challenges. There are 200,000 fewer jobs for young Canadians today than before the downturn, before 2008. Persistently high youth unemployment and under-employment is robbing a generation of people of opportunities they need to succeed. TD economist Craig Alexander and CIBC economist Benjamin Tal describe a scenario of a lost generation of Canadian youth and a lost generation of potential for all Canadians.

This is despite the fact that this generation is the most technologically adept, most educated generation in our nation's history, and therein lies the challenge we face. There is a gap between the education they have and the job market. We have people without jobs and jobs without people.

Too many Canadians in their twenties are left saddled with big student loans and are unable to make ends meet. All too often, it is their middle-class parents and grandparents who are footing the bill. Among the hardest hit are Canadians who are actually squeezed between helping their adult children pay the bills and taking care of their aging parents at the same time, the sandwich generation. In many cases these parents in their forties, fifties, and sixties are taking on additional debt or dipping into their retirement savings. In fact, this is one of the things that is driving record levels of personal debt, which is about $1.65 for every dollar of annual income. According to the Canadian Financial Monitor, Canadians who are 55 years of age or older are two and a half times more likely to refinance their mortgage if they have children than if they do not have children. Their average household debt is twice that of their childless peers.

Meanwhile, many younger families do not actually have a mortgage to refinance. Instead, they are being priced out of the housing market altogether.

On this front, the Conservative government must share at least part of the blame for the high housing prices in Canada and commensurate personal debt. It was the Conservative government, in budget 2006, that brought in 40-year mortgages with no down payment. It introduced them for the first time in Canada. It had an effect, because in the first half of 2008, more than half of all new mortgages in Canada were 40-year mortgages, and 10% of those had zero down payment.

The Conservatives shifted Canada's borrowing culture and lending culture, and that shift has helped fuel record levels of housing prices commensurate with that household debt. They have since reversed course and returned to the norm that was the case under Liberal governments in the past, meaning 25-year mortgages with at least 5% down. However, it is important to recognize the Conservatives' culpability in bringing 40-year mortgages with no down payments into Canada and helping fuel record levels of personal debt related to skyrocketing housing prices.

From the OECD and the IMF to the Bank of Canada, one thing on which Canadian and international economists agree is that elevated housing prices and household debt pose a big domestic threat to our economy. These elevated housing prices have helped widen the generational divide between those on the one hand who have watched the value of their house appreciate and in some cases have tapped into that equity to help fund consumption, and those on the other hand who cannot afford to even enter the housing market.

We are seeing greater income inequality in Canada, and fewer Canadians now think of themselves as being middle class. In fact, the number of Canadians who self-identify as middle class has dropped from 64% in 2009 to 47% in 2014. Even more troubling is that for the first time in recent history, more Canadians now believe that the next generation, their children and grandchildren, will be worse off, not better off, than they are today. That is the first time this has happened in Canada.

What we need is a federal government that will rise to meet these big challenges facing our country: aging demographics, slow growth, soft job market, and high levels of youth unemployment and underemployment. These are all challenges, but they also represent opportunities. I will give one specific challenge to our country that is a big social and economic challenge but that also represents an opportunity if we can get it right.

Over the next 10 years, there will be about 400,000 young aboriginal and first nation Canadians who will be of workforce age. If they have the skills they need for the jobs of today, that would be really good for our economy. If they do not, it represents a demographic, economic, and social time bomb for our country.

The reality is that we have failed collectively as governments at all levels to address this challenge. If we take it seriously, young aboriginal workers can be part of a Canadian growth and economic success story. We have to get it right. We have to take these issues seriously.

Liberals believe that sustainable growth and a focus on creating jobs, growth, and opportunities is the best way to benefit Canadian middle-class families and to restore hope to them. We believe we need to invest in infrastructure, training, innovation, and trade, and we believe that we need to keep our competitive tax rates.

Bill C-43 does nothing to grow the Canadian economy, and it ignores the very real challenges of the middle class and of young Canadians.

In a very short period of time, potentially within days, we will be seeing a fall economic statement. We hope the government chooses to invest in the future by investing in infrastructure, in training, and in young Canadians. We need the government to do so, and if this government does not, a future Liberal government will.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Thank you very much for being here, and thank you for your contribution to our country.

I have to say, General Lawson and others, about 18 months ago, we sat in this very room with Commissioner Paulson and a group of RCMP officials. Some of your folks testified at a later time.

I listened to Commissioner Paulson and his great intentions, with a box of charts of all of the different ways they were going to be ending the sexual harassment issues and how they were going to make a significant change. And, you know, I believed him. I actually bought his story. He was maybe sincere that day, but it went straight downhill from there.

Bill C-42 clearly put a muzzle on all of the members in the RCMP. As a result of Bill C-42, they are no longer allowed, through a regulatory process, to talk to politicians or the media. They are not allowed to say anything negative that would disparage the RCMP. That put a muzzle on any of the current members. I have a list of several people who have a year or two before they leave, and at that time they are prepared to go public.

You have people in National Defence who have to get permission from the chain of command to talk publicly. How can we possibly have confidence as elected officials who want to make sure we have an organization that attracts women who want a career in it? How can we possibly assure them of anything, when no matter which organization we're talking about, you put a muzzle on them and they can't talk, and you tell them that there are all kinds of things to protect them and all the rest?

It was the exact same thing that I heard from the RCMP. Not one thing has changed in that organization, other than the fact that they can no longer talk at all. Within your organization, you have a chain of command that forbids them from doing that. In order to really get an understanding of where to go forward and how big a problem that is, have you thought of just not punishing people for coming forward with these kinds of complaints? Take off that permission from the chain of command and take off that muzzle, and let's finally find out how big a problem we have and how we're going to fix it.

I know you want to fix it. I think Commissioner Paulson wanted to fix it. But the steps he took were not significant enough to shake up an organization into understanding that no one is going to tolerate sexual harassment in any of these particular military services—none. Until you get a real shakeup at the top, nothing will happen. It gets covered up, and people are victimized and afraid of the reprisals.

Our own DND ombudsman testified at committee in 2012 that there was a fear of reprisals. You're not going to remove that unless you have a complete shakeup in this organization, which is maybe what the external review might show you. It's not a new problem.

I'm sad today to be sitting here. It infuriates me that our daughters and children, the females, aren't necessarily going to want to join National Defence or the RCMP.

What are you going to do to the perpetrators, other than transfer them or promote them, and penalize the women? Sorry for my rant, but it's an issue I care about, and I'm not impressed today whatsoever.

[Commr Bob Paulson]

Yes, RCMP funds have been allocated to that. Another amount of $10 million a year was set aside.

It's for the implementation of our new legislation, which will go a long way to affecting the cultural issues within the force by pushing down responsibility to our leaders, to engaging our leaders at the very front level. There is some money put aside for that. In fact, I can tell you that the first training for the implementation of Bill C-42 has come up this week.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Thank you for that question.

In June 2013, Bill C-42 received royal assent. That was almost a year ago. As you mentioned, this bill strengthens the responsibility of the RCMP by creating the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP. This consolidates the oversight role of the commission. We take this issue seriously.

I will invite Commissioner Paulson to speak in greater detail about the measures adopted by the RCMP. I think he is in a better position than I to answer your question.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

I would now like to discuss a completely different topic.

I have already spoken to the former Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. In fact, our committee did a study on harassment within the RCMP.

During your last appearance before the committee you stated that the 2013-2014 budget contained a net increase of $4.7 million for the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, and that a part of that amount will go to funding new components of the civil commission which examines and deals with complaints about the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

We all feel that a change of culture is necessary within the RCMP. I think we have all examined the issue well in the framework of our study of Bill C-42 and we are all aware of the problems, in particular the harassment cases within the RCMP.

I wonder if you could give us a status report on your policy regarding harassment in the RCMP. Are all of the elements you mentioned when you last appeared before the committee in place? In addition, is the RCMP making progress in its processing of sexual harassment cases, among others?

[Ian McPhail]

Sorry, I may not have explained that adequately. Actually, I believe that Bill C-42 would allow some cost reductions. For example, for the various investigations into the G-8/G-20 complaints in Toronto, under Bill C-42, the new CRCC would have been able to work jointly with some of the provincial review bodies rather than our having multiple investigations. So I believe Bill C-42 will enable some material cost savings.

[Rodney Weston, Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Cowper.

Mr. McPhail, you mentioned Bill C-42 and the establishment of a new civilian panel. You referenced it as something that will drive costs. I took it that way. Forgive me if I took it in the wrong context. If that's the case, why do you see this new civilian panel driving costs higher?

[Richard Evans, Senior Director, Operations, Royal Canadian Mounted Police Public Complaints Commission]

You would assess them against whatever standards are part of their employment. Just to go back a step, the appointment under the RCMP Act is what brings them under our jurisdiction. That's not to be confused with their appointment as a peace officer. Those are two separate elements. Under Bill C-42, as Mr. McPhail said, the commissioner has the authority to appoint somebody as a supernumerary special constable. The second section would be to appoint that person a peace officer. Both of those would be appointments under the RCMP Act, which would bring them under our jurisdiction.

[Ian McPhail]

That's a good point, Mr. Garrison.

There's a very practical and simple answer to it. The RCMP has the ability to swear in civilians under Bill C-42 as special constables for a period of up to one year. Having been sworn in, they're subject to the oversight of the new CRCC in the same manner as a regular RCMP member would be.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I have come before this committee on several occasions over the past few years as interim chair of the CPC to contribute to your deliberations on issues relating to the performance of the RCMP and the need for effective oversight of this important Canadian institution. I am very pleased to be here today to assist you in your examination of the economics of police service delivery across Canada.

I am accompanied by Mr. Richard Evans, senior director of operations for the CPC.

Thank you for inviting me to joining you today.

It is a universally accepted principle that public trust of the police is essential to the effective and efficient delivery of any police service. Even a strong and economically viable law enforcement service cannot operate without public support. The Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP provides an important role in the accountability framework of the RCMP and its delivery of policing services at the federal, provincial, municipal, first nations, and international levels. It is a large, diverse, and complex organization in both its mandate and its jurisdiction.

The integrated nature of its operations with other law enforcement agencies adds to this complexity, and its presence in virtually every corner of this country and abroad is unique in law enforcement circles. All of this serves to increase the visibility of the RCMP and its members' contacts with the public.

The commission's mandate includes investigating, reviewing, and conducting hearings into public complaints concerning the conduct of the RCMP and its members in the execution of their duties. As the chair, I can also institute a complaint and investigation into any matter relating to RCMP member conduct when I believe it is in the public interest to do so.

While discussions about the economics of policing, for the most part, rightly focus on the tangible elements of front-line policing service delivery, the less obvious cost associated with public discontent with police conduct must also be considered in the overall cost of public policing. We are all familiar with the increasing frequency of public inquiries and lawsuits resulting from public complaints about the conduct of the police. These mechanisms are labour-intensive and protracted. They consume significant resources and add to the overall costs of delivering policing services.

There are many recent examples of such forums, the cumulative cost of which would be considered staggering by most. In contrast, the commission, supported by an annual budget of roughly $8.2 million, responds to roughly 2,000 public complaints per year about the conduct of RCMP members. The commission employs both informal and formal dispute-resolution processes to address public concerns. In so doing, it conducts approximately 240 in-depth, independent, fact-based complaint reviews and reports on a yearly basis.

In recent years, the commission has also conducted numerous high-profile public interest investigations into matters that could have otherwise resulted in costly public inquiries. Some recent examples that you may be familiar with include the public-interest investigation into the conduct of RCMP members regarding the handling of allegations of harassment within the workplace; the review of the RCMP's seizure of firearms from residences following flooding in High River, Alberta; and the public-interest investigation regarding policing in northern British Columbia following the concerns expressed by Human Rights Watch in its February 2013 report on this issue.

Through such public interest investigations the commission establishes facts, reports on its findings, and makes constructive remedial recommendations that are aimed at correcting and preventing recurring policing problems. The RCMP accepts and implements the vast majority of these recommendations.

As you are no doubt aware, this mandate will be expanded with Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, which received royal assent this past June and is expected to come into force in 2014, and once a new civilian review and complaints commission with additional authorities and enhanced effectiveness is established.

Included in these enhancements are the authorities to address public complaints through an enhanced alternative dispute resolution process; establish an integrated public complaint intake system with provincial police review agencies, effectively creating a no-wrong-door process for anyone wishing to make a public complaint about police conduct, and a standardized complaint intake process; conduct joint reviews of public complaints with provincial police review agencies; and conduct reviews of specified RCMP activities on the initiative of the chair at the request of the Minister of Public Safety, or at the request of a province that contracts for RCMP services.

On this last point it is important to note that the ability to conduct such strategic, forward-looking analysis of RCMP activities will allow the commission to assist the RCMP in pre-empting potential problems. The goal is to reduce or avoid incidents of police conduct that could give rise to public complaints, and by consequence, lead to calls for lengthy and costly public examinations, which add to the cost of police service delivery.

As front-line policing services continuously adapt to the complexities of public safety and security in today's global reality, so must the strategies and practices of the bodies that oversee their activities.

I recently attended the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement meeting in Salt Lake City. This is an organization that brings together individuals and agencies working to establish or improve oversight of police officers in the United States. I was struck by how advanced our oversight regime is in Canada when compared to systems in place in most U.S. jurisdictions. There appears to be little consistency from one area to the next in terms of how to approach civilian oversight of the police, or on what the accountability, framework, and standards should be. Civilian oversight of law enforcement in the U.S. seems to be largely left in the domain of municipal governments, some of which place little emphasis on it. The contrast to the Canadian experience is quite striking.

I am pleased to inform you today that the CPC has just completed two days of meetings with the heads of police-review agencies and special investigations units from every province. We focused on how we can work together to implement and make the best use of the new authorities set out in Bill C-42. Together we have laid the foundation for a more coordinated and collaborative community of practice. By leveraging each other's experience and resources and by streamlining our practices, we will be able to provide a coordinated oversight regime that effectively addresses police conduct and accountability issues coast to coast.

I look forward to continuing to contribute to a trusted, accountable, and economically viable RCMP.

I am happy to expand on these points with you and respond to any questions you may have.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House did attend His Excellency the Governor General in the Senate chamber, His Excellency was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to certain bills:

C-321, An Act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act (library materials)—Chapter 10, 2013.

C-37, An Act to amend the Criminal Code—Chapter 11, 2013.

C-383, An Act to amend the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act and the International River Improvements Act—Chapter 12, 2013.

S-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code—Chapter 13, 2013.

C-47, An Act to enact the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act and the Northwest Territories Surface Rights Board Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts —Chapter 14, 2013.

C-309, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (concealment of identity)—Chapter 15, 2013.

C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act—Chapter 16, 2013.

S-213, An Act respecting a national day of remembrance to honour Canadian veterans of the Korean War—Chapter 17, 2013.

C-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts—Chapter 18, 2013.

S-209, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (prize fights)—Chapter 19, 2013.

S-2, An Act respecting family homes situated on First Nation reserves and matrimonial interests or rights in or to structures and lands situated on those reserves—Chapter 20, 2013.

S-8, An Act respecting the safety of drinking water on First Nation lands—Chapter 21, 2013.

C-63, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2014—Chapter 22, 2013.

C-64, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2014—Chapter 23, 2013.

C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts—Chapter 24, 2013.

C-62, An Act to give effect to the Yale First Nation Final Agreement and to make consequential amendments to other Acts—Chapter 25, 2013.

S-14, An Act to amend the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act—Chapter 26, 2013.

S-17, An Act to implement conventions, protocols, agreements and a supplementary convention, concluded between Canada and Namibia, Serbia, Poland, Hong Kong, Luxembourg and Switzerland, for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes—Chapter 27, 2013.

S-15, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to the Canada Shipping Act, 2001—Chapter 28, 2013.

It being 4:24 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, September 16, 2013, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 4:24 p.m.)

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Could I take one quick moment? Professor, after your previous comments I think you would agree that Bill C-42 is needed to modernize the RCMP in terms of human resources.

I don't know if you're familiar with the bill and have had a chance, but could you comment on the bill, not only what it provides in modernizing human resources management but even oversight because we can't let that.... I think we all recognize that, but we're moving in the direction to give the RCMP the tools they need to change that culture, and the Liberals supported it as well.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is once again showing that he is living beyond his means, intellectually speaking.

He knows full well that Bill C-42 does not go far enough. The RCMP needs a change in culture, from the bottom straight up to the top. The band-aid solutions proposed by the minister are not enough to restore the public trust.

Why are the Conservatives opposing the idea that the commissioner no longer be accountable to the minister? Why categorically oppose the principle of civil governance at the RCMP?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we heard from witness after witness that Bill C-42 is not enough to put an end to sexual harassment in the RCMP and the government knows that. The RCMP members will not feel comfortable coming forward, especially when other complaints are being questioned publicly and in the media.

Public confidence in the RCMP must be restored, but Canadians need to see change. Will the minister show leadership and establish an out-of-court process to resolve these very serious harassment complaints?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, we take the issue of harassment within the RCMP, and specifically sexual harassment, very seriously. That is why our government introduced Bill C-42, the enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police accountability act, to, among other things, modernize and speed up the process whereby complaints like this can be handled.

Sadly, the NDP opposed this important piece of legislation, which was supported by police organizations, by civil liberties within B.C. and by justice ministers across the country. The New Democrats speak about accountability. They speak about stopping sexual harassment, but do nothing.

Safer Witnesses Act

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can say one thing. Bill C-42, an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, added approximately $10 million to the RCMP. There are additional funds flowing to the RCMP on a global scale. We will certainly have to take a look at how the program operates in the future to make sure there are proper resources. The important thing about the legislation is the efficacy of it and what it would do to protect witnesses. I am pleased to have the support of the NDP on this particular piece of legislation.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, ensuring that all Canadians have safe communities in which to live has been a priority for our government since taking office. Our government has undertaken numerous initiatives to ensure the safety of Canadians. For example, our government is following through on its commitment to give the RCMP the tools it needs to enhance public confidence and increase accountability to its members and Canadians. This is apparent through our support for Bill C-42, the enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police accountability act. This legislation would enable the RCMP to continue its ongoing transformation toward a strong and vibrant national police force that Canadians will continue to believe in and value.

The enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police accountability act would help the RCMP remain accountable and relevant now and in the future. First, this act would create a modern, independent civilian review and complaints commission for the RCMP which would strengthen civilian oversight. Second, investigations of serious incidents, such as death or serious injury involving RCMP members, would be more transparent and accountable to the public through the implementation of a new framework. Third, the act would modernize processes with respect to discipline, grievance and human resources management for RCMP members, because it would put in place mechanisms to prevent, address and correct performance and conduct issues fairly and in a timely manner. These changes would help address concerns that have been raised by both the Canadian public and RCMP members themselves.

Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act, is another important legislative change that would support the work of our police and ensure that we meet our commitments to Canadians. Witness protection programs offer protection, sometimes including new identities for certain individuals whose testimony or co-operation is vital to the success of law enforcement operations. In Canada, the RCMP administers the federal witness protection program, which was officially established in 1996 with the passage of the Witness Protection Program Act. Through the federal witness protection program, the RCMP can provide emergency protection in the form of permanent relocation and secure identity changes for witnesses under threat.

The legislation governing the federal witness protection program, however, has not been substantially changed since 1996, when it first came into force. This has posed challenges for the RCMP, who must contend with the constantly changing nature of organized crime. The safer witnesses act would help strengthen the current federal witness protection program and thus support the RCMP in effectively combating crime, particularly organized crime. Bill C-51 would also help protect individuals, including RCMP members and other law enforcement officers and civilians involved in administering and delivering witness protection.

Disclosing information about individuals in the federal witness protection program is prohibited by the Witness Protection Program Act. Bill C-51 would expands on this by also prohibiting the disclosure of information about individuals who provide or assist in providing protection for witnesses as well as how the program operates. Under Bill C-51, this prohibition would extend to both the federal and designated provincial programs. Bill C-51 would also positively impact the provision of protection by promoting greater integration between federal and provincial witness protection programs.

Under the current legislation, if an individual in a provincial witness protection program requires a secure identity change, he or she must be temporarily transferred into a federal witness protection program so that the RCMP can obtain the appropriate documents. This may introduce delays in the process. The changes proposed by Bill C-51 would allow provincial and territorial governments to request that their programs be designated under the federal witness protection program act. This one-time designation would mean that the witness in the witness protection program could receive a secure identity change without needing to be admitted into the federal one. These reforms would support the provision of protection at all levels by streamlining the process to obtain secure federal documents for these purposes.

Another change proposed by Bill C-51 responds in part to a recommendation made in the final report of the Air India inquiry. The legislation proposes to expand the categories of witnesses who may be admitted to the witness protection program to include persons who assist federal departments, agencies or services that have a national security, national defence or public safety mandate and who may require protection as a result.

More organizations would also be able to refer candidates. Examples of such organizations are the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the Department of National Defence. Currently, referrals are only accepted from law enforcement and international courts or tribunals.

The RCMP has administered the witness protection program for the last 15 years, during which time it has gained significant experience and insight into factors that make for a successful witness protection program. Bill C-51 would build on this experience and address a number of operational issues that the RCMP has experienced.

For example, Bill C-51 would clarify the process for voluntary termination from the federal program. It would also extend the amount of time emergency protection might be provided to candidates being considered for admission into the federal program. Emergency protection would be increased from the current 90 days to a maximum of 180 days.

In addition to these changes proposed by Bill C-51, the RCMP is currently taking measures to enhance the federal witness protection program, including incorporating psychological assessments of candidates and counselling for protectees and their families, incorporating risk-management principles into the admission process, enhancing training for witness handlers and administrators, creating a database that would better inform program design and, lastly, offering the services of legal counsel to all candidates being considered for admission into the federal program.

The RCMP would also continue to use the existing seven criteria outlined in the act to assess whether to admit an individual into the program, including the risk to the witness, the danger to the community if the person were to be admitted into the program, the nature of the inquiry and the importance of the witness in the matter, the value of information and evidence to be given by a witness, the likelihood that the witness can adjust to the program, the cost of maintaining a witness in the program, alternate methods of protection and other factors deemed by the commissioner to be relevant.

Our government has been quite clear that one of our top priorities is to keep our streets and communities safe and to support families, as outlined by the Prime Minister. Our plan involves tackling crime, supporting victims' rights and promoting a fair and efficient justice system.

Today, our government builds on the success of the last seven years and would provide the RCMP with the tools it needs to do its job more effectively.

This and other legislation would ensure that we have a fully accountable national police force that will continue to fulfill its role to protect Canadians here at home and abroad.

For that reason, I urge all members to support this legislation and work toward ensuring it is passed in an expeditious manner.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure this evening to speak to the safer witnesses act. As members may know by now, it is a product of extensive input from knowledgeable parties across the country. Indeed, I am pleased to note that the proposed legislation has earned plaudits from several provinces and law enforcement agencies. This positive reaction speaks volumes about the thoroughness and timeliness of Bill C-51.

Members may recall that in March 2008, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security produced a review of the witness protection program. The government responded in July of that year. The review was certainly a key reference document for the policymakers who developed Bill C-51.

For my part in today's debate, I would like to identify how the proposed legislation responds to the review's nine recommendations.

The committee heard from many witnesses who stated unequivocally that the federal witness protection program was an essential tool in the fight against serious crime, organized crime and terrorism. Nevertheless, witnesses had some concerns, including four recommendations to promote greater fairness and efficiency in the management of the program.

First, the committee recommended moving the witness protection program out of the RCMP's hands and into an independent office within the Department of Justice. Through its own consultations, this government confirmed that the RCMP should continue to manage the witness protection program. For one, the justice department simply does not have the expertise to protect witnesses or deliver the programs; it is not what it does. Moreover, simply the physical moving of the administration of the program to justice could create potential security risks.

This government is embracing the intent of this recommendation, which is to ensure objectivity of witness protection matters. The RCMP is developing a reporting structure that separates its investigative and protective functions.

Second, to ensure a good fit between participants and the program, the committee recommended automatic psychological assessments of candidates over the age of 18, including family members. The government concurs that not everyone is a good candidate for the witness protection program. The RCMP now has psychologists who assess candidates and offer counselling to both candidates and protectees. I would stress the word “offer” because the decision to accept counselling belongs to candidates and protectees and is not imposed upon them.

The third recommendation is of a similar nature. The committee proposed to automatically offer legal counsel for candidates during negotiations for entry into the witness protection program. The RCMP continues to offer legal counsel to both candidates and protectees. Again, however, legal counsel is offered rather than imposed.

In its fourth recommendation, to improve fairness and efficiency in the witness protection program, the committee called upon the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, or CPC, to handle complaints from candidates and protectees as required. The government agrees with the intent of this recommendation and, as all hon. members know, we are currently working to pass Bill C-42, the enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police accountability act.

Under that legislation, the CPC would be replaced by a new civilian review and complaints commission. Amendments to the RCMP Act under Bill C-42, would give this new civilian oversight body limited and secure access to information about protectees.

The committee's fifth and sixth recommendations fall under the theme of facilitating access to the witness protection program. The committee called for federal, provincial and territorial ministers for justice and public safety to develop a funding agreement for participation in the witness protection program. It is believed that this recommendation was predicated on a national witness protection program with minimum national standards. Following consultations again, the government did not accept this recommendation. There is no funding in the fiscal framework to support such an agreement.

The sixth recommendation also touches on relationships between and among jurisdictions. It is recommended that the body responsible for the witness protection program enter into agreements with provincial and territorial governments. The goal would be to accelerate the processing of witness protection files.

The government recognizes that in some instances, it can take too long to process secure identity changes for provincial witnesses. That is why it has introduced amendments through Bill C-51 to improve the process, and as such, those proposed agreements are no longer necessary.

The committee's seventh recommendation revolved around establishing minimum standards for the witness protection program. The government considered this idea, but as I indicated earlier, the provinces objected, because the administration of justice falls within their jurisdiction, and national standards were reviewed as an encroachment. Consequently, the government did not accept this recommendation.

The final two recommendations related to promoting transparency within the witness protection program. The committee suggested that independent research into witness protection be permitted and encouraged. I am pleased to say that Public Safety Canada has already undertaken some comparative research. RCMP psychologists may also pursue limited secure research.

While the government agrees on the value of research, it sounds a note of warning. Researchers and risk management experts must take the necessary precautions to maintain the privacy and security of protectees and the program. They must not let their quest for knowledge trump concerns about the release of information.

Finally, the committee recommended more and better information in the annual report of the witness protection program. Since the release of the committee's review, the annual report has, in fact, been enhanced to account more thoroughly for expenses. The Minister of Public Safety reserves the right to request more information at any time, of course.

In summary, the government appreciates the hard work of the standing committee in preparing its review of the witness protection program.

The government consulted stakeholders about nine recommendations and gave them serious consideration in the preparation of Bill C-51. Indeed, most recommendations have found direct or indirect expression in the bill in changes to the RCMP Act or administratively within the federal program.

Through its own extensive consultations, the government believes that it has developed a solid and coherent approach to improving the witness protection program. Given the positive response so far from key stakeholders, I am convinced that Bill C-51 and administrative changes would continue to achieve the intent of the committee's recommendations in the areas of fairness and efficiency, greater access and transparency.

I thus invite all hon. members to join me in supporting Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the opportunity to ask a question.

My colleague certainly has raised a lot of points that I was unaware of, particularly the 2008 review, the four recommendations and how much of what is in both this bill but also in Bill C-42, another fine piece of legislation, addresses many of those concerns.

We have heard about working along with the provinces to see further integration between their programs and the national program. As a government, we are respecting the provinces' jurisdiction, and that is a positive benefit.

There are a lot of positive aspects to the bill. What other areas does the member feel are important in the government's approach to this, as well as to other legislation, to help keep Canadians safe?

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to hear the strong support for Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act, from all sides of the House.

As we continue our discussion today of the safer witnesses act, it is important to take a step back and look at where these proposed changes stem from. As hon. members have heard, there have been two major reports in the last four years containing recommendations to enhance the federal witness protection program. The first of these reports was the result of a study conducted by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security in 2008. That committee put forward nine recommendations on how to enhance the federal program.

Since that time, and through our extensive consultations with our federal partners and provincial stakeholders, our government has committed to moving ahead with legislative amendments, administrative changes within the RCMP and the implementation of measures that would enhance the protection of witnesses in the federal program. The 2008 report included a number of good recommendations that have provided momentum for change and, in the case of one recommendation, is directly addressed in our current legislation, Bill C-51.

Today I would like to take a look at those recommendations as I think they add valuable perspective on how we have arrived at today's legislation. The committee's recommendations fell under four thematic areas, the first of which was to promote fair and efficient management of the federal program. Within this theme, our government has supported three of the four recommendations.

First let us look at the one we did not support, the first recommendation. This recommendation called for the creation of an independent office within the Department of Justice that would be entrusted to administer the federal witness protection program. This issue has been raised again recently in committee and it is important to address it again.

In our consultations with the provinces and federal partners, we found that in fact the best option was for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to continue to manage the federal program. As the Minister of Public Safety has commented, the fact is that the Department of Justice does not have the expertise to run a program to protect witnesses and the actual transfer of the program for the department would create potential security risks.

We agreed, however, with the intent of this recommendation, namely that there should be a clear distinction between the investigative and protective functions to ensure the objectivity of witness protection measures. These concerns are being addressed through changes in their reporting structures within the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

I mentioned that our government supported three of the four recommendations under this theme of fair and efficient management. We agreed that psychological assessments and counselling of candidates over the age of 18, as well as their family members, was a critical step in the witness protection process. As such, the RCMP has begun to engage psychologists to conduct assessments and to offer counselling to candidates for the federal program. Once they are admitted into the program, it is the intent that these services will be offered to both protectees and their families.

We support in principle the recommendation that the federal program should offer potential candidates the aid of legal counsel with an appropriate security clearance during the negotiation of the candidate's admission to the program. Indeed, all the candidates considered for the federal program, as well as the protectees under the federal program, are offered the services of legal counsel.

I say our government agreed in principle because we did not support the suggestion that the federal government should cover all legal fees as a regular course of business. Rather, these are made on a case-by-case basis. This is because there are some cases where providing legal counsel could be seen as a conflict of interest as the government itself may become the subject of legal action on the part of candidates or protectees. We believe our approach is an appropriate use of public funds.

Finally, our government also agreed with the recommendation that candidates and protectees of the federal program must have a proper independent body to which they could submit formal complaints about RCMP conduct, as needed. This calls for an enhanced complaints review body is addressed in Bill C-42, legislation our government recently introduced to modernize the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Bill C-42 would create a new civilian review and complaints commission that would have access to all the necessary documents required to effectively review complaints by federal protectees regarding RCMP conduct.

Under a second theme, that of facilitating access to the federal witness protection program, the committee made two recommendations in 2008. The first was to develop a shared funding agreement among the federal, provincial and municipal governments for witness protection. The second was to allow provinces and territories to work directly with federal departments for processing secure identity changes.

For reasons of fiscal restraint and the need to keep the process secure, our government could not support a permanent funding arrangement for provincial programs.

Bill C-51 would improve integration between the provincial and federal witness protection programs, as well as allow designated provincial programs to obtain secure identity changes for their protectees without having to admit them into the federal program.

The third thematic area of recommendation was to establish minimum standards across the board for all Canadian witness protection programs. The federal government has no plans to overstep its jurisdictional boundaries by imposing national standards upon provincial witness protection programs. Furthermore, the provinces themselves have made it clear that they would object to such federal encroachment on their authority. Therefore, we could not support that recommendation.

Finally, the committee's report included two recommendations under the theme of promoting transparency, as much as could be done, considering the confidential nature of the witness protection program. Namely, it recommended that more independent research should be conducted on the effectiveness of the federal witness protection program and that the federal program's annual report should be enhanced to give a clearer picture of how the program works.

Research has already been conducted on the federal program and the RCMP is looking into creating a database that would enhance the federal program.

As to the final recommendation, the annual report was modified and enhanced in 2008 to provide Canadians with a more precise picture of the program.

The safer witnesses act is a strong and effective legislation that addresses many of the recommendations made by the standing committee, as well as issues raised by stakeholders. Strong witness protection programs are invaluable to investigations and court proceedings.

Particularly when we are dealing with gang activity, it is critical that witnesses feel safe coming forward with information. It is also important to consider the safety of our front line law enforcement personnel. Mr. Stamatakis, president of the Canadian Police Association, said:

The Canadian Police Association strongly believes that this proposed legislation will enhance the safety and security of front-line law enforcement personnel who are engaged in protective duties. Unfortunately, the disclosure of identifying details can present a real danger to police personnel themselves as well as their families, and we appreciate the steps being taken today by the government of Canada to address those concerns. On behalf of the over 50,000 law enforcement personnel that we represent across Canada, we ask that Parliament quickly move to adopt this Bill.

Too often, we forget the fact that our men and women who put themselves in harm's way are the ones who are really bearing the brunt of a lot of the things that we ask them to do. It is important that we have these measures in place to protect them.

In speaking about his city's experience, Toronto police chief William Blair said:

—the fear caused by intimidation and the threat of retaliation in gang investigations. Witnesses with valuable information are deterred from coming forward.

As such, Mr. Blair has joined other key stakeholders in supporting this bill as a valuable step in protecting public safety. I ask all hon. members to do the same.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for acknowledging that he was indeed laughing. When we were talking about something this serious, laughter is not what is needed. Real work and real focus is what is required.

I am very proud of the fact that our government has increased funding to police officers. We have the police officer recruitment fund. We invested $400 million across the country. As well, we are just seeing Bill C-42 passed, getting through the Senate, no thanks to the opposition that voted against it, which will help provide, among other important things, more funding to the RCMP.

In terms of the witness protection program, it is funny how the NDP do not like the answer. When the NDP members asked witnesses directly if they needed more money, the witnesses said no, but they do not want to believe it. They would rather take taxpayer dollars and spend them frivolously instead of spending them where they are required.

If we are told by the RCMP and by the witness protection program organization that they do not need funding, I for one believe them. It is really disappointing that the member, who was at those committee meetings, is saying that those witnesses were not telling the truth.

I believed those witnesses when they told us that this is good legislation. In fact, I will read what Tom Stamatakis, president of Canadian Police Association had to say. He said:

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, [this]...legislation...will help better coordinate...[it will] promote at least some efficiencies in a system that is badly in need of reform....the Canadian Police Association supports the adoption of the bill.

We heard from the RCMP that it will not be an additional cost.

Let us get this passed. Those members said they supported it. They introduced no amendments. They support the spirit. They support the legislation. Let us quit playing games and get this passed.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Thank you.

I was looking back into my notes from when Commissioner Paulson spoke to us. Specifically, I wanted to ask you about Bill C-42, the Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, which passed third reading in March.

Commissioner Paulson did say he thought this legislation would help the RCMP have the tools it needed. Would you agree with that?

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for interrupting my colleague just at the beginning of his speech on the justification for the motion that he has just presented to the House, but we have a point of order that we need to raise because I think it establishes a couple of important things for you, as Speaker, to determine before we get into the context and the particulars of this motion.

Specifically, I will be citing Standing Order 13, which says:

Whenever the Speaker is of the opinion that a motion offered to the House is contrary to the rules and privileges of Parliament, the Speaker shall apprise the House thereof immediately, before putting the question thereon, and quote the Standing Order or authority applicable to the case.

This is the standing order that we cite, because we have looked at the motion the government has presented here today with some notice given last week.

This motion goes against the Standing Orders and certainly the spirit of Parliament. The government is not allowed to break the rules of Parliament that protect the rights of the minority, the opposition and all members of the House of Commons who have to do their jobs for the people they represent. This motion is very clearly contrary to the existing Standing Orders.

I have some good examples to illustrate this. In my opinion, there is no urgency that would justify the government's heavy-handed tactics to prevent members from holding a reasonable debate on its agenda. I say “agenda”, but for a long time now it has been difficult to pin down what this government's agenda is exactly. This is nothing new.

The motion comes to us today at a difficult time, but just because the government held a brief caucus meeting and is facing numerous problems and a few scandals, it is not justified in violating the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. No one would accept those excuses. There is no historical basis for the government to use the Standing Orders in this way. That does not work.

There are a few important things we need to point out. One is that it behooves us to have some explanation of what this motion actually does. For those of us who do not intimately follow the rules and history of Parliament, it can be quite confusing not in terms of the intention of what the government has read but certainly in the implications. It needs some translation, not French to English or English to French, but translation as to what it actually means for the House of Commons. That is why we believe a point of order exists for this motion.

The motion essentially would immediately begin something that would ordinarily begin in a couple of weeks, which is for the House to sit until midnight to review legislation. This is somewhat ironic from a government that has a bad history with respect to moving legislation correctly through the process and allowing us to do our work, which is what we are here to do on behalf of Canadians.

I am not alone in seeing that the government has shown the intention of having some urgency with respect to 23 bills, 14 of which have not even been introduced since the last election. Suddenly there is great urgency, when in fact it is the government that has set the agenda. The urgency is so great that it has to fundamentally change the rules of how we conduct ourselves in this place in response to an urgency that did not exist until this moment.

One has to question the need. Why the panic? Why now, and why over these pieces of legislation? Are they crucial to Canada's economic well-being? Is it to restore the social safety net that the government has brutalized over the last number of years? What is the panic and what is the urgency?

Context sets everything in politics, and the context that the government exists under right now is quite telling. Every time I have had to stand in this place raising points of order and countering the closure and time allocation motions that the government uses, I am often stating and citing that this is a new low standard for Parliament. I have thought at times that there was not much more it could do to this place to further erode the confidence of Canadians or further erode the opportunity for members of Parliament to speak, yet it has again invented something new, and here we are today debating that motion.

That is why we believe that Standing Order 13 needs to be called. It is because it is very clear that when a motion is moved that is contrary to the rules and privileges of Parliament—which is what I would underline, as it is the important part—the Speaker must involve himself or herself in the debate and ask that the debate no longer proceed.

The privileges of members of Parliament are not the privileges that are being talked about by our friends down the hall to falsely claim money that did not exist or privileges of limo rides and trips around the world. The privileges of Parliament that speak constitutionally to the need for Parliament are that members of Parliament have the opportunity to scrutinized and debate government bills.

Just before the riding week, we saw the government introduce another time allocation on a bill that had received exactly 60 minutes of debate. Somehow the Conservatives felt that had exhausted the conversation on a bill they had sat on for years, and suddenly the panic was on. We are seeing this pattern again and again with a government that is facing more scandal.

I was looking through the news today. Every morning I start my day with the news and we consider what we should ask the government in question period. There are some days when the focus can be difficult and one may not be sure what the most important issue of the day is. However, the challenge for us today as the official opposition is that, as there are so many scandals on so many fronts, how do we address them all within the short time we have during question period or in debate on bills.

I listened to my friend for Langley, who has been somewhat in the news of late on his attempt to speak on issues he felt were important to his constituents. We saw him move a new private member's bill today. He withdrew the former bill, and now he is moving one again. The New Democrats will support the bill going to committee for study because we think there are some options and availability for us to look at the legislation and do our job.

Whether it is muzzling of their own MPs and the Conservatives' attempt to muzzle all MPs in the House of Commons, or using private members' bills to avoid the scrutiny that is applied to government legislation, and one important piece of that scrutiny is the charter defence of the legislation and so, in a sense, the Conservatives are using the back door to get government legislation through and move their agenda in another way, or the omnibus legislation, which has received so much controversy in Canada as the government has increasingly abused the use of omnibus legislation, or the F-35 fiasco, or the recent Auditor General's report, or the former parliamentary budget officer who was under much abuse and the new Parliamentary Budget Officer who has asked for the same things he did, or infamously, prorogation, time and time again the pattern is the same. The government has complete disdain for the House.

Whether it be the scandals in the Senate, or the China FIPA accord, or the recent problems with the Prime Minister's former chief of staff, or the employment insurance scandals, or the $3 billion missing, or the 300,000 jobs that have not been replaced, the government keeps trying to avoid proper scrutiny out of embarrassment. However, the House of Commons exists for one thing and one thing alone, which is to hold the government to account.

The government will make some claims that the urgency right now is because there has not been enough progress on legislation. Therefore, the Conservatives have to hit the panic button and would have the House sit until midnight, which has consequences beyond just being a late night, and I will get into those consequences in a moment because they support our notion that it infringes upon the entitlements of members of Parliament to debate legislation properly.

The Conservatives' record shows, and this is not speculation or conspiracy, that when they ram legislation through, they more often than not get it wrong. That is not just expensive for the process of law making, but it is expensive for Canadians. These things often end up in court costing millions and millions of dollars and with victims of their own making. The scandal that exists in the Senate is absolutely one of their own making. The Prime Minister can point the finger where he likes, but he appointed those senators.

Specific to the point of order I am raising, this motion would lower the amount of scrutiny paid to legislation. It would allow the government extended sittings, which are coming in the second week of June anyway, as the Standing Orders currently exist, to allow the government to do that, but the Conservatives want to move the clock up and have more legislation rammed through the House.

Also, as you would know, Mr. Speaker, the order of our day includes concurrence reports from committee, which allow the House to debate something that happened in committee which can sometimes be very critical, and many are moved from all sides. However, they would not get started until midnight under the Conservatives' new rules. Therefore, we would study and give scrutiny on what happened at committee from midnight until two or three o'clock in the morning.

As well, emergency debates would not start until midnight. Just recently we had a debate, Mr. Speaker, that your office agreed to allow happen, which was quite important to those implicated. We were talking about peace and war and Canada's role in the world. It was a critical emergency debate that certainly went into the night. However, the idea is that we would take emergency debates that the Speaker's office and members of Parliament felt were important and start them at midnight and somehow they would be of the same quality as those started at seven o'clock in the evening.

The scrutiny of legislation has become much less important than the government moving its agenda through, which is an infringement on our privilege as members of Parliament. The Conservative's so-called urgency, their panic, is not a justification for overriding the privileges that members of Parliament hold dear.

As for progress, just recently we moved the nuclear terrorism bill through, Bill S-9.

We also had much debate but an improvement on Bill C-15, the military justice bill, to better serve our men and women in the Forces. The original drafting was bad. The Conservatives wanted to force it forward and we resisted. My friend from St. John's worked hard and got an amendment through that would help those in the military who found themselves in front of a tribunal.

We have the divorce in civil marriages act, which has been sitting and sitting. It would allow people in same-sex marriages to file for and seek divorce. All we have offered to the government is one vote and one speaker each. The government refuses to bring the bill forward and I suspect it is because it would require a vote. It is a shame when a government resists the idea that a vote would be a good thing for members of Parliament to declare their intentions on, certainly something as important as civil liberties and rights for gay men and women.

I mentioned earlier why, in the infringement of this privilege, it causes great harm and distress not just to Parliament but to the country.

I asked my team to pull up the list of bills that were so badly written that they had to be either withdrawn or completely rewritten at committee and even in the Senate which, God knows, is a terrible strategy for any legislation.

There was the infamous or famous Bill C-30, the Internet snooping bill, which the Minister of Public Safety said something to the effect that either people were with the government or they were with child pornographers, which may be an example of the worst framing in Canadian political history. There has probably been worse, but that was pretty bad. The Conservatives had to kill the bill.

We have also seen Bill C-10, Bill C-31, Bill C-38 and Bill C-42, all of these bills were so badly written that oftentimes the government had to amend them after having voted for them. After saying they were perfect and ramming them through, invoking closure and shutting down debate, the Conservatives got to committee and heard from people who actually understood the issue and realized the law they had written would be illegal and would not work or fix the problem that was identified, and so they had to rewrite it. That is the point of Parliament. That is the point of the work we do.

We have also seen bills that have been challenged at great expense before the courts. Former Bill C-2, the tackling violent crime act, with huge sections of the government's main anti-crime agenda, was challenged and defeated in court.

Bill C-38, arbitrarily eliminating backlog for skilled workers, was challenged and defeated.

Bill C-7, Senate term limits, was after years just now deferred to the Supreme Court. It is called “kicking it down the road”.

Also, there are Bill C-6, Bill C-33 and others, and there are those that are being crafted and debated right now that are going to have serious problems.

The essential thrust of our intention is in identifying the rules that govern us, and specifically Standing Order 13. The government has time and again talked about accountability before the Canadian people and talked about doing things better than its predecessors in the Liberal Party, the government that became so arrogant and so unaccountable to Canadians that the Conservatives threw it out of office. History repeats itself if one does not learn true lessons from history.

As I mentioned, Standing Order 27(1) already exists, and it allows the government to do exactly what we are talking about, but not starting until the last 10 sitting days. The Conservatives have said that there is so much on their so-called agenda that they have to do this early, allowing for less scrutiny, allowing for emergency debates to start at midnight, allowing for concurrence debates that come from committees to start at midnight and go until two, three or four o'clock in the morning.

This is contrary to the work of parliamentarians. If the Conservatives are in such a rush, why do they not negotiate? Why do they not actually come to the table and do what parliamentarians have done throughout time, which is offer the to and fro of any proper negotiation between reasonable people?

We have moved legislation forward. My friend across the way was moving an important motion commemorating war heroes. We worked with that member and other members to ensure the bill, which came from the Senate, made it through speedy passage.

Parliament can work if the Conservatives let it work, but it cannot work if they keep abusing it. Canadians continue to lose faith and trust in the vigour of our work and the ability to hold government to account. We see it time and again, and I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you have as well, in talking to constituents who say that they are not sure what goes on here anymore, that it just seems like government will not answer questions, that everyday they ask sincere and thoughtful questions and the Conservatives do not answer. Bills get shut down with motions of closure.

Let us look at the current government's record.

Thirty-three times, the Conservatives have moved allocation on legislation, an all-time high for any government in Canadian history. Through war and peace, through good and bad, no government has shut down debate in Parliaments more than the current one.

Ninety-nine point three per cent of all amendments moved by the opposition have been rejected by the government. Let us take a look at that stat for a moment. That suggests that virtually 100% of the time, the government has been perfectly right on the legislation it moves. All the testimony from witnesses and experts, comments from average Canadians, when moving amendments to the legislation before us, 99.3% of the time the government rejects it out of hand. It ends up in court. It ends up not doing what it was meant to do.

Ten Conservative MPs have never spoken to legislation at all. I will note one in particular. The Minister of Finance, who has not bothered to speak to his own bills, including the omnibus legislation, Bill C-38 and Bill C-45, which caused so much controversy. He did not bother to stand and justify his actions. I find it deplorable and it is not just me, Canadians as well, increasingly so.

This is my final argument. We cannot allow this abuse to continue. This pattern has consequences, not just for what happens here today or tomorrow, but in the days, weeks, months and years to come and the Parliaments to come. If we keep allowing for and not standing up in opposition to bad ideas and draconian measures, we in a sense condone them.

We say that Parliament should become less irrelevant. We think that is wrong. We think what the government is doing is fundamentally wrong. It is not right and left; it is right and wrong. When the government is wrong in its treatment and abuse of Canada's Parliament, that affects all Canadians, whatever their political persuasion. We built this place out of bricks and mortar to do one thing: to allow the voice of Canadians to be represented, to speak on behalf of those who did not have a voice and to hold the government of the day to account. Lord knows the government needs that more than anything. It needs a little adult supervision from time to time to take some of those suggestions and put a little, as we say, water in its wine.

It has the majority. This is the irony of what the government is doing. In moving more time allocation than any government in history and shutting down debate more than any government in history and using what it is today, it speaks to weakness not strength. The Conservatives have the numbers to move legislation through if they saw fit, but they do not. They move legislation, they say it is an agenda and they hold up a raft of bills.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister must be afraid someone will contradict him. Why else would he prevent the RCMP from speaking freely to parliamentarians?

The officer in question was to testify before the Senate about Bill C-42, which, in the opinion of a number of officers and the NDP, should have been rewritten. In addition to rejecting our amendments, the Conservatives are rejecting the evidence of witnesses who might support them. So much for freedom of expression.

Need I remind the minister that it is his responsibility to listen to criticism in order to implement the best public policies and not to muzzle those who might contradict him?

Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to get up and to follow my colleague today in raising some of the concerns we have with Bill C-15.

It seems the longer we are here in the House, the more we see a variety of things happening. My colleague from Malpeque mentioned that now, in order to speak to members of the RCMP, MPs must have permission from the minister. I have had many conversations with the RCMP on the issue of sexual assault and harassment in the RCMP in the last year or so. That announcement just helps to bring forward more of these issues about a balance of justice and fairness in the system for everybody, whether they are in the military or a private citizen. We all need to be very much concerned when the politics get too far into the issues of policing or justice. Hence, the reason that I am on my feet and commenting on Bill C-15, which is an act to amend the National Defence Act.

I will read a bit of the information, so that we and anybody who is watching will know why we are raising some issues on something that we are not 100% against and at one point we may have even supported. It will put this in the context of so many other things that seem to be heading in a direction where we are going to politicize the police force the same way that everything that the Government of Canada puts its hands on is politicized. We need to flag these issues, so that we all are thinking them through very carefully. Therefore, I offer a bit of a summary on Bill C-15 and what it is about.

Bill C-15 would “(a) provide for security of tenure for military judges until [they reach the age of 60];...”, which is the retirement age for military judges, contrary to all other Canadian citizens who would have to wait until they are 67 to get their pensions. They could be removed for cause on the recommendations of an inquiry committee, or through resignation. It would also “(b) [allow for] the appointment of part-time military judges;” and outlining sentencing “...objectives and principles;”.... The bill would “(d) provide for [new] sentencing options, including absolute discharges, intermittent sentences and restitution [orders];...”.

As my colleague across the hall mentioned, there are some things in here that are supportable. Unfortunately, the question is whether there would be a true balance of justice in all aspects of it. Like many things that are introduced into this House, it does not necessarily qualify on many avenues. There are some parts of it that would be good, but there are always so many other parts in legislation brought forward by the government that are not good. We do not just adapt something because, while it has three good parts in it, the rest of it is no good. Because of that we have to support it? No. If it is not good in the overall 10 points that need to be examined, then we should not be supporting it.

Bill C-15 would look “...at amending composition of a court martial panel [selections] according to the rank of the accused...”, and it would change “...the name of the Canadian Forces Grievance Board to the Military Grievances External Review Committee”.

That raises another issue. In the RCMP or the military, when the members have a serious grievance, where do they go? In the RCMP, from what we have heard in the sexual harassment hearings, they have to go to their own supervisors. Many times that is the person causing the problem. Or they go to another person above that person, but it is always within the same confines of that same family. For the RCMP in particular, there needs to be an external review board that is 100 yards away from anything to do with the RCMP, that is truly independent and can hear a grievance from anyone who is working for the RCMP. Similarly for the military, there needs to be an arm's-length grievance committee, or a place where members can go and truly get a hearing on their issue. Complaining to their supervisor's friend who is going to keep everything within the same confines, and is not going to want to see anybody pay too big a price for a grievance, really jeopardizes justice in this country. Certainly, from what I have heard from the hearings, there is a need for a union to represent many of the officers.

If they want to do things right, then there has to be an arm's-length committee, as many of the police services across Canada have. It is an external body, where people can go with a serious complaint and get a true hearing. It is not just “passing the buck” from one to another; then people end up not getting true justice. One of the things that we hear a lot about in the Liberal Party, as I think all elected members of Parliament do, is justice. Justice does not only need to be done, it needs to be seen to be done. The perception out there is that is not way it is necessarily happening.

As Liberals, we understand the need to reform the Canadian court martial system to ensure that it remains effective, fair and transparent. Canada has been the leader in so many areas when it comes to human rights, when it comes to the charter, and when it comes to issues of fairness, of ensuring that what we do in Canada is balanced and fair and respectful of everybody's rights. More and more we are having to question whether that is exactly what is happening or not. We believe, as Canadian citizens and as Liberals, that people who decide to join the Canadian Forces should not thereby lose part of their rights before the courts.

Again, we are back into that system. We want to attract more and more young people to a career in the military. We see the men and women who are out there fighting for us and representing us, and we are grateful that they have the courage and the commitment to do this. We want to make sure that they are treated fairly.

Bill C-15 does not answer all those questions. It leaves a lot of questions unanswered. Before we pass Bill C-15, we should make sure we have perfected the bill so that those in the military are not losing their opportunities for a fair and just trial.

The Liberal Party also understands that rights and equality are universal. We talk a lot about that. That really means that it is for everybody. It does not matter who a person is, where they come from or what job they are doing, we would like to think that everybody in Canada is treated fairly and equitably. Without an effective means for an appeal and no recorded proceedings, the current summary trial system is unbalanced and does not represent the basic rights of a Canadian Forces member.

We also do not believe that introducing a criminal record for Canadian Forces members for certain offences is fair and just as a means for pardoning offences, which has recently been removed by the Conservatives. Again, we go back to trying to be fair and balanced, and treating people with respect, making sure that everybody has their role and that they do not violate that.

We also find it problematic that the VCDS can intervene and give direction in military police investigations. The VCDS is also subject to the code of service discipline.

Bill C-15 is in keeping with a lot of Bill C-42 and a lot of other things that continually try to give other people more power rather than making sure that we really have an equitable system that is going to be there to represent everyone, that we are not going to discourage people from joining the service, that we are not going to have people join the military and then leave, speaking very negatively about their experience.

Shifting the power around to different people rather than having an independent body do the review makes us question where we are going with this issue. I met yesterday with a group of people from Venezuela who were upset about the recent election. They were talking about how the government of the day controls everything. These things keep being raised.

I am really concerned that little by little we are losing the things that we value the most here in our own country, that there is an eroding of the power of parliamentarians, and that a real miscarriage of justice is happening.

Combating Terrorism Act

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is pretty remarkable coming from a member on that side of the House, when every time we try to bring forward legislation that supports law enforcement, as is evident today, members vote against it and do not support it.

The fact is that we have increased front-line officers at the border by 26%. However, it is no surprise that when the NDP members do not have a valid argument for their shallow dismissiveness of a very serious threat, they spew inaccurate talking points. It is this government that has time and time again given more resources to law enforcement, whether it is at the border or it is the RCMP, with Bill C-42. There have been legislative changes, whether we are talking about legislative changes to support victims, or in this case, where we are bringing forward legislation that has been asked for by law enforcement across the country who know terrorism is a real threat. They have asked for this legislation, and the members opposite have voted against it.

If NDP members want to argue against the legislation, go ahead. I would be happy to debate any one of them head-to-head on this legislation. Instead, what are we hearing from them? We are hearing that we do not need to do it right now.

Last October, the NDP member for Brome—Missisquoi expressed his reservations for this legislation by saying, “since 2007, nothing has happened in Canada. The country has not been subject to terrorist attacks”. Frankly, that kind of irresponsible head-in-the-sand attitude is not only disappointing, but it is very troubling. I think Canadians will look at the NDP members and look at their reaction.

When they have a chance to support important legislation, they could do one of two things. They could support the legislation or they could stand up and give an informed and intelligent response. However, what we are hearing so far today is pretty shallow, and I would say intellectually bankrupt.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Yes. One of the things that we've struggled with, however, including in recent legislation like Bill C-42 is that in the general references to workplace safety, when there is no direct reference to sexual harassment, it gets lost in the mix. We believe there should be specific discussions around how organizations like your own, with very similar realities, work to put an end to sexual harassment, which is obviously a concern in the RCMP as well.

Just to go back on the question of training, Deputy Chief, obviously there's the recruitment process, but do you do training every so often to bring people up to speed in today's world around sexual harassment?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you.

Again, just to clarify, that funding you referred to is under Bill C-42, which the NDP voted against.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

There's a couple of things I want to touch on really quickly, because of the work we have done on cybersecurity. I can reassure Monsieur Guimont and say that indeed there was no cybersecurity plan prior to our government's implementing it. When Mr. Scarpaleggia drills anybody on how much money is being spent on cybersecurity, we do know that under the Liberals zero dollars were going towards cybersecurity, because they didn't have a plan.

I also want to direct something to Commissioner Paulson. Mr. Rousseau was asking about funding going towards the independent complaints commission. Under Bill C-42, which I know you strongly support, and no thanks to the NDP, but thanks to the Liberals, who did support it, we were able to pass that.... Bill C-42 is actually at the Senate right now. There's $5 million alone that will go towards this complaints commission, this body, as well as an additional $10 million to implement Bill C-42. Is that correct? Is it something that will be helpful?

Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Timmins—James Bay for his struggle on behalf of Canadians and their interest in their privacy rights, in particular with respect to the bills he mentioned, Bill C-12 and Bill C-30.

I cannot speculate on why the government has such callous and obvious disregard for the privacy rights of Canadians. I cannot account for the zealotry of the minister himself and, perhaps as my colleague suggested, the PMO, nor the disregard for the charter, the Canadian Bill of Rights and the other legislation that, frankly, obligates the government to bring forward legislation to the House only after it has been vetted for conformity with the charter.

There is obviously a trend here. I reflect on past speeches I have given and all of these issues ultimately go to accountability. Bill C-42 had the opportunity to provide the House with oversight of the RCMP, and the Conservatives ignored that. They go to Senate omnibus bills and so on and so forth.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you very much.

Justice Major, I do have a question for you, so I hope you can stay a little bit longer, if possible.

I just want to start with Mr. Pecknold, though, regarding the discussion he just had with Mr. Garrison. I think you would agree with me, Mr. Pecknold, that you are talking about two separate issues.

First of all, the cost of policing is something that is front of mind for all of us. In fact, it was our Minister of Public Safety who initiated a conference and brought together leaders in January to discuss the cost of policing. As well, we realize that more investments are needed. That's why we just passed Bill C-42, with an additional $15 million to help support the RCMP and bring greater accountability. Unfortunately, it wasn't supported by everyone in the House.

I think what we want to talk about right now and what I think is important is Bill C-51, and the three major changes we are making to the witness protection program. First, it will actually help the provinces because it will create a more streamlined system whereby identity changes can be made. Second, it will expand the criteria, as recommended by Justice Major. Third, there will be greater protection for those who are under the program and those administering it.

I would think you would agree that there are no actual additional costs. The RCMP has testified to it. There will be no additional costs to municipalities from these changes in Bill C-51.

The House resumed from February 28, consideration of the motion that Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.

Bill C-42—Time Allocation Motion

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to ask the minister a question about shortening the debate on Bill C-42. I found it interesting that the committee spent only a few meetings discussing this bill. The last time the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act was amended, which was several years ago, it took months and months of serious study. I find the seriousness to be lacking this time.

In addition, the minister said at the outset that he was open to amendments because he felt that the bill was worth studying properly and that it might be lacking in some way. The only amendments the Conservatives accepted were their own, and they mainly had to do with correcting spelling mistakes.

Does the minister not feel that we did not have enough time and that we still need more time to debate this extremely important bill? Does he not think it arrogant not to listen to what the opposition has to say on the matter?

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is the 29th time debate in the House has been interrupted and our members' right to speak has been taken away. Democracy is under attack.

The Conservative Party is mastering the art of downplaying the issues we are working on. The minister uses rhetoric about a title, as if our work was about titles, when we work on content.

We have the right to be heard as members. We have the right to go into detail, and we have the right to use all our time. Not all the members of the House have been heard on Bill C-42.

The minister said that this was a waste of time. I am quoting him word for word, if the translation is correct, obviously. He said that it is a waste of time to listen to members.

It is shameful to hear that.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate.

I want to point out that today is the 15th day that Bill C-42 is being debated. That is 15 days. The member is concerned that something is being hidden. If something is being hidden, I do not know what it is. We have certainly been very clear in our position as to what the people of Canada should know and the steps we are taking in respect of the RCMP.

What is the response of the NDP members? Their amendments include deleting the short title of the act, which is enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police accountability act.

Why do we spend time debating that kind of title? What is it about enhancing accountability that the opposition does not want the RCMP to follow?

Bill C-42--Notice of time allocation motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I regret to advise that, with regard to Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts respecting RCMP accountability, no agreement was reached pursuant to Standing Orders 78(1) and 78(2).

As a result, pursuant to Standing Order 78(3), at the next sitting of the House a Minister of the Crown will move to set a specific number of hours or days for consideration of this matter.

Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on Bill C-42, the Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act.

We can see quite clearly, through the work that has been done by our side of the House in exposing it, how difficult it was to get any amendments to this bill and how difficult it was to deal with the real issues that witnesses in front of the committee brought forward. This is a pattern that the Conservative government in its majority has worked on pretty hard. It exists in almost every committee of this House.

While I support the need to modernize the workplace of the RCMP, this bill does not do enough to reach that objective. My colleagues on this side of the House have gone through the process and raised many valid issues and complaints.

As a person from the northern regions of Canada where the RCMP is the only police force, and having lived there all of my life, I see that there is really a requirement in small communities across the north for RCMP officers to have the opportunity to have a very direct relationship with others that they can get hold of in order to deal with the kinds of grievances that may arise in very small detachments. I just do not see that this bill is adequate to deal with that.

Having said that, I want to focus on two proposed new subsections of the act that maybe have not received much attention and that I think are very interesting subsections of the bill. We need to look at subsection 31(1.3) and subsection 31(1.4).

Section 31 of the act sets out when an RCMP member may make a grievance and sets out limitations to when an officer may not make a grievance.

Proposed subsection 31(1.3) reads:

A member is not entitled to present a grievance relating to any action taken under any instruction, direction or regulation given or made by or on behalf of the Government of Canada in the interest of the safety or security of Canada or any state allied or associated with Canada.

In other words, officers who refuse to carry out an unlawful order can be disciplined up to and including dismissal from the force, and they would not be able to complain that they are being punished for refusing to obey the law.

This section could also mean that RCMP officers who blow the whistle on illegal orders would also be subject to discipline, including dismissal, and would have no right to complain that they were being disciplined for revealing illegal activities inside the RCMP, even if they were under the instruction of the government—especially if they were under the instruction of the government.

Retired RCMP officer Rob Creasser, spokesperson for the Mounted Police Professional Association of Canada, said:

It places RCMP members in an untenable situation when they are being directed...to break Canadian or international law.

Proposed new subsection 31(1.4) reads:

For the purposes of subsection (1.3), an order made by the Governor in Council is conclusive proof of the matters stated in the order in relation to the giving or making of an instruction, direction or regulation by or on behalf of the Government of Canada in the interest of the safety or security of Canada or any state allied or associated with Canada.

In other words, the cabinet, a small group of like-minded politicians meeting in secret, would determine which laws the RCMP would have to follow and which laws the RCMP would break, and what those mean.

Gail Davidson, executive director for Lawyers' Rights Watch Canada, describes this clause as very dangerous, saying:

Police officers have special powers...to use force and to deprive people of their liberty, and the reason they have those powers is to keep the public peace.

Keeping the public peace means ensuring that the laws are upheld, and this is legitimate laws and the rule of law.

Some of the dangers in here are that these clauses could be used to condone torture and the use of information gathered through torture. Torture and the use of information gained through torture are against both Canadian law and international law. However, once enforced, this bill would negate these laws.

Upholding the law and the rule of law is something the Minister of Public Safety does not appreciate. With his directions to the RCMP, the Canadian Border Services and CSIS, he has instructed them to use information gained through torture.

Last November Surrey, B.C., RCMP Constable Lloyd Pinsent circulated a paper he wrote with the title, “The Terrorists Have Won. RCMP Ordered to Accept Torture-Tainted Information”.

In his paper, Constable Pinsent lays out how Bill C-42, combined with the Minister of Public Safety's direction that it is okay to use information gathered through torture, essentially ordered the RCMP to break the law.

Mr. Pinsent wrote:

While the direction from Minister Toews is in contravention of existing Canadian and international law, under [Bill C-42’s] section 31. (1.4) the order is to be viewed as conclusive proof and questions about the legitimacy of the order are not allowed either....

What we have here is a situation that can lead to abuse in the future. Why did the Conservative government decide to put this particular aspect into the accountability act, such as they call it? In other words, RCMP members are not accountable here, cannot be accountable and cannot stand up and speak the truth about what is happening to them or how they feel about the imposition of illegal practices upon them through an order of the Governor in Council. The Governor in Council can make that decision in secret, based on its desire to ensure what it considers to be the safety and security of Canada. This smacks of a police state, and I think everybody would agree to that.

In this country, we always have a need for people to deal with illegal behaviour. Canada is a signatory to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which states:

No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

Therefore, with regard to the minister's attempt to justify torture and the use of information gained from torture, any such use or activities are illegitimate under Canada's international legal obligations. However, considering recent actions, the Conservative government has little respect for the rule of law.

In June 2012, the UN Committee Against Torture released a report on Canada's compliance with the UN Convention Against Torture. In this report, the committee raised serious concerns with the Conservative's laissez-faire attitude toward torture saying that it could result in violations of article 15 of the convention. However, Bill C-42 would give more authority for any government to act in a way that is improper and could lead to Canada's reputation being tarnished before the world. It could lead to great human rights abuses. It could lead to a number of other things, such as the need for illegal wiretaps and information collection, and all kinds of activities that could take place in the name of the security of this country. These are very serious issues.

In 2006, Justice Dennis O'Connor, in his report on the events relating to Maher Arar, recommended:

Policies should include specific directions aimed at eliminating any possible Canadian complicity in torture, avoiding the risk of other human rights abuses and ensuring accountability.

These sections in Bill C-42 would go against that recommendation. These sections would create a situation in which the government would have the ability to direct the police force in a way that is inappropriate. Here we have a proposed law that would essentially make it legal for the police to break the law, and if they choose not to break the law, they may be dismissed without the right to a grievance.

This is supposed to be legislation about modernizing the RCMP workplace. However, these clauses would take it backward in time and should not have been put into the legislation. It should have been debated in a different fashion. Perhaps the laws could have been amended to provide some security to Canadians. However, when it comes to viewing these clauses in the bill and the thought of the Conservative government overriding civil rights in the name of national security, we must ask these questions: Did the terrorists win? Has the Canadian state acquiesced?

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleagues who spoke before me, especially my colleague who has a great deal of experience in this area.

The NDP has often wondered why RCMP members were not really consulted.

The government says that 12 members of the House used to be police officers in various parts of the country and that they should understand the situation and the changes and amendments that need to be made to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act. I am sorry, but the 20,000 officers in the field who serve every day across the country were not consulted. They will be the forgotten ones in this process. We are not asking that each and every one of them be consulted, but only that the government go out into the field. Did the famous government members go back to the field to see how things are going? Do they know how all the changes resulting from Bill C-42 will pan out?

Having said that, I would like to express my gratitude for being able to speak to Bill C-42, Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, more commonly known as the modernizing RCMP services act. If we want to modernize a service as important to public safety and national security as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we must establish a certain process for consulting its members.

I was a human resources manager. When you want to make changes to an organization and its members, you must consult them, listen to them, be receptive to their comments and especially take care of their injuries. Whether or not they are unionized is not part of this discussion. Some have been carrying around not only physical injuries, but also emotional and psychological injuries for too long at the RCMP. They are not being consulted. They are not being listened to. They carry weapons. It seems to me that the government should feel a sense of responsibility to them, should listen and be attentive to them, especially those who are in distress.

It is a matter of national security. Sometimes, they are the first line of defence. But the government is not listening to them. They seem to have been left out of a process meant to enhance performance and increase efficiency so that they can protect us faithfully. I know some of them. I have come to know them since I was elected. They are very proud of their work, their history and the culture of their police force. A negative culture may have permeated the RCMP over the last few years, but we must look at the evidence, examine the situation coolly, and then make changes and implement them in the field.

We know how important it is to have not only an effective police force, but also police officers who have optimum working conditions, especially when it comes to public safety, as I mentioned. Everyone acknowledges that Canadians should be able to trust their national police force. This is indisputable.

This bill emphasizes that civilian oversight of the RCMP is critical to promoting accountability to the public and ensuring transparency in police forces. There must also be transparency in the review process when legislation that is as important as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act is being rewritten. Similarly, civilian oversight should increase the RCMP's accountability to the provincial governments that its forces serve. All too often we forget that, throughout Canada, the leading police service is the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

The legislation is also meant to provide the Canadian government with a framework that would be used to launch an ongoing modernization process. As I said, unless the government consults and goes to see what is happening on the ground, we will be unable to accept any of its measures, and so will Canadians and people in the RCMP. When such huge changes are being considered, they must be acceptable to everyone involved.

As I said, since I was elected on May 2, 2011—almost two years ago—I have had many opportunities to meet members of the RCMP and to learn about the extraordinary work they do, despite the limited human, materiel and financial resources available to them. Because they are expected to do more work with less money, major components of our national security are at risk.

We are talking 2,500 km. There are six border posts in my riding. We have 22 in Quebec. We have the east coast, the west coast, the north and the Arctic. The RCMP is a sizeable police force. Over 20,000 workers have been and will continue to be subject to accusations and cuts, over and over. In spite of everything, they have to continue to perform their duties under difficult conditions. Morale has been seriously affected. How can they ensure the safety of Canadians and, often, that of visiting dignitaries, summit security, as we have seen, and sometimes even the Prime Minister?

As a manager, I would tend to pay attention to the mood of such people. This is important to me because I do not like to see workers whose basic right to be heard is being disrespected, especially when they are showing signs of distress. There is plenty of that within the ranks of the RCMP.

Yes, the intent of the bill is good. They want to resolve matters, but are they not trying to resolve the image rather than the real problem that exists within the RCMP?

In terms of organizational structure, it is the same thing. They are going to give more and more discretionary powers to the commissioner. They say:

It modernizes the Royal Canadian Mounted Police’s human resources management regime [and] authorizes the Commissioner to act with respect to staffing...

I know very well that staffing is involved. They are replacing trained RCMP officers with civilians in public service positions. They go on:

disputes relating to harassment and general human resource management.

The Commissioner can have a right of oversight, but it is not up to him to do that.

In big corporations, they never let senior management decide everything—not under these conditions. It is unacceptable. People must be listened to and consulted. Human resources management is done by professionals. I look forward to hearing the reaction on the shop floor when they appoint a human resources management professional as commissioner. They will say he knows nothing about the job, because he has never worked on the shop floor.

This is what they are doing. They are leaving the management of things as important as promotions and complaints to the commissioner. He will not even be bound by observations made by the civilian review body.

Under these conditions, it is unacceptable to have a police force the size of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police which also has to co-operate and share responsibilities with provincial and municipal police forces in many provinces. As for First Nations police officers, they were not even heard from in this process, yet they are an important part of the equation.

I could discuss this at greater length.

[Jean-François Larose, NDP, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was not in committee, but I did read the blues and I did go through all the material. I would say the majority of them said two things. First, they said that Bill C-42 fell short. That was all there was to it. It did not address their issues. Second, the amendments that were brought forward were brought forward with the information of the witnesses.

I do not understand what the position of the government is. They bring in witnesses who contradict Bill C-42 and say that it is a good step but it is far from being sufficient and it needs to be modified. This is how they see it. Then we propose the amendments, both sides, the NDP and the Liberal Party, and the Conservatives systematically vote against them. I am a little confused. They can say they listened to the experts, but when they bring in their own experts, they do not even listen to them.

[Jean-François Larose, NDP, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about Bill C-42. Frankly, it is a privilege for me to speak to this issue, because I wore the uniform for close to 18 years. Incidentally, I want to salute all the people I met, including my RCMP friends, my son's godfather and all those who have worn the uniform and who have worked extremely hard. During the 18 years before I became a member of Parliament, I was a manager, a first responder, and even a trade unionist. I worked in the public, parapublic and private sectors, both in open and secure custody.

This is a special environment. Today, I heard my colleagues make very pointed and appropriate statements. I am pleased to participate in this debate. So, I decided to talk about the environment, because I think it is important. People who become police officers, or who wear the uniform and play a regulatory role in society, all do so with the best intentions. My son, who is five years old, wants to do like his dad and wear the uniform. He has a beautiful and idealistic perception of that. Before I wore the uniform, I myself had this noble ideal, which always stayed with me. We must have the strength to protect those who need to be protected. Even now, as a member of Parliament, it is still the same.

Throughout my career, I met people who wore the uniform and who did extraordinary things, who went above and beyond the call of duty and who saved lives. One of my colleagues, who was retiring, took the time, after attending the party organized in his honour, to go out and meet all the people he had dealt with at one time or another during his career and who were out on the street. He simply wanted to say hello to them and to ask if they were all right. He did that on his last day at work. Another one of my friends jumped into the water to save a woman in distress. He was prepared to sacrifice himself for her. I remember the explosion at the Accueil Bonneau, in Montreal. There were many victims. I was one of the first responders. There were many people, but no one was paying attention to what the others were doing. Everyone was there for the right reasons.

Despite all this great energy, there is also a very negative and dark side. During my career, I met people who committed suicide. They felt the environment was excessively hard and, despite all the representations to managers and all the efforts in their private life, they would have wanted to be listened to more carefully, and they would have wanted support mechanisms to be put in place. Unfortunately, these support mechanisms were not available. They made a choice with which I do not necessarily agree, a choice I find extremely sad and which affected me and many of my colleagues. We hope that this no longer happens.

Today, we are talking about harassment, and that is a reality in every environment where people wear uniforms. There is a culture and an isolation, but that must no longer be tolerated. In 2013, we still see practices that existed 40 years ago. I can guarantee that these practices are not those of front-line and street workers who are there every day. They want to move forward and to evolve, but there is a political and an administrative culture that stifles them and prevents them from getting out of this rut.

When I was a manager, I was given the opportunity to test new approaches, and I did. I had 34 people wearing the uniform and working under my authority. They were being treated like kids. Problems were kept secret and we did not want the media to know that these problems existed. I proposed an organic, dynamic, proactive and inclusive system. We were trying to reconcile administrators, workers and the population. We sat around the table, we talked to each other respectfully, and we tried to understand the problems and frustrations that had been lingering for a long time. We had to realize that these people have problems with schedules, which are often very demanding, and also with extremely demanding legal pressures.

They do not need to get hit with a club. They simply need to be listened to and to be given the opportunity to put in place appropriate mechanisms. That is often what we see. That is the criticism we heard today in the House and also in committee. I sat on four committees, and it was the same thing in each one of them: the meeting was held in camera and people were never prepared to listen to what others had to say.

We say this is arrogance because witnesses tell us that what is being put in place is a half-measure, that improvements should be made but that the government is not making them. Why? What is the intention here? These witnesses are professionals, people who impress me; my colleagues impress me, but the government is not listening to them. How are the people on the front lines at the RCMP supposed to feel helped and supported if the government is not even prepared to listen to them when they come and testify? There is a problem here.

Bill C-42 is a half-measure at best, and once again we are talking about administrative oversight. When we move an amendment to provide employees with training on harassment to support and help them in their distress, it is brushed off. Why? This is a simple measure that could have been put in place, but it was rejected.

What message is being sent? Are we saying that harassment is all right? Are we being tolerant and agreeing to perpetuate a closed environment in which there is a gulf separating oversight, police officers and civilians? The government wants to put measures in place, but not to increase transparency or accessibility.

When I was a manager, I had the opportunity to put in place mechanisms that helped bring together schools, issue tables and street workers. However, the solution to the problem was also to include workers and people who were on the front line. We sat down and held open conversations about each party's frustrations so that there could be a reconciliation and we could grow.

We are talking about a constant culture of separating entities and increasing secrecy. When I was a manager, I never once saw any danger of a leak on operational matters. That had nothing to do with anything. However, the workers were highly motivated, and mutual respect made it possible to achieve progress and a unique dynamic. People felt increasingly supported.

It should not be forgotten that the primary mandate of law enforcement agencies is to be there for the public, not for the government. This is not an oversight mechanism based on dubious policies. They represent and defend the people, and the government represents the people. It must not use police services merely as it wishes, especially if it has made bad policy that is thrown back in its face. This is creating a cycle.

I have a great deal of respect for those who wore the uniform for many years before me, just as I have for all the MPs who were members for 20 or 30 years. It is a great pleasure for me to sit down with them and to understand the mechanisms that were previously in place. Those people said a number of times that there was a culture of isolation and that they were being completely excluded. That creates a gulf and mistrust, which is absolutely unacceptable.

We are seeking amendments that are more than reasonable. I do not understand why there cannot be a reconciliation so that we can move forward. This makes no sense. Let the Conservatives remain arrogant and maintain their position. That is up to them, but there is no way that will reconcile law enforcement agencies with the public service.

I recently read a quote by Nelson Mandela. He said that when he was imprisoned in South Africa, he spoke to the prison warden and told him that the relationship they had today would be important tomorrow because tomorrow their roles would not be the same. How will we eat tomorrow's meal? How many people have I seen become professional police officers as adults, and how many police officers have I seen become civilians? The same is true of MPs and the relationship we have in the House today.

In a recent speech, President Obama said we are not here to be perfect, but to do a job. Unfortunately, every day in every committee, there is a barrier that should not exist because we are trying to move forward, to listen and to put appropriate mechanisms in place. The amendments we proposed are more than reasonable. The Conservatives could have kept at least one of them, but they did not.

We are trying to come up with a policy of reconciliation. It is a positive and constructive step, one that would result in more transparency and accessibility and an improvement in services in the field. I am proud of our workers in uniform because they do an excellent job. I am proud to have worked with them and to have been one of them. However, there are some serious issues that need to be dealt with.

We must put a stop to the harassment in this work environment. Let us put an end to it once and for all.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to discuss solutions to the very serious problems of sexual harassment, abuse of power and bullying in the ranks of the RCMP.

Bill C-42 was introduced by the Conservatives to address serious allegations of abuse, bullying and sexual harassment that had been made by a number of female members of the force.

Those members reported that they were the target of sexist comments, sexual pranks and derogatory remarks in the workplace, and had been for decades.

The harassment came from co-workers as well as superior officers. They said the work environment was hostile and unhealthy for women. The abusive behaviour had become standard practice, one of them reported. According to these women, an abusive work environment had existed for years.

I am pleased that we are finally discussing this bill in the House of Commons. I hoped we would come up with workable solutions. I think we all agree that something has to be done to ensure that these RCMP employees are able to work in a healthy and safe environment.

The Conservatives introduced Bill C-42 as a solution. This bill gives the commissioner of the RCMP the ultimate power to discharge members for administrative reasons only and to appoint managers to resolve conflicts and investigate problems relating to harassment, in particular.

It also establishes the civilian review and complaints commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the CRCC, to replace the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP.

The new commission will do its own reviews of RCMP policies to ensure compliance with the minister’s directives, the act and the applicable rules. It will have access to information under the control or in the possession of the RCMP. It will establish new investigative powers, such as compelling witnesses and officers to testify and compelling the production of evidence and documents. It will report to the Minister of Public Safety and the commissioner, and its recommendations will be non-binding.

The bill also creates a mechanism for investigating serious incidents, that is, deaths or serious injuries involving the RCMP.

I will remind my colleagues that the NDP supported this bill at second reading, because in principle, we wanted to rectify the serious sexual harassment situation in the RCMP.

In committee, my colleagues listened carefully to the experts’ testimony. The witnesses were clear: this bill would not be sufficient to create an open, collaborative and respectful work environment.

Giving the commissioner more powers is not the solution. The RCMP and the government have to go further in their effort to modernize the RCMP.

My colleagues on the committee proposed amendments in good faith, based on the experts’ testimony, to strengthen the bill and try to genuinely solve the problems of abuse in the RCMP.

For example, we proposed that the bill be worded more proactively to combat the systemic problem of harassment, and particularly sexual harassment, among members of the RCMP. That amendment was rejected.

After hearing the testimony of Yvonne Séguin, executive director of the Groupe d'aide et d'information sur le harcèlement sexuel au travail de la province du Québec, we proposed amendments that would tackle the hostile and sexist work environment head on: incorporating mandatory training on harassment for RCMP members into the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.

When she appeared before the committee, she said:

With the 32 years of experience we have, we have found out that when companies do have a clear policy, when employees do know what is acceptable and not acceptable, it makes it much easier for management to deal with the problems.

This mandatory training would help establish a clear policy and a respectful work environment.

That amendment was also thrown out.

My colleagues also tried to guarantee the independence of the body set up to investigate complaints in the RCMP, which is an essential part of making the organization more transparent and responsible. That, too, was rejected.

The list goes on. The Conservatives voted against all of our amendments in the House without any discussion. They feel that the RCMP commissioner should have complete control over the RCMP. Concentrating power in one person's hands is not the solution. That is not how we will make the RCMP more transparent.

I would like to point out an important difference between the Conservatives and the NDP: we listen to experts and we are open-minded. When we look at a bill, we consult experts in the field, we do our research, and we study and consider numerous options. It is important not to focus on one opinion and cast all others aside. We do not start with a preconceived notion and ignore all those that differ from ours.

I would like to talk about the specific context of this bill. This issue is of utmost importance. We need to ensure that the female officers in the RCMP and the public served by the RCMP can trust our police system. I do not feel that this bill goes far enough to address the female officers' concerns. They asked for immediate, tangible results that will foster a safer and more open work environment. But the Conservatives have proposed giving the RCMP commissioner more power.

A recently published Human Rights Watch report describes how aboriginal women in the west mistrust the RCMP. Fifty women shared their experiences in the report. They alleged that the RCMP ignored their requests for help, abused its power and harassed them. They no longer call the police because they no longer trust them. This is only one example of the Canadian public's loss of confidence. Why not take appropriate steps now to deal with the problem?

It is important to deal with serious internal problems of abuse, intimidation and harassment in order to regain the trust of Canadians. We hoped that this bill might be a step in the right direction, but unfortunately the Conservatives chose to ignore all the recommendations made by the stakeholders. The solutions they have come up with would make things more difficult for employees who encounter abuse and bullying. This serious problem calls for real solutions and actions.

To conclude, I fail to understand how my colleagues on the other side of the House could have rejected all the amendments without any real discussion. I know that our points of view are different, but that is what debates are for. We might be able to find a middle ground. It is important not to forget the victims in this kind of situation. We are here to improve things. It is our duty to do so and that is what bills are for.

We have to go 110%.

A small step is not enough to tackle this matter; we need to do more. No matter what form harassment takes, it has serious consequences for the women or men who are affected. There are psychological consequences, like fear that the charges will be rejected, fear of being accused of provocation, anger, frustration, feelings of powerlessness, shame, intimidation, humiliation, depression, stress and anxiety, as well as a loss of self-confidence and self-esteem.

Harassment can also have serious tangible effects, such as poorer quality of work, job loss, loss of benefits, a bad reference from the employer, a tarnished employment record, unfair performance evaluation, or having one's work sabotaged. The victims' burden can take many forms.

It is totally unfair. That is why we have to change things and improve practices at the RCMP. People are supposed to have confidence in the RCMP and in this government. That is why I believe that we are not going far enough and not doing our duty.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak to Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

Before beginning my speech, I would like to stress how committed the NDP is to this legislation. Many of my colleagues have risen over the past hour to show their commitment to addressing the problems within the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

On that note, it is important to stress just how disinterested the Conservatives are in this important legislation and in improving the RCMP. We have done very serious work in committee. Moreover, I would like to highlight the work of my colleagues who sit on this committee. They work very hard and have introduced amendments that, unfortunately, have not been accepted.

Now, what does this bill contain? To begin with, Bill C-42 adds new provisions to the sections on labour relations and gives the RCMP Commissioner the power to appoint and dismiss members as he sees fit. Secondly, it attempts to reform the process pertaining to disciplinary matters, complaints, and the management of human resources for the members of the RCMP. Finally, it is an attempt to reform the former RCMP public complaints commission by establishing a new civilian complaints commission.

As members can see, Bill C-42 reintroduces several provisions included in Bill C-38 of the 40th Parliament. At that time, the NDP criticized the bill because it did not go far enough in reforming the disciplinary inquiry procedures. The most notable difference between Bill C-42 and former Bill C-38 is the fact that the new bill says nothing about the issue of unionizing the RCMP.

On that note, I would like to remind members that the NDP is the only political party in the House of Commons whose employees are unionized. We are very proud of this. It is something that we care about deeply. For that reason, we stand behind workers and cannot stress enough how important it is to respect the work they do. We are proud that our employees are unionized. I take this opportunity to put the ball in the courts of the other parties, so that they, too, begin negotiating with their employees. I think that all employees of the House should have an opportunity to become unionized.

The NDP supported the intention of Bill C-42 to modernize the RCMP and to address problems such as sexual harassment, about which my honourable colleagues have spoken. The NDP voted in favour of referring the bill to committee. As I mentioned, my colleagues who sit on this committee have worked very hard, and very seriously.

After hearing from witnesses and experts, however, it became obvious that the bill had major shortcomings, and would not succeed in improving the RCMP's oversight mechanisms. Moreover, Bill C-42 does not reflect, for example, the recommendations of Justice O'Connor emerging from the inquiry into the Maher Arar case, which also sought to improve the RCMP's review standards so as to meet the needs of Canadians.

The Conservatives introduced Bill C-42 as the solution for the problems of the RCMP, which has become somewhat dysfunctional; on the contrary, however, this is not the solution. The bill does not directly address the problem of sexual harassment, as I said just now, and as my colleagues explained so clearly in their speeches earlier. Nor does it address a number of other issues that were the subject of NDP amendments at the committee stage, and which the Conservatives unfortunately rejected.

The NDP put forward a range of amendments designed to ensure that Bill C-42 reflected the challenges the RCMP is now facing. Once again, I take my hat off to my colleagues, who did such careful work in committee.

The main thrust of the amendments related to the following points. The first thing was to require all members of the RCMP to take harassment training, under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act. Unfortunately, this was rejected by the Conservatives. Next, we sought the establishment of a completely independent civilian agency responsible for investigating complaints against the RCMP. Unfortunately, this was denied by the Conservatives. We also proposed adding a provision to set up an independent national civilian investigating body to avoid having the police investigate themselves. Again, this was rejected by the Conservatives. We also wanted to develop more balanced human resources policies by withdrawing some of the draconian new powers suggested by the RCMP Commissioner, and strengthening the RCMP External Review Committee in cases involving discharge. Unfortunately, this too was rejected by the Conservatives.

So the Conservatives rejected all these NDP amendments, ignoring many recommendations from witnesses who had given up their valuable time to come and speak before the committee and explain their points of view, and to suggest amendments and ways of dealing with the shortcomings. We are in fact in favour of the RCMP review principle. We even supported this bill at second reading. Unfortunately, it is not well enough developed at this stage because the Conservatives botched the committee work. They rejected the amendments proposed by witnesses and members of the NDP in committee. That is why we are going to vote against this bill at third reading.

I will now return to the point we were speaking about just now about misconduct and sexual harassment. It is an exceedingly important point, one that has been very much in the news recently and needs to be addressed. Bill C-42 has not gone nearly far enough. Furthermore, as you know, we are asking that this bill should at least provide for training at the RCMP on sexual harassment issues. We are still awaiting the conclusions of the two reports that should shed light on sexual harassment at the RCMP—the investigation by the RCMP public complaints commission and the RCMP gender issues report.

Another problem I discussed earlier, which I find extremely important, is unionization at the RCMP. As I mentioned, we in the NDP are very proud of our support of the unions. We take pride in having unionized assistants and we would like to allow all employees to be unionized. The bill does not address this matter, which is currently before the courts. The RCMP is the only police force in Canada without a collective agreement. Imagine that.

For 35 years, labour relations representatives have been elected to manage employment-related matters. However, this way of doing things, which established a democratic process for employee representation, is a consultation process rather than a true collective bargaining process. As I mentioned, only the RCMP does not yet have a collective agreement and is not yet unionized. This is a shortcoming that needs to be dealt with and which this bill unfortunately does not address.

I could mention a number of other points like that to illustrate the failings of the bill and to explain why we will be voting against it. Among other things, it is because the Conservatives did not take the trouble to listen to the conclusions of the excellent work done by NDP members, in this committee and elsewhere.

I am available to answer any questions you may have about this. I would be more than happy to go into detail about a number of subjects, like sexual harassment and unionization, neither of which this bill deals with.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question, which is truly of central importance. Where victims of harassment are concerned, of course, they already have difficulty in reporting what has happened, because announcing that you have been harassed is not easy, and it is even less so if they do not find the necessary and essential trust within the institution to be able to submit such complaints.

If a climate of trust has not been established, and a climate of violence is in place, because we can see that these women are victims of harassment and we do not find in Bill C-42 the necessary and valid responses to address this kind of situation, I totally agree with her that it is absolutely deplorable.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before asking my question, I would first like to congratulate my colleague from Saint-Lambert on her excellent speech.

I would like to share with the House something that has been bothering me about this whole sexual harassment issue. This regards a document that was released recently in response to an access to information request made by La Presse. According to that document, some female employees may be reluctant to report sexual harassment because they have no faith in the RCMP's current complaints process. The fact that women are afraid to use the current complaints process is very troubling.

I would like to hear my colleague's comments on this. Is she horrified to know that, because of the current system, women are afraid to speak up about misconduct? Could she comment on the fact that, with Bill C-42, the Conservatives are sadly refusing to protect female workers who spend their lives in the service of our country?

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-42, Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act. The official opposition has been waiting for a long time for this enactment, which seeks to establish a new independent civilian commission to replace the present RCMP public complaints commission.

First, it is important to remember that, between 2005 and 2011, over 718 internal complaints were filed with the RCMP. These complaints related to sexism, bullying and reprisals. Worse still, the RCMP public complaints commission says that “these numbers probably only reflect part of the situation, because the Canadian federal police way of doing things does not encourage employees who feel wronged to file a complaint”.

A civilian member of the RCMP even contends that: “It takes an incredible amount of courage for people to step up with complaints such as these—to have them continually diminished, deflected and dismissed is an outrage. Further, it promotes an environment where people don't speak up.”

Our federal police also showed that when, in 2012, 150 women announced their intention to file a class action suit against the RCMP for sexual harassment. Despite mounting evidence, the institution's first reaction was to deny everything. Such is the climate in the RCMP. Such is the internal culture that prevails in our federal police.

In light of these harassment scandals, and other abuses such as the Maher Arar affair, the NDP has always argued for a major reform to oversee the internal practices of that institution. Unfortunately, these cases have tarnished the RCMP's reputation. They deserve strong action by parliamentarians. Bill C-42 should have been that answer.

Our party supported the bill at second reading, since its objectives were laudable and we were hoping to take an in-depth look at this legislation in committee. We wanted to work with the government and develop an effective act to tackle the various issues that need to be dealt with.

Given the bill's objectives, we thought it was critical to reform the processes relating to disciplinary reinforcement, human resources management and complaint handling. We also felt essential to create an independent and transparent investigative body to tackle the whole issue of harassment in the RCMP. In this respect, the NDP proposed several amendments to improve Bill C-42 and to better meet existing needs.

We proposed mandatory harassment training for all RCMP members to promote better prevention and to provide employees with the right tools to react more appropriately.The NDP also proposed the establishment of a civilian body to deal with complaints filed against the RCMP. This was to ensure an independent investigative and handling structure that would have been accountable to Parliament, and not directly to the minister, as proposed by the Conservatives.

In the same vein, we also wanted to set up an independent investigative body, because the current situation may leave room for partiality that should not exist and that could be reversed by a structure that is separate from police forces and from the department. As regards human resources, we were hoping for a strengthening of the RCMP External Review Committee to tighten up internal mechanisms, particularly in cases of harassment.

The Conservatives rejected all these proposals, which deserved special consideration and which would clearly have improved the government's legislation. In doing so, the government went against the recommendations of several witnesses who supported such measures and who were asking for more independence in the RCMP's investigative process.

The Conservatives also ignored the recommendations of Justice O'Connor in the Maher Arar inquiry to improve the RCMP's review standards.

The government completely ignored Commissioner Paulson's comments that much more extensive reform was needed to address the issues and to promote a more open, co-operative and respectful workplace.

For months now, the NDP has been calling on the government to make sexual harassment and institutional abuse at the RCMP a priority. Throughout the legislative process, we have advocated for measures that would have helped change the culture at the RCMP. By refusing to accept our party's suggestions, the government chose not to address the problem. By giving the commissioner more powers over discipline and complaints management, Bill C-42 does not directly address the problem of harassment anymore than it will change the corporate culture within the RCMP.

The government is keeping the existing structures and refusing to completely overhaul the internal processes. By allowing the RCMP to investigate the RCMP—the police investigating the police—the Conservatives are not addressing the issues. They are refusing to bring in a truly independent structure that operates at arm's length from the institution. There is nothing here to change the atmosphere at the RCMP.

With the new civilian complaints commission proposed in Bill C-42, the government is not straying far from the RCMP public complaints commission. We find it regrettable that the commission is not fully independent since it does not fall under the jurisdiction of the House of Commons, but it will instead continue to report to the Minister of Public Safety.

In conclusion, the government went against the recommendations made by a number of witnesses, Justice O'Connor and Commissioner Paulson. Not only did the government reject the opposition's amendments outright, but it also clearly refused to make the RCMP's internal investigation process more independent and transparent. It refused to fix the systemic problems within the RCMP.

Bill C-42 is not an adequate response to the culture of secrecy and harassment that unfortunately exists within our federal police force. It is also not a response to these women and men who have been the victims of bullying, harassment and retaliation.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would actually like to begin where I was going to conclude with my speech, after hearing the, frankly, rather arrogant question coming from the parliamentary secretary.

We all know what the government does in committee time after time after time. Any amendment, however well framed, is voted down by the majority. There is almost a zero per cent passage rate of NDP, Liberal or independent members' amendments in committee in this Parliament, so to pretend that the fact of the writing of a few amendments by the opposition in this process would have made an iota of difference is the height of arrogance.

I would also like the House to know that in this context, most of the opposition witnesses were in the last two days, the majority on the last day. The majority on the committee voted to make sure that the amendments from the opposition came in three and a half hours after the session. Can we imagine, in the context of a complex bill like this, putting together well-crafted amendments when put up against an artificial deadline like that? This is the behaviour of the government in that committee. Committees do not function in any kind of straightforward or good-faith legislative manner.

I would like to address how far Bill C-42 diverges from and does not respect the recommendations from Justice O'Connor and the Arar commission for a proper review mechanism for the RCMP. Most of the other interventions have talked about other areas of the bill and other issues, but I would like to talk about how the bill does take a small step in the direction of the Arar commission recommendations, but ultimately stops far short. This is consistent with how the government has truly resisted appropriate oversight mechanisms for any body that deals with policing or security matters.

For example, in another bill that is before the House now, Bill S-7, Combating Terrorism Act, Conservatives have stoutly resisted any form of serious oversight or monitoring. In my speech on that bill, I will go into some detail on that. In each case, the NDP has proposed more than a dozen carefully considered amendments that would help make good on the Arar commission's exhaustive second report on a review mechanism, yet every one was voted down or ruled out of order.

This is consistent with the general approach of the government to the Arar commission. I had the fortune to be in the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security when the Minister of Public Safety appeared to defend the report called “Building Resilience against Terrorism”, and I asked him what the government's intention is with respect to the recommendations on a review mechanism coming out of the Arar commission report. It was absolutely clear from his response that the government has no interest in that report or using it as any kind of a reference point, baseline or road map. Bill C-42 has made that completely clear.

I will proceed as follows. I will provide a short overview of what the Arar commission did recommend by way of review mechanisms, and then I will look at how Bill C-42 on at least four points does not take those recommendations at all seriously.

The report I am referring to from the Arar commission is called “A New Review Mechanism for the RCMP's National Security Activities”. Before proposing the exact mechanisms, Justice O'Connor, who is of the Ontario court of appeal, outlined reasons for the inadequacy of existing accountability and review mechanisms for the RCMP's national security activity. In general, he pointed out that there has been an evolution and a deepening of the RCMP national security role, despite the fact that CSIS itself was peeled off from the RCMP at some point. Obviously in the post-2001 climate, we know that to be true and why that is true. He emphasized three elements.

First of all, there has been enhanced and deepened information-sharing with other countries and among federal, provincial and municipal agencies, and increased integration and national security policing. We know that information-sharing was at the heart of what happened to Mr. Arar.

Second, he talked about comparative and other Canadian experience with both policing and security intelligence review that led him to conclude that there was the “inability of a complaint-based approach to provide a firm foundation for ensuring that the often secret national security activities respect the law and rights and freedoms”.

Third, he said that the existing Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP has encountered “difficulties in obtaining access to information from the RCMP”. We will see that this is the understatement of the century when we look at some of the testimony.

For the information of the parliamentary secretary, I did read the blues and I did consider the testimony of various witnesses, including Mr. Kennedy, the former head of the CPC, whose testimony is irrefutable. The government did everything it could in committee to try to underplay and deflect the impact of that testimony.

Justice O'Connor recommended a number of features that the new review mechanism would have.

First, it must be authorized to conduct self-initiated reviews in the same way and to the same extent as SIRC, the Security Intelligence Review Committee that oversees CSIS. He talked about the need for these reviews not just at the time when activities were deepening, but in the context in which national security activities by definition were conducted in secret and received little by way of judicial scrutiny or other independent scrutiny. He emphasized how a self-initiated review had to be linked to the criterion of independence from the RCMP and the government in the right of access to information and to initiate those reviews.

The second feature that he felt would be important was that the body had to have investigative powers similar to those that public bodies had under the Inquiries Act. He emphasized a few things. Some of them are in the bill, such as the right to subpoena documents and compel testimony. Also, the review body has to have the right to decide what information is necessary and not have barriers put in front of it in making that decision or accessing the information.

Third, he stated:

—the review mechanism must not be hampered by jurisdictional boundaries. It must be able to follow the trail wherever it leads, to ensure full and effective investigation or review of the RCMP's national security activities.

With those principles in mind he went on to recommend a new independent complaints and national security review agency for the RCMP that would replace the CPC and would also take on the role he recommended for overseeing the Canadian Border Services Agency, the CBSA.

He went on to talk about the need for coordination across the various bodies, this new body he recommended, the existing SIRC, Security Intelligence Review Committee, and the commissioner for the CSE, the Commissioner for the Canadian Security Establishment, who also has broader and wider powers than what is found recommended in Bill C-42.

What is in Bill C-42 that falls far short of these recommendations?

The first major problem is that Bill C-42 does not give the new review body uninhibited access to information that the body deems necessary and relevant. In committee the Conservatives tried to avoid acknowledging that the bill would give the power to the RCMP commissioner to prevent examination and review of a broad range of privileged information. From lots of experience, we know how various bodies, including the RCMP, have abused the claim of privilege.

Mr. Kennedy, the former head of the CPC, noted in testimony before the committee, the findings of former Supreme Court Judge John Major in the Air India inquiry, who experienced first-hand the abuse of privilege by the RCMP.

Mr. Kennedy stated:

—with reference to the privilege. Justice Major, whom I talked to, was scathing in terms of his comments that the RCMP over-claimed privilege, concealed information from him, and in some case a witness who wanted to testify, they claimed they needed the information for investigative purposes which wasn't true.

The second major problem is that the RCMP commissioner can force the chair of the new recommended body, the CRCC, to suspend an investigation by means of a simple request in a letter on the grounds that it would compromise an ongoing investigation. Mr. Kennedy commented how this completely gutted the credibility of this body in the eyes of the public. It completely undermines any sense of independence of the body.

The third major problem is that the bill is largely void of timeframes within which the RCMP must respond to requests and findings of this new review body. As Mr. Kennedy said:

Inordinate and unjustifiable delay was the hallmark of the RCMP during the four-plus years that I was chair of the Commission for Public Complaints...

There was one fourth major problem, but perhaps a question will elicit that.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to NDP members speak one after the other on Bill C-42, and it is clear that the majority of them have not read the testimony with regard to this bill. They have not even read the blues or the transcripts from the meetings. For example, most of the amendments were ruled out of order, including the amendment they introduced regarding an independent investigative body. It was poorly written, introduced late and ruled out of order by the chair.

I am wondering about a couple of things. Did the NDP members who are speaking one after the other bother to actually read the documents and know what happened at committee with some of these very poor amendments that were ruled out of order and defeated—for example, silly ones like changing the short title? Has he bothered to actually read the legislation, and does he know that not only the RCMP but the commissioner and the chair of the commission said they need this to provide the framework to change the culture? The legislation will not do it alone, but the legislation is needed. Has he even read the bill?

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-42. In my last speech on this bill, at second reading, I mentioned that we welcomed the introduction of this bill, despite certain problems we had noted regarding harassment, an urgent public concern for Canadians. We also pressed the Department of Public Safety to make sexual harassment within the RCMP one of its priorities.

However, the initial version of Bill C-42 did not directly address the systemic problems rooted in RCMP culture. The bill, as introduced at first reading, would not have changed the climate currently prevailing within the RCMP. When the bill was drafted, the Minister of Public Safety does not appear to have considered the various recommendations made by the Task Force on Governance and Cultural Change in the RCMP.

We nevertheless supported the bill at second reading so that we could study it adequately in committee and improve it so that it could solve the problems that seem firmly rooted within the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Unfortunately, that is not how matters unfolded, and we were not satisfied with the committee's study of the bill. I am genuinely disappointed by the government's lack of co-operation on this matter, and, unfortunately, on others as well.

The Conservatives did not want to co-operate with us to ensure balanced representation of the various options and positions available. In committee, they were able to invite 12 witnesses, whereas the opposition could only invite seven. We also observed that the Conservatives' witnesses were unfortunately not entirely independent. All but one were representatives of the government or the RCMP. Consequently, they came and asserted the government's position without qualifying it in any real way. The witnesses selected by the Conservatives were thus not there to offer an independent opinion. That is what we observed.

The Conservatives were also not that eager to hear from our witnesses. Our first witness was unable to appear before the committee until the fourth meeting, and most of our witnesses were not invited until the last day of hearings. The Conservatives also forced us to submit all our amendments on the day of the last meeting in which we heard from witnesses. They asked us to provide our amendments three and half hours later that same day. That did not leave us much time to evaluate or consider the recommendations made by the witnesses before the committee.

We wanted to introduce amendments that would have made the legislation more effective so that it could achieve its objective, based on the recommendations of those same witnesses. This kind of behaviour on the government's part is unacceptable and impedes the proper conduct of parliamentary proceedings. This lack of co-operation by the government is what we have observed since the start of this Parliament. As far as I know, virtually none of the amendments introduced has unfortunately been accepted.

We proposed a number of amendments that were rejected by the Conservatives without any discussion. We proposed to include mandatory training on harassment for RCMP members in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, but they said no. The Conservatives simply do not want to hear a dissenting opinion, or even recognize its validity.

The director of the Groupe d'aide et d'information sur le harcèlement sexuel au travail de la province de Québec appeared before the committee and said:

With the 32 years of experience we have, we have found out that when companies do have a clear policy, when employees do know what is acceptable and not acceptable, it makes it much easier for management to deal with the problems.

But the Conservatives preferred to ignore that testimony and the others heard in committee. It is also disappointing that the minister did not ask for a clear policy on sexual harassment in the RCMP, with specific standards of conduct and criteria for assessing the performance of all employees.

Such a policy is necessary to provide a basis for a fair and effective disciplinary process. The director of the Groupe d'aide et d'information sur le harcèlement sexuel au travail de la province de Québec spoke eloquently on the importance of such a policy. The Conservatives chose to ignore her testimony and stubbornly insisted on a magic solution that will not resolve all the RCMP's problems.

We also put forward an amendment that would guarantee the independence of the body set up to investigate complaints in the RCMP. Once again, the government said no. We also proposed adding a provision to establish a civilian investigative body, to stop the police from investigating themselves. Again, the government said no. Yet all Canadians are asking for such a provision. Trust in police investigations has to be rebuilt. When a police force investigates another police force, there may well be a conflict of interest or a perceived conflict of interest.

If the Conservatives do not want to listen to Canadians or the opposition, perhaps they should listen to the former chair of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, who stated that the bill did not meet the standards of review set out by Justice O'Connor and that it did not meet the needs of the Canadian public or even the RCMP itself. I would like to point out that Justice O'Connor, in the Arar inquiry, said that Parliament should create an oversight body for the RCMP. It would appear that these remarks, like all those that are not in line with Conservative ideology, have fallen on deaf ears.

The bill will give the RCMP commissioner new power to decide on appropriate disciplinary measures. This includes the power to appoint and dismiss members at his discretion. During my first speech on this bill, I said that the approach taken by the Minister of Public Safety was perhaps a little too simplistic, considering the size of the problem. It is not enough simply to grant final authority for laying off employees to the commissioner.

This is why we put forward an amendment to solve the problem and to create police forces that are better balanced in terms of human resources by eliminating some of the more draconian powers given to the RCMP commissioner and strengthening those of the external review committee in the case of potential layoffs from the RCMP.

As I mentioned earlier, although Bill C-42 gives the commissioner the power to establish a more efficient process to resolve harassment complaints while at the same time giving more disciplinary authority, he will not be able to bring about a real cultural change in the RCMP, a change that is necessary not only to get rid of sexual harassment issues, but also to deal with discipline and behavioural issues more generally among RCMP officers.

As evidence, Commissioner Paulson himself stated that legislation alone would not be enough to preserve public trust and that extensive reform would be necessary to address the serious underlying problems within the RCMP, in order to create a workplace that is more open, more co-operative and more respectful of everyone. We can see that the minister failed to provide the necessary leadership to deal with the broader issues faced by the RCMP.

Commissioner Paulson told the Standing Committee on the Status of Women that he thought the problem was bigger than simply sexual harassment. This situation must change, and the minister should have taken the commissioner’s extensive experience in the RCMP into consideration.

All the witnesses told us that this bill would not be enough to establish an open, co-operative and respectful working environment, and that giving so many powers to the commissioner would lead to more problems than it would solve. The Mounted Police Professional Association of Canada shares our view. In committee, an association representative said that Bill C-42, rather than mitigating the issues mentioned, would only make them exponentially worse.

If Bill C-42 is adopted as it is—including the charter violations and the measures enabling managers to continue abusing their powers—rather than correcting the problems that undermine the RCMP, our Parliament will be promoting misconduct and the culture of cronyism by legitimizing these kinds of behaviours.

For all these reasons, we will vote against this bill at third reading.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my honourable colleague for his excellent speech.

He clearly laid out the effects of this bill, a bill whose initial promise quickly turned to disappointment. We brought forward many amendments in committee; unfortunately, all were rejected.

I would like my colleague's take on the Conservatives' unwillingness to consider the amendments brought forward to improve the bill.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the member for Saint-Lambert, is entirely right.

The issues that have been brought to light at the RCMP, such as harassment and sexual harassment, are systemic. They are symptomatic of a culture that needs changing at the RCMP. They reflect not on the quality of the men and women who serve on the force, but on the culture in which they must work.

This culture may not be tangible but it exists all the same. Any sociologist or expert in the field would say that an organization's culture or atmosphere is certain to impact on its members' behaviour. In this case, the impact is negative. Given the systemic nature of the problem, we need the proper legislative provisions to change the prevailing culture.

These provisions are not found in Bill C-42.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out the obvious. In 2012 RCMP Commissioner Paulson published a public letter that in essence said, in good part, that the commissioner's capacity to deal with disciplinary issues that related to the issue of sexual harassment in the workforce required additional authority.

I believe the legislation could have been a whole lot better. There could have been amendments made and ultimately passed. I applaud those individuals who put forward some amendments. The government has never demonstrated sympathy in passing opposition amendments.

My question to the member is this. If C-42 were passed, could he clearly define why it would make it worse than it currently is, which is the reason he will be voting against it as opposed to allowing it to pass, recognizing that it has shortcomings that could be improved going forward?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to speak to Bill C-42 at second reading. At the time, I began my speech by talking about the scandals that the RCMP has been involved in. Sad revelations about police officers in northern British Columbia add to the many cases of misconduct and show the urgent need to take action and ensure that these police officers are quickly identified and removed from the force.

However, this is impossible to do given the existing culture within the RCMP. That is the origin of the principles of Bill C-42, which, I would like to remind hon. members, are designed to punish or fire more quickly members who are accused of violating the standards and laws that they are supposed to uphold and who cause significant harm to the organization's image. These are the words that I used in my speech at second reading.

When he was appointed, Commissioner Paulson said that he was aware that harassment exists within the RCMP and that this was unfortunately not a new thing. He added that mindsets must change and that these behaviours must not be tolerated. That is why I am talking about culture.

When Mr. Paulson was appointed, he said: “First on my plate will be addressing the issue of harassment and sexual harassment in the workplace.”

On this side of the House, we think it is too bad that the recommendations from the 2007 Brown report, which we did not really talk about, were not more fully incorporated into the spirit of the bill.

Mr. Brown clearly identified the importance of focusing on changing the organization's culture. These recommendations were diluted quite a bit and most of them were simply ignored in committee.

In his task force's report, David Brown indicated that the RCMP is not just another department. He said:

In many ways, the RCMP's approach to governance has been based on a model and style of policing developed from—and for—another era... [N]one of these changes will be sustainable without the fundamental changes to structure that we are proposing.

Theses are David Brown's own words. They bear repeating here.

To some extent, that is why the NDP wanted to study this bill in committee. We supported the bill at second reading. We reached out to the Conservative government by mentioning that we were going to propose several amendments that would improve the bill. The Conservative government was apparently not receptive to our overture because every one of the amendments we suggested to improve the bill, which we felt was inadequate, was rejected.

The committee made an effort to hear from those who would be affected—the experts and the women alike. It did hear from a number of these experts, and a number of the people affected, including those at the RCMP.

Bills are important, but they must be well crafted and do what we want them to. The government did not create all the tools it needs to properly and effectively achieve its goal. It rejected most of the Brown report recommendations; it refused to hold a public hearing; and it introduced this bill without waiting for a number of important reports, such as the review ordered by the new commissioner on relations between men and women and the role of women in the RCMP, or the conclusions of the independent inquiry on workplace harassment being conducted by the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP.

When the bill was tabled, the two reports had not yet been completed. They have been completed since then, but their recommendations were not included in the bill.

I therefore wonder whether this can really be a serious exercise by a government that claims to listen to what people have to say about a bill in committee, a government that in the end refuses to seriously consider any of the amendments and recommendations that have been proposed.

In committee, most of the testimony from those affected indicated that the bill did not go far enough, in terms of the nature and scope of changes to the structure and organization of the RCMP, to really effect a significant change in the culture. One such witness was Darryl Plecas, Royal Canadian Mounted Police Research Chair and Director of the Centre for Criminal Justice Research, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University College of the Fraser Valley, who was rather hard on the organization:

Again, if there is one thing that's glaring about cases historically it's that there has been a never-ending effort in the past to minimize the seriousness of offences through the way in which they're dealt with, and to minimize them again through the kinds of penalties that are handed out. I don't think any reasonable outsider could look at the penalties that are awarded and think for a second that they in any way reflect what should be given as a disposition to anyone, let alone a police officer.

I will quote Mr. Plecas once more, because his remarks were instrumental in the NDP's decision to oppose this bill at third reading. He said:

What would be the process to ensure there is a proper and independent vetting of that so that cases can't be scaled down when they more properly ought to be dealt with in a formal manner?

When one considers—or at least we found—it's the entire spectrum of code of conduct cases, hopefully those regulations would be such that they would provide some assurances to any outside observer that every case is being given full consideration.

Maybe I'm missing something in the proposed changes, but I'm not sure that's happening or could happen with what's in there right now.

As I said, the NDP tried to move amendments to the bill in order to improve it and tried to work with the government to ensure that the bill addresses the concerns of Quebeckers and Canadians.

However, the Conservatives rejected all the NDP's amendments without any discussion. They seem to think that the Commissioner of the RCMP should have absolute control of the RCMP, and that is why they oppose a more balanced approach to the issues of dismissal, independent oversight and harassment training.

One of the amendments rejected by the Conservatives in committee was adding mandatory harassment training for RCMP members to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act. Another amendment would have ensured the independence of the body that will investigate RCMP complaints. Yet another asked for a provision to create a civilian investigative body in order to avoid police investigating police. It was deemed inadmissible. Finally, we asked for a police service with a better balance of human resources by eliminating some of the more sweeping powers of the RCMP commissioner and strengthening those of the external review committee in cases of potential dismissal from the RCMP. This amendment was deemed inadmissible.

If this government were really serious about reforming the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the way it operates and its culture, it would have studied the amendments from the official opposition and the opposition in committee more seriously, in addition to the amendments that were suggested by external stakeholders, including the proposal to establish an independent RCMP oversight body that would report directly to Parliament. But that would be asking too much of the government; too much progress at any given time is a big no-no.

The new commissioner has, on several occasions, reiterated his intention and willingness to take action. It remains to be seen whether this government’s proposals will help or hinder him. It must never be forgotten that beyond its responsibility to enforce the law, the government must do everything within its power to avoid any appearance that it considers itself above the law. That is where the buck stops.

In closing, I would say that the bill before us at second reading seemed like a step in the right direction. We understood the intention behind it, and the problems with the RCMP, and we wanted to help the government do something about it. That is why we highlighted the major shortcomings of the bill, which include too much power in the hands of too few.

We believe that, as a result of this bill, the RCMP Commissioner will have too much power to unilaterally decide the outcome of problems that may exist within the RCMP. Another fundamental problem that explains why we cannot support this bill at third reading is that the bill will not lead to any radical change in culture. There was broad consensus regarding the testimony heard in committee, testimony given by people who have had to deal with these problems, and who have observed from the outside or experienced from the inside what goes on.

This bill will do nothing to change the culture at the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and that is a great pity. This was our chance to do something, but the government rejected our overtures and refused to make the changes that are sorely needed. I cannot—we cannot—in good conscience vote in favour of this bill at third reading.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue debating third reading of Bill C-42, the enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police accountability act, a bill that would give the RCMP the tools it needs to strengthen accountability and enhance public trust. I am puzzled why the NDP is putting up member after member to delay and block bringing accountability to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The New Democrats should let the bill come to a final vote so that these much-needed reforms can be put in place. In fact, the RCMP commissioner, Robert Paulson, was in front of the committee yesterday, and he called for swift passage of the bill.

If the New Democrats heed the commissioner's advice and allow the debate to conclude, we will be able to start third reading of Bill S-7, the combatting terrorism act, and help keep Canadians safe that way.

Tomorrow, we will start the second reading debate on Bill C-54, the Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act. This bill proposes to put public safety as the first and paramount consideration in the process of dealing with accused persons found to be not criminally responsible. It accomplishes this change without affecting the treatment these individuals receive.

The debate on Bill C-54 will continue next Thursday and—if necessary—on Friday. Monday, we will consider Bill C-47, the Northern Jobs and Growth Act, at report stage and third reading. We will continue that debate on Wednesday.

Tuesday, March 5, shall be the sixth allotted day, which will go to the New Democrats.

Finally, I hope that the opposition will support our hard-working approach to business so that we could also consider second reading of Bill C-48, the technical tax amendments act, 2012; the second reading of Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act; and report stage and third reading of Bill S-9, the nuclear terrorism act.

In addition, in response to what I will take to be an invitation from the oppostion House leader, I would like unanimous consent to propose the following motion. I hope the opposition will not block it.

I move that, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-7, an act respecting the selection of senators and amending the Constitution Act, 1867 in respect of Senate term limits, be deemed to have been read the second time and referred to a committee of the whole, deemed considered in committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage and deemed read the third time and passed.

Unanimous consent for this would show that they really do care about Senate reform.

Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, as with most bills, there are always certain elements that move the discussion forward, possibly in a proactive way. The unfortunate part is that we have to take the bill in its entirety. The reality is that we cannot just pick a bill and say that one part is good and the rest is not. It is sort of like a budget. There are thousands of things in it. One thing is good and the rest is bad.

The unfortunate part is that Bill C-42 has many flaws. I am not sure if they are going to be supporting the legislation, but I encourage my hon. colleague to rethink the bill, because it could be greatly improved, and we have some suggestions for how to do that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the issue of sexual harassment in the RCMP is an issue the Liberals have been talking about for the last number of years. In May 2012, Commissioner Paulson came forward with a public letter about how important it was that there be more authority for the commissioner to have the capacity to deal with disciplinary action. The sexual harassment issue is one of the things that really stirred that pot.

Bill C-42 has many shortcomings. We probably both would agree on the fact that it could have done a lot more in terms of making the bill better legislation. I agree with that. I agree with his comments, especially when he talked about trying to get amendments through with this government.

Does he see any merit whatsoever in Bill C-42? Does the bill improve the system at all?

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his service. The reality is that the gentleman I spoke to was very proud of his RCMP service. What he is not proud of is the way the government is handling his pension benefits affairs when he is fighting with DVA. That is what he is angry about.

We just want to ensure that the office of the commissioner does not have over-extenuating powers and that when the men and women of the RCMP have grievances or concerns that they are able to have them addressed properly. We agree that Bill C-42 was a discussion point to open up concerns within the RCMP.

I throw the question back to my hon. colleague. Why would his government not accept any amendments that came from experts, which were passed on to us and that we passed on to the government? Why is it that he, on behalf of his government, thinks that only they have the answers when it comes to the RCMP, when the fact is that we were trying to assist and help improve Bill C-42?

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as the member is aware, I am retired from the RCMP. I am very proud of the RCMP and am happy to wear the red serge today. I would strongly suggest to the hon. member that the retired RCMP member he was speaking of probably has a pension and was happy to receive that.

Beyond that and the other things the member said, I think the RCMP has served our country very well for 140 years and continues to serve its members as best it can. Bill C-42 just extends an opportunity for what the commissioners of the RCMP want, whether it be the first one, MacLeod, or Paulson, and that is the power to do something within the organization that since 1873 it has not been able to do. I would like to hear one thing from the other side that shows that the commissioner has had the power, because he has not.

Bill C-42 is at least a start down the road. Commissioner Paulson has been very clear that he wants to eliminate the problems within the RCMP. Does the member believe that Bill C-42 is at least a good start for the Commissioner of the RCMP?

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to discuss concerns about Bill C-42.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with government members or anybody introducing legislation for better transparency, better accountability or better working arrangements within any department. The unfortunate part is that Bill C-42 would leave out many issues.

I have been following the RCMP and have been a fan for many years. I have been following careers and have tried, through my Veterans Affairs advocacy, to ensure that veterans of the RCMP receive the benefits they so rightly deserve.

Let us go back to how some of these things have happened. It was the current government that appointed, for the first time in my memory, a civilian to be the commissioner of the RCMP. If the Conservatives had tried to do that to the military and make a civilian the CDS, there would have been a riot and an uproar. For whatever reason, they thought it was okay that a civilian, Mr. Elliott, could look after the RCMP. Right away we could see that the rank and file RCMP members across the country were really upset. Many of them in my own riding were upset. They said that was not the way to go.

Young people join Depot and do the training and put on the yellow stripe. Probably the proudest day in many of these young men and women's lives is to wear the red serge. Maybe someone has ambitions and wishes to grow within the RCMP and maybe one day be the commissioner of the RCMP. Basically, the Conservatives said, “Don't worry about it. We're going to hire one of our friends and make him or her the commissioner of the RCMP”. That was such a wrong thing to do. It is nothing against Mr. Elliott personally. It is just that he never wore the uniform. I honestly believe that the only person who should be the commissioner of the RCMP or the CDS of the military should be someone who has actually worn the uniform at one time. That is my personal belief.

Only the Conservatives can do this. The RCMP has an organization called the Pay Council, which negotiates with government its pay and benefits for future years. In 2009, after many months of negotiation, they negotiated a 3.5% increase, which was fair in 2009. That was negotiated between the Government of Canada and the Pay Council of the RCMP. It was an agreement. On December 23, in the afternoon, an email went out from the minister's office saying that the 3.5% they had negotiated was completely off the board now and that they were getting 1.5%, end of story. It was just before Christmas. It was the Conservatives who did that, not the NDP, not the Liberals, not the Bloc, not the Greens, and not the independents. The Conservatives did that. Just before Christmas, they rolled back the pay increases of RCMP members without consultation. Just like that, it was done. Mr. Elliott said that there was nothing we could do at that time.

Also, on the desk of the former public safety minister, Mr. Stockwell Day, there was a long-standing request for members of the RCMP and their families to have access to the VIP, the veterans independence program, which is a great program for those in the military who receive it, although many of them do not. It allows members of the military and their families to stay in their homes longer as they age and require help with groundskeeping and housekeeping services. RCMP veterans have been asking for the same program for many years. What did they get from the Conservatives? They said no, even though it has been a request on the desk for many years.

The third factor in the abuse of RCMP veterans is that recently the government had to be taken to court to settle the SISIP clawback. These are pain and suffering payments. They came back. That ended up costing taxpayers $880 million, $150 million of which was interest and legal fees, which never would have had to be paid if the government had only listened in 2003, 2005, 2006 and 2007. Especially in 2007, before the legal proceedings started, the government could have saved an awful lot of money and a lot of aggravation on the SISIP clawback. The veterans won their case, and now those cheques will eventually be going out. We are glad that it has happened.

Did the Conservatives learn from that mistake? No. What have they done now? About 1,000 disabled RCMP veterans in the country have a lawsuit against the government on literally the exact same thing, a clawback of pain and suffering payments from their superannuation. Did the Conservatives learn from the expensive SISIP clawback legalities they went through after five years of litigation? No. Their answer is, “Take us to court”.

Given these three examples of the Conservatives' attitude toward the men and women of the RCMP, RCMP veterans and their families, it is no wonder that we on this side of the House distrust them when they bring forward legislation that is faulty at best.

We agree with the fact that there are certain elements of the RCMP that need changing, internally and structurally. We understand that, and we are willing to work with the government to see that it happens.

When my colleagues introduced amendments at the committee stage to improve the legislation, with very little discussion, the response from Conservatives was, “No, we are not accepting any opposition amendments. It is our way or the highway”.

As I said before, the justice committee was doing a justice bill. My hon. colleague from Mount Royal introduced some very relevant and important amendments that would have strengthened the bill and made it constitutionally legal in many ways. He is one of the finest human rights people in the entire world. He is one of the most respected people I know. He does not do things on the fly or willy-nilly. He is a thoughtful and intelligent person. He introduced amendments, and the Conservatives said, “No, we're not going to do it”.

It got to third reading, when amendments cannot be introduced, and all of a sudden, the government realized that maybe it should have listened to him. The bill went to the Senate, where a senator introduced amendments that were almost word for word the amendments the hon. member for Mount Royal introduced at the committee. It is incredible. What level of arrogance does the government have when it thinks that nobody in the opposition has an idea that may improve something it is bringing forward? It is incredible.

I have said for many years that it took the Liberals a long time to develop that arrogance. The Conservatives developed it very quickly, and I do not know why. Individual members of the Conservative Party are very good people. I do not know why they think they are the only ones who have all the answers. Many people came before committee and brought forward amendments that we in the opposition took from them to give the government. The answer was no.

The three examples I have given show exactly how the government treats RCMP members and their families. It is no wonder there is distrust. It is no wonder the morale among some members of the RCMP is really low.

I have been helping a veteran RCMP member for many years with his case with DVA. He lives in my riding. He said the proudest day of his life was when he put the red serge on at Depot. It was the proudest day of his life. He said the happiest day of his life was when he took it off. What did the RCMP or the government at the time do to make him so upset with the organization he had been willing to live and die for?

We in the NDP want to tell the government that we understand what it is trying to do. We are willing to work with it in this regard. It is going to have to bend to make this bill an awful lot better. If it is not willing to do that, then obviously, we are going to have to oppose this legislation.

I say, in closing, that the men and women who serve the RCMP have unlimited liability. We in government or in the opposition have the ultimate responsibility to see that their needs and their families' needs are met.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, a while ago there was a justice bill going through this House, and our hon. learned colleague for Mount Royal proposed about eight to ten amendments. Every single one of those amendments was refused at committee, absolutely refused. However, when the bill came to third reading here in the House of Commons, the government realized it should have taken those amendments. The bill then went to the Senate, where a senator introduced almost the exact same amendments to the bill.

The NDP proposed some very proper and straightforward amendments to Bill C-42 that would fix the bill and address some of the concerns that my hon. colleague has outlined. Again, in typical Conservative Party fashion, the Conservatives refused any of the amendments, which is a huge mistake.

I would like my hon. colleague to comment on that, please.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out, before I ask the member opposite a question, that Ian McPhail of the independent RCMP complaints commission did appear before the status of women committee last week. He specifically said that the commission found, through surveys and investigation, that the problem of harassment and sexual harassment is not in fact systemic.

However, that is not to say that there are not very important issues that need to be addressed, and I want the member opposite to know that they are being addressed. In fact, today at committee, E division deputy commissioner Callens appeared to talk about the work it is doing.

I would like to ask the member opposite specifically if he agrees that establishing a civilian complaints body under Bill C-42 would help the problem. Why does he think that harassment and sexual harassment need to be detailed specifically, when Bill C-42 addresses the entire problem of all of these issues?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand to speak to Bill C-42, an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act., an issue that is not only of importance to all members in the House, but is of great interest to the public at large, from coast to coast.

To put this in context, I want to pick up on some of the themes that were mentioned by my hon. colleague from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, who gave one of the most thoughtful speeches on this subject, or any subject that I have heard in the House in years. What he touched upon, and what is important, was the special relationship that Canadians have with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I do not think there is a more memorable symbol of our country around the world than the iconic Royal Canadian Mounted Police figure. It has played a pivotal role in the history and development of Canada and is responsible for delivering police and community safety services in communities across our country.

This long storied history is not uncheckered. Like any organization, it has not been perfect. It has had its challenges in the past and it has its challenges today.

The job that we call upon of our RCMP women and men across the country to do is one that is of utmost importance to Canadians. It is one of the most challenging and difficult ones that exists. We expect these men and women to answer calls in the middle of the night, often alone, and to be first responders at times of crisis, tragedy and emergency. We expect them to be the first people on the scene of an accident to deal with death and injury. We expect them to put their lives on the line in defending our communities and keeping people safe. For that, all members of the House join together in expressing our deep gratitude and respect for the men and women of the RCMP.

At the same time, the RCMP is an organization that is facing some serious challenges. Is it possible in 2013 to create a national police force that has a proper civilian oversight structure? Is it possible to construct a labour relations framework that not only gives management the tools it needs to ensure there is an appropriate standard of conduct for the staff that work under it, as well as a fair structure for the men and women to ensure they have access to justice and are treated fairly and equitably? Is it possible to expect that we can have a national organization that can deal promptly, swiftly, fairly and adequately with important issues like sexual harassment? Is it possible to have a modern-day police force that meets the expectations of Canadians? I think all members of the New Democratic Party say, absolutely, we can do that and in fact we should do that.

Bill C-42 is the Conservative government's response to long-standing claims of sexual harassment in the RCMP and to some difficult scandals that have made headlines as a result of problems with the disciplinary process and, if we are honest, lenient disciplinary measures handed out to officers accused of serious misconduct.

Bill C-42 proposes to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act in three main areas. First, it adds new provisions to the labour relations clauses and gives the RCMP commissioner the power to appoint and dismiss members as he or she sees fit. Second, it seeks to reform discipline, grievance and human resource management processes for members. Last, it seeks to reform the former Royal Canadian Mounted Police Public Complaints Commission by establishing a “new” civilian complaints commission and implement a new framework to handle investigations of serious incidents involving members.

Because of the immense respect we have for the RCMP, we can talk about some of these challenges. We have had cases of deaths occurring in custody. In my home province of British Columbia, some very serious questions were raised about the conduct of RCMP officers when civilians died while in the hands of the police. Over 200 women have joined a class action lawsuit alleging sexual harassment against members of the RCMP and making the more disturbing allegation of a widespread, well-entrenched system of gender harassment within that structure.

Bill C-42 reiterates many of the provisions of Bill C-38 from the 40th Parliament. At that time, the NDP criticized that bill for not going far enough in dealing with these very important issues. A very significant difference from the former Bill C-38 and the present Bill C-42 before the House today is silence on the issue of unionization of the RCMP. I would like to start there for a moment.

There has already been a court decision that has struck down the labour relations structure in the RCMP as being unconstitutional. As I said when I was public safety critic, the RCMP is the only police force in the country that does not have the right to have its men and women freely choose their bargain representative and engage in free collective bargaining. It is a national embarrassment. It is also unjust to the men and women who all members of the House claim to support and respect. If we truly respect the men and women we send into dangerous situations, should we not also respect their ability to decide who will bargain the terms and conditions of their work and raise concerns as any other group in the country is free to do? I think we do.

It is not acceptable that to this day the government has not replaced the bargaining structure in the RCMP with a free collective bargaining structure that respects norms, a bargaining structure that not only every worker in the country expects but that is contained in international treaties to which Canada is signatory. The main reason we oppose the bill is that it refuses to deal with this very important issue.

When we talk about sexual harassment, as my friend from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek so eloquently pointed out, one of the many workplace issues that organized labour has worked toward in the county and has helped improve is the situation of harassment in the workplace, including sexual harassment. It is only by changing workplace culture and the attitudes not only of management but of the men and women who are in a bargaining unit or performing labour that we can make meaningful progress.

The fact that the government has failed to act as the court has directed it to—that being to replace the unconstitutional labour relations structure with one that actually conforms to our law and the legitimate desires of the men and women in the RCMP—is a contributing factor to the poisoned context and situation that occurs in many RCMP detachments across the country.

The NDP supported the intention of Bill C-42 to modernize the RCMP and address issues such as sexual harassment in the force and voted for the bill to move to committee because we believed that it was important to work with the government to bring in effective legislation. We made that good-faith attempt.

The New Democrats members on the committee proposed 18 amendments to help strengthen the bill and make it conform to not only the necessities of good legislation but also the dictates of previous commissions and the requests of very informed respected people who were knowledgeable about the RCMP, such as former RCMP complaints commissioner Paul Kennedy, groups such as the Supreme Court of Canada and people like Justice O'Connor, who made recommendations in the aftermath of the Arar inquiry as to how the RCMP could improve its standards. These are eminent non-partisan people who have made a number of deeply thoughtful suggestions as to how we can modernize and improve the RCMP. The NDP wanted to help build that legislation.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives rejected every one of those 18 amendments. For Canadians watching, this is a common daily occurrence in the chamber.

I have been in the chamber long enough to know that no party has a monopoly on good ideas. Sometimes they come from the right, sometimes from the left and sometimes from the centre. However, the Conservatives have an unprecedented fashion, governed by rejecting virtually every idea that comes from any other part of this chamber, because they are hyperpartisan and extreme.

We hear the hon. members clapping when they are called extreme. I will leave it for Canadians to judge the thinking that goes behind that.

I want to point out, as well, that the bill fails to directly address the issue of sexual harassment in the force. It fails to bring a civilian oversight body that is truly independent. It fails to deal with the unionization requirements of the workforce. It also fails to put in an adequate system that would deal with sexual harassment.

The New Democrats remain ready and willing to work with the government to fix those problems and we urge it to do so. The men and women of the RCMP and the public deserve to have a modern RCMP that upholds the finest traditions of this force and makes it prepared for the century ahead.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this House to speak to this very important bill dealing with the RCMP.

It is important to me and to people in Surrey, British Columbia, because as members may know, Surrey has the largest RCMP detachment in the country. The men and women who work in the RCMP in Surrey do tremendous work to make our communities safe. In fact, I was very proud to have an opportunity to present Diamond Jubilee awards to a current member and a retiree in the last month. I am proud to work with the RCMP on a regular basis and to look at issues that deal with the RCMP on a regular basis.

As the House of Commons, we have a duty to restore public confidence in the RCMP, and we have an opportunity with this bill to do that.

The preamble of the bill states that the goals for this bill are transparency, improving conduct, strengthening the review and complaints body, and dealing with the climate of sexual harassment that exists in the RCMP. Those are all good goals, and we supported these goals at second reading, hoping that we would be able to scrutinize the bill more fully at the committee stage.

However, when we got to the committee, we heard witness after witness pointing out that the bill actually does not address a number of the issues that have been plaguing the RCMP over the last number of years. In fact, for the last six or seven years, the Conservatives have mismanaged this file so badly that the reputation of the RCMP has taken a beating.

Bill C-42 fails to act on any of the recommendations set out by Justice O'Connor in the Maher Arar inquiry that aim to improve the standards of review for the RCMP to meet the needs of Canadians. The bill is supposed to fix years of mismanagement of the RCMP by the Conservatives. The Conservatives presented Bill C-42 as a solution to a dysfunctional RCMP, but it fails to improve any of that.

The bill not only falls short of addressing sexual harassment within the force but also falls short on a number of other areas that the NDP tried to amend in the committee. The NDP put forward a number of amendments meant to ensure that Bill C-42 effectively meets the challenges the RCMP is facing.

Since I was elected in 2011, the NDP has made hundreds, if not thousands, of proposed amendments at the committee stage. I am quite surprised that not one of them has been accepted by the government. One would think that maybe one, two, three or ten would make sense to the government; no. It has consistently rejected all amendments.

Those amendments are based on consultations that happen in the committee. Experts come to the committee and provide expert testimony, but we know the Conservatives do not like to consult. On the aboriginal file, we have seen them fail to consult aboriginal people time after time. This is a similar case.

We had experts at the committee who provided testimony that gave good solutions as to how we could restore confidence in the RCMP. Again the Conservatives failed to take any of the amendments from the NDP. Some of those amendments included adding mandatory harassment training for RCMP members and ensuring a fully independent civilian review body to investigate complaints against the RCMP.

The credibility of the RCMP has taken shots in a number of high-level cases in British Columbia over the last number of years. I have talked to a number of people in my constituency and throughout British Columbia, and I have heard people on the radio as well talking about having a civilian body to investigate the RCMP. Throughout this country, Canadians have been calling for an investigative body that is independent of the RCMP.

Again, the Conservatives had an opportunity with this bill to put the RCMP on the right path and restore the confidence of the people of this country in the RCMP. However, they failed to do that. The bill before us does not address any of that.

Another of the amendments we proposed was to add a provision to create a national civilian investigation body that would avoid having police investigating police. Again, the Conservatives chose not to accept it.

We also offered to create a more balanced human resource policy by removing some of the draconian powers proposed for the RCMP commissioner and by strengthening the external review committee in cases involving possible dismissal from the force.

I would point out again that we saw the deterioration start under the Liberal government, and it has continued under the Conservative government.

The Liberals did not even offer any amendments at the committee stage. We offered 18 amendments, but not one of them was accepted by the Conservative government. The Conservatives voted down every single one of the amendments, ignoring many recommendations made by witnesses at the committee. Witness after witness explained that legislation alone will not foster a more open and respectful workplace for all.

We need to see an ongoing effort from the RCMP and the government to modernize the RCMP. However, Bill C-42 lacks the transparency and accountability necessary for that change. The bill does not go far enough in directly addressing the concerns of women serving in the RCMP, who are calling for urgent action to foster a more inclusive and safe environment for women in the RCMP. As well, the bill has been introduced without the benefit of the findings of the internal gender audit of the RCMP ordered by the commissioner, which is currently under way but not yet completed.

The Conservative approach does not make women in the RCMP a priority, which is necessary if we want to deal with the problem of harassment in the RCMP. My concern is that over and over we see the government attempt to gloss over the real issues within the RCMP and implement quick fixes instead of actually looking at the root causes of the problems and addressing them. Again, the Conservatives had an opportunity to do that; we in this House owe it to Canadians to address these issues, but the Conservatives have fallen flat on that.

The scope of sexual harassment in the RCMP is massive. We have seen a number of women come forward to talk publicly about harassment in the RCMP, and there are currently lawsuits in front of the courts. We had an opportunity to address this problem, but again the Conservatives have failed.

To conclude, I stress that in my community of Surrey and in communities across this country, crime and violence are a reality. Many shootings have occurred in the greater Vancouver region in broad daylight. However, instead of investing in crime prevention programs, the Conservative government is actually making it harder for the RCMP to do its job. Our job is to help the RCMP, give its members tools and resources, and invest in our forces.

The Conservatives had an opportunity to improve the reputation of the RCMP. We must get to the root cause of the internal cultural problem of sexual harassment in the RCMP, and we need to finally have binding independent civilian oversight so that we can deal with the real issues of accountability and transparency and ultimately restore public confidence in our force.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

I would like to begin by saying how important the RCMP and the police in general are to me. My colleague also mentioned this in his speech. When we were young, several of us, including myself, wanted to be police officers. We thought that it was a noble occupation, that genuine conviction was needed to engage in it and that it was a way of dedicating oneself to society. This is part of the process, of the importance that I personally attach to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I therefore have enormous respect for all those people who have served, and I know that my colleague opposite has previously served. I tip my hat to them. As a member of various committees, I have had the opportunity to question and speak with RCMP members. Quite frankly, I must say that I owe them an enormous amount of respect.

The purpose of this bill is to solve certain problems that exist at present time. Although we assert that we admire those individuals and that we believe they are doing a good job, as in any organization, there are always minor problems and matters that must be resolved. In this case, we really want to solve those problems. The initial purpose of this bill was to do precisely that. The NDP supported it at second reading so that we could study it in greater detail. However, we knew from the outset that it was somewhat flawed.

I would like to provide more details on the bill’s deficiencies and the positions that have been taken. The bill in fact addresses the process for dealing with sexual harassment complaints within the RCMP. It was introduced in response to the headline-making scandals. It constitutes a government reaction to this problem. Unfortunately, it appears to have been an improvised reaction, since the government's bill contains numerous flaws. I will elaborate on that later.

With Bill C-42, the government wanted and we wanted to solve existing problems and address instances of misconduct. There were abuses of power, intimidation and harassment. So we wanted to give the commissioner the power to decide what disciplinary measures should be taken in those cases. However, one of the issues with Bill C-42 is that it does not solve the problem and, according to some witnesses, even creates more problems. To answer my Liberal colleague's question, that is why it creates more problems. I will come back to this a little later.

The purpose of Bill C-42 was also to add clauses respecting labour relations and to give the RCMP commissioner the power to appoint and dismiss members at his discretion. We see a problem with that. Also, the bill does not go far enough. Commissioner Paulson stated that current legislation was not enough to retain the public's trust and that serious reforms were needed. That is what led to the introduction of Bill C-42. We knew there were flaws and a problem regarding the public's trust in the system.

Once again I repeat how important it is for me to protect RCMP members, the men and women who are doing an outstanding and necessary job to maintain order in the society we live in. It is important for us as legislators to protect the RCMP. We have the opportunity to do it. We see what the public is calling for and what Commissioner Paulson, in particular, has demanded. The public has spoken, and that is why the government ultimately decided to move forward.

When we look at what has happened and where we are headed, we see that this is not enough. We would like the bill to result in a working environment that is more open, more co-operative and, especially, more respectful of all concerned. It would also benefit the RCMP if we brought in legislation that would achieve greater transparency and a better workplace. That would be good for the public and for the RCMP.

However, the minister has not really done his homework and has not gone far enough in this area, particularly with respect to disciplinary investigation procedures.

Here is what is happening. We are creating a new commission, except that, when we look at and analyze the bill, we see that, in actual fact, the RCMP public complaints commission already exists. However, there is no separation here; by that I mean that we do not have an entirely independent commission. We know that the commission already exists, but once again we are ensuring that police officers will manage police officers, or that RCMP people will manage RCMP people.

This commission has to be independent if we are talking about transparency and something more public. Its members must report to people other than the same people who must manage all this. In my opinion, this is one of the more important factors that has not been addressed in the bill for which we made recommendations.

We also have other restrictions in this area, particularly regarding the new commission's ability to conduct independent investigations. Its findings would serve only as a basis for non-binding recommendations. Consequently, recommendations would be made to the commissioner or to the Minister of Public Safety, but they would not be binding. Once again, we see that the "new commission"—as my colleagues opposite call it—would not be independent and would only issue non-binding recommendations. So ultimately nothing much is changing in this area. This is one of the major problems we had.

The second major point that really troubles me about this bill is that it does not address the problem of sexual harassment within the RCMP. On the other hand, I have sometimes heard it said that, if there is not really any sexual harassment, then it is not a big problem. We have to be honest, open our eyes and take off our rose-coloured glasses. This is a problem, but one not exclusive to the RCMP. We must not necessarily point a finger at it alone. Once again, I restate my enormous respect for the men and women who work at the RCMP.

However, we must protect the women who work for the RCMP. We know that our society is evolving. More and more women are entering the labour market. In some places, people's attitudes have not changed. I am not necessarily saying that this is the case in the RCMP specifically, but there are problems that we wanted to address. We really wanted to tackle this issue, to stop burying our heads in the sand and look at what we can really do to get rid of sexual harassment. Unfortunately, once again, this bill is not the answer.

Justice O'Connor made many recommendations. Fifteen of his 23 recommendations concerned the RCMP. As I mentioned, and I would like to mention again for the benefit of my colleagues, in the beginning we supported this bill. We found that it was indeed a step in the right direction. We wanted to move reasonable proposals to resolve the problems I mentioned a little earlier. We put forward 18 amendments that I find very thoughtful and reasonable.

For example, we wanted to include mandatory harassment training for RCMP members in the RCMP Act. How can anyone be opposed to that? Here again, it is obvious that if we bury our heads in the sand and put on our rose-coloured glasses we can say that harassment does not exist. The government is saying that maybe it does exist, that it problably does, that yes, it does. Now we have to take measures. We in the NDP understand that prevention and education are important. The members on the other side are primarily talking about repression. If we want to eradicate certain societal ills, harassment prevention and education are crucial. Among other things, this is what we are proposing here.

We also asked that a completely independent civilian body be established to review complaints against the RCMP. I think it is obvious that a certain degree of independence is essential. Here again, it is not only for the benefit of the RCMP, but also for the public’s benefit. Both the public and the RCMP would come out ahead.

Our goal in establishing this independent body is to reassure Canadians. Obtaining the public’s trust will help the RCMP directly. We must not forget that the RCMP works closely with the general public. It is important to show some transparency and some sincerity, and let Canadians know that not everything is being done behind closed doors. We know that is how the Conservatives prefer to do things, and unfortunately, it comes through clearly in their bills.

We are aiming for openness and consultation. Let Canadians be part of the process.

Moreover, we want to avoid cases where the police investigate themselves.

This bill does not really address the root of the problem, and one of the things that was really disappointing was that none of the amendments we brought forward, and I mentioned all of them, were accepted. We have a government whose members are not listening and not consulting. Unfortunately, that is why we have a bill that is flawed.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate how measured my colleague's speeches are. It seems to me that she did not listen to a word I said or maybe what I said was lost in translation.

On the contrary, measures need to be taken to increase the number of women in the RCMP. However, women wanting to enter these somewhat difficult work settings need reassurance. We need to let them know that we are sending them to work in an environment that is free from every form of harassment. Stories such as what happened over the past few years are not very reassuring at all. And often we only see the tip of the iceberg.

There are some agencies that will come on behalf of the government to say that we must pass Bill C-42. What we are saying is that there were some serious flaws that could have been fixed with a bit of political will. The government shies away from fixing anything if it is the official opposition's idea. That is the problem.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, let me get this right.

We have heard evidence, overwhelming testimony, even on Tuesday morning—and clearly this member has not read a word of it—from not only the independent chair of the complaints commission but the commissioner himself, who has just laid out a very good and very thorough plan called “Gender and Respect”. The goal is to not only stop harassment and bullying within the RCMP but also to make sure there are more women within the RCMP.

Both of these individuals, as well as countless numbers of law enforcement agencies, have said that in order to do this, we need Bill C-42 passed so that we have a framework and can go ahead with the road map.

Let me ask this member a question. She is willing to stop this bill, stop the ability of the RCMP to end harassment and bullying and to have more women recruited into the RCMP. Is she willing to sacrifice all of that because she has a political agenda? Is that what the member is saying?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if it does that in some small part, it is really small. I would need quite the magnifying glass to find it.

I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North that Commissioner Paulson—and I am not here to criticize Commissioner Paulson—was appointed at the height of the storm and he made promises. He said he would do things. I will give him all of that. However, the fact that he could delegate some of his powers himself poses a problem.

Just read some of the clauses in Bill C-42 to understand what its limitations are. What will happen when there is no whistle-blower, like the RCMP officer who made this story public and instigated the class action suit? That is often what it takes in these situations. There needs to be a heroine. When you work for a police force, it is not easy to go public and say that you are a victim of sexual harassment. We know that it is such a macho environment and that it has been hard for women to find their place in that environment.

I find that this entire debate on Bill C-42 does not address the underlying issue, which is the pain and suffering of the victims. In short, not enough improvements are being made for us to say that we are taking a step in the right direction with this piece of legislation.

[D/Commr Craig J. Callens]

Yes, thank you very much.

I think a number of recommendations were made during the course of the gender-based harassment consultations that have been included and responded to appropriately through our respectful workplace action plan. The ability to bring in external workplace conflict practitioners to assist in the training and the response to workplace conflict and harassment in our division will go a long way to addressing some of the concerns that were raised by our employees in this province.

C-42 and the interface with government on the sufficiency of that bill rests with the commissioner and his senior staff in national headquarters. From my perspective it will streamline and provide mechanisms through which the commissioner can ensure a much more fulsome and timely response to harassment in our organization.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note certain statistics, because sometimes, in order to understand why a bill has been has been introduced in the House, we have to understand what led up to it.

A number of people in the House have already spoken, but it is very important to remember that more than 200 women who are now employed or who were employed by the RCMP have joined Constable Janet Merlo to bring a class action suit against the RCMP for sexual harassment.

This has caused quite a stir in Canadian society, and justifiably so. It is difficult to come up with a more contemptible crime in the workplace than sexual harassment, or even harassment in any form. I spent 30 years of my life as a labour lawyer for businesses, where staff relations are very important. Everyone wanted to develop harassment prevention policies. The more people talk to each other, the more familiar they become with the issue and the more likely they are to do what they have to do to get rid of harassment. It is the employer’s duty to ensure that the workplace is free from any form of harassment.

The cases that I dealt with in my area of practice were often the most tragic ones. I thought that when I arrived here as a member of Parliament, I would see fewer of these cases. Treasury Board has a great policy, and I really do not see much wrong with it. However, as I often say, the devil is in the details, in the implementation.

I am sure that some of my colleagues are hearing the same kinds of stories from their constituents as I am. Constituents who are public servants, members of the RCMP or some other agency contact us and tell us their horror stories.

I am not going to get involved in legal matters between the government and its employees, but I can barely repress a shudder when I hear some of their stories. I see people who, five years ago, followed the proper procedure: they filed a complaint, talked to their harasser, criticized the behaviour, and ended up being harassed more than before. Then they went to see their supervisor, who looked into the issue and realized that it was true.

Within the Canadian public service, apparently when there is a harasser, an offender, he receives a promotion after going on a training course to become a little more aware of the issue. Although the government claims to be on the victims' side, victims still have to jump through all the legal hoops. If we spent as much time trying to resolve the issue and change behaviours, which are sometimes attributable just to a lack of education and political will to solve the problem, we could avoid these types of situations.

People who are broken come to tell us their side of the story. Many do not understand that it is a case of harassment. Harassment is about control; it is a way of trying to demean someone. If the harassment is psychological, the harasser is messing with his victim’s head. If the harassment is sexual, there will be repeated actions. However, sometimes a single unwelcome act may be serious enough to be called harassment. As there is often a power relationship between the harasser and the victim, the victim often feels caught between a rock and a hard place, caught between losing her job and coping with the despicable behaviour.

We must remember what led to the introduction of Bill C-42. Let us remember the grand pronouncements by the Minister of Public Safety.

He said he would fix the problem and introduce a bill to ensure that the RCMP takes care of the problem. As I said, 200 people have brought a sexual harassment class action suit against the RCMP, which did not protect the victims. That is why we need a meaningful bill.

When Commissioner Paulson was appointed, he said that this was a priority.

When I am called to speak to a bill, I like to read it first, which may surprise the Conservatives, who think we do not read the bills. On the contrary, we in the NDP read the bills. Based on some of the questions I hear in this House, it is clear that some people did not read the bill or they would not be asking the questions they are asking.

The preamble says it all. In fact, it lays out what we would expect to see throughout the bill, but we do not see those things anywhere in the provisions. The preamble says:

Whereas

Canadians should have confidence in their national police force;

That goes without saying.

Whereas civilian review is vital to promoting transparency and public accountability of law enforcement;

That goes without saying as well, but these are concepts that the current government is not grasping. I think the government does not have the right definitions for these concepts.

Whereas civilian review should enhance the accountability of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to provincial governments that have entered into arrangements for the use or employment of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police;

Whereas all members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are responsible for the promotion and maintenance of good conduct and are guided by a Code of Conduct that reflects the expectations and values of Canadians;

And whereas the Government of Canada is committed to the provision of a framework that will serve to enhance the accountability of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and support its continued modernization;

A preamble like that augurs very well. Anyone reading it would say, “This is wonderful.” Again, the devil is in the details. A number of provisions in Bill C-42 give a tremendous amount of discretionary power to the commissioner.

My colleague from St. John's East did a good job of illustrating how we are in the process of creating a more powerful hierarchy within the RCMP. We know that the police like to investigate themselves. They would opt to investigate themselves every time, if we let them. However, this is at odds with values of transparency and accountability. It is best to have independent agencies.

With respect to labour relations, certain parts of the bill, namely clauses 2 to 34, indicate how the commissioner can make certain decisions. He would not necessarily make bad decisions, but there is a real danger in having the commissioner make all the decisions. Such provisions do not bode well for transparency. The commissioner would make reports and recommendations at certain committees, but implementation of these recommendations would not necessarily be mandatory.

We noticed serious problems during the debate at second reading. We were confident that the bill would be carefully studied at the Standing Committee on Public Safety. And that does seem to have happened. However, as is always the case for a number of committees, the problem arises when it is time to listen to the advice of anyone other than the government. The Conservatives can never listen carefully or actively, and they always have blinders on.

They are so afraid of leaving just one sentence that they have not penned in a bill, not being able to take full credit, not being able to say that they are the best, and so on, that they prefer to be closed-minded and wilfully blind and pass weak laws that may be challenged and may not achieve the desired results. This attitude is unfortunate and does not solve the problem.

To those who think that women will breathe a sigh of relief today because of Bill C-42 and that women will finally be able to put to rest the issue of harassment, feel respected and believe that there will be transparency and accountability, I say this bill deserves a big fat zero.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My thanks to the witnesses for taking part in this videoconference and for enlightening us on what is happening in British Columbia.

Bill C-42 has no independent process for investigations, but it gives the commissioner the power to investigate.

The E Division report recommends establishing an independent system for the process. Can you explain to us what the impact of an independent system is, please?

I will give the rest of my time to my colleague Niki.

Mr. Callens, did you understand my question?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his work on the defence committee.

Yes, we are going through a similar process as we went through on Bill C-42, for which the NDP brought forward a significant number of amendments. We are not through all of them yet, but so far the government has accepted none of the amendments we proposed, and that is the case here.

If there is a problem that requires a solution, legislation is brought forward. If it is inadequate and we provided means to address the problem for which the legislation was created in the first place, we would expect the co-operation that reasonable members of Parliament would address to an issue.

However, it appears the Conservatives say that it is their bill and they will not make any changes. They do not care what arguments are made and what support there is for them logically and from people who are experts in the field. They will continue to do what they want. This seems to be what happened here as well.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have an opportunity to speak to Bill C-42 at third reading. It is an important area of public policy that needs to be addressed by the House. Unfortunately it is our conclusion that it has not been addressed properly by the House, because the bill would not do what it is expected to do.

As previous speakers have said, the RCMP is a storied institution in Canada. As the member for Kootenay—Columbia said, it goes back to 1873. It has not always been a perfect institution, and we all know that. It has been open to criticism from time to time in its history for some of the uses to which it was put by various governments.

When I started practising law, the RCMP was regarded as the senior police force in the country. Police forces around the country looked up to the RCMP for standards and training and discipline and proper procedures.

Of late, unfortunately, people have become disconcerted with the way the RCMP has been able to handle matters, particularly those of an internal nature. We have heard complaints for a number of years about harassment, particularly the harassment of women. There are outstanding lawsuits by 200 women complaining about harassment within the force and the apparent inability of the force to deal with that issue. As a result of some constant prodding by the NDP in the House, legislative action was deemed necessary and taken. Unfortunately, the bill does not address the kinds of issues that caused the need for this legislation to take place.

We have talked about the need for a more respectful force in terms of having a proper method to deal with sexual harassment and a proper response to the concern about that harassment, the need for a broader and more balanced human resource policy and the removal of some of the more draconian powers that are proposed for the RCMP commissioner. None of these were accepted in committee.

The government's response to these problems is to create a more powerful hierarchy within the RCMP and to give the commissioner more draconian powers than ever. As the member for Kootenay—Columbia said, the commissioner is going to delegate all of these powers to various deputy commissioners and others. Instead of having a more balanced approach whereby people would have a right to have their grievances dealt with and issues responded to, we are going to have a top-down hierarchy, which will not inspire confidence but create more of a paramilitary organization. That is an anachronism when it comes to modern policing in Canada.

Obviously there needs to be discipline within a police force, and all of that should take place, but when it comes to matters such as complaints about sexual harassment, there has to be a safe place for people to go. People have to know that these matters will be dealt with. They should have a clear expectation that the professional police officers throughout the force, from the bottom to the top, are well aware of and sensitive to what sexual harassment is and what it can do. Previous speakers have outlined some of the particular ways in which that should happen.

Through some 18 amendments at committee stage, we talked about what could be done to meet some of these needs. All of these amendments were rejected by the government. These amendments included adding mandatory harassment training for RCMP members, and specifically adding those measures to the RCMP Act itself, so that it would be clear that this was a response to the problem. We wanted to ensure that there would be a fully independent civilian body that would be able to review and investigate complaints against the RCMP.

This is important. The model that was proposed was a model like SIRC, which oversees CSIS. It is independent, with decision-making power, not just the recommendation power in the bill. That was provided for as well. It was turned down by the government.

Third, we wanted to add a provision creating a national civilian investigative body. We still have the situation of the RCMP being able to investigate itself when complaints are made of improper behaviour by police officers. That is not right. There is an elaborate procedure in place that maybe the provinces would undertake something first and if not, then the RCMP would do it and potentially there would be some civilian role in that, but that is not good enough. Some of the provinces do not have the capability of an independent review. Also, there are three territories that do not have an independent police force, and the RCMP does the work there. It is going to be a situation of RCMP officers investigating cases involving their own activities.

The fourth one, which I just talked about, was to have a more balanced human resources policy, removing some of the powers that were proposed for the RCMP commissioner and strengthening the external review committee so cases involving possible dismissal from the force could have an outside review. Now the situation is that the final authority is being given to the RCMP commissioner, with no possibility of appeal or independent review. That is not right.

One of the complaints about that was made by the president of the Canadian Police Association, Mr. Tom Stamatakis, who stated, “Without any additional, and most importantly, independent avenue for appeal, I would suggest there is a possibility that RCMP members could lose faith in the impartiality of a process against them, particularly in situations in which the commissioner has delegated his authority for discipline”. The contrast to that would be the example in Ontario, where a police officer subject to a disciplinary process has the right to appeal that decision against an independent civilian police commission.

These two go hand in hand. Having a proper policy and proper disciplinary process, but also an expectation by police officers themselves that the process is fair and impartial would allow for the cultural change that is required to take place. As the commissioner said, cultural change is required, but legislation cannot bring about all of the cultural change. In fact, he said that the culture of the organization had not kept pace. Commissioner Paulson stated:

—the problem is bigger than simply the sexual harassment. It is the idea of harassment. The idea that we have a hierarchical organization overseeing men and women who have extraordinary powers in relation to their fellow citizens, which requires a fair degree of discipline.

It is the hierarchical system that he says has been part of the problem. Instead of making mandatory sexual harassment training part of the solution, instead of having a more balanced approach in terms of management and perhaps a board of managers to oversee this, what we have done is strengthened the hierarchical system. We have not found a solution to the problem that caused and brought about the need for legislation. Instead of solving the problem, this legislation has actually made it worse.

The member for Kootenay—Columbia asked why members would not vote in favour of it since, in part, it went in the right direction. In fact, we think voting in favour of this bill would not provide a solution at all.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, RCMP Commissioner Paulson indicated in an open letter in May 2012 that the government needs to enhance the powers of the commissioner in order to take disciplinary action and cited issues such as sexual harassment.

The Liberal Party believes that we need to deal with this.

My question to the member is this: does he believe that passing Bill C-42 would make the current law weaker?

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what the member does not understand is that the system his party is proposing cannot be integrated into the RCMP Act. It just cannot be done. The power needs to be implemented within the RCMP Act first, in relation to the Commissioner of the RCMP.

To say that only the Commissioner of the RCMP would hand out all or any punishment or any other types of things is simply incorrect. The Commissioner of the RCMP would automatically provide options for deputy commissioners, assistant commissioners, chief superintendents, superintendents and anyone of commission rank They could also provide guidance or discipline to members across this great country.

The RCMP has to fix itself from within, because since 1873 we as parliamentarians have done it that way. We created the RCMP Act. Therefore, I believe that Bill C-42 goes in the right direction.

My question to the hon. member is this: does he believe that not supporting Bill C-42 would solve anything?

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on days like today it is discouraging to listen to what our adversaries opposite have to say. That just cannot be.

I am very disappointed, but not surprised by this government's approach, which is unproductive, indifferent and unfocused and whose failings have been laid bare. Today, the government is on the defensive because of its indifference. It is very evident this morning. Amendments put forward by the NDP included mandatory harassment training for RCMP members, a civilian body to investigate complaints against the RCMP, and an independent review body to avoid police investigating police. All these amendments were very reasonable and in keeping with what the many witnesses said. All these amendments were rejected.

Contrary to the recommendations in the O'Connor report on the Maher Arar case and the many witnesses who appeared before the committee, the government rejected the amendments and continues to favour an internal, perhaps even arbitrary, approach at the RCMP, as we would unfortunately expect, rather than an independent, external and transparent approach.

Unfortunately, Bill C-42 will not resolve the very serious problems that will continue to plague the RCMP. In the meantime, many people will suffer. We are obviously thinking of the women who experience sexual harassment.

Therefore, it is with great regret that we must oppose this bill for all the reasons mentioned and especially because of the lack of transparency and the government's blinkered approach to official opposition amendments.

The people in my riding of Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher sometimes ask me whether I am fed up with Conservatives' behaviour. Of course we are fed up. We cannot take any more of this closed-mindedness, this sense of divine authority and omniscience, the way the Conservatives do not want to listen to and consider other points of view, the bad faith. We are fed up with how the Conservatives always make their ideological agenda a priority, but especially with how, particularly lately, they are always using the buzzword “transparency” and talking about accountability when they are the champions of silence, the champions of working behind closed doors.

I cannot help but see something that is very suspicious in the Conservatives' attitude. What are they hiding by always calling for transparency and officially talking about accountability, when they have an agenda that they will never reveal?

This is very disappointing for us, particularly for those of my colleagues who have been asking for reforms for a long time, such as the member who is sitting right beside me. It seems that we are still working on the issue of harassment within the RCMP. The NDP has been asking the government for ages to take care of this situation, which affects many people, particularly women. It is a governance problem within the RCMP, a problem with the internal culture.

The bill that the government put forward is not a solution at all. We were hoping for a proactive approach and a strategy to prevent these regrettable situations from happening again, but unfortunately, the outcome we are seeing today is a dry, disciplinary, impersonal and ill-considered bill in which the word harassment appears only once. It is unbelievable. As I was saying earlier, although the amendments we proposed in committee were very positive, they were rejected, and the opinions of many witnesses and experts were ignored.

Once again, as is often the case, the Conservatives took a serious, systemic problem affecting the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and addressed it in a simplistic and—quite frankly—lazy manner. What is needed today to change the RCMP and reassure the public is a major change to the culture of this organization, something that this bill does not allow for. On the contrary, in a few years, we will once again be faced with the same problem because harassment will continue to be a serious problem within the organization. This bill does not reassure Canadians that their formal complaints will be examined with the attention they deserve.

Robert Paulson, Commissioner of the RCMP, has repeatedly said that a cultural change is needed. He said the following before the Standing Committee on the Status of Women:

It's the culture of the organization that has not kept pace... We haven't been able to change our practices and our policies...

[T]he problem is bigger than simply the sexual harassment.

David Brown, who led a working group on the issue in 2007 at the request of the federal government, also said the same thing. The name of that group was the Task Force on Governance and Cultural Change in the RCMP. It could not be clearer than that.

And yet rather than a real change of culture on the inside and outside, through unambiguous leadership and listening on the part of the minister’s office, we have been treated instead to a sort of “light reform”, which ultimately will do nothing to solve the fundamental problems we have been raising in the House for several months now, if not several years. It will do nothing to change the problems that have brought us to where we are and that this bill is supposedly intended to solve.

The system proposed in this bill for investigating the police completely fails to meet the test of logic and common sense. Bill C-38, which was cloned to produce the bill that is before us today, had provided that the RCMP would investigate itself in certain cases.

The strange structure we are presented with in this bill provides that in the case of serious incidents involving the RCMP—deaths and serious injuries—the provinces will step in and assign the investigation to an investigative body or police service. Otherwise, the RCMP may assign the investigation to another police service, and if that option is not available, the RCMP will carry out the investigation itself.

This means that the job of overseeing the RCMP is assigned in the first instance to provincial bodies, in spite of the fact that such bodies exist in only four provinces: British Columbia, Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan. Ultimately, and unfortunately, oversight of the RCMP is too often shifted to the provinces. This amounts to the federal government abdicating its responsibility and once again downloading the federal government’s costs onto the provinces.

I thought that the Conservatives wanted to reduce the size of government, since they told us they did, but that cannot mean that responsibility for the oversight of federal institutions has to be shifted to the provinces.

We are opposed to this Byzantine system because it can be simpler and more effective. We tried to do this through an amendment in committee, proposing that a national, independent civilian group be created that would systematically handle this and report to Parliament. Obviously, that amendment was rejected. We have to put an end to this system of the police investigating the police. Even the mayors of some municipalities are opposed to it.

We made proposals here and in committee to that effect. Our amendments and the recommendations from reports, task forces, commissions and witnesses have been waved off by a government that is running headlong toward disaster. Its stubborn insistence on doing nothing of any real effect is astounding, and we find it particularly tiresome.

The bill before us is also an abdication of the minister’s responsibilities. The proposal to significantly increase the powers of the commissioner of the RCMP amounts to running toward the nearest exit; it is the easy solution.

This is another abdication: the government should have led the charge against harassment inside the RCMP with a vigorous reform. Instead it is choosing to set up and endorse a system that massively increases the commissioner's powers, in the hope that this will change something.

All the witnesses and experts who are familiar with this issue say that we do not need more powers concentrated in the hands of a single person and that what we really need is a new system of transparency and independent oversight.

The Task Force on Governance and Cultural Change in the RCMP, which the government created in 2007, had another idea in mind. It proposed reforms that would bring the RCMP into line with the internal governance methods and structures used in civilian bodies, with a board of management that would oversee and could challenge decisions of the commissioner, that would require accountability, that could hear complaints from employees and that would exist within a transparent structure.

Unfortunately, what the government is proposing is, once again, the complete opposite. Clearly, the solution in this bill, which is to put more powers than ever in the hands of a single person, when what is needed is to overcome an organizational problem, will solve nothing. In fact, it may well create more internal problems and discontent.

This is a clash between two different philosophies. When the Conservatives are faced with a complex problem, they propose more powers in the hands of a single person, more order, more hierarchy, more unchallengeable or arbitrary decisions and more discipline. When we look at the same problem, we call for a system that is structured, transparent, well thought-out and systematic and that will act in the public interest and respect the rights of RCMP members, certainly, but most importantly the rights of the public.

In this bill, what the Conservatives are proposing is unprecedented: an enormous reform that will replace the existing commission that examines complaints against the RCMP and reports its findings to the minister with a commission that will examine complaints against the RCMP and report its findings to the minister. That is very impressive.

In conclusion, the people in my riding are not taken in by this kind of obsession with the rhetoric of transparency and accountability, and they hope that we are going to oppose this sham as long as we can.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this place on behalf of the residents of Davenport, in the great city of Toronto, for whom this issue is of great concern and of great interest. The idea of, in particular, a civilian oversight of the RCMP and a more rigorous accounting of its operations is something that certainly the people in my riding and the people in Toronto are very much concerned about, particularly in light of events that occurred in Toronto in June 2010. I am referring to the G20 conference and the events that led to essentially the biggest mass arrest in Canadian history, for which the RCMP was the lead law enforcement agency.

We note that Bill C-42 does seek to reform the RCMP public complaints commission by establishing a new complaints commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and implementing a new framework to handle serious incidents involving the members.

The problem, though, is that while the name may change, the powers would not really change. It looks remarkably like the current RCMP public complaints commission, especially in that it would not be a fully independent commission reporting to the House of Commons. Instead, it would continue to report to the Minister of Public Safety.

We on this side of the House have great concerns about that because we have concerns about the minister himself. We cannot forget that this is the same minister who extolled and hectored and lectured Canadians, saying that if Canadians did not stand with him and his flawed online piracy bill then they were standing with pedophiles—an outrageous and offensive comment that earned the scorn, the rightful scorn, of Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

The changes in the bill would essentially mean that any major investigation would be overseen by the minister himself, who ultimately would be the final arbiter of these investigations.

As well, the new commission would have serious restrictions on its ability to undertake independent investigations, and its findings would be presented only in the form of non-binding recommendations to the commissioner and the Minister of Public Safety. These restrictions on the independence of the new commission would be a major issue for us.

As we have done on many bills that have passed through this House, we put forth many measured amendments to the bill, ones that would actually have beefed up the idea of civilian oversight and made it independent. Once again, the government ignored every single one of our recommendations and amendments.

This is particularly concerning in light of the 2006 report of Justice O'Connor of the O'Connor inquiry into the actions of Canadian officials in relation to Maher Arar, which called for the RCMP watchdog to be structured along the lines of the Security Intelligence Review Committee, which monitors CSIS. It would have the right to audit all RCMP files and activities and the power to subpoena related documents and compel testimony from any federal, provincial, municipal or private sector person or entity.

The present RCMP public complaints commission does not have review powers to ensure, systematically, that the RCMP's national security activities are conducted in accordance with the law and with respect for rights and freedoms.

This issue of civilian oversight and the independence of an agency that would oversee complaints is an important one. It is an important one for civil society. It is an important one for democracy.

I think it is important to note, as many of my NDP colleagues have during this debate, that we have enormous respect for officers in the RCMP. We understand that they are oftentimes working in extremely difficult conditions and situations, often chaotic, often situations where they have to make split-second decisions, quick decisions.

We understand that sometimes this is an incredibly difficult and pressure-filled job that we as Canadians ask them to do on our behalf, which is all the more reason why it is so important that we create and then maintain an independent oversight body for the RCMP. This is exactly what we had recommended.

We have seen some of the reactions from various stakeholders in Canada around this bill. We would also note that the former chair of the commission for public complaints, Paul Kennedy, commenting on the last iteration of this bill, Bill C-38—and not a lot in terms of this part of the bill has changed—said that the legislation is riddled with loopholes and does not meet Mr. O'Connor's standards.

The law would allow the Minister of Public Safety to make regulations concerning the watchdog's access to privileged information, such as classified intelligence or material about clandestine operations. It also permits the RCMP commissioner to deny the watchdog access to such information. The new law also lacks time limits for RCMP to respond to the commission's interim reports.

Many people may view this debate as a bit inside the bubble, as “inside baseball”. However, in fact, when we get down to the street level and go back to June 2010 and we think about what happened on the streets of my city, the biggest city in the country, the economic engine of this country, the cultural centre of Canada, we see what actually happened, especially right at the corner of Queen and Spadina.

Hundreds and hundreds of regular folks, most of whom lived in the neighbourhood, were kettled, or boxed in, in the rain, for several hours as the police pursued a tactic known as kettling. One of the many problems with what happened that night is that kettling is something the RCMP is not supposed to do. It is not part of their regulations. It is not part of their code, and they did participate.

A report into the RCMP's activities at the G20 was delivered in May 2012. It itemized, in rather minute detail, some of the issues that occurred that night. It also very clearly states that kettling was not part of the RCMP's mandate, and yet officers pursued it.

This is an example of why we need an independent civilian oversight body to build the public trust. I have to say that the events of the G20 severely damaged the public trust in our law enforcement agencies to both keep the peace and protect people who are peacefully coming together and expressing their democratic right of free speech.

I would like to end my comments there. I welcome any questions.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank my colleague from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek for his excellent and very heartfelt speech to the House about the official opposition's position on Bill C-42. It was a fine tribute to our national policy, but especially to the men and women who serve on our national police force. It was a good way to recognize the incredible and hard work this police force does every day.

My colleague spoke about the training and the tools the RCMP needs to combat various problems, including sexual harassment. I found that interesting because one of the amendments we proposed in committee, after having various discussions with witnesses who appeared before the committee, would have required mandatory harassment training for all RCMP members. Unfortunately, this amendment was not adopted in committee, which is very sad.

What are my colleague's thoughts on the fact that this amendment was not adopted and the official opposition tried to make harassment training mandatory?

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and his dedication on the justice committee.

As he is aware, I am a retired member of the RCMP. I spoke with two members of the RCMP yesterday who feel that this bill has been a long time coming. The RCMP has been unable to do anything with regard to discipline, because it has not been there. Since 1873, the RCMP, and specifically the commissioner, have not had the opportunity to deal with anything. Bill C-42 would provide the commissioner of the RCMP with the authority to dismiss someone if the person is found to have caused a breach under the RCMP Act and/or the Criminal Code.

Does the member think that the commissioner of the RCMP should have the authority to remove someone who breaches either the RCMP Act or the Criminal Code, or does he believe that sending it to an independent body, which will have no authority to remove the member, would be better?

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak about Bill C-42. The issue of enhanced accountability for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is one of great interest to Canadians and one I am glad to have a chance to speak about today.

Canadians have high expectations of the RCMP. They expect the men and women of the RCMP to serve them with honour and integrity. We need them to serve us and protect us and protect public safety. We ask them to put their lives on the line to protect us.

The RCMP officer in the red uniform, the Mountie, is an iconic symbol of Canada. The force's service to Canadians is, on the whole, exemplary. It is an institution in which we take great pride. It is a symbol of Canada around the world, known to citizens of different countries all over the world.

However, recent high-profile incidents, including complaints of sexual harassment lodged by current and former female RCMP officers and, importantly, the failure to discipline officers who step outside the bounds of the law, show that there are deep underlying issues with respect to the culture of the RCMP. It is being called, in some circles, dysfunctional. It is unanimously recognized that it is a culture that needs to be changed dramatically.

Speaking to the CBC in November, RCMP Commissioner Paulson referred to the institution as “...the culture of harassment, it's the culture of misuse of authority”. So much so is this the case that, regrettably, public confidence in the RCMP has been shaken. A change in the accountability framework for the RCMP is long overdue.

We witnessed on television, and in the news, the concerns and complaints of many former and current RCMP employees, mainly women, talking about their concerns with the culture and the lack of response to their concerns and complaints. These are clearly difficult issues that have had profound effects on the careers and lives of these RCMP officers and former officers.

Speaking of Bill C-42, the Minister of Public Safety has stated:

...Canadians' confidence in the RCMP has been tested over the past few years and this legislation will ensure that the RCMP is fully accountable for its actions and is open and transparent in its service to Canadians.

However, Bill C-42 does not lead to more independent and transparent oversight of the RCMP. It is simply the same body that reports non-binding recommendations to the minister, but with a new name.

Bill C-42 is the Conservative government's take on what accountability should look like, but on this side of the House, we have an entirely different perspective. We actually understand accountability, what it means and how valuable it is, and we believe in it. We find Bill C-42 wanting because of its lack of accountability.

Although we agree with the principle of the bill, what we find is that the bill is deeply flawed in its execution. We have a piece of legislation here that fails to recognize either the needs of RCMP officers who have experienced harassment in the workplace or the very reasonable and appropriate expectation of Canadians of civilian oversight of a police body. This is the key to improving accountability in this institution; that is, civilian oversight and transparency.

We voted in favour of the bill at second reading, hoping that the bill's flaws would be addressed in committee. Unfortunately, true to form, the Conservatives voted down every amendment the NDP proposed. The result is that we have missed an opportunity to fix the glaring holes in the bill that we identified at second reading, glaring holes that many witnesses at committee were able to identify and expound upon.

Some of the amendments we proposed at committee included these few things that I think members of the House should find critically important to a bill that purports to bring accountability and transparency to a policing institution. They included adding mandatory harassment training for RCMP members and specifically to lodge that requirement in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act; ensuring a full independent civilian review body to investigate complaints against the RCMP; adding a provision to create a national civilian investigative body, which would avoid police investigating police; and creating more balanced human resource policies by removing some of the more draconian and despotic powers proposed for the RCMP commissioner, and by strengthening the external review committee in cases involving possible dismissal from the force.

The Conservatives turned down all of those very reasonable proposals to amend Bill C-42. As a result, the bill fails to create a strong independent civilian oversight body for the RCMP such as—and this is important to note—the one proposed in the 2006 O'Connor inquiry or the 2007 recommendations of the Task Force on Governance and Cultural Change in the RCMP.

The proposed new civilian review and complaints commission would replace the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP and would have greater authority to conduct investigations, gather evidence and materials and compel testimony. Admittedly, that is a step in the right direction.

However, the new body would not report to Parliament, not to us, but to the commissioner and to the minister, so this is most emphatically not an independent organization. It most emphatically does not bring about the purported goals of the bill, which are to bring transparency and accountability to this institution.

As well, the commission's findings would be non-binding. Indeed, this represents a missed opportunity to have a fully independent complaints commission that would be accountable to all Canadians and not just the Minister of Public Safety.

The word “accountability” is one the government loves to use. It throws it about all the time. However, I do not think it has quite grasped the concept. In fact, it has cheapened and undermined it and simply does not value it.

The bill purports to bring accountability to a police institution. That is, I think, sufficient evidence that the government fundamentally does not believe in accountability and does not act in accordance with the principles of accountability. We simply do not see it in the bill.

This new body would have observer status only in investigations of serious incidents involving the RCMP. This is evidence of not grasping the concept of accountability.

The new investigative framework for these incidents proposed in Bill C-42 is really just a patchwork system. It would differ from province to province. A province would choose to appoint an investigative body or a police force or would leave the RCMP to either refer the investigation to another police force or to even conduct the investigation itself. These provisions simply allow a continuation of the current practice of police investigating police. It is clearly a problematic practice and clearly is a practice that got this institution into the issues it is in now. That, fundamentally, is one of the key things that needs to be changed under the bill, but it is not. Unfortunately, a fully independent national watchdog agency is not part of this legislation. Although independent civilian oversight is needed, the bill fails to deliver that independent civilian oversight.

Bill C-42 not only fails to deliver that oversight, it concentrates considerable power in the hands of the commissioner, who would be granted the authority to appoint and dismiss officers and to establish a system of investigation and resolution of harassment complaints. Rather than taking responsibility for addressing problems within the RCMP, the minister has decided to simply give this responsibility over to the commissioner.

The NDP feels that a more balanced approach would involve strengthening the external review committee rather than concentrating the power to dismiss officers in the hands of a single individual. However, again, all proposed amendments were rejected at committee.

RCMP officers carry out difficult and dangerous work at considerable risk to themselves to protect Canadians. Some have died in this service, and that is a profound tragedy for all Canadians and particularly for the families of those officers.

The question for us to contemplate in this House is what those RCMP police officers are owed, in return, from us, yet we have so far even failed to create an open and respectful workplace environment for all members, which all Canadian workers are entitled to. In the circumstances of the police, who put their lives on the line and from time to time tragically lose their lives in that service, it is an absolute minimum expectation in any kind of tacit contract with members of the RCMP.

However, what we have are officers who experience harassment in the workplace and are fearful about even speaking up. They are fearful of losing their jobs, in fact. Many have even left their jobs because of these circumstances in the workplace.

For a bill that was supposedly introduced as a response to sexual harassment complaints brought forward by female RCMP officers, Bill C-42 is strangely silent on that very specific but critically important issue. We have female officers who have been serving the Canadian public in the RCMP for almost 40 years. In that time we have failed to bring about protections from this type of abuse, which is barred under Canadian human rights codes and provincial human rights codes and which all workers across the country in all workplaces and jurisdictions are entitled to.

In 2013, we have a Conservative government that is missing an opportunity to use this legislation to create a workplace in which RCMP officers, like all workers, should feel safe in bringing forward harassment complaints. NDP members on the public safety committee brought forward an amendment to the bill that would make harassment training mandatory for RCMP officers. However, just like every other amendment, the Conservatives voted it down.

The RCMP needs a clear anti-harassment policy that will set the standard for behaviour in the force. This would allow for a fair disciplinary process in cases where harassment occurs. Despite the NDP's best efforts, the government has passed up this opportunity to address that issue in the bill.

Earlier this month, the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP released its report on issues of workplace harassment within the RCMP. The report had this to say:

The RCMP bears a responsibility to foster public trust to the extent possible, and when the public perceives that the organization is unwilling to adequately protect and discipline its own employees, it is difficult to see how their interactions with the police and trust in the organization would remain unaffected. It is for this reason that swift and effective action must be taken by the RCMP in terms of dealing with workplace conflict and harassment, and taken in a manner that engenders the confidence of both members and the public.

We are not seeing swift and effective action here. We are not seeing action at all.

We on this side of the House believe that trust in the RCMP, for the officers and the public, is a critically important issue. Important legislative steps can be taken to enhance trust and accountability for the RCMP and for Canadians. However, Bill C-42 falls short of this mark. It is unfortunate that in their rush to pass this bill, the Conservatives did not even take time to make sure that the new legislation ensured that the RCMP and the public were getting the transparent and independent oversight they expect and deserve.

The men and women of the RCMP provide a vital service to all Canadians. They carry out this service in difficult and often dangerous situations, putting themselves in harm's way to protect others. Bill C-42 is a missed opportunity to protect them in return. They deserve the protection of independent oversight, and they should not be afraid to speak out about harassment in the workplace. The members of the RCMP deserve to know that when one of their own breaks the rules, that person will be held accountable. Canadians need to see this accountability to enhance the trust between the police force and the members of the public, a trust that has been weakened by recent incidents.

The men and women of the RCMP deserve better than what Bill C-42 has to offer. The Canadian public deserves better. Most certainly the women who work for the RCMP have a right to a workplace free from sexual harassment, and indeed, harassment of all kinds. They need and deserve our protection. Bill C-42 fails to adequately provide that protection and should, for that reason alone, be rejected by this House.

The House resumed from February 12 consideration of the motion that Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, Assistant Commissioner, and officials for being here.

I want to get right into the issue of cost. What we have found with the opposition, and it's kind of interesting...there's a bit of a pattern. The NDP support this particular bill, yet they were constantly talking about the fact that they think we need to put more money into the program. Interestingly enough, they don't support Bill C-42, for example, but they want more money for it. Even when the commissioner said we don't need more money and the independent chair of the complaints commission said we don't need more money, the NDP just want to keep throwing more money where it's actually not needed.

Can you please tell us very clearly, or the assistant commissioner could tell us, is there more money required when and if Bill C-51 passes?

[Commr Bob Paulson]

As I've gone across the country and I've met with supervisors, I have noticed that they're stepping up a little bit. Some of them have some reservations and are looking forward to some of the changes that will come forward with Bill C-42, but I have noticed a renewed attentiveness to supervisory and managerial duties.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

I just find it funny that you singled me out when other members of this committee have also mentioned Bill C-42 and the effects and the direction that bill has taken. So I would respectfully ask you to take that back.

Thank you.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

I have a couple of quick questions from my side, Commissioner.

I'm guessing that you realize that Bill C-42 doesn't actually make any reference to sexual harassment. So here we are talking about a piece of legislation that is meant to deal with it but doesn't actually mention the problem.

Do you feel we're moving fast enough, whether it's the mandating from the Minister or Parliament and the RCMP, to curb sexual harassment in the RCMP?

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

So when we talk about a convoluted process, we're talking about the process of how we've been dealing with sexual harassment and harassment. The measures within Bill C-42 and the additional funding are going to assist in that particular application.

Questions have come up at committee a number of times, from the other side, with respect to there being too much power or authority left in one person or office's hands. Bill C-42 is actually going to assist in centralizing the responsibility and the accountability into one office, and that office is yours. Do you have any concerns about that?

The question is that someone has to be in charge. At the end of the day, someone ultimately has to be in charge of something, regardless of whether it's this or any other factor in our day-to-day life. Someone has that responsibility. Do you think that responsibility does lie within your office and is that the right direction to go in?

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you very much. We've actually heard numerous witnesses stress the importance of being proactive and dealing with a situation at the very lowest level and making sure that employees recognize the signs of harassment and that it doesn't escalate to a higher degree, which we now have seen.

I'm not sure if it was to one of my colleagues to someone across the floor, but you mentioned with regard to Bill C-42 that part of that is going to involve training leaders, or different levels within the RCMP, about different policies. I'm glad that you did mention that. Thank you for that.

We actually heard from Ian McPhail in the previous hour, and I'm going to try to quote him. I wrote it down in scratchy writing, which I'm going to try to read. He indicated that Bill C-42 is part of the process and that it's going to give the Commissioner of the RCMP the tools to perform his duties, and the right tools to streamline a very convoluted process.

Do you agree with that statement?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Yes, on that one there, but an arm's-length one, farther away from....

Who's going to appoint the people on the current one that you're referring to, from Bill C-42?

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

One of your colleagues—I forget her exact title—Sharon Woodburn, came and spoke to us. She mentioned that she was confident in the system. From the work that you're doing in training investigators on harassment, training harassment advisers, training people on how to conduct themselves in a respectful workplace, do you have projections? Obviously, you want everybody to feel comfortable and to trust the system. Is that part of the work of Bill C-42?

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

You'll be using the investments from Bill C-42 to ensure that respectful workplace environment throughout.

[Commr Bob Paulson]

That's a little bit separate. That's mandatory harassment training we get everybody trained on, what the rules are, what the prevention is, what the identification systems are, what the reporting streams are. There's 94% compliance with that harassment training.

Our training in the Bill C-42 regime will be much more broad across the force and somewhat revolutionary in bringing the discipline and conduct management down to the front line.

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

It will, with Bill C-42.

[Commr Bob Paulson]

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the question.

The $9.8 million goes to the implementation of Bill C-42. The lion's share of that money will go to training and preparation of our NCOs.

One of the themes of this new legislative scheme is to allow for conduct management at the lowest possible level at the earliest possible time. In order to achieve that, we need to have our corporals and sergeants, who have somehow stepped back a little bit from their responsibility to look after the people they are in charge of, trained up on how to faithfully implement the new approach to conduct management.

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Paulson, thank you for being here today.

This is such a very important subject, and that's why we're here. I have a number of things I want to touch on, sir.

First of all, on the resourcing, I want to commend you for the comment you made previously about how this isn't a resourcing issue, and that it's important enough that you would reallocate resources to these issues.

The $15-million reduction is news to me too, because my understanding is that we're giving $5 million to the complaints commission and $9.8 million to you, sir, to use effectively. I also understand that this morning in the public safety committee, the NDP were very concerned about that investment of funds. You can't have the resources if you don't put them on the table, and we are trying, with Bill C-42, to put them on the table for you.

I'm grateful that you are modernizing and embracing a more comprehensive governance oversight strategy. As you very rightly point out, these are 50% of your clients. Very briefly, how is this $9 million going to be deployed? Will it be on training? Just briefly, you've already implemented in B.C. some training and investigators' training. Give a few examples of how this $9.8 million is going to be used proactively and preventatively.

[Commr Bob Paulson]

I have not heard of a cut of $58 million, so I'll have to be on my Berry as soon as I'm done here.

That said, we have contributed and participated in our end-of-the-deficit reduction exercise. We are well positioned to achieve those goals.

As I said earlier this morning, I don't think this transformation turns on resources particularly. There will be some need for resources. As some said this morning, there's almost $10 million provided for in the new Bill C-42, and that's to do a number of things.

So I don't think it turns on resources; it turns on the attentiveness of managers and executives to deliver on this action plan and to report it to folks such as you.

[Ian McPhail]

If Bill C-42 does give the commissioner the tools necessary to do the job, we have provided the road map. In addition, Bill C-42 gives the new civilian review and complaints commission the ability to follow up and provide the necessary checks and balances. The new funding will certainly enable the commission, and I trust the RCMP, to do that job.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

We also have in front of us an international report looking at best practices in other countries around the world, as well as the United Nations. When I read that report and I distill what you've suggested in your report and what we have done via Bill C-42, would you say that you finally have the resources and the tools necessary to align the RCMP's procedures and policies and what it needs to do to bring itself into 2012-2013 and beyond, by centralizing responsibility and accountability in this manner?

[Ian McPhail]

If properly used, the answer is, I think, yes.

The additional funding has to be intelligently used. As I said, Bill C-42 provides the tools for the commissioner to do so, and in my opinion this report provides a road map for the commissioner on how to move towards this goal, which I think everyone here, regardless of affiliation, shares.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Like many members of the public, I was actually very shocked that it would take a four-year process, all kinds of legal machinations, and a very dispersed process, as you were saying, across the country, for people to get their issues acknowledged or even their cases lodged.

Bill C-42 gives the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP an extra $5 million and the RCMP an extra $9.8 million. Will this address the issue? Will it restore public confidence?

[Ian McPhail]

Very simply, I believe that Bill C-42 will give the commissioner of the RCMP the tools that he or she requires to perform his or her duties. It will provide the tools that we believe are necessary to enable the commissioner to streamline an extremely convoluted process.

You clearly reviewed the report and in one of our charts we tried to illustrate the complaints process. It's actually far more complex than even that chart would suggest.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

I'd like to thank the panel for coming today because as a member of Parliament from B.C., this issue is obviously very top of mind and important to us. I've been very, very impressed by your proactive and measured response to this very large issue. The fact that you went ahead and did this report is quite incredible, including the fact you have statistics now and some concrete evidence with which to back up your reporting to us. I think that's very commendable.

I wanted to quote your conclusion. You say the following in your report: The RCMP bears a responsibility to foster public trust to the extent possible, and when the public perceives that the organization is unwilling to adequately protect and discipline its own employees, it is difficult to see how their interactions with the police and trust in the organization would remain unaffected. It is for this reason that swift and effective action must be taken by the RCMP in terms of dealing with workplace conflict and harassment, and taken in a manner that engenders the confidence of both members and the public.

And of course we fully support that conclusion, which is part reason why we're doing this study.

I know that you've spoken about this earlier, but I want to give you some more time. Does Bill C-42 answer this question of restoring public trust and give you, as a large organization with some of these issues, the tools to address the issues found within the force?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

The issues around Bill C-42 and how thorough and effective that will be all depend on the commissioner. It's still putting the commissioner in charge of everything. It gives him the extra powers, the new powers that he specifically asked for, but it always ends up being totally up to the commissioner how this will go and how thoroughly a lot of these things will actually be enforced, is it not?

[Ian McPhail]

Absolutely. I believe that Bill C-42 is the culmination of that process.

[Ian McPhail]

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

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

Great, thank you.

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

[Ian McPhail]

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

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

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

[Ian McPhail]

Thank you, Ms. Truppe.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

—I'm sorry, 30%—not only are they going to have to feel that the workplace is harassment-free, but so are the males. It's not a gender issue; it's an issue, if you're going into the RCMP as an occupation, of feeling comfortable that you're not going to be harassed in the workplace.

There are two problems, as I see it: one is within the force, in making certain that this is dealt with, and I think Bill C-42 will help, and this report hopefully will help; the second one is that you have a major problem of confidence among the public you're serving, the problem of making sure that they feel confident this is taking place within the force.

From that perspective, could you comment on both of those sides and on how you're going to get there? Recommendation 11 says that there will be a comprehensive method of evaluation to make certain that it takes place, and that you'll report on in that matter to the public.

Can you give us your perspective on how you're going to accomplish this and then how you're going to report it?

[Commr Bob Paulson]

Effectively it is, but in the current approach to harassment, an employee makes a harassment complaint, and the response of the organization is to document it, to notify the alleged harasser, to immediately react to and assess what the allegation is. But then a series of decisions are made by management, and if the complainant isn't satisfied with the first decision, he or she can file a grievance, and then the grievance has its own track through the organization. So every subsequent decision that gets made contrary to the interests of the complainant can be grieved.

In fact, I was just flying back from Edmonton and going through a number of these external review committee recommendations, and there are multiple grievances from the same complainant, effectively from the same set of facts. What Bill C-42 will also do is to help us streamline how we manage the grievance process and how we're able to bring it all together to make it a little bit more sensible.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you very much, Commissioner.

Please let me know if this is an accurate reflection from your perspective. In Bill C-42, if I recall, there's an additional $9.8 million to investigate complaints. Based on what you previously said, would you say that the $9.8 million will go a long way to making sure that you are able to fulfill your commitment towards properly investigating and having those policies and procedures laid down in order to do a good job with regard to harassment?

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Can you tell us if Bill C-42 will help modernize the RCMP's discipline and grievance policies?

[Commissioner Bob Paulson, Commissioner, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Members of the committee, good morning.

Last fall the RCMP completed the gender-based assessment that I had requested. The aim of the assessment was to objectively look at our practices and policies for gender bias. This was one of many transformation initiatives launched to bring about positive change in the force. Two weeks ago our action plan in response to that assessment was released.

We have organized our planned work along two themes: work to address the culture of the force and work to address the composition of the RCMP.

Our plan includes 37 action items that will, among other things, significantly increase the number of women recruited into the force—with a goal of reaching 30% female regular members by 2025.

We're taking steps to address the lack of faith and transparency in the promotion process, in an effort to build a more welcoming and respectful workplace.

Longer term retention of women in the force is also being addressed.

This plan is transformative and quite forward-looking. It will challenge us to meet our goals and require us to be innovative. Every employee has a role to play. I'm confident we will deliver on this action plan and ultimately succeed in meeting Canadians' expectations of the RCMP.

Recently, the Commission of Public Complaints released its report into RCMP workplace harassment, for which you have invited me here today.

We all share the view that independent, effective civilian review is absolutely essential for ensuring public trust and confidence in the police force. The CPC's report offers an objective and independent assessment of our performance in this area. The RCMP accepts the findings of the CPC in this matter.

I do find it necessary, however, to emphasize the CPC concluded that:

The empirical data gathered by the Commission based on formal harassment complaints do not substantiate the supposition that the RCMP is experiencing a systemic problem with gender-based or sexual workplace harassment.

The CPC has identified, as I think many of us had, serious harassment, discipline and workplace challenges that exist within the RCMP.

While they worked on this important review of harassment in the RCMP so did I, effectively reaching the same conclusions. I've already implemented much change in this area, which addresses the CPC's recommendations—and where I haven't, I'll be working swiftly to do just that.

The commission has made 11 recommendations to help us provide a respectful workplace for our employees. Notionally, I accept them all.

The RCMP has already advanced on most of these items. This includes centralized oversight of the harassment complaint process, as well as the development of service standards to guide the harassment process.

The centralization of the harassment oversight process that I requested last year, supported by a case management tool, has already improved monitoring and reporting capacity, while increasing accountability at every level. It also provides my staff and me the opportunity to see trends and to deploy strategies to avoid future problems.

A new guide on how to deal with harassment will be distributed internally in the coming weeks. This guide will help employees analyze situations that they believe may be workplace harassment, while emphasizing the importance of addressing situations early. All RCMP cadets receive instruction on this topic and the importance of encouraging a respectful workplace during their training at Depot.

We have implemented a mandatory online harassment awareness and prevention training course for all employees, and currently 94% of employees have completed it.

New supervisors and managers are provided with additional training on managing workplace relations, promoting a respectful workplace, and applying our harassment investigative process. We've finalized and are prepared to distribute our code of ethics, including an industry-standard workplace relationship reporting requirement. Meanwhile, of course, the RCMP continues to face the challenge of working with a legislatively enshrined code of conduct system for members of the force that is antiquated, adversarial, and long on process.

The federal government's proposed Bill C-42, the enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police accountability act, if passed, will establish a fair and efficient human resources system that will focus on addressing conduct issues quickly and at the most appropriate management level.

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, I'm here to tell you the RCMP is making progress. We have much to do to truly modernize this institution, but we are doing it. Canadians should recognize that while we are making these changes, we are continuing to deliver on our core mission of keeping Canadians safe in their homes and in their communities.

It is somewhat akin to changing the engines in the avionics of a big airliner. It's made a little bit more challenging by the fact that it's flying while we're doing it. I'm confident that the men and women of the force are up to it.

I'd be pleased to take your questions.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

I think you made some very useful recommendations on training. On this side, we've tried to have an amendment made to Bill C-42 to put mandatory training into the responsibilities of the commissioner. I'm not asking you to take a position on that as an independent commissioner, but again, I guess it's the same situation. You're saying that even though Bill C-42 doesn't require the commissioner to create mandatory training programs, you would advise him to do so.

[Ian McPhail]

It's my understanding that Bill C-42 provides the commissioner with the ability to move ahead in some of these areas. The goal of our report is to provide a road map for the commissioner and the RCMP as to how they can deal with this issue. At that point, it's then up to the commissioner and the RCMP to use the powers granted to them by Bill C-42 and the road map provided by this commission to implement necessary reforms.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Thank you for that clarification.

I want to turn to some of your recommendations. You've made reference to Bill C-42 and, in particular, your fourth recommendation reads “That an external mechanism for review of harassment decisions be implemented”. It's my understanding that there is no such provision for that mechanism in Bill C-42, that it simply creates a possibility that the commissioner might choose to implement that. Is that your understanding?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

When it comes to a sexual harassment complaint, for example, does the force use the Treasury Board process or the RCMP process? I was told by someone at committee when we were studying Bill C-42 that if it's sexual harassment, they have to move from the Treasury Board guidelines to some RCMP process. Is that the case?

[Ian McPhail]

We attempted not to be unduly prescriptive; however, in terms of reviewing how harassment complaints were handled, I believe that an appropriate body would be the new review and complaints commission contemplated by Bill C-42.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

You mentioned in your report that one of the recommendations was to establish the timelines set out in Bill C-42.

Do you see the provision under Bill C-42 for dealing with those complaints as a positive step? What sort of timelines would you recommend be put in place using that legislative authority?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We appreciate the invitation and the opportunity to be here.

Mr. Chair and honourable members, thank you for the opportunity to share with the committee the results of the commission’s investigation into workplace harassment in the RCMP. You will recall that in the fall of 2011, several female RCMP members came forward publicly with allegations of sexual harassment, which raised questions in the minds of Canadians.

Given how fundamentally important public support is to the ability of the police to carry out their duties and responsibilities, I believed it was necessary to initiate a complaint and public interest investigation into the conduct of RCMP members regarding the handling of allegations of harassment in the workplace.

The investigation examined the adherence to RCMP policies and procedures, the adequacy of those policies, the thoroughness and impartiality of harassment investigations, as well as harassment-related training. In total, the commission reviewed 718 harassment complaints filed between 2005 and 2011.

Overwhelmingly, the problem we found was abuse of authority, in other words bullying. The investigation also revealed that most of the alleged harassment occurred between regular RCMP members. Over 60% of complainants and 70% of respondents were uniformed police officers.

The gender breakdown of complainants was virtually half male and half female, while respondents were predominantly male. The commission's review also found that most of the harassment complaints were dealt with in accordance with the RCMP’s harassment policy. However, that policy was capable of being interpreted in a number of ways, which resulted in it being inconsistently applied.

That said, the investigation also revealed that workplace conflict and harassment in the RCMP does exist. As such, the report urged the RCMP to take a number of concrete and measurable steps to improve its handling of workplace conflict and harassment allegations, including revising the harassment policy to be more inclusive; instituting a system of centralized monitoring and coordination of harassment complaints outside of the divisional chains of command; establishing an external mechanism for review of harassment decisions separate from, but not exclusive of, the RCMP’s labour relations process; and establishing timelines for the resolution of complaints facilitated by the new authorities granted by Bill C-42.

The commission also recommended that the RCMP develop a comprehensive method to evaluate respectful workplace efforts that is both measurable and quantifiable, and that the evaluation results be made public. All of this is intended to enhance the transparency of the process.

Although the empirical data presented to the commission did not support the widely held belief that the RCMP has a systemic issue with sexual harassment, there is no proof to the contrary. And only if you have what RCMP members themselves see as a fair, open, transparent, and expeditious process will people be more comfortable in stepping forward.

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

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

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

Aviation Safety

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, the deployment of RCMP assets is an operational decision and certainly we do not involve ourselves politically in the day-to-day operations of the RCMP.

I do appreciate the question, though, because it gives me the opportunity to talk about the tools that we are giving front-line officers, including the RCMP, to do their jobs.

I would ask the member to support our initiatives, especially the one currently before the House, Bill C-42, which would enhance accountability, again, and give the RCMP and front-line officers the tools that they need.

Public Safety

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, that hon. member is incorrect. We are all very concerned with what happened to Ashley Smith. It is despicable that she would have just made that comment. We never want to see that happen again.

In regard to the report the member mentioned, the report came out yesterday from the Commission for Public Complaints, the independent commission. We appreciate that report. It is good to note that this report shows there are not systemic harassment issues within the RCMP, but any kind of harassment or bullying would never be tolerated and should not be tolerated within the RCMP.

That is why we call on the opposition to support Bill C-42, which brings greater accountability and a process whereby the RCMP can deal with these kinds of issues.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the implicit offer of assistance from the House Leader of the Official Opposition.

I look forward to discussions with him later on the possibility of moving forward both Senate reform and Bill C-12 on a unanimous consent basis straight to committee. I would be happy to do that with him.

This afternoon we will continue debating the Liberal opposition day motion. Tomorrow we will hopefully finish second reading of Bill C-48, the Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, a measure supported by all three parties. After that we will turn to third reading of Bill C-42, the Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act; third reading of Bill S-7, the Combating Terrorism Act; and second reading of Bill S-12, the Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act.

When we return from our constituency week on Monday, February 25, we will start second reading of Bill C-55, the Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act. This bill needs to be passed by mid-April before the Supreme Court ruling takes effect, which would render the important powers available to police ineffective.

After Bill C-55, we will consider Friday's unfinished business.

Tuesday, February 26, shall be the fifth allotted day, which will go to the Official Opposition, and it will therefore choose the subject of debate.

On Wednesday and Thursday, we will continue debating the bills I have already listed.

Additionally, Bill C-47, Northern Jobs and Growth Act, was reported back from committee yesterday, and I anticipate Bill S-9, Nuclear Terrorism Act, will be reported back soon. So we could also call these bills at report stage and third reading, if we have extra time next week.

Finally, on Friday, March 1, the House will start the second reading debate on Bill C-54, Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act. The Prime Minister announced this bill last week as part of our efforts to ensure we have a justice system that puts the rights of victims first.

[Robin Kers]

Essentially, the RCMP, recognizing that the changes to Bill C-42 would affect a variety of different issues and elements, created a number of different working groups, one of which is the harassment working group. So it's a working group that's composed of several bargaining agent representatives, the remainder, of course, being RCMP managers' representatives with varying specialties and involvement.

As you'll note from the list of recommendations that I've provided, one of our concerns is that we have provided feedback in the past to the RCMP over the last three or four years, because there's been a long, convoluted process of reviewing the internal harassment policy and looking to see what improvements needed to be made. The concern we have is that there may not be sufficient weight given to our input into that committee.

[Robin Kers]

I'm a little concerned that my comments on Bill C-42 have been taken out of context. First, you have to stipulate that USGE and PSAC do not represent the regular members of the RCMP.

As to what potential impact Bill C-42 may have on the resolution of regular member to regular member complaints, it's not my position to comment. My comment was intended to be a reflection of our view as to whether or not the change to Bill C-42 will improve the situation of public servants.

The concern that we've always had, and I've mentioned it before, is we're not satisfied with the way harassment complaints have been dealt with when the complainant is a public servant and the respondent is a regular member. So the failing in Bill C-42, as far as I'm concerned, is that it's largely devoted to addressing the much publicized issue of harassment between member and member and the need for the commissioner to have a capacity to deal with that issue in a more direct manner.

Insofar as it affects the public servants, the problem with the change to Bill C-42 is that it essentially gives the commissioner and the RCMP the right to bypass or not have applicability of the Treasury Board policies and directives in investigations where a regular member is one of the parties. The problem with that, of course, is that it's not a problem if both parties are regular members, but it's a problem when the other party or the complainant is a public servant.

The RCMP proposes to create a new form of investigation under what's called a commissioner standing order. The problem with that process is it's going to apply to any harassment complaint that involves a regular member. Again, I go back to this: what if the complainant is a public servant? We see that as problematic because public servants involved in that complaint would be put under a process that is really more designed for dealing with member to member.

The other problem we have is that we're not entirely satisfied that a commissioner standing order has the legality under law to apply to public servants. I raised that issue internally at an RCMP harassment working group committee yesterday, and they'll provide their legal opinion in due course.

Our view is that the RCMP has to recognize the need for a separate complaint process when the complainant is a public servant and the respondent is a regular member. It can't rely on the new process that they're developing because public servants have certain rights and benefits and privileges under Treasury Board policy that they wouldn't necessarily have under a commissioner standing order.

Just for your information, in response to a query from Ms. Sgro at the earlier sitting, I have provided today a complete list of recommendations in response to the request for a list of recommendation vis-à-vis the RCMP. You will have that once translation is done, I presume.

I could go over it orally if you wish, but it's up to you.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Kers, when we last heard from you, you mentioned how—and we've heard from various people—Bill C-42 will not make a significant difference. I'm wondering if you could speak to that and to this idea of how we could improve it—if Bill C-42 is improvable. And what kind of legislation truly needs to be brought forward, in your mind?

Opposition Motion—Missing Aboriginal Women

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a government's first duty is to defend its citizens.

For 30 years now, nothing has been done. These women's murderers have not been brought to justice. That is a major problem.

It is all well and good for the government to say that it is going to restructure or give new names to old structures under Bill C-42, but that does not bring these murderers to justice.

When will this government finally recognize that there are 800 unsolved cases out there? When will it order police forces to conduct serious investigations to find those who are guilty of crimes against these people?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in response to my hon. colleague's question, I did not say that the NDP members were not supporting the cause of ending the incidence of murdered and missing aboriginal women. However, they are clearly not supporting Bill C-42, which would give the RCMP the much-needed tools it needs to be more accountable and transparent. As well, it would stop harassment within its workplace. Therefore, they need to take ownership of that.

I am very proud of what our government has done with respect to funding. It has allocated $25 million over five years to give new tools to law enforcement, as well as $2.3 million to the Native Women's Association and to the work that Sisters in Spirit is doing. Therefore, we are putting action behind our words.

I do want to ask the NDP and the Liberals this. When we are talking about murdered and missing aboriginal women, one of the greatest detriments is that aboriginal women do not have access to the real matrimonial property they have acquired, which puts them in poverty. If the opposition members are concerned about murdered and missing aboriginal women, which I know they are, why will they not support our initiative to give aboriginal women real matrimonial property rights on reserve? That is an answer they have to give.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, apparently my Conservative colleague does not think that the NDP has done enough to support the cause of missing and murdered aboriginal women. I would like to ask her the same question.

The Conservative government funded Sisters in Spirit, an initiative to compile a list of missing and murdered aboriginal women across Canada. One Conservative member even said that it was federal money well spent. But then the government stopped funding the initiative, as though the problem had been solved, as though all of the women had been counted and the problem of missing and murdered women could be swept under the rug.

I am glad that my Conservative colleague brought this issue to the forefront because I do not think that the Conservative government has done enough. It is all well and good to talk about Bill C-42, which is a bit too broad, but this is about a serious problem facing aboriginal women.

Will the Conservative government reinstate funding for the Sisters in Spirit initiative, which was playing a crucial role in Canadian history?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much this opportunity to rise in support of the motion before us today.

Canadians know that our government is committed to making sure that our streets and communities are safer places for everyone, and we have taken a number of specific steps to help protect aboriginal women from violence in particular. The murder and abduction of women in this country is completely unacceptable. We will continue to move forward with a vigorous criminal justice agenda to address these issues. These initiatives are numerous and multifaceted. I would like to speak briefly about some of them related to public safety, as well as some of the steps we have taken to enhance and strengthen the tools that law enforcement officials have to respond to cases of missing and murdered women.

Budget 2010 allocated significant funding to address the high number of missing and murdered aboriginal women. This will improve law enforcement and justice system responses to cases of missing and murdered women and also support victims. This commitment was in addition to significant investments we have made in a number of areas to address the root cause of violence among aboriginal girls and women in particular.

Budget 2010 allocated $5 million for aboriginal community safety action plans alone. Our government is certainly taking strong action in this area. Our government is also working with first nation, Métis, Inuit and urban aboriginal communities to enhance their capacity to utilize existing resources and to develop safety plans that respond to the unique situations in each one of the communities.

We have also allocated significant resources to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to ensure that concrete steps are in place to address the issue of missing aboriginal women. The RCMP has established the National Centre for Missing Persons and Unidentified Remains, including a dedicated officer linked to the National Aboriginal Policing Services branch. This centre is designed to assist all Canadian police agencies in dealing with missing persons cases.

Funding from our government has allowed the force to enhance the Canadian Police Information Centre in order to capture additional missing persons data, such as biological and cultural affinity. The RCMP is also now developing the very first national missing children, persons and unidentified remains database in order to provide law enforcement, medical examiners and chief coroners with enhanced analysis across jurisdictions. The RCMP National Centre for Missing Persons and Unidentified Remains website at Canadasmissing.ca will allow members of the public to report tips for ongoing cases so that some level of closure may be found for families of victims.

These initiatives are on top of RCMP training that specifically advances an understanding of aboriginal issues within the force. Such training helps law enforcement personnel provide more culturally appropriate policing services, thereby contributing to safer and healthier aboriginal communities. In fact, just moments ago the RCMP released “Gender and Respect—The RCMP Action”, which includes specific measures to recruit more aboriginal members.

The RCMP investigates all cases of missing and murdered people in its jurisdiction, regardless of sex, ethnicity, background or lifestyle. Resources and investigational tools are assigned by the circumstances of each case and not by the victim's background, heritage or lifestyle. Missing persons complaints are given investigative priority by the RCMP and national policy and investigative procedures exist to ensure that every measure is taken to locate people who are missing and reported missing.

The RCMP works in collaboration with a number of partners to address the health and safety of aboriginal women, including other law enforcement agencies, provincial and territorial governments, as well as aboriginal and non-aboriginal agencies within the public. The RCMP is also leading task forces across the country dedicated to actively reviewing files of missing and murdered women, including aboriginal women. These task forces will spread across the country and work collaboratively to address this important issue by focusing on, among other things, information sharing, file management, file coordination and disclosure that can be shared with other investigative units. Additionally, RCMP criminal operations officers from each province and territory regularly meet face to face to discuss operational issues of national significance, including missing and murdered aboriginal women.

Over the past number of months, Canadians have heard some extremely disturbing reports about the conduct of just some RCMP officers. That is why our government has made it clear that we will work closely with the Commissioner of the RCMP to take action to restore pride and confidence in Canada's national police force. That is why we introduced the enhancing RCMP accountability act to strengthen the review and complaints body for the RCMP, establish a process for handling serious criminal issues involving RCMP officers, as well as streamline the management of RCMP human resources.

Disciplinary matters, even for relatively minor breaches of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, have become extremely drawn out and ineffective because all formal sanctions must currently go through a time- and resource-consuming three-person adjudication board, rather than being dealt with, in many cases, by front-line managers like other workplaces.

The legislation our government has introduced would also address these issues by providing front-line managers with the authority to impose a broad range of sanctions, ranging from remedial measures, such as training, to corrective actions, such as forfeited pay, without having to resort to a formal board process.

The discipline board process would also be much speedier and less adversarial. In addition, the new grievance scheme would result in a single grievance and appeal process to replace the host of different ones that exist today, and again, it would provide front-line managers with the opportunity to be involved in the resolution of a grievance early on and directly.

The end result would be that trained professionals would manage and assist in resolving cases, with the focus on early resolution, before a matter is brought before a decision-maker. Front-line managers would have the opportunity to focus on the early resolution of issues, with much-needed support.

The commissioner would be able to designate any person employed by the RCMP as a decision-maker, providing an opportunity to address workplace disputes in a timely fashion, and to draw on the expertise offered by all categories of employees in the RCMP.

Our government has made it a point of pride to always give police the tools they need to do their job. On that front, the new legislation proposed in Bill C-42 would provide the Commissioner of the RCMP with the authority that he currently lacks to make certain fundamental human resource decisions to effectively manage the organization. At the present time, the commissioner lacks the authority to establish and maintain processes for the demotion or discharge of members for administrative reasons, such as loss of security clearance or performance issues. Under the changes proposed by Bill C-42, the commissioner would be given new authority, including the power to demote and discharge members for reason other than conduct. He or she would also have the authority to establish a process for the investigation and resolution of disputes related to harassment in the workplace where the respondent is a member.

We certainly appreciate the report that was issued today by the chair of the commission, and the RCMP is looking forward to Bill C-42 being implemented so that it can also move forward with its constructive plan to end harassment within the workplace. As part of that, it is very important that members of Parliament pass Bill C-42 quickly so that the RCMP can move ahead and put processes in place to deal with some of these very disturbing matters.

Bill C-42 would empower the commissioner for the full exercise of these authorities. That is why it is so vital and why we call upon the NDP specifically to support Bill C-42.

The commissioner would also be given the authority to appoint most commissioned officers, thereby improving the timelines of succession planning.

All of these changes would help to further strengthen and modernize the RCMP, while increasing accountability and improving public perception and confidence in the force.

Another very important set of amendments in Bill C-42 would establish a new independent civilian review and complaints commission. The new commission would have significantly enhanced investigative powers compared to those of the existing body, and the authority to work hand in hand with other review bodies. The new commission would bring civilian review of the RCMP in line with other modern review bodies.

The existing civilian review body can and does investigate complaints about RCMP conduct, but it has no authority to compel witnesses to appear or to testify under oath when it does so, unless it holds a public hearing or inquiry. That needs to change. We need to give it more powers, and that is what we would do under Bill C-42.

At this time it does not have broad access to RCMP information, and that is a problem. It cannot share information or conduct joint investigations with other review bodies, and that is a problem. Bill C-42 would move to change that.

The changes our government is proposing in this bill would provide the new complaints body with broad access to relevant and necessary information that is relevant to an investigation. It would give the complaints body the authority to summon and enforce the appearance of persons and compel them to give evidence for all complaint investigations and policy reviews.

It would give the chair of the new body the authority to initiate police review of RCMP activities; and it would allow the complaints body to share information with other review bodies, as well as conduct joint complaint investigations where the complaint arises from integrated policy operations.

The changes our government is proposing would make it easier for the public to access the complaints process by allowing them to file a complaint either with the RCMP, a provincial police force review body, as well as the new civilian review and complaints body. Very importantly, the legislation would increase the transparency of investigation into serious incidents involving a member of the RCMP.

In cases where there is death or serious injury, the RCMP must refer the investigation to an existing provincial body responsible for investigating incidents involving police. Where no such body exists, the RCMP would be required to refer the investigation to another police force.

Only where neither of these options is available would the RCMP conduct the investigation. In these cases it would need to inform the new commission of the measures it has taken to ensure the impartiality of the investigation. These new rules also permit the appointment of an independent observer to assess the impartiality of these investigations when they are led by the RCMP or another police force.

All of these things would help to further transform the RCMP into a modern, efficient, transparent and accountable police force, a very important aspect of looking into the issue of murdered and missing aboriginal women. I certainly urge the NDP to stop disagreeing and to work with us to reform the RCMP.

In addition to the other comprehensive steps our government has taken, a modern transparent and fully accountable national police force would go a long way to enhancing the safety of all Canadians. Again, I urge all members to support that bill because it goes a long way to helping find and rectify the issue of murdered and missing aboriginal women and girls.

There is no question that the friends, families and loved ones of these women have experienced and continue to experience great pain and great sorrow. They need and they deserve justice, as do all victims of violence.

Our government has always been committed to standing up for victims and to ensuring that all offenders are held to account for their actions. In fact, as the Prime Minister recently announced, we will be bringing forward a victims' bill of rights. This would enshrine in law the principle that we can no longer go down the failed Liberal road of putting the rights of convicted criminals ahead of victims'. That is why we have taken the steps we have.

Ours is a government of action. Action can and will achieve the results all of us want for aboriginal people, as well as for all Canadians. Our government is committed to moving forward together.

Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point to a proposed section of the act because I have heard it asked many times in the House today why anyone would vote against Bill C-42. I point to the concern of police that they will no longer be able to file a grievance if they are forced to do something under a security order.

Proposed section 31 of the act has been pointed to by RCMP members and by members of the Lawyers' Rights Watch group as potentially forcing RCMP officers to be involved in torture without the ability to grieve that involvement or to question the sources of information that lead to such activities. I think that is enough of a reason to vote against Bill C-42.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in the House to lend my voice to the debate on Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts. I would especially like to focus my comments on one of the issues raised in conjunction with the debate on this bill, namely women’s place in Canadian society in 2013.

A few years ago, several commissions were struck and some reports were released here in Canada and elsewhere around the world. The goal was to give women a bigger role in society. Four principles were embraced: providing equal opportunities, removing the barriers preventing women from entering the labour force, ensuring that the costs associated with having a family are shared by society as a whole, and taking concrete steps to facilitate and achieve the goal of equality.

It is interesting to note that in Canadian society in 2013, we are still talking about equality for women. It is a shame. In point of fact, over the last decade or so, women have actually lost ground in terms of achieving equality with men. We take this equality for granted today. We tell ourselves that there is no problem, that everyone is equal.

Yet, statistics show that today, women still earn on average less than half of what men earn. Furthermore, they are losing ground in various parts of Canada, especially if we look at the jobs in certain industries that are not easily accessible to women, the reason being that barriers to equal access to employment are still in place. Conditions in the workforce are such that women are penalized or forced into uncomfortable or unhealthy situations that are distressing.

In many industries, very few women have access to the jobs that are available, whether it be the natural resources sector or some other industry. Jobs in these sectors are well-paid, but conditions are such that women do not feel safe and able to thrive and be a productive member of society and, above all, to earn a wage comparable to that of men who work alongside them.

For years now, there have been serious problems within the RCMP, one of Canada’s most important symbols. Women who opt to work for the force cannot thrive and feel safe there and, if problems do arise, they do not have access to mechanisms that would help make their workplace acceptable.

We can all agree that this is not just for women, and that this bill addresses other forms of abuse that occur in the workplace.

There have recently been serious cases of sexual harassment. Women in the RCMP have spoken out. Standing up and reporting sexual harassment takes tremendous courage. The individuals who come forward and report the situation become the voices of other co-workers who did not feel they were able to do it.

The situation is quite serious. But there are ways to remedy the situation. There have been studies of this done for a very long time. Bill C-38 was introduced in the 40th parliament, but it died on the order paper, as we know. And now we have Bill C-42.

When a bill is introduced in the House, we have an opportunity to debate it, when a time limit is not imposed, obviously. We have an opportunity to exchange ideas and see how we could improve it and how we would go about doing that.

We have another truly excellent tool that the Canadian public is not very familiar with: committees. In a committee, we can again explore bills and improve them even more.

When I arrived in the House of Commons, I found committee work very interesting. It also takes us outside the House of Commons and gives us a chance to work together to improve bills.

What is even more valuable is the fact that we have a chance to invite witnesses from outside the House. These people are non-partisan and are simply there for the cause, to improve a bill, to explore a question that has been raised, to participate in a study, and so on.

After hearing testimony, the various members of the committee will put forward amendments, recommendations and ways of improving the bill.

In the case of Bill C-42, it is unfortunate that in spite of the work done by my colleague, the critic and member for Alfred-Pellan, who is the deputy critic, none of the amendments were accepted, even though they were supported by witnesses and experts. That is troubling.

In Parliament, we have mechanisms that enable us to fine-tune bills. They are not based solely on ideology. We have a chance to debate bills and make improvements to them.

When we heard the testimony of experts and witnesses in committee, it was obvious that the bill was flawed.

This can happen when people are in a hurry to do the right thing. Nevertheless, there was Bill C-38 and there was C-42. One would have thought that the government could have corrected these shortcomings. There was a realization, however, that there were shortcomings, and that the bill would not achieve the stated purpose: better machinery within the RCMP, so that a healthy work environment could be established whereby all members of the force, regardless of rank or responsibility, could express their grievances and obtain a hearing.

For example, some amendments targeted prevention. There was a desire to inform people about sexual harassment, and the ways in which it manifests itself, in order to create an environment in which respect would inform the values of RCMP members and their behaviour towards each other, with no issues arising between women and men, or among colleagues. In that sense, training seemed to me to make perfect sense.

In any workplace, it is always important to have access to an independent mechanism outside the organization, particularly when serious problems arise. It was proposed to put in place such a mechanism so that people from outside could hear the grievances of individual members, and make recommendations accordingly.

It is rather like what I was saying just now about committee work. Members are deeply involved in their work. Here on Parliament Hill, we often feel like we are in a bubble. I have to say that in committee work, what is always very interesting is to hear people from outside testify and let us have their point of view on a given situation. This independent committee will have to include people who have experience in this type of assessment.

Other recommendations and amendments were designed to produce more balanced human resources policies by withdrawing some of the draconian new powers proposed for the RCMP commissioner, and strengthening the RCMP External Review Committee in cases in which discharge from the force is possible. It is always important to have a division of powers. If too many powers are placed in the hands of one person, there is a risk of abuse.

The situation within the RCMP concerns me, but I am also concerned to see that in other workplaces, women do not have an opportunity to contribute fully to society, particularly in some areas of activity.

I would like to offer a thought as we discuss Bill C-42. As a society, we will have to remember these commitments to equality between men and women. We must think again about better ways of doing things, specifically in order finally to eliminate barriers so that all women have an opportunity for full access to the workplace, whatever the area of activity may be.

We, as a society, must also recognize our responsibility with respect to the important role women play in building a family, and help them perform the tasks that come with that role. I want to remind the House that there has been a real step backward on this matter over the past decade. In some parts of Canada, women cannot participate fully in the economy, because they do not have access to certain types of employment that would provide them with better economic conditions. They cannot get beyond the barriers that prevent them from getting those jobs.

In the matter before us, I repeat that we must create good working environments, especially in traditional workplaces. I said the RCMP is a symbol of Canada and that it is over 125 years old. Traditionally, the RCMP was almost exclusively a male preserve. I believe women have a considerable contribution to make within the RCMP and in other spheres of activity. In order for them to make this contribution, it is very important for us to rethink the way the RCMP operates and, together, come up with some sustainable solutions.

I am also basing my remarks in this House on the many recommendations and reports that have been presented since 2006. Hon. members will remember that we have been under Conservative rule for quite some time now. Recommendations were made by Justice O'Connor in 2006 and David Brown in 2007. It is now 2013 and the bill before us is not yet perfect, as we have heard. The Liberals admit it, and the government has said so, too. This has been going on too long.

We must make sure we have something that will last and will ensure that RCMP members and employees have access to a fair and equitable process. Even some members of the RCMP are worried that the bill may decrease members' job security, especially in jobs related to the exposure of harassment complaints.

In conclusion, I will say that the NDP believes we can do more to find answers to these questions. We believe that the RCMP needs a clear anti-harassment policy, one that sets out precise standards of conduct and precise criteria for all employee performance assessments. Such a policy is a necessary foundation for a fair disciplinary process.

I would like to add that bills have an important effect on Canadian society, because they demonstrate the government's orientation and commitment toward certain situations that Canadians think are unacceptable.

That is why I am disappointed that the government members did not accept the NDP's offer of co-operation through its amendments, and that they do not want to talk about the status or situation of women in certain workplaces.

I will stop there. I await the House's questions with impatience and some trepidation.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will give a very brief response. Notice to all Canadians listening to us today: the titles of the Conservative bills are frequently misleading about their content. Here, we want to address a problem. And yet, upon reading Bill C-42, the problem is not mentioned and it is not even clear that the government has understood it.

There are many other bills like this. For example, the bill to combat elder abuse does not provide any preventive or intervention measures to deal with the abuse. I could give all kinds of examples of misleading titles of Conservative bills.

I will stop now, but I hope that things will change in 2013.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate today on Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

I already spoke to this bill at second reading and will not hide the fact that I supported it at that stage. I wanted to make sure the subject matter of Bill C-42 was debated. The issue is close to my heart. I may have voted in favour of the bill at second reading but I regretfully will not be able to do so at third reading.

I would first like to echo the comments made by my colleague. I will not go over every specific issue or speak of the flaws of a handful of agents or the mistakes they made. I think every member will agree that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is an institution we wish to keep. As my colleague has stated, 99% of agents, perhaps more, are exceptional people who serve their country and their community. I want that to be crystal clear. I am not here to put down the people who work at the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

That said, every member will also agree that the organization currently faces many challenges. People are looking to us, to Parliament, to give the institution the tools it needs to meet those challenges. Obviously, Parliament cannot solve every problem, but there are things that we can do. These challenges were mentioned a little earlier. One of them is sexual harassment.

Before my colleague accuses me of not sitting on the committee that studied the bill, I would like to say that is true: I did not sit on that committee. However, I do not want to echo my colleague's highly demagogic arguments. I want to point out to Canadians, who may not be experts in parliamentary procedure, that, while we may not sit on a particular committee, we have outstanding colleagues, such as the member for Alfred-Pellan, who do. They tell us what goes on there, the measures that are taken and their opinions on these bills.

As my Conservative colleague is of course entirely aware, it is possible to read the bills and to consult the discussions and testimony of the people who have appeared before the committee. In short, it is not because we do not sit on the committee that we are not aware of what goes on there and do not have an opinion to offer, whether it be that of our fellow citizens, our colleagues, people in our families, people whom we know or experts on the subject who want us to express certain concerns.

The NDP therefore introduced several amendments and proposed some changes to Bill C-42. From what I was told, those proposals unfortunately did not fall on sympathetic ears. In fact, we can see that none of those amendments is before us in this debate today.

Some of those amendments sought to add mandatory harassment training to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to establish a completely independent civilian organization responsible for examining complaints filed against the RCMP. Our amendments also sought to add a provision to create an independent national civilian investigation body to prevent the police from investigating the police. Lastly, we wanted to introduce more balanced human resource policies by withdrawing some of the new draconian powers proposed for the RCMP commissioner and by reinforcing the RCMP external review committee.

These proposed amendments introduced by the NDP did not spring out of thin air. They come from various sources, including testimony heard before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

I would like to name some of the experts and witnesses who were invited to appear before the committee and who expressed their concerns.

Since the beginning of the debate, we have been accused left and right of making up the fact that people supported the NDP's position, and we are told that practically everyone was in favour of what the Conservatives were proposing. I would like to set a few things straight and provide some names in order to show that is not some fabrication by a handful of NDP members.

The problems we are dealing with today are not new. In 2006, Justice O'Connor's report on the inquiry into the Maher Arar affair, entitled, “A New Review Mechanism for the RCMP's National Security Activities”, urged Parliament to create an RCMP oversight body that would be entitled to audit all the RCMP'S files and activities and could demand to see related documents and subpoena witnesses from every federal, provincial or municipal body, or from the private sector. I would like to read an excerpt from the report:

I agree that the CPC is deficient in this regard and does not have review powers to ensure systematically that the RCMP's national security activities are conducted in accordance with the law and with respect for rights and freedoms.

In 2007, another report, that of David Brown, entitled, “Task Force on Governance and Cultural Change in the RCMP”, recommended that the paramilitary hierarchy of the organization be replaced by a more modern system of oversight and transparency including a board of directors.

I have other quotes from former chairs of the RCMP Public Complaints Commission. According to Shirley Heafey, the RCMP Public Complaints Commission should report directly to Parliament instead of the minister or the commissioner of the RCMP.

As for RCMP Commissioner Paulson, he expressed concerns about the cultural change needed at the RCMP. In his April 23, 2012, testimony given at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, he said:

I've said it publicly, and I'll say it again. I think the problem is bigger than simply the sexual harassment. It is the idea of harassment. The idea that we have a hierarchical organization overseeing men and women who have extraordinary powers in relation to their fellow citizens, which requires a fair degree of discipline.

A number of witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security spoke out against the fact that the RCMP commissioner would be granted more powers and criticized the lack of independent oversight of the RCMP. I would like to quote a few of them. Mr. Creasser, British Columbia media liaison for the Mounted Police Professional Association of Canada, testified on October 29, 2012. He said:

One major problem that exists in the RCMP is the tremendous power imbalances within the organization. Bill C-42, rather than mitigating these issues, will only make them exponentially worse.

Here is another quote, this one from Tom Stamatakis, president of the Canadian Police Association, who also testified before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security on October 29, 2012. He said:

Bill C-42 provides the commissioner with extraordinary powers in this regard, powers that go beyond what one might find in other police services across Canada.... Without any additional, and most importantly, independent avenue for appeal, I would suggest there is a possibility that RCMP members could lose faith in the impartiality of a process against them, particularly in situations in which the commissioner has delegated his authority for discipline.

Other witnesses also gave similar testimony, but I will not quote them all. However, I would like to express my disappointment. The Conservatives deny hearing this testimony and refuse to listen to it.

Why have the Conservative members not risen today in the House to explain the main reasons why they did not support the amendments proposed by the NDP?

Why did the Conservatives not rise during the debate today in the House to say why they were not responding to concerns raised by the witnesses who appeared before the committee?

Instead, the Conservatives rose to present unfounded demagogic arguments and to make accusations against the opposition. What we want to hear are arguments that would raise the level of debate.

Why were these amendments not accepted? Why should specific concerns formulated by experts have been set aside?

That is how people work in committee and how serious work is done on important issues.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my hon. colleague for his speech. As I said earlier, it is extremely important that we address this subject in the House. My colleague dedicated a great deal of time to evaluating the contents of the bill. I also heard him mention that the opposition's amendments were unfortunately not accepted and were rejected in committee.

Bill C-42 focuses a lot more on workers' rights than it does on the fundamental problem of harassment within the RCMP. The bill does not solve the problem or address the right issues. This seems to happen frequently with this government.

Does my colleague think it is right that this Conservative government bill focuses so much on workers' rights and so little on women's right to work in a safe environment? What are my colleague's thoughts on this?

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for LaSalle—Émard.

I am pleased to be taking part in the debate at third reading of Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts. This bill amends the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act. It deals with modernizing discipline within the RCMP, gives RCMP commissioners greater powers and discretion, and changes the procedures for complaints and human resources management. The bill also replaces the civilian complaints commission with the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP.

This bill incorporates numerous provisions of Bill C-38, which was introduced in the 40th parliament and which the NDP strongly criticized at the time. Although we supported the spirit of the bill, which aimed to modernize discipline-related items within an institution that is dear to the hearts of Canadians, we were critical of what it failed to do, since the content of the bill did not adequately reflect the goal.

While the bill that is before the House today incorporates a majority of the provisions of Bill C-38, it does not include the provisions relating to unionization of the RCMP. The RCMP is the only police service in Canada that does not have a collective agreement, which is an essential bargaining tool between employees and employer. Members of the RCMP have to be content with a consultation process, and this is regrettable.

The current government introduced Bill C-42 on June 20, 2012. Canadians’ perception of the RCMP, the key police force in our system, has changed in the last few years.

Statistics from the Management of the RCMP Disciplinary Process 2010-2011 Annual Report unfortunately highlight the fact that this institution has a problem when it comes to discipline.

The statistics on formal discipline hearings held from 1994 to 2011 show that 750 formal discipline hearings were held across Canada. In this same period, 206 regular and civilian members resigned from the RCMP and 20 of those members resigned in reporting period 2005-06. From 2008 through to 2011, there were 145 formal discipline hearings held. In this same time span, a combination of 40 regular and civilian members resigned from the organization.

On the annual number of formal discipline hearings, from 2000 to 2011 there were 915 new formal discipline cases, which averaged out to 83.18 new cases a year. The anticipated number of new formal discipline cases for 2011-2012 was 83. There were 123 cases carried over on April 1, 2011, from the previous reporting period. The estimated number of formal discipline cases to be dealt with in 2011-12 was 206 cases.

On the sexual harassment complaints, over 200 women who work or have worked in the RCMP have joined Const. Janet Merlo to launch a class action against the RCMP on the ground of sexual harassment. The first court hearing took place on August 2, 2012, but the class action application has not yet been approved. Other individual actions against the RCMP are under way, including the actions by Cpl. Catherine Galliford and Const. Karen Katz.

When we read these figures and consider the various testimony heard by the committee, it is apparent that changing the organizational culture should be central to any comprehensive examination undertaken by the Minister of Public Safety.

Of course, legislation means that outdated procedures that were seen as too much of an administrative burden will now have a framework and will be updated. From the legislative point of view, there must be an in-depth analysis of the RCMP's corporate culture, so that changes can be made.

According to Robert Paulson, the RCMP commissioner, it is a central issue. He came to testify at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women on April 23, 2012, when the committee was studying the role of female employees in the RCMP and the challenges they face. He said, and I quote:

It's the culture of the organization that has not kept pace.... We haven't been able to change our practices and our policies, or provide systems that would permit women to thrive in the organization and contribute to policing, which they must do.... I've said it publicly, and I'll say it again. I think the problem is bigger than simply the sexual harassment. It is the idea of harassment. The idea that we have a hierarchical organization overseeing men and women who have extraordinary powers in relation to their fellow citizens, which requires a fair degree of discipline.

The term “harassment” appears in the bill's summary and in paragraph 20.2(1)(i), which states that the RCMP commissioner may “establish procedures to investigate and resolve disputes relating to alleged harassment by a member”.

Even though harassment, and more specifically sexual harassment, is at the heart of the debates on the culture within this police force, the legislator failed to address this issue in the bill. The official opposition, which voted to send this bill to committee to be examined thoroughly and amended, is opposed to the bill at third reading.

The 18 amendments proposed in committee were either rejected or deemed out of order. The NDP's amendments had to do with substantive changes to the text of the bill, unlike the Conservatives' amendments, which had to do with grammar-related corrections in French. This shows once again that a government bill was botched before it was even introduced in the House.

One of the amendments had to do with amending the Canadian Mounted Police Act to add mandatory harassment training for all RCMP members. This is a simple, concrete measure that meets the expectations of many witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. This measure would have helped provoke the necessary corporate culture changes in order to change the perception certain RCMP members have of the concept of harassment.

In closing, the Conservatives have yet again shown their lack of openness and co-operation with other parties by rejecting the official opposition's amendments and not considering expert advice in order to restore the RCMP's increasingly tarnished image in Canada.

If, as the Minister of Public Safety claims, this institution is synonymous with “professionalism, honesty, integrity and compassion”, this bill is misguided and the RCMP may no longer live up to those adjectives in the long-run.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin my speech by responding to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. She has asked for examples of witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security and contradicted her remarks.

One of those witnesses was Mr. Rob Creasser, from the Professional Association of the Canadian Mounted Police, who spoke to us about the imbalance of power in the organization: “Bill C-42, rather than mitigating these issues, will only make them exponentially worse”.

I do not know what made the parliamentary secretary say that no witnesses contradicted the government. Even though Mr. Creasser does not have a doctorate in mathematics, I think that he knows what “exponentially” means. He went on to say:

If Bill C-42 is passed in its current form...our Parliament would be promoting the bad behaviour and cronyism by legitimizing this type of behaviour.

I hope that that addresses the concerns of the member for Saint-Boniface regarding the witnesses who appeared. I did not attend the testimony, but I read the transcription and I came to the conclusion that the parliamentary secretary is mistaken when she says that no witness contradicted the government.

One of the things that initially shocked me about Bill C-42, An Act to Increase Accountability of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, was the huge discrepancy between the number of complaints made against police and the inadequacy of the Conservative government’s response. Having said that, I was especially shocked by the lack of any practical solution to adequately address the problem of sexual harassment, which is serious and ongoing, within the venerable institution that is the RCMP.

One explanation for this discrepancy is probably the fact that the government members did not consult all stakeholders on this issue before drafting this legislation. Bill C-42 has been held up by the government as a solution to the problem of sexual harassment in the RCMP, yet clearly, the bill does not meet that objective because it does not even refer explicitly to sexual harassment. To attack the problem, the bill must name it and come up with specific solutions for sexual harassment.

More generally speaking, the bill does not make an attempt to modernize an institution such as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, as other countries have done. My colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin put it well earlier when he said that in other countries, particularly in Europe, this very problem has been tackled directly by creating institutions that are independent from the police and whose investigations cannot be hampered by the police force under investigation.

We have to consider whether Canadians’ gradual loss of trust in their police forces, in general, and in the RCMP, specifically, is warranted. Part of the answer can probably be found in the 2010-11 annual report on the management of the RCMP disciplinary process, which is the most recent report available. The list of offences speaks volumes and is instructive. It was developed by police officers who are supposed to police their own conduct.

Here are some things on that list: excessive force; use of computer to play video games; use of computer to access pornographic websites; improper use of government credit card; impaired driving; altercation in public place; sexual assault; reporting for duty while under the influence of alcohol—that is the same person as the sexual assault, so we wonder if it was the same day or not, but we do not have the details; use of controlled substances—that means drugs; theft; false claims of overtime hours; domestic assault; possession of firearm without proper licensing; unauthorized use of satellite television signals—perhaps we need to raise our Mounties' salaries if they are reduced to pirating TV signals; refusing to provide breath sample; and here is an interesting one—allowing a prostitute actively soliciting sexual activity to enter personal vehicle for sexual activity; and falsification of medical certificates.

That is the list of the offences that police forces, especially the RCMP, are expected to detect, investigate and punish.

Thus, we can understand the public's growing lack of confidence in police forces, particularly the RCMP. Instead of building confidence, it just undermines public confidence in the police.

In Quebec, this reminds us of the sad case of "Officer 728", which has been widely discussed. Although there is no direct link with the RCMP, it is one more element that undermines the confidence of Quebeckers and all Canadians in all police forces. That is cause for concern.

The point of third reading of a bill is to make good use of the testimony by witnesses at the committee stage.

I will give as an example the testimony by the president of the Canadian Association of Police Boards. He expressed his concerns about the ability of the chairperson of the civilian review and complaints commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police—they could have found a shorter name for it, but that is its name—to refuse to investigate a complaint, even when the chairperson believes that would be in the public interest. Once again, that is something for the hon. member for Saint-Boniface to consider. This testimony confirms that a number of witnesses expressed serious concerns about the usefulness and the weak intent of Bill C-42.

Let us say more about this civilian review and complaints commission that is going to replace the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP. The first obvious flaw is that the results of these investigations will simply be recommendations and not orders. The recommendations will not be binding on the commissioner or on the Minister of Public Safety.

The second major flaw in this commission is, I think, even more important. That is the fact that it will not be any more independent than the previous one, since it will not report to Parliament, but to the Minister of Public Safety.

This makes me think of a strong trend that we are also seeing within the Standing Committee on National Defence. I am a member of that committee. Just yesterday, we were debating the possibility of adding a link between the Vice Chief of Defence Staff and the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal. This is a typical example of an independent body losing its independence through the addition of a clause to a bill. This means that, once again—and I am using the example of national defence—the Conservatives are limiting the independence of those who should have all the independence they need to investigate any deviations from normal operations that occur within a government department or agency.

For all of the reasons I have outlined, I will not support Bill C-42 at third reading. The main reason for which the bill was drafted is not properly articulated and the bill is not an adequate response to the problem that it is supposed to solve.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, many RCMP members are concerned about Bill C-42. They are afraid that in the provisions for whistleblowers they will not be protected under the auspices of the bill and they are worried about their job security.

Could the member address the concern that the bill does not address these concerns?

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his comment. We truly listened to the witnesses; it really needs to be said. As parliamentarians, when we are in committee, one of our most crucial jobs is to welcome witnesses and hear what they have to say, in order to make our legislation better.

My grandfather, George Harris, was a member of the RCMP and had the privilege of being a member of the musical ride. I mention this just to bring into context my personal association.

I begin my remarks today by paying tribute to the women and men of the RCMP who work every day to help our communities stay safe. The essential service they provide, often in the face of great danger and ignoring many of the individual challenges that surround their work in order to fulfill their duties, deserves to be acknowledged and they deserve the best-quality legislation possible.

That is where our problems with Bill C-42 begin. I have been listening to today's debate and am moved by how passionately Conservatives have defended this bill today and by the fact that no government members have risen to explain why they refused reasoned amendments and recommendations by witnesses. Members of both the Liberal and Conservative parties admit that this bill is not perfect, but neither party is willing to take the time to get it right. New Democrats prefer to get it right the first time. That is what Canadians send us here to do: to pass the best evidence-based laws we can.

The New Democrats supported the intention of Bill C-42, to modernize the RCMP and address issues such as sexual harassment in the force, and voted in favour at second reading so that the bill would move to committee and hopefully be improved. However, after witnesses and experts testified at committee, it became clear that this bill has some deep and serious flaws that would not fix oversight at the RCMP without further amendment. It also needs to be pointed out that Bill C-42 would fail to act on any of the recommendations set out by Justice O'Connor in the Maher Arar inquiry that aim to improve standards of review of the RCMP to meet the needs of Canadians. This is very disappointing.

The Conservatives presented Bill C-42 as the solution to a dysfunctional RCMP, but clearly we are not there yet. The bill would not only fall short on addressing sexual harassment within the force, but it would also fall short in a number of other areas. The New Democrats, as mentioned, tried to address these shortcomings in committee by putting forward a package of amendments meant to ensure Bill C-42 would effectively meet the challenges the RCMP faces.

Those amendments included adding mandatory harassment training for RCMP members. I cannot imagine why the government side would oppose this. It makes no sense. We have clear problems in the RCMP with respect to harassment, and why we would not seek to have our officers receive the best quality training possible to prevent these issues from happening in the future is beyond me.

Ensuring a fully independent civilian review body to investigate complaints against the RCMP was another recommendation. This is something that Canadians, with municipal, provincial and federal police forces, have called for at all levels where such a body does not exist. We have had these kinds of bodies in the past and why we are still not moving toward that at the federal level is a shock.

We called for adding a provision to create a national civilian investigative body that would avoid having police investigating police. All across in the legislation we have numerous instances where self-regulation oftentimes does not work or creates new problems. Recently, with the biggest recall of meat in Canadian history, we have seen where self-regulation has gone with the inspection of foods. There are currently issues before the courts with respect to airline safety and self-regulation. Only 30% of Canada's fleet of airplanes has been inspected by Transport Canada in the last two years. Self-regulation causes more problems than it fixes. So we wanted to see a national civilian investigative body put forward.

We would like to see the creation of more-balanced human resource policies by removing some of the more draconian powers proposed for the RCMP commissioner and by strengthening the RCMP external review committee in cases involving possible dismissal from the force. On the other side, members want to put all the power in the minister's and the commissioner's hands. That is not how we would achieve a transparent and accountable government or national police force.

The Conservatives voted down every single NDP amendment at committee. They even ignored many very good recommendations made by expert witnesses at the committee. The Conservative government is standing by its argument that putting more power in the hands of the RCMP commissioner to fire individual officers will curb the issue of harassment in the RCMP, and that the RCMP commissioner should have final say on all dismissals, ignoring calls for more independence. Witness after witness explained that legislation alone will not help foster a more open and respectful workplace. We need to see an ongoing effort from the RCMP and the government to modernize the RCMP. This bill lacks the transparency and accountability necessary to bring about those changes.

We on this side supported the bill at second reading because we all acknowledge that despite its proud history and its ongoing exemplary service, the RCMP faces some serious challenges. What we are all hearing in our constituencies and have heard in testimony before the public safety committee is that there are at least three major challenges facing the force.

First, and one of the biggest challenges facing the RCMP, is the potential loss of public confidence. For many years the RCMP has been an icon in our society, and trust levels remain high still to this day, as they should. However, any time our national police force begins to lose public confidence we must be concerned as parliamentarians and we must address the causes of that loss of confidence.

The causes centre around a number of unfortunate and high-profile incidents involving the force, which have resulted in death or serious injury to the public. Whenever there are these serious incidents, some of this loss of confidence is to be expected because the RCMP is charged with the use of force. RCMP members are bound to face challenging situations. Some of that loss of confidence is as a direct result of public concern about the structures by which we hold the RCMP accountable. In particular, members of the public are concerned about the police investigating themselves. It is interesting to note that it is not only the public that has lost confidence in these accountability measures, but there is also a loss of confidence among serving RCMP members, who have every bit if not more of an interest in independent investigations.

We also have serious evidence before us of a second challenge, a flaw in the culture of the RCMP. The RCMP has become a workplace with a culture that all too often has tolerated harassment in the workplace and specifically sexual harassment. When we have more than 200 women who have served or are currently serving in the RCMP seeking to join a class action lawsuit alleging they have faced sexual harassment on the job, that is an important issue for Parliament and for the minister to address. The magnitude of that problem cannot be denied.

Finally, it has become clear that there is a problem in the management of human resources and labour relations within the RCMP. This is a flaw that many have acknowledged is responsible for failures to deal with these other challenges in an effective manner. It cannot be denied that procedures are long, complicated, time-consuming and fail to bring about the changes needed to address both individual behaviour and more systemic problems. Therefore, it is again a challenge that we must address.

The NDP has pushed the minister for months to prioritize the issue of sexual harassment in the RCMP. Bill C-42 does not directly address systemic issues in the culture of the RCMP. We want to be clear that the bill, by itself, will not change the current climate in the RCMP. The bill does indirectly give the RCMP commissioner the ability to create a more effective process for dealing with sexual harassment complaints, however, the word “harassment” only appears in the bill once, in a disciplinary context to deal with harassment after it has occurred. We want to see it prevented, to not happen in the first place.

This is opposed to what the NDP proposed, which was to put language in the bill that was more proactive in curbing the systemic issue of harassment and particularly sexual harassment among RCMP members, which the Conservatives sadly refused to do. We agree with Commissioner Paulson in saying that legislation alone is not enough to keep the public trust and that profound reforms to change deep underlying culture problems within the RCMP are needed to foster a more open, co-operative and respectful workplace for all.

I see that my time is rapidly expiring, so I will wrap up my remarks by saying, once again, how sad we are with the state of the committees in the House of Commons, as we see them go, time and time again, behind closed doors and prevent reasoned arguments and amendments from being put into bills before the House.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my speaking time with the member for Scarborough Southwest.

Historically, the tradition was that the Mounties always get their man. Is that still true? We might wonder about that. We in the NDP want a police force that is the best in the world. We want its reputation for excellence to be restored.

As New Democrats, we want a modern state protected by a modern police force. We therefore do not want to diminish the effectiveness of our police; on the contrary, we want to enhance it. That calls for some serious thought at present. On the question of harassment, we are told we are making too specific a point of it, as compared to other kinds of police misconduct. Allow me to quote Justice Bertha Wilson of the Supreme Court of Canada, who stated in a self-defence case that a man will never find himself in the situation of a battered woman.

That is a fact. A man will never go through the sexual harassment experienced by a woman. That is very important. It is why we are making a specific point of it. That does not mean we are denying there are other problem; we are not, but that is one that stands out. We cannot solve that problem the same way as all the others.

At the outset, the NDP wanted to tackle the problem of the RCMP and various dysfunctions. We supported Bill C-42 at second reading. We said it was important to take remedial action so that our police force would be more effective, and we voted for the bill, which was in fact sent to committee.

Unfortunately, during consideration of Bill C-42, the representatives made it plain that they were going to shuffle the cards and change people's titles, but fundamentally, the corporate culture that had led to major errors would not be rectified. That is problematic.

In this regard, when we look at the past, we learn that other societies have had the same problems. In France in the early 1900s, the French police were facing organized crime and anarchist movements like the Bonnot gang. The then minister of the interior, Georges Clemenceau, said that a modern police force called for modern solutions. He created flying squads, nicknamed the “Tiger Brigades”. That was an effective response to a modern problem.

Later, France had to think about who was going to investigate its police. To police the police, it created the IGS, the Inspection générale des services, which is not accountable to a police chain of command that it is investigating. It is a totally independent police force that investigates certain kinds of wrongdoing by police and recommends remedial action and sometimes, when it is necessary, punishment.

We hoped that our amendments would be taken seriously in committee and would be discussed and accepted.

Requiring members of the RCMP to take harassment training under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act is not a luxury, it is a necessity. I do not understand why the Conservative caucus, so many of whom have been members of the police, would not consider the wisdom of this motion in amendment. It was necessary and they did not do it.

It is sad to say, but the Conservatives claim to have all the answers, like Louis XIV, who said, “l'État, c'est moi”. He was never wrong.

In short, there is nothing more to be said. We even wonder whether there might not have been some further evolution. Now, the Conservative government is God. God is always right. We should simply shut up. But I will not. There is a major problem here.

The police hierarchy has been given the power once again to fire members for a variety of administrative, non-disciplinary reasons. Examples include illness, too much parental leave or post-traumatic shock, which is not taken seriously. There is even talk of punishing investigators who conduct investigations that displease the political masters.

It amounts to quasi-discretionary power over which we would not have any authority. And God knows that this police force needs help and that we are prepared to give it. That is why the establishment of a completely independent investigative body was requested. By giving a commissioner the ultimate power to decide on what disciplinary action to take, Bill C-42 would give him the power to establish a single comprehensive framework for investigating and dealing with harassment problems.

This was precisely what we did not want. Worse still, it creates the same problems that arose in the case of an individual involved in an investigation into terrorism that directly affected national security. They fingered a completely innocent person. They deported him to Syria and he was tortured. But the problem does not end with the Arar case. Not only was a special commission of inquiry required to determine what had happened, but it took a parliamentary committee to eventually discover the truth. The truth was very simple: elements within the RCMP fabricated a terrorist threat simply to impress a foreign police force. It was unacceptable. These are the kinds of blunders that must not be repeated in the future.

There is also the risk that if the problem is not solved and there is no internal framework to deal with issues of this kind, people are going to find other ways of dealing with them and there are going to be leaks to the press. Rather than going through the usual chain of command, people will leak information to journalists. The best example of this was "Deep Throat", who was a senior FBI officer in the 1970s. When, during the Watergate scandal, he realized that presidential power was so influential that no investigation would be possible, he decided on his own, for the protection of the United States of America and in the interests of justice, to leak the relevant information to the Washington Post. Is this what is going to happen in the RCMP in the future? Will people be forced to leak information to the media?

The broad range of groups and experts who appeared and reported on the extent of the problems faced by the RCMP shows that serious action is required. It would seem impossible to refuse to listen to these many groups, with all their expertise, from so many different backgrounds. Unfortunately, however, the government is still not listening.

Some serious soul-searching is required to determine whether we really want an effective police force in a democratic state. The Minister of Public Safety said that Canadians' trust in the RCMP had been shaken. How could this bill possibly restore this trust? Clearly, it cannot. Perhaps the comments of the Minister of Justice could best be described by Madame de Pompadour’s most famous words: "Après moi le déluge". In whatever he does, provided that he pleases his Prime Minister, nothing else is of any importance with respect to future consequences.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I get quite frustrated when I listen to the opposition talk about narrowing it down to harassment. Being a retired member of the RCMP, I was trained by a female. I have trained female members. They have all turned out to be excellent members.

We are talking about a few select members in the RCMP who do some bad things and who should be kicked out. What Bill C-42 would do is give the power to the commissioner to kick them out.

What the member is insinuating is that if we do not have that, this is exactly what would happen. They would be transferred because that is what we would do. We transfer them out of an area so they are not a problem.

Does the member agree that Bill C-42 would give the power to the commissioner to fire someone if he or she were found guilty of a criminal offence similar to harassment or any other charge? Does she think that would be the right response?

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

It would have been a good idea for my colleague from Winnipeg North to come and see the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security and the study that was made of this bill. I do not even know whether he would have had the time to go through the whole bill as it stands.

It is also sad to see that the Liberals did not introduce any amendments to it either. They say this is an imperfect bill. Why did they not try to correct it? I have a bit of a problem when they try to attack on that point.

No, this is not a step forward, not at all. If my colleague had taken the time to look at Bill C-42 in detail, he would have seen that most of the measures it contains absolutely do not address or resolve the issue of harassment in the workplace or give powers to the right people, or anything. No, Bill C-42 is a direct attack on the fundamental rights of workers.

You may know this perhaps, but the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is one of the only police forces that is not unionized. It is therefore extremely difficult for workers to assert their rights if they have a problem with their employer. And Bill C-42 really contains a lot of clauses that directly attack workers' rights.

We could go through the bill. Perhaps my colleague and I could go for coffee and I could point out all the clauses that show why this bill makes no sense and does not address the right issue.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to further clarify the official opposition’s position on Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

I want the House to know that we will be voting against this bill. I have discussed the proposed legislation with various stakeholders on a number of occasions, and I have even studied it as a member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. I was very disappointed to realize in committee that even though the Minister of Public Safety had said that he would be open to amendments, regardless of which party proposed them, the Conservatives did an about-face and limited debate in committee to seven meetings, rejecting every single amendment put forward by the opposition.

The aim of these amendments was to ensure that Bill C-42 addressed the challenges that are currently facing the RCMP. Among other things, they called for adding mandatory harassment training for all RCMP members specifically in the RCMP Act; establishing a fully independent civilian review body to investigate complaints against the RCMP; adding a provision to create an independent national civilian investigative body to avoid having police investigating police, an amendment that unfortunately was deemed out of order by the committee; and creating more balanced human resource policies by removing some of the new draconian powers proposed for the RCMP commissioner and strengthening the RCMP external review committee in cases involving possible dismissal from the force.

Had these amendments been accepted, this bill could have truly remedied the situation, but instead of enhancing the bill, the government merely introduced some minor amendments, primarily to address translation and grammar problems, not to improve the content. Quite frankly I was very disappointed in the government.

The reality is that this bill represents the Conservative government’s response to long-standing complaints of sexual harassment within the RCMP and the recent scandals that made the headlines involving the overly lenient disciplinary action taken against officers charged with serious misconduct. The reality is that it also fails to deal directly with the problem of harassment within the RCMP and several other issues that were the focus of the NDP amendments I alluded to earlier.

The bill itself cannot bring about the change in the RCMP corporate culture that is necessary to specifically address the allegations of rampant sexual harassment. It does not directly deal with the systemic problems entrenched in the RCMP culture. Frankly, this bill leaves the impression that the Conservative government is afraid to tackle the serious harassment problems in the RCMP. That is why we proposed an amendment requiring all RCMP members to receive harassment training. That amendment was proposed following the testimony of a witness before the committee, Yvonne Séguin, who is the founder and executive director of the Groupe d'aide et d'information sur le harcèlement sexuel au travail. This support group has been in existence for 32 years. Its main objective is to break down the isolation and the wall of silence to which are subjected those who suffer or have suffered from sexual or psychological harassment in the workplace, and to raise awareness about this issue.

This support group pursues several objectives, as stated in its charter. They include: educating the public regarding this issue; advising women on the measures to be taken; helping women overcome the problems they have faced or still face; writing, publishing and releasing documents and manuals, and specifically documents on harassment in the workplace; and raising money through donations and organizing cultural activities for its members.

I had the opportunity to meet with Ms. Séguin while preparing for the discussion that we were going to have in committee on Bill C-42. I wanted to get more details to better understand what her organization stands for. I was deeply touched by everything she told me about sexual harassment in the workplace, about situations which I have been lucky not to experience. I was shocked and this influenced my approach to Bill C-42.

I was particularly moved by one of their campaigns. Unfortunately, I am not currently wearing the lapel pin that she gave me. It says, “It's not part of the job”. I am 100% behind that idea. It really is not part of the job, and it must be condemned. I believe that Ms. Séguin's message says it all.

She also mentioned a training session that her organization had given to a group of firefighters who needed to change their workplace culture, as is the case with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I quote:

We had to raise awareness and educate people a lot about the fact that workplace culture can change. It has to change. The change is difficult for everyone, but once it's done, it's crystal clear. In the 1980s, CN made changes to discrimination and sexual harassment policies. This institution was the first to say it feared being flooded with complaints after the decision. However, on the contrary, it received fewer, because things were straightforward.

It is clear that she worked hard with groups that needed to change their workplace culture when it came to harassment. And the changes were positive. This real-life example proves that training and educating a group can have a tangible impact on a workplace.

The minister has not used this bill, or any other method, to mandate a clear policy on sexual harassment in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, with specific standards of conduct and criteria for assessing the performance of all employees. Such a policy is necessary to provide a basis for a fair disciplinary process.

It was an important step in the changing role of women in the Canadian workplace when, in 1974, the RCMP began hiring female officers. I should point out that in the 1970s, there were even fewer women than there are today in occupations traditionally open only to men. And yes, that is still the case in many situations today, and that mentality still exists.

The RCMP finally changed its policies in response to recommendations that came out of the Bird commission in 1970. This commission wanted to see changes in the role of women in federal government workplaces.

On September 16, 1974, our federal police force hired 32 women from across the country. One week later, these women started their training at the RCMP School in Regina. In March of the following year, 30 women graduated. They were the first female cohort in the history of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It was a big step forward in terms of the rights of women and their place in the labour force and our federal institutions. Today, it is very important to take the time to commemorate this.

It is sad, however, to note that only few years later, the RCMP is facing numerous scandals concerning, among other things, harassment of many female police officers.

On July 30, in Vancouver, 200 women made headlines by expressing their interest in being part of a class action to expose the harassment they have been subject to in our federal police force. Women such as Officer Janet Merlo, Corporal Catherine Galliford and Constable Karen Katz were courageous enough to report the sexual harassment they endured for years in their workplace. For these women, every day at work was a challenge.

Today, as the deputy critic for public safety, I want to salute their determination. Reporting harassment takes a lot of courage, and these women have my full admiration. Women who work at the RCMP dedicate themselves body and soul to making sure that Canadians are safe. Sexual harassment cases are always distressing, no matter the workplace. These women risk their lives every day in an effort to protect us, and they deserve a lot better.

On September 19, it was reported in the media that, according to a document obtained under the Access to Information Act, a poll was taken of 426 female police officers in British Columbia following media reports of sexual harassment and the RCMP.

This internal RCMP report suggested that a number of employees were reluctant to blow the whistle on acts of sexual harassment because they do not trust the current complaints process, and they believe that the accused officers will, ultimately, go unpunished.

The report states that there was a pervasive perception within the RCMP that harassment was uncommon. Female police officers are reluctant to report cases of sexual harassment because they have observed that there are no consequences for the harasser other than having to transfer or be promoted.

I would like to digress for a moment. It is quite something to see in this day and age—and there have been number of instances in recent years—that in a case concerning a sexual harassment charge within the RCMP, the person at fault was not dealt with directly and punished; he was transferred elsewhere and given a promotion. In a world in which we tell ourselves that men and women have equal rights, I cannot get over it. It is completely inconceivable for someone who has sexually harassed a colleague to be given a promotion. It is completely beyond me.

I will return now to the report, which says that because women have the impression that there will be no real consequences, they do not believe that it is worth filing a complaint. The women who participated mainly reported that they felt the consequences of filing a harassment complaint outweighed the complaint itself.

They mentioned many problems, including aggressive supervisors, the assignment of women to lowly tasks, the little attention paid to them at meetings, the use of sexual innuendo, as well as touching and exhibitionism. No one should have to deal with this kind of behaviour at work, and these women should feel at ease in condemning this sort of completely unacceptable attitude.

The participants also reported that when they tried to complain, they were often punished. They were also afraid that their career would suffer, that they would be assigned new duties or that they would be posted to another detachment.

One participant even said that she would never make a harassment complaint because she had seen what had happened to those who had done so. Senior employees had made their lives a living hell and used their position of authority to intimidate them.

Clearly, it is urgent that we do something to deal with these obviously indefensible and intolerable situations within our federal police force. And it is not just within the RCMP that these things are happening; they are happening at workplaces across Canada. We have before us a striking example that gives us the opportunity to condemn the unthinkable. We need to stand up and do something about it.

Unfortunately, we New Democrats do not believe that Bill C-42 will be able to deal appropriately with this problem. There is nothing tangible in Bill C-42 that directly addresses sexual harassment, even though the Conservative government promised to address it in this bill. Absolutely nothing. I challenge my colleagues to try and find something in this bill that directly addresses sexual harassment, as the Minister of Public Safety promised. There is nothing in there.

The minister says that he wants more women in the RCMP, and I fully agree with him. The more women there are in environments that have been traditionally dominated by men, the better. However, it will be essential to ensure that they feel at ease in their working environment. Yes, more women are needed, but not under conditions like that.

Last November, we learned that RCMP Commissioner Paulson had given the Minister of Public Safety a document showing that the number of women at the RCMP training centres had dropped by 52% since 2008-09, despite the great need for female personnel.

Among other things, the letter called for action to reduce the number of harassment and workplace bullying complaints at the RCMP. We believe that our amendment providing for mandatory harassment training under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act would have been a step in the right direction. I do hope the government will follow up on this and look for real ways to change the internal culture at the RCMP.

I agree with the Minister of Public Safety when he says Canadians' trust in the RCMP has been shaken. In light of the allegations that have been made and the information that has surfaced on the inner workings of the organization, Canadians find it difficult to trust their own national police force. We must restore confidence by changing the culture within the RCMP. That will take a great deal of work. We must work together with all parties involved so that our national police force will have the tools it needs to deal with the problem.

Clearly the bill does not go far enough. It does not address the concerns of the organization's female employees. These women want immediate action to foster a more open and safe work environment for themselves and their colleagues. This bill does not achieve that goal.

Frankly, the government has failed to show initiative on this file. It has been in power since 2006, and despite several reports and recommendations—particularly Justice O'Connor's and David Brown's reports from 2006 and 2007 on possible changes to the RCMP—it waited six years to deal with the issue and even now refuses to take it seriously.

With respect to the cases that came up this summer in the RCMP, Ms. Séguin said, when you find that people have been sexually harassed for two decades, then you know there is a problem. When you hear that 150 female Mounties have gone through the process of pressing charges in a civil suit, it is screaming out loud that the system does not work. She also said she was aware that for a long time it was popular to try to group all the harassment charges together and call it maybe “violence at work”. But she believes that as long as there is sexual harassment in the workplace, as long as there is not the necessary education in place, we should be very specific.

Aside from the fact that this bill does not address the real problem of sexual harassment, we think that, if the Conservative government really wanted to modernize the RCMP, it would agree to move on to the next phase, applying the recommendations made by the oversight organizations and proceeding with an audit of the RCMP by an independent group of investigators who would report directly to Parliament. We believe that something must be done to strengthen the body that reviews and deals with complaints in the RCMP. The Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP has been very useful, but we have concerns about its independence and its ability to supervise independent inquiries.

Paul Kennedy, the former chair of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, made recommendations, first, in 2009, concerning investigations into serious incidents, and later, when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice. At that time, Mr. Kennedy proposed some solutions to improve the independence of the position he occupied. He appeared during the committee's study of Bill C-42 and stated that the bill did not meet the standards of review set out by Justice O'Connor and did not meet the needs of the RCMP or the Canadian public.

The New Democratic Party tried to amend this bill so that it would take the problems that witnesses have raised into account, but the Conservatives refuse to take direct action against harassment. That is not unlike the hierarchical nature of the RCMP and the force's complete lack of independent oversight. It is obvious that, in short, the Conservatives have not done enough to modernize the RCMP.

I would like to thank all the former and current members of the RCMP who made the effort to help us try to amend this bill. The amendments were not dreamed up out in the middle of nowhere. We sat around a table with the people who really worked in the RCMP and the people who were working to end sexual harassment.

We worked with every possible player we could imagine, and I sincerely thank them all. It is for all those men and women that I will be voting against Bill C-42 today. We absolutely must establish a fair, clear and transparent system that will help restore the trust of the general public and the women who work for the RCMP in the national police force.

We on this side of the House will continue to advocate bringing in policies and legislation to protect the right of RCMP members to carry on their honourable work in a climate of trust and respect.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise again to speak to the bill. By way of preamble, I would like to concur with both the NDP member and my hon. colleague from Malpeque. It is important that the government begin to change its attitude in committees, because we are seeing this more and more. We are seeing it at the public safety committee. A bill comes to the committee for study, and all members approach it with good will. Some members propose amendments, yet the government seems not to be open to any kind of amendment. It is true that some are ruled out of order, and that is really a technical issue, but on other issues, the government members of the committee are united in closing down the possibility of amendment.

I would like to turn to the broader issue of the RCMP, the RCMP culture, and the demands on the RCMP.

Presently, at the public safety committee, we are doing a study of policing in Canada. We have had members of the RCMP appear before us on a couple of occasions. What is becoming abundantly clear is that policing in Canada, including within the RCMP, is becoming increasingly complex. That means having complex organizations, and I am sure that in some cases, it may mean increased bureaucratization. Within this context, it is very important that organizations do not become so complex that they are unmanageable and that the person responsible for leading the organization finds his or her hands tied at every turn.

The purpose of the bill is to provide some leeway to the commissioner to exercise some leadership. I would like to refer to the committee's current study on policing costs and policing in general. I would like to share with the House the fact that in England, some major reforms of policing have been undertaken. To counter the inevitable inertia that takes hold in any kind of organization over time, police crime commissioners in different regions have been appointed and have been given new powers to make appointments and so on to appoint the local police commissioner and so on.

There seems to be a shared understanding across the Atlantic that there is a need to make policing structures more efficient. In that regard, I would like to quote Dr. Alok Mukherjee, president of the Canadian Association of Police Boards. When he came to the committee, he said the following about a Federation of Canadian Municipalities 2009 report on RCMP municipal contract policing: “A number of characteristics are generally accepted as essential to good governance; these include being accountable”, of course, and that is what this bill is hoping to achieve, “transparent, responsive, effective and efficient”—I would like to emphasize the word “efficient”—“equitable and inclusive”.

Efficiency is a concern, and that concern was echoed by Dr. Alok Mukherjee, President of the Canadian Association of Police Boards. Again, to quote Dr. Mukherjee when he appeared before the committee: “We”, meaning the Canadian Association of Police Boards, “believe that Bill C-42 is a good step forward in enhancing accountability, modernizing the force's human resources practices, and strengthening civilian oversight”.

It is not me saying that the bill strengthens civilian oversight. It is Dr. Alok Mukherjee, who is an extremely well-respected individual. He mentions further in his testimony: “The current oversight mechanism, the CPC”, which stands for the Commission for Public Complaints, “as has been noted by several witnesses appearing before you, is woefully inadequate. I believe that the provisions in Bill-C-42 will go a long way in filling this gap”.

He continues that “We are heartened by the fact that the proposed CRCC”, which stands for the civilian review and complaints commission that is being instituted by Bill C-42, “will have the power to undertake reviews of the RCMP's policies and procedures, have access to more documents than is the case at present, be able to compel evidence”, which is an important improvement to the current process, “and deal more expeditiously with public complaints”.

The bill does bring some improvements. I do not think it is correct to say that nothing good will come of the bill. Maybe it is not perfect. As I say, maybe the government should have been more open with respect to the amendments presented at committee. However, respected individuals, such as Dr. Alok Mukherjee, have admitted that the bill is an important improvement.

The new commission, the CRCC, which is replacing the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, would be given the power to summon witnesses, to compel them to produce documents or exhibits, in the same manner and to the same extent as a superior court of record, to examine any records and to make inquiries it considers necessary. These are important new powers.

Elsewhere I have read that if there is a disagreement between the commission and the commissioner about what kinds of documents should be released, essentially it is the commission that would rule. This is an important principle.

What is also important is that if the new bill is to be effective, resources will have to be provided to the new civilian review and complaints commission. The problem of resources has been an endemic one for many years. In fact, in 1997, the Auditor General did a review of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP and found that the process was quite slow. The report states at paragraph 34.3:

The Commission's handling of complaint reviews and public hearings is slow. It needs to improve the way it works by streamlining the review process and providing appropriate training to Commission members who are responsible for conducting public hearings.

That takes resources.

Paragraph 34.4 of the Auditor General's report from 1997 states, “The Commission also needs to improve its performance measures”.

Bill C-42 attempts to bring in standards of service. In other words, it really wants to introduce some accountability and set some time limits on the review process. It is very important that the commissioner be able to exercise some leadership, because at the end of the day, it is leadership that creates cultural change within an organization. To confirm that we just have to look at Canadian Pacific, which has brought in a new president, Hunter Harrison, who is changing the corporate culture. He is obviously a strong-willed individual with vision who is bringing about change. It is not committees that bring about that kind of change at that point.

On behalf of our caucus, I feel that the bill is worth supporting. It is not perfect, and there are some concerns, some of which were raised at committee. Again, I concur with my colleagues and the NDP that the government should be much more open to accepting amendments and perhaps to even amending amendments. It should exhibit a spirit of openness toward the opposition and understand that no one in the House has a monopoly on good ideas or insight. It is by listening to each other that we will have better legislation.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-42, an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.

To begin, I think it is important to note that New Democrats supported the intentions of Bill C-42 to modernize the RCMP and address issues such as sexual harassment and post-traumatic stress disorder in the force, and we voted for the bill to be sent to committee at second reading. However, at the committee stage, it became apparent, after hearing expert witness testimony, that in its current state Bill C-42 remains deeply flawed and will not meet the laudable objectives that New Democrats support in principle, namely to resolve the long-standing issues related to the oversight of the RCMP.

Canadians' confidence in the RCMP has been tested over the past few years as the RCMP has struggled with numerous public scandals. Whether it is the multiple cases of sexual harassment, which have become part of the public discourse surrounding Canada's Mounties, or other issues related to the lack of disciplinary oversight that the force has over its members, Canadians are universal in their support for the need to modernize the oversight provisions that the Commissioner of the RCMP has at his or her disposal.

Bill C-42 purports to streamline the current burdensome process of dealing with conduct and workplace problems, including abuse of authority, intimidation and harassment, by giving the commissioner final authority in deciding what sanctions to impose.

Currently RCMP managers faced with harassment issues have two different processes they must follow. One under Treasury Board policy and one under the RCMP Act. These processes do not always align, which often leads to confusion about rights, responsibilities and available approaches. Under Bill C-42, the commissioner would be granted the authority to establish a single comprehensive system for investigating and resolving harassment concerns.

While Bill C-42 does give more power to the commissioner over discipline and the power to establish a more effective process for dealing with harassment complaints, it remains unclear whether legislation alone can provide the RCMP with the overall culture change that is needed to respond specifically to allegations of widespread sexual harassment. In fact, Commissioner Paulson has publicly stated as much, noting that legislation alone is not enough to keep public trust in the RCMP.

To emphasize the point that legislation alone will not lead to the transformative changes that are truly required to reform the ongoing systemic sexual harassment at the RCMP, I would point to a recent study on sexual harassment within the RCMP in British Columbia, which indicates that problems are significantly under-reported because members are too afraid of reprisal to come forward.

From my perspective, Bill C-42 will not lead to the necessary culture change needed to destigmatize the issue of sexual harassment and ensure that victims of such harassment feel comfortable bringing their issues forward. Simply, the bill does not go far enough in directly addressing the concerns of women serving in the RCMP, who are calling for urgent action to foster a more inclusive and safe environment for women in the force. The word “harassment” still does not appear in Bill C-42 despite NDP attempts to do so.

While the bill has been introduced without the benefit of the findings of the internal general audit of the RCMP ordered by the commissioner, which is currently under way but sadly not yet completed, and while failing to specifically address these obvious concerns, the Conservatives are undertaking an approach that does not make women in the RCMP a priority. That is just wrong, particularly given the ongoing systemic instances of sexual harassment, which are being actively observed on an ongoing basis.

Even more worrisome than neglecting to reference and define harassment in the legislation is the failure to create an oversight body with any teeth, since primary investigations into incidents of death or serious bodily harm would largely be contracted out to provincial or municipal police forces, even though some have no civilian investigation body, or they would still conducted by the RCMP.

Surely if the government was serious about modernizing the RCMP, it would take the next steps and allow binding recommendations from oversight bodies and a full civilian investigation of the RCMP through a truly independent watchdog agency that would report directly to Parliament.

The NDP tried to amend the bill, based on witness testimony, to address these issues, but the Conservatives refused to directly address the issue of sexual harassment and did little to actually modernize the RCMP as it is still hierarchical in nature with no independent civilian oversight. Although this is an approach that the Conservatives have favoured for other areas of public policy, ensuring that complaints are addressed by an impartial third party should be at the heart of any attempt to modernize the complaint procedures for Canada's national police service.

The NDP believes that we can go further to ensure that there is a clear anti-harassment policy in the RCMP, one which would contain specific standards for behaviour and specific criteria for evaluating the performance of all such employees. Such a policy is needed to serve as a basis for a fair discipline process.

I conclude by highlighting the fact that New Democrats made a genuine effort to improve the legislation before us during the committee stage. However, these attempts were rebuffed at every step of the process. New Democrats introduced 18 amendments at committee all designed to ensure heightened transparency to address the specific issues I have mentioned, namely the issue of sexual harassment and the lack of an effective oversight mechanism.

Specifically, NDP members on the public safety committee proposed the following: adding mandatory harassment training for RCMP members specifically to the RCMP Act; ensuring a fully independent civilian review body to investigate complaints against the RCMP; adding a provision to create a national civilian investigative body that would avoid police investigating police, which was ruled inadmissible for some reason; and creating a more balanced human resource policy by removing some of the more stringent powers proposed for the RCMP commissioner and by strengthening the external review committee in cases involving possible dismissal from the force.

However, as has become standard operating procedure, the government side once again took an unreasonable approach to the NDP's proposals, rejecting all 18 amendments, even though they were supported by witness testimony and were a genuine attempt to improve the legislation before us.

New Democrats recognize the deficiency in the approach taken by the Conservative government and its outright rejection of our practical proposals to improve the legislation. We will therefore be unable to support the legislation at this time in the way that it is being presented.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague pointed out, this is a problem within all parliamentary committees.

Under this majority government, virtually no amendments are ever accepted at committee, which seriously undermines our democracy, of course, as well as civil society's ability to influence the legislative process.

Regarding Bill C-42, the NDP proposed 18 amendments, the Liberals proposed none and the Conservatives proposed 23. If I am not mistaken, no amendments were adopted at committee stage. The Conservatives opposed every amendment proposed by the NDP without any debate. These amendments were often initiated by witnesses from civil society or experts who appeared before the parliamentary committee.

We see this as a very serious problem and believe that it undermines the democratic process.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the speech given by my hon. colleague.

She talked about the fact that the Conservatives systematically ignore the recommendations made in committee. This is true not only within the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, but also within all other committees. That is what my NDP colleagues have said.

Consider the example of some shocking testimony heard during committee study of Bill C-42. Mr. Creasser, a member of the Mounted Police Professional Association of Canada, had this to say:

Bill C-42, rather than mitigating these issues, will only make them exponentially worse.

...

If Bill C-42 is passed in its current form,...our Parliament would be promoting the bad behaviour....

Does my colleague have any explanation for the Conservative Party's failure to take action, even after hearing such compelling testimony from witnesses?

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to inform you that I will share my speaking time with the member for Sudbury.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-42, which would strengthen discipline in the RCMP following numerous cases of harassment, intimidation and serious misconduct.

The NDP supports the principle of this bill. That is why we supported it at second reading.

During the parliamentary committee's proceedings, however, we heard from witnesses and experts who confirmed our first impression that Bill C-42 has some serious deficiencies and would not improve oversight of the RCMP.

The Canadian public's trust in the RCMP has been put to the test in recent decades, given the many scandals in which the force has been involved.

Consider, for example, the Maher Arar affair. That Canadian citizen was deported to the United States and then tortured by the Syrian government based on false information conveyed by the RCMP.

Consider as well the RCMP's bungling of the Air India affair, a pathetic case of incompetence and negligence. In addition to failing to co-operate with CSIS, the RCMP was unable to prevent the incident, even though it was warned of a direct attack on flight 182 three weeks before it occurred.

I would be remiss if I did not mention the Airbus affair. The RCMP's incompetence in that matter forced taxpayers to pay Brian Mulroney $2 million in damages.

There are also the many criminal and political cases in which charges were never laid. Consider the sponsorship scandal, for example, and the disappearance of hundreds of thousands of dollars from the transitional jobs fund.

There was also the major fraud involving the RCMP pension and insurance plans. The Auditor General of Canada uncovered numerous cases of cronyism and reported that RCMP operating expenses had been charged to the employee pension and insurance plans.

Many cases of psychological and sexual harassment have been made public over the years, but authorities have not taken steps to address them. For example, Victoria Cliffe and three other female RCMP officers in Alberta accused Sgt. Robert Blundell of sexually assaulting them during undercover operations.

Ms. Cliffe stated that the RCMP commissioner was the person responsible for making the final decision on all internal investigations, every investigation conducted within the police force and every disciplinary problem. She added that all matters were referred to the top, to the big boss.

Remember that, following that disclosure, Victoria Cliffe lost her position as a negotiator and Sgt. Blundell lost only one day's leave.

We could also talk about all the police blunders that might suggest there were shortcomings in RCMP officers' training and supervision. Much of the problem stems from the fact that the RCMP enjoys special status, untouchable status, within the government.

For example, the RCMP is not subject to the Access to Information Act or covered by the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act.

Members will recall that when the Conservatives introduced the government accountability bill in 2006, they maintained most of the exemptions for the RCMP. Furthermore, unlike officers in other police forces, RCMP officers still have no right to unionize, which would put them in a better bargaining position that would facilitate the disclosure of wrongdoing.

In short, the RCMP is out of control. In 2007, the president of the Canadian Police Association even said he thought all parliamentarians should be concerned about the fact that an organization of the RCMP's size and power had little or no accountability.

Shirley Heafey, the former chair of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, spoke out on several occasions about the organization's cover-ups and lack of transparency:

[The commissioner of the RCMP] does not understand the accountability system, he does not understand the complaints system. It was very difficult for him to accept that he was accountable to a civilian agency.

She added that there was no way to make the RCMP accountable.

She also said that she believed it was going to explode at some point. She said that they could not continue covering up and downplaying the problems forever. Every time something serious happened, it was often impossible to obtain the documentation. Finally, she mentioned that she found it difficult because she was constantly spending a lot of energy trying to do her job.

Despite these shocking comments, the Conservative government continues to drag its feet. Bill C-42 will not really make much of a difference to the RCMP because the proposed measures do not go far enough. Nevertheless, the NDP has worked hard to improve the bill. We proposed a series of amendments to make Bill C-42 respond to the challenges that the RCMP currently faces.

The NDP amendments include requiring all members of the RCMP to receive harassment training in accordance with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, establishing an independent body to examine complaints against the RCMP, adding a provision to create an independent national civilian investigative body in order to prevent police from investigating police, creating more balanced human resources policies by eliminating some of the new draconian powers of the RCMP commissioner, and strengthening the RCMP external review committee in cases where dismissal is being considered.

As is often the case, the Conservatives rejected all the NDP amendments. However, most of them met with the approval of many of the witnesses who appeared before the committee.

I would now like to deal more specifically with two major problems with the bill. As my colleagues have already mentioned, there is no proactive measure against sexual harassment. For a long time, the NDP has been asking the government to make dealing with harassment at the RCMP a priority. Bill C-42 does not directly attack this scourge, which has become a systemic problem.

Although the bill gives the RCMP commissioner the ability to create a more effective process for dealing with sexual harassment complaints, we believe that a more proactive training course should be included in order to address the issue of harassment, particularly sexual harassment, within the RCMP. The Conservatives refused to take this approach.

I read Bill C-42, and I noticed that the word “harassment” does not even appear in it.

We had also hoped that a clear policy on harassment within the RCMP would be adopted that would contain specific standards of conduct and criteria for assessing the performance of all employees. Such a policy would serve as a basis for a fair disciplinary process.

In short, the bill does not go far enough and does not address the concerns of the women working for the RCMP, who are calling for immediate action in order to create a safer and more open work environment.

What is more, the bill was introduced before the findings of the internal audit on gender equality within the RCMP were submitted.

In our opinion, it is essential that the RCMP be subject to civilian oversight. However, the new civilian complaints commission introduced in Bill C-42 has the same problem as the RCMP Public Complaints Commission because it would report to the Minister of Public Safety, rather than to the Canadian public through Parliament.

Furthermore, it is important to note that the new commission would not be completely free to undertake investigations and would not have any binding authority. The new commission will not have the power to investigate accidents resulting in serious bodily harm or death. These investigations will mainly be assigned to municipal or provincial police forces or will continue to be carried out by the RCMP itself.

In conclusion, the Conservative government will not subject the RCMP to an independent investigative body that would report directly to Parliament. Until the Conservatives implement a strong mechanism for eliminating harassment, I cannot believe that the government is committed to modernizing the RCMP.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague, I rise today to speak to Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts. This bill is the Conservatives' response to the many complaints of sexual harassment in the RCMP and to recent scandals, following disciplinary measures that were too lenient for officers accused of serious misconduct.

Unfortunately, as my colleague for Vaudreuil-Soulanges clearly explained, the government has come up with a very weak response to serious issues and problems for RCMP members and Canadians.

Bill C-42 is almost identical to Bill C-38, which was presented during the 40th Parliament. It proposes three major changes to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act. If the bill is passed in its present form, it will give increased powers to the RCMP commissioner in the area of labour relations. Among other things, it will allow him to appoint or fire members at his discretion, which is a rather major discretionary power. The bill also seeks to change the process governing disciplinary measures, complaints and human resources management for RCMP members. It provides for the establishment of a new civilian complaints commission to replace the RCMP Public Complaints Commission.

From the outset, the NDP has supported the intent of Bill C-42. We felt that this legislation would modernize the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and bring solutions to issues such as sexual harassment in the organization. However, it is now obvious that this good intention—the intention perceived behind the bill—did not translate into a true legislative measure that would provide concrete results for women in the RCMP, and for other members of that police force.

As it stands now, the bill has some major flaws. It does not go far enough and it does not really improve oversight of the RCMP. Worse yet, it does not even deal directly with sexual harassment in the RCMP, which is a central concern for women across the country—whether they are members of that police force or not—and for all Canadians. Every day, Canadians learn about new cases in the media. They hear about this problem, they see what is going on in that police force and, in the process, their trust in the RCMP erodes. Yet, the men and women of that police force are very invested and they make sacrifices to protect the public. Some action should be taken immediately to restore this trust. However, that is not what Bill C-42 proposes.

The Conservatives only looked at the issues relating to discipline and sexual harassment in the RCMP, after being questioned on many occasions in the House and in committee. They never adopted a leadership role when it came to proposing solutions to the problems identified in the RCMP.

Now they are bringing in a bill, when they are on the defensive. This did not come about because of the Conservative Party's concerns, but rather because of the pressure of public opinion and NDP colleagues who have done an impressive amount of work to try to make the government aware of the major problems that exist in the RCMP.

For all of these reasons, the NDP will not support Bill C-42 at third reading. We moved a number of amendments at committee stage in order to ensure that Bill C-42 was truly a response to the challenges facing the RCMP. Among other things, we wanted to make it mandatory for all RCMP members to take harassment training. We also wanted to set up an independent civilian body to investigate complaints against the RCMP. In addition, we proposed adding a provision to set up an independent national civilian investigative body to make sure that the police are not investigating themselves, something that seems very logical to me. Finally, we also proposed removing some of the new draconian powers that the government was planning to grant to the RCMP commissioner, with a view to establishing more balanced human resources policies for the RCMP.

All of these amendments were based on recommendations from numerous witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

These witnesses came straight from the policing community. They are therefore knowledgeable about the context and the constraints, and they know what they are talking about. The recommendations they made to us were based on their experiences and on what they had seen, and they deserved to be taken a little more seriously than the Conservative government has done.

All of these witnesses share the NDP's concerns that Bill C-42 will never be enough to change the climate and the culture in the RCMP workplace, the two elements that allow the abuses that are routinely alleged to occur. Sexual harassment in word and deed continues to occur, but in many cases, the perpetrators are never punished.

This bill is likely to create more problems than it solves, especially since new powers are being granted to the commissioner. Unfortunately, the Conservatives turned down every one of the amendments that we put forward in committee without even wanting to discuss them. This is unfortunately not surprising. It seems to be typical of this government's attitude in committee. If the experience of my opposition colleagues on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security is anything like what I experience regularly on the Standing Committee on Official Languages, the process was probably very arduous and quite frustrating for anyone who tried to work co-operatively.

This is what the NDP has been proposing from the outset. We have always been prepared to co-operate with our colleagues from all parties in order to make proposals that are beneficial to all Canadians. In this case, our proposals would have been beneficial to the women and men of the RCMP, as well as the Canadian public, but they were rejected out of hand. Unfortunately, the Conservatives on this committee were just as inflexible and closed-minded as those on many other parliamentary committees. They refused to co-operate to make Bill C-42 a piece of legislation that genuinely responds to the needs of the RCMP.

As members of Parliament, we are responsible for acting in a way that strengthens public trust in the RCMP, but the Conservatives refuse to take the steps needed to modernize the organization. For months now, the NDP has been urging the Minister of Public Safety to make sexual harassment in the RCMP a priority, but the issue is barely mentioned in Bill C-42. In fact, the word “harassment” appears once, and it is not even in a context that aims at resolving the issue of sexual harassment.

Although the bill gives the RCMP commissioner room to create a more effective process for responding to sexual harassment complaints, it contains no proactive measure to try to combat this systemic problem, and there is no provision on adopting a clear policy to prevent sexual harassment within the RCMP.

Bill C-42 does not go far enough in addressing the very real concerns of female members of this organization, who have been waiting far too long for the government to do something tangible to ensure that they have a safer, more open work environment. Another problem we must address is the fact that these same women do not have access to the same positions and promotions as quickly and in the same way as the men do.

Currently more than 200 women who work or have worked for the RCMP have launched a class action suit against the organization for allegations of sexual harassment. There are other individual suits under way, and there are undoubtedly incidents that will never be reported, because these are difficult situations. When wrongdoers get off the hook rather easily and no real disciplinary measures are taken, there is no real incentive for anyone to report these problems.

The women in the RCMP make the same sacrifices for their country as the men, but the women are abandoned by the system every day. They deserve better than this and, as elected representatives, we have a responsibility to act swiftly. That is why the NDP will oppose Bill C-42 at third reading. We proposed solutions and the Conservatives did not want to implement them. These solutions did not come just from the opposition, but also from people who are directly involved, who know what they are talking about and who care about the well-being of RCMP members.

This is very disappointing. I think it is a real shame to have to vote against this bill.

I would also like to see a substantive reform of this organization, but that is not going to happen with Bill C-42.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech. I have a question for him.

He mentioned the recommendations that the NDP made with regard to Bill C-42. I would like him to say a few words about these recommendations, which, on closer inspection, could help us address the problems at the RCMP over the past few years regarding sexual harassment and other practices.

Could he elaborate on one of these NDP recommendations?

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.

I rise here today to speak to Bill C-42, a piece of legislation that, unfortunately, does not meet the expectations of Canadians, because it does not live up to the hopes fuelled by the Conservatives' announcement about their desire to modernize the RCMP.

Like all of my NDP colleagues, I was delighted to learn that the House would finally be tackling some of the problems that have been undermining the RCMP's ability to function. And now I rise here today with no choice but to oppose Bill C-42. I oppose this piece of legislation not because I do not believe that reform is needed; on the contrary, I think it is crucial that we address the dysfunction that exists within the RCMP.

Nor is my opposition to this bill part of any systematic, blind opposition agenda, as the Conservatives like to suggest. Proof of this is the fact that the NDP supported this bill at second reading, so that it would be studied in committee. The fact is that, unfortunately, the Conservatives would not listen to any of the constructive proposals that could have strengthened this bill. They chose to reject every one of the amendments proposed and to ignore the recommendations made by the witnesses in committee.

What it comes down to is that I am deeply disappointed in the bill before us today. It is merely a half-baked reform that does not adequately respond to the challenges that the RCMP is currently facing. This is particularly true with regard to two rather crucial aspects, namely, the issue of the transparency and independence of investigations and the issue of problems related to harassment within the RCMP.

When they began working on a bill to improve and modernize the RCMP, the Conservatives said that they wanted to create the conditions necessary for truly independent investigations to be conducted, which would have made it possible to prevent situations of police investigating police. It is just common sense. We all want a measure that would eliminate the risk of collusion and do away with the lack of transparency.

Today, we are extremely disappointed. Under Bill C-42, the commission that will be responsible for investigating complaints against the RCMP will not have the means necessary to conduct effective investigations and restore Canadians' confidence in the RCMP.

Rather than following the recommendations that were made and creating a completely independent commission that could conduct in-depth investigations whose results would be binding on authorities, the Conservatives simply introduced a bill that has all the same weaknesses that were criticized before. In so doing, the Conservative government has completely missed the mark and failed in its mission to improve transparency.

The second point to which I would like draw the House's attention pertains to the challenges related to eliminating harassment within the RCMP, challenges that the Conservatives have basically ignored, despite the amendments we proposed.

Over 200 women have come forward in a class action lawsuit regarding sexual harassment within the RCMP. That is not a small number. That is how many women have made the courageous choice to speak out. This number, which is certainly large enough to get our attention, does not even begin to give us an exact idea of the magnitude of this phenomenon. These 200 women were brave enough to speak out about the harassment they experienced, but presumably there are many others who have still not come forward.

An internal RCMP report suggests that, quite often, employees who are victims of sexual harassment prefer to remain silent. They are worried that their career will suffer, or they do not have faith in the current complaints processing system and, what is more, they do not believe that the accused officers will ever be punished.

And it is because of the silence surrounding these incidents that they are so common. If no one talks about the issue, people may turn a blind eye or trivialize the unacceptable comments, attitudes and actions that no woman should have to endure.

And so, we would have expected a bill meant to respond to the numerous complaints about this type of behaviour to identify, condemn and specifically denounce sexual harassment as a real problem, as a practice that must be systematically denounced and dealt with. That would have given victims a clear document that could be used as an effective legal tool. But, unfortunately, that is not the case. The term “sexual harassment” is not even in the bill, and that gives the impression that this issue is not serious enough to be targeted specifically.

But the exact opposite is true. We cannot talk about modernizing the Royal Canadian Mounted Police without considering what women in the organization are facing. We cannot ignore the fact that there is still prejudice and chauvinistic behaviour in our federal police force. Nor can we overlook the fact that this supposedly manly culture creates fertile ground for harassment to be perpetrated and trivialized. And these acts can have serious consequences for the victims, as many witnesses testified in committee.

The NDP proposed a clear, simple measure that would have provided an effective tool to combat harassment. The NDP's suggestion to require harassment training for RCMP members was simply a common-sense amendment. This training for all staff would no doubt help break the silence surrounding the harassment problem and would also show people the line between what is acceptable and what is unacceptable. In addition, time set aside for education and communication would have given women, who may be victims of this type of harassment, information on their rights and potential recourse.

But the Conservatives decided to vote against this amendment yet again. This simple, clear provision could have decreased the incidence of sexual harassment within the RCMP, and the Conservatives are preventing it from being added. It is most unfortunate that we are seeing a disconnect between the Conservatives' claims of wanting change and the reality of a bill that only glosses over some crucial issues.

The Conservatives proposed improving the oversight mechanisms for the RCMP, but the organization responsible for conducting investigations is not fully independent and is not authorized to conduct thorough investigations. Furthermore, they claimed to want to combat internal operational problems at the RCMP, but they have introduced a bill that does not even mention sexual harassment and does not offer any new measures to combat the problem.

In conclusion, I am disappointed in Bill C-42 in its current state.

The Conservatives said they wanted to make changes for the better. They even said they wanted to work together on a bill that was perfectly suited to collaboration by both sides of the House. But at the end of the day, they ignored and even disdained our comments and suggestions and ended up introducing a botched, incomplete bill.

For these reasons, I will vote against this bill, and I condemn the fact that the Conservatives missed an opportunity to make fundamental reforms that would have been in the best interests of Canadians and members of the RCMP.

The House resumed from February 11 consideration of the motion that Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.

Safer Witnesses Act

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to say honestly that I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-51 at second reading, not so much personally, as I was already up speaking this morning, to Bill C-42, as was the parliamentary secretary, but because, like many members, we have had challenges even getting to the House today.

As the NDP public safety critic, I have the honour of speaking in the House quite often. Unfortunately, too often, it is on bills motivated by the Conservatives' tough on crime attitude. The parliamentary secretary asked why we do not support all of their bills. I would like to take just a moment to talk about this tough on crime attitude, because this is an attitude that too often results in policies that are ripped from headlines.

At best, it is based on a faulty concept of deterrence and the idea that harsh sentences somehow deter crime. There is actually no imperial evidence to show that. The only way deterrence functions is when the investment is made at the front end of law enforcement. It is the certainty of being caught and the swiftness of prosecution that puts people off committing crimes.

Most criminals do not sit at home thumbing through the Criminal Code to see which offence to commit based on the length of the sentence. Obviously they are motivated by other social, economic and personal factors. If resources are put at the front end, we get better results. That is one reason this legislation looks a lot better to us than most of the bills that come forward from the Conservatives.

At worst, the tough on crime agenda appears to be based on little more than retribution, and retribution is not an effective approach to crime. Although it may make some people feel better for a short period of time, it results in policies that are expensive and that rarely show any positive results. In contrast, we in the NDP believe in evidence-based measures, which will help us build safer communities.

I am honestly pleased to stand in the House today to support Bill C-51 at second reading. We have seen a couple of hopeful signs from the Conservatives with this legislation, and also with Bill C-54, which deals with measures for those not criminally responsible. We have seen more consultation from the government on these two bills. We have seen more attention to evidence on these two bills than we have seen before. In this case, action is long overdue. We are glad that the government finally listened to stakeholders, as we have been asking it to do this since 2007.

In November 2012, the NDP member for Trinity—Spadina repeated our call for action to expand eligibility for those going into the witness protection program. This is particularly important in the struggle against street gangs. The previous narrow definitions excluded them from the witness protection program. We and government members have heard from many community representatives, and from many law enforcement agencies, that to get co-operation to help break street gangs, inclusion of possible witnesses in this program would be very important.

Since 2007, the NDP has also specifically called for better coordination of federal and provincial programs and better provision of services to those provincial programs, which is another positive measure we see in the bill.

We have always called for better overall funding for the program. I will come back to that question.

While we support what the bill attempts to do, which is improve the witness protection program, we are concerned that the Conservative government will refuse to commit any new funding. In fact, the minister said during the introduction of the bill that this would have to be funded from existing funds.

While there is no legislative flaw we can see at this point in the bill, which ensures that we will support it at second reading, we are concerned, because as I often like to say, the proof is in the funding. If we make these improvements, but law enforcement agencies do not have the funding they need to operate the program, we have not moved very far forward.

Whatever the improvements here, the demand that the RCMP and local police departments work within their existing budgets will likely hinder the implementation of the proposed amendments and the improvements in the bill.

The RCMP's own website states that there are instances when the cost of witness protection may impede investigations, particularly for smaller law enforcement agencies. When municipal departments, which are extensive across this country, try to make use of the program, they must reimburse the RCMP fully for the costs, which can be very high. This is an ongoing cost for them. Most of them have no provision in their budgets for making use of this program. It means, oftentimes, that front-line law enforcement officers have to make difficult choices, because they cannot get those who need protection into the program, because the funding is not available to support those individuals once they are in the program.

Again, the witness protection program is often crucial to getting the co-operation the front-line police need so that they can get convictions that will take key organized crime figures out of the community. If there were adequate funding, the same would be true for getting key witnesses to testify against street gang members to help break up those street gangs.

The federal witness protection program has long been criticized for its narrow eligibility criteria, for its poor coordination with provincial programs, and for the low number of witnesses actually admitted to the program. In 2012, 108 applications were considered for admission to the program, and, largely due to funding constraints, only 30 people were accepted.

What does that mean? It means 78 cases for which we might have been able to get a conviction and might have been able to make progress on organized crime, because that has been the focus of the program to this point. We did not get that because of inadequate resources.

There are some important improvements, as we acknowledge, in the bill. Bill C-51 proposes a better process to support provincial witness protection programs. This would be especially important for expediting getting new identity documents for those in provincial programs. Before, as the parliamentary secretary mentioned, this required transferring them to the federal program and transferring them back, with an enormous amount of bureaucratic time-wasting and cost. We are pleased to see that.

The expanded definition is important. In addition to including witnesses in street gang cases as possible entrants to the program, it would also expand the program to include agencies with national security responsibilities.

It would also extend the period for emergency protection. That is one of the key issues local law enforcement figures have raised. Sometimes people need to go into this program very quickly, and sometimes it takes a while before they can get into a more permanent situation. Extending that emergency protection is important.

Provinces such as Ontario and Alberta have been pushing for a national revamp of this program, including recognition of their existing programs. Again, the designation of programs and recognition of those programs is a positive feature of the bill.

For federal departments and agencies with a mandate related to national security, both those that function under national defence and those that function under public safety would now be able to refer witnesses to the program. I will say in a minute why that has been a gap of very great concern in the past.

Because there is no direct reference to eligibility for the program for witnesses in street gang cases, many stakeholders have been concerned that street gang witnesses may not fit these new criteria. We are assured by the government that they will. We look forward to talking about this question in committee to make sure that this critical area is indeed covered by these changes to the witness protection program.

At committee I will be asking those questions to make sure that the federal government is truly committed to the inclusion of street gang, youth gang and national security witnesses in this program. This will be an important step toward building safer communities in Canada.

We believe that the bill addresses the key problems. There are still a few things it does not do. Again, we would like to talk about those in committee.

Bill C-51 does not include provisions for an independent agency to operate the program, as was recommended in the Air India inquiry report.

There is kind of a conflict of interest when the RCMP manages the program and also manages the investigations. It is able to use the incentive, I guess one would say, of the witness protection program to get co-operation, and then, later, it makes the decision about who is actually eligible to be in the witness protection program. The Air India inquiry report suggested that there should be an independent agency to make those decisions that involve the RCMP as both the investigating authority and the decision-making authority on who gets protection from the program.

When we look at national security, the inability to protect witnesses was a major obstacle to prosecutions in the Air India bombing case. That is why, in the report, there was a lot of attention given to the witness protection program. One witness, Tara Singh Hayer, publisher of the B.C.-based Indo-Canadian Times, was assassinated in 1998. This made the affidavit he had given the RCMP in 1995 inadmissible as evidence in the case.

I would say that Mr. Hayer was not a likely candidate to go into the witness protection program because he was a very brave individual. However, two additional witnesses, seeing what had happened to him and not being eligible to go into the witness protection program, refused to provide evidence to the RCMP or the Air India inquiry because of what they had seen happen to another witness who had provided information, and the fact that he was assassinated.

Justice Major, in his report, acknowledged that he felt unable, because of the restrictions in the witness protection program, to provide the protection that would be necessary for prosecution in the case of Air India.

The RCMP has also called for intensive psychological examination of potential protectees, a national support centre for the program, and has also supported the call for an external advisory board in their case to serve as a watchdog on the decisions being made.

We recognize that these are all potentially outside the scope of this bill, but I still think it is worth having a discussion in committee about some of the other things that the RCMP has said are necessary for the efficient operation of the witness protection program.

New Democrats believe that strengthening the program will improve co-operation with local police and the RCMP in the fight against gang violence, and in doing so will help make our communities safer. It has a proven record of success in the fight against organized crime.

While the Conservatives have been slow to respond to this issue, and we on our part have been calling for these changes since 2007, we are pleased to see that the government has listened to the stakeholders in this case and brought in this new legislation to expand the program.

Bill C-51 does address key legislative concerns with regard to the witness protection program and therefore warrants our support. Despite our ongoing concerns about funding, the NDP recognizes that Bill C-51 still falls short on some key changes to the program, such as having a more transparent and accountable process for admissions into the program. Again, the Conservative government has ignored the important recommendations of the Air India inquiry with regard to this independent review of who is admissible into the program.

We do feel that Bill C-51 provides the basic legislative fix that we need. We will wait to see if the Conservatives are going to provide the resources to make it really count for local communities. As I often say and will say again, the proof is in the funding. Local police wish to make use of this program. They welcome these changes. They are waiting to get to work on some of the street and youth gang problems they have when this tool becomes available to them. However, it will not work if they do not have the funding at the local level.

At the public safety committee, we are doing a large study on the economics of policing. I think it has made all members of Parliament aware of the constant downloading of costs and responsibility onto police forces.

When we asked witnesses at committee what percentage of their calls for service were actually what people regard as crime, they responded that it was around 20%, saying that 80% of the time the police spend working on other issues. What that really means is that they are working on things like mental health, addictions, and all those other social problems of exclusion and marginalization. In our society we have made what I would call an unconscious decision that we will leave all those responsibilities to the police. One good sign of that, which we often see, is the difficulty of finding emergency social services, even in urban areas, after five o'clock. Who will one call after five o'clock when most people have their mental health and addiction crises? Those offices are closed.

The police become the agency called to deal with those problems. This is one of the huge, and probably the most important, cost drivers in policing. I know that the Minister of Public Safety suggested that police salaries were in fact a cost driver and that they took away resources from other things they needed. We on this side believe that the police who serve our communities as highly trained professionals need to be paid a fair, professional wage. We recognize that most of the time wages—and certainly in municipal and provincial departments—have been set through a process of free collective bargaining. Therefore, it not the police salaries that prevent resources being available for things like the witness protection program, but government budgets and all those other demands that we place on the police every day of the week.

As I said at the beginning, we know that the police are out in snowstorms doing all kinds of things that are not strictly fighting crime but providing emergency assistance to the public. I am looking forward to the work in committee not just on this bill but also on the study on the economics of policing to help find some ways to get the cost of policing under control by getting the focus back on building safer communities.

We in the NDP are committed to this concept. We need measures based on real evidence that will lead us toward solutions that make our communities safer. One way of doing this is through an improved witness protection program that helps keep our streets safe by giving police additional tools to fight street gangs.

The parliamentary secretary talked about an expedited process. I want to again reassure her, as I did in the questions asked at the beginning, that on this side we are committed to getting this bill to committee as soon as we can, and giving it a high priority in committee and bringing in the witnesses we need to talk to as quickly as possible. We will not prolong the process beyond what is needed, because we know that local police forces are in fact waiting for this tool to be made available to them in order to do some very important work in community safety.

At this point, I am happy to conclude my remarks by saying that this is one case where the New Democrats believe that the government has listened to stakeholders and has consulted. It might be a little late, but we are pleased to see that it brought in this legislation, and we will be looking at the next budget to make sure that the resources that police forces need, particularly the RCMP, are there to ensure that this new and improved witness protection program can actually be used by those on the front line.

Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish my constituents of Vietnamese origin a happy Vietnamese New Year.

[Member spoke in Vietnamese]

On Bill C-42, I would like to add my comments to this lively debate and explain, in part, why the NDP is forced to object to it and will be voting against the bill.

We proposed reasoned, positive, progressive amendments to the bill, but they have all been rejected. They included adding mandatory harassment training for RCMP members specifically within the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, ensuring a fully independent civilian review body to investigate complaints against the RCMP, adding a provision to create a national civilian investigative body that would avoid police investigating police, and creating a more balanced human resources policy by removing some of the more draconian powers of the RCMP commissioner and by strengthening the external review committee in cases involving possible dismissal from the force.

One of the reasons the bill is here is that the RCMP itself has been subject to a lot of criticism, which has generally been levelled at the top echelons of the RCMP. More recently, the criticism has come from the realization that there is a huge and potentially much bigger than reported problem with systemic sexual harassment in the RCMP. None of us on this side of the House have any intention of allowing this to continue. One of the proposals we made was to ensure that the culture of the RCMP would in fact change.

Change does not happen through legislation. It does not happen by someone telling the boss to fix it. Change happens from the ground. Change happens from the individual RCMP members being taught and given anti-harassment training in the workplace and being made to understand that it is no longer culturally acceptable. It is no longer acceptable in this country that women should feel threatened when they are members of the RCMP or that they should feel they cannot complain about the practices they feel harassed by. That is a key element of the NDP's position on the bill. The sexual harassment that has come to the fore in the last few months must be rooted out quickly. However, that is not going to happen with the bill that is before us.

While we recognize that some improvements are being made by giving a little more power to the commissioner and by the other tinkering the bill undertakes, it goes nowhere near far enough. The bill does not deal with the systemic problems in the RCMP that have caused a litany of complaints about the RCMP to be made public over the past 15 years or so. In one case, the allegations of sexual harassment appear to go back 23 years. That is a long time and a lot of culture that needs to be corrected. It is not going to be corrected overnight and it is not going to be corrected without direct action on the part of the Conservative government to introduce and force mandatory anti-harassment training on the RCMP.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, some of the member's comments are worth consideration, but clearly Bill C-42 is going forward.

We are supporting it because it is a small step forward. If we had to wait for three or four years to get something much more comprehensive in detail, which would deal with some of the issues we all care about when it comes to the sexual harassment issue in the RCMP, I think that would take a long time.

Bill C-42 very much responds to what the commissioner said was his own frustration with his inability to take swift action. Does the hon. member think Bill C-42, if adopted, would give Commissioner Paulson the tools he needs to deal with these issues swiftly?

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-42 deals with a very important subject. First of all, I must admit that my participation in today's debate is not without some bitterness and disappointment. I really feel as though this legislation represents yet another missed opportunity. We have become accustomed to this government's half-measures, hollow phrases, empty shells and smoke and mirrors that all add up to nothing more than grandstanding.

When it comes to an issue as important as the one addressed in Bill C-42, it seems to me that a step in the right direction is not nearly enough. For a team of parliamentarians, regardless of our party affiliation, taking a step in the right direction is not enough. We need to solve problems as they arise, which Bill C-42 definitely does not do.

My speech could have included many lines of attack and many subjects, but I will try to focus on two things: I will first address the issue of the discrepancy between substance and form, followed by issues related specifically to sexual harassment.

On the question of form, more and more people I have spoken with—in my riding and across Quebec—have a huge problem with what they describe as democracy denied. I have to admit that, despite the work we do here in the House and in committee, I agree with those people, and to be frank, the whole process surrounding Bill C-42 illustrates this very clearly.

I would like to share a few thoughts with the House. Of course, everything was done according to the rules, but that is not enough. For instance, one might wonder whether Bill C-42 was the subject of any time allocation motions or other such procedures aimed at reducing the amount of time parliamentarians would have to debate the issue and further explore their proposals regarding this bill. The answer is yes. Speaking of time allocation motions, this government has moved nearly 30 of them since it won a majority about two years ago.

After I was elected, I remember that when I came to the Hill, during my training, I was told that the work in the House was quite partisan, but that work in committee was less so. Bills moved forward and were improved, which gave meaning to the work we do here to represent our constituents. However, of the 18 amendments that the NDP proposed to Bill C-42, guess how many were approved? None. It has almost become tradition. If it does not come from the governing party, it is no good. We are light years away from the adage that enlightenment comes when ideas collide. Now, if we come up with an idea that is like a Conservative one, it must be a good idea; otherwise, we can keep it to ourselves.

And, yes, amendments were approved in committee, but they came from government members. For the most part, the amendments had to do with grammatical errors in the French. Far be it from me to say that those amendments are not important; I have too much respect for my language to overlook those errors, but really, we could have done better.

One could also question the independence of the witnesses who came to testify and to provide expertise that would allow the committee to go further in its proposals. It seems that the majority of the witnesses called by the government were from either the government or the RCMP, which means that they were completely impartial, of course. From what I gather—because I did not sit on this committee—the witnesses called by the official opposition were treated with somewhat questionable fairness. They were called at the very last minute and their testimony was crammed into the last day. There are many questions—concerning the format alone—that merit better responses than the ones we received.

Let us talk about the substance of the bill. Earlier I said that, today, I would speak out against how sexual harassment issues are dealt with, because the topics addressed in this bill are very important.

When it comes to an issue as important as gender equality, taking a step in the right direction is not enough. We had the opportunity to solve the problem. However, once again, the government has proposed a way to sidestep the issue, while giving the impression that it has dealt with it.

I would like to quote Yvonne Séguin, the executive director of Groupe d'aide et d'information sur le harcèlement sexuel au travail de la province de Québec:

With the 32 years of experience we have, we have found out that when companies do have a clear policy, when employees do know what is acceptable and not acceptable, it makes it much easier for management to deal with the problems.

Bill C-42 therefore needs to have clear tools that would help both managers and employees to know what is going on.

Bill C-42 is the government's response to the longstanding complaints of sexual harassment within the RCMP and to a series of recent events related to this issue.

As hard as it may be to believe, the term harassment is not used anywhere at all in this bill.

In a bill that is supposed to address the issue of harassment, no one even has the courage to say the word. That is a problem.

When children ask questions, we are supposed to give straightforward answers and use the correct terminology. In this case, a first step should have been taken at the very least.

The NDP has been applying pressure from the beginning, from the very day that Bill C-42 was assigned a different number in another legislature. The NDP wants the minister to make the fight against harassment a priority and to provide a solution to the problem. All employees in all workplaces, not just those who work for the RCMP, have the right to an open and safe workplace, but obviously, that is not quite the case.

We are not claiming that a unionized organization provides the best protection of workers' rights. However, it is revealing that the RCMP is the only police service in Canada without a collective agreement. Staff relations representatives who are elected to manage employment issues use a process that is more like consultation than collective bargaining.

Nevertheless, the NDP proposed amendments that were completely straightforward, because we strongly believe in gender equality and fairness and respect between men and women.

All of our amendments were rejected. However, for those who follow our debates, I think that it is important to talk about the three or four amendments proposed by the NDP, so that people can judge the common sense and relevance of our amendments for themselves.

Although this was not the first amendment proposed, the first amendment I would like to mention recommended that all RCMP members receive mandatory training on sexual harassment.

Education and information have always formed the very foundation of any regulations and of any progress. However, even just talking about the issue was already too much for this government.

The second amendment had to do with creating a completely independent civilian body to examine complaints against the RCMP so that the police would not be investigating the police. A broad consensus is developing in civil society regarding this recommendation.

Lastly, how could the Conservatives refuse to create a police force that is better equipped in terms of human resources by taking powers away from the RCMP commissioner and strengthening those of the external review committee? Bill C-42 goes completely in the opposite direction. Once again, the Conservatives are giving the commissioner even more power, just as they gave certain ministers more power to control information in several other bills.

In closing, I wish to reaffirm the NDP's position. Our party will continue to work with women to ensure that gender equality becomes an undeniable reality once and for all. We will do a lot more than just one step forward.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by informing you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Trois-Rivières.

I read Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, when it was introduced in the House before the summer break.

I was really disappointed when I read the bill, which is yet another example of the Conservatives' lack of judgment and inaction on matters that concern the equality of women.

The government seems to think that this bill is the answer to the problem of harassment within the RCMP. Unfortunately, that is not the case. This bill is a far cry from a comprehensive solution.

In a serious situation such as this, we really have to get to the root of the problem. A bill that is so vague and weak will do nothing to change the work atmosphere and occupational culture.

Even in unionized work places, which the RCMP is not, and with good policies against harassment, which the RCMP does not have, harassment persists.

You have to delve very deeply to change the culture of our workplaces and to eradicate that type of behaviour.

Giving the RCMP commissioner the power to directly fire officers will not solve the problems with the RCMP culture. An arbitrary power, especially when we are talking about the Conservative model, does not solve the problem.

What we need is awareness, monitoring and concerted action to change behaviours. But this bill has none of that.

The Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security examined the bill. One after another, the witnesses pointed out that the bill could not fix the situation on its own, and that arbitrary powers unfortunately lead only to more abuse. The problem is complex and systematic.

The RCMP commissioner, Bob Paulson, confirmed this himself when he appeared before the Standing Committee on the Status of Women in the spring. He said:

...I think what's happened is that the RCMP hasn't kept pace with society in general and how society has moved to provide systems and processes that insist upon equality...It's the culture of the organization that has not kept pace...We haven't been able to change our practices and our policies, or provide systems that would permit women to thrive in the organization and contribute to policing, which they must do.

For the RCMP to be a successful policing organization, we must have women contributing in a significant way. I think how the organization manages authority and power.... I've said it publicly, and I'll say it again. I think the problem is bigger than simply the sexual harassment. It is the idea of harassment. The idea that we have a hierarchical organization overseeing men and women who have extraordinary powers in relation to their fellow citizens, which requires a fair degree of discipline.

In committee, I specifically asked the commissioner about the culture of the organization. His answer enlightened us on the fundamental issue that will not be fixed by a bill:

...when we change the RCMP culture so that people, no matter what their rank, are making principle-based decisions on the merits of the situation and not defending their pips and crowns and their rank by demonstrating to others that they are more powerful or more influential, then we will have changed the culture.

I want to point out that in response to the highly publicized incidents reported last year by some very brave women in the RCMP, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women decided to examine the issue of harassment in public service workplaces.

On December 6, 2012, Vicky Smallman, from the Canadian Labour Congress, appeared before the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. I will quote what she had to say about workplaces and culture.

One of the best tools for preventing harassment of any kind is a healthy, inclusive workplace with a commitment to gender equality. Job security, reasonable workloads, and good labour relations all offer a sense of stability and comfort in the workplace. But while it does not completely prevent individuals from harassing others, it might create a climate that allows women to feel safe about coming forward with a complaint.

Workplace culture is important. As you conduct this study, I hope you will consider looking at the culture of federal workplaces and any factors that may create an environment conducive to harassment or that may impede its prevention—that is, that may encourage women to keep silent.

Unfortunately, a large number women in the RCMP kept silent for many years, and in a lot of workplaces that is the case.

The bill was introduced without the benefit of the findings of the internal gender audit of the RCMP, ordered by the commissioner, that is currently under way and not yet completed. The Conservatives' approach does not seem to make women in the RCMP a priority as it ignores any kind of gender-based internal audit or findings. That is very unfortunate. It is also unfortunate that other studies being done that are looking at the issue of sexual harassment and other gender-based discrimination in the RCMP as well as other federally regulated workplaces, such as the one being done at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, are not being considered.

The NDP thinks we can go further on these issues as there needs to be a clear anti-harassment policy in the RCMP, one which contains specific standards for behaviour and specific criteria for evaluating the performance of all employees. Such a policy is needed to serve as a basis for a fair, disciplined process. This is absolutely necessary to have a better environment in the workplace for the RCMP, as well as other workplaces that have a culture of dominance, for instance, brought from the fact that there is a culture of authority, which is obviously necessary in something like the RCMP. However, that does not necessarily mean there needs to be harassment and we need to be dealing with that more concretely.

Unfortunately, this bill fails because it continues to allow the RCMP to investigate itself in certain situations, it creates a piecemeal system that puts the burden of monitoring on the provinces, it creates a complaints commission that is not fully independent and that reports to the minister with non-binding recommendations, and it limits access to sensitive information to the commission.

In order to fix the shortcomings in this bill, in order to truly attack the problem, the NDP voted at second reading to send Bill C-42 to committee. There, we proposed a number of amendments that required mandatory harassment training. That is something that would absolutely be necessary in all jobs if we truly want to consider men and women to be equal. Our amendments called for a more independent civilian organization to be responsible for complaints against the RCMP. They also called for the creation of human resources policies that were more harmonious, by withdrawing the draconian powers proposed for the commissioner.

The Conservatives rejected all amendments to this bill, as has been pointed out today in this House. We are used to this kind of thing, but that does not mean we must stop fighting for what we think is right. These amendments would have improved the bill, and they were developed based on recommendations made by witnesses in committee.

In closing, it is obvious that we cannot support this bill. It really does not go far enough. I do not believe that we should tell Canadian women that it is all right to take half measures to solve a problem. We have to get to the root of the problem and stand up for equality in this country.

It is unfortunate because this bill addresses an urgent matter. Women, the RCMP and Canadians want effective action from their government, rather than bills doomed to failure right from the outset.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg is speaking to a broader issuer than this piece of legislation, Bill C-42. I mentioned that in my remarks. Increasingly I am concerned with how committees function, or rather how they are not allowed to function, in that amendments are hardly ever carried, even though they make a lot of sense.

At one point in time the Senate would take issues seriously. It would fix mistakes that we might have overlooked in this place. In my view, that is not happening now. The big whip comes down and we get it through. If this kind of process continues, such as passing legislation that is not the best it can be, the courts will start to rule on some of the flaws we have made. Therefore, I think my colleague is speaking to the broader issue of how this place works, which I have laid out in my remarks.

I am very concerned. I believe that Bill C-42 is an example. Some amendments had been proposed and not accepted because of where they came from, not because of what they contain. That is a concern that Canadians should increasingly be worried about.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, being a retired member of the RCMP, I am very proud to wear the red serge whenever I can.

I have watched with interest as Bill C-42 has moved forward. This bill needs to get passed. For well over 100 years, the RCMP has been handcuffed by the fact that it has been unable to remove members from the RCMP when it was needed. Again, as the hon. member across the way said, it is not all the members; it is a select few. However, those select few tarnish the RCMP.

Does the member opposite believe the bill has gone far enough for his party to move it forward and, if so, is he confident that in committee there would be opportunities to discuss the opportunities that they see as being fit?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

I want to state for the record what the summary of the two key points indicates this is all about. The summary of the bill states:

This enactment enhances the accountability of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police by reforming the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act in two vital areas. First, it strengthens the Royal Canadian Mounted Police review and complaints body and implements a framework to handle investigations of serious incidents involving members. Second, it modernizes discipline, grievance and human resource management processes for members, with a view to preventing, addressing and correcting performance and conduct issues in a timely and fair manner.

That sounds great in theory, but I have to remark that wonderful ideas do not always work in theory. I recall the government bringing in the Federal Accountability Act. This is much along the same lines. Indeed, I heard the parliamentary secretary talk about accountability and transparency. I remember the Federal Accountability Act well and the government talking about transparency and accountability. Anything we have seen from the current government is the absolute direct opposite: We are seeing the least transparency we have ever seen of any government in Canadian history. Access to information requests are taking longer and longer. We cannot get answers from the government. Committees are shoved in camera on simple motions that should be debated in public but are taking place in secret.

I wanted to outline that at the beginning because when the government talks about accountability and transparency in its own business, we have seen anything but that. I hope that with the changes to the RCMP we will see some transparency and accountability. However, the record of the government is the direct opposite.

Although we are debating the RCMP Act, I am concerned about this place because we are not seeing things happening at committee in the open and transparent way that we should. The way the government is operating is a blight on the Parliament of Canada. As a former solicitor general, I do not want to see that same blight apply to the RCMP, because it is our national police force and a recognized icon around the world. I want to see it improved. The best intentions laid out in this bill may sound great, but they need to come to fruition in the way they were intended to.

The Liberal critic agrees with the central premise of the bill, that the commissioner's capacity to deal with disciplinary issues should be strengthened and the process for dealing with them streamlined. In my earlier questioning, I outlined some of my concerns in that regard and I will get to those in a moment. That said, the bill certainly is a step forward. As with all legislation, it may need to be improved as we go down the road a piece.

The critic for the Liberal Party also says that some minor improvements could be brought to the powers and scope of the new civilian complaints body and notes that this body has been strengthened in keeping with previous Liberal positions. From the perspective of my party, we Liberals welcome the new legislation and the attempts by the government to address the current challenges facing the RCMP.

As has been expressed in this debate and will be in future debates in the House, there is no doubt that the RCMP is facing many challenges. We see the issue of sexual harassment in the press all too often. As I said a moment ago, the RCMP is a symbol of Canada around the world, something we are proud of, and we do not want to see this image tarnished due to the odd individual in the force who tarnishes not only the image of the RCMP but also the image of Canada. The corrective measures have to be put in place to allow the national police force to deal with these problems in an effective manner.

Bill C-42 aims to tackle these harassment and discipline issues by reworking the force's bureaucratic grievance system and by giving increased powers to the commissioner. The bill would also give senior managers a wider range of options to sanction members immediately, such as by suspending pay.

I raised some concerns about this point earlier, not so much with the additional authority of the senior managers as a management team, but the power of the commissioner and the power surrounding him. As one member I talked to this morning said, it gives the commissioner the power to “hire, fire or boot and all the rest”. That is a pretty substantive statement, and there is no question that on disciplinary issues, the commissioner does need the power. However, having been there as a solicitor general, I think there is a dilemma.

The commissioner is in charge of all things RCMP. The Minister of Public Safety is responsible for the RCMP and for policy. It is so different from many of the other ministries. If another ministry has a staffing problem, the minister can step in. That cannot be done with the RCMP because there is a space there that the minister cannot influence. Therefore, the rank and file of the RCMP do not really have the ability to go to the government or the minister if they are having problems with the commissioner. Much in the RCMP therefore depends on the individual, the man or woman who may be the commissioner of the RCMP, and how much power he or she has and how they use that power. They can use it to either good or bad advantage.

Whether we like it or not, there is politics in all organizations, including the RCMP. It is a command system where people eventually move to the top and are appointed by the Minister of Public Safety and/or the Prime Minister to the position of commissioner. There is always that internal political dilemma. My colleague from the NDP spoke to this earlier, noting the legitimate concerns there.

In fairness to the government and to my own party, I believe we need to move ahead. I wish the government had accepted the reasoned amendments by opposition parties, although it tends not to do so, because these could have been made it a better bill. That is why I brought up accountability and transparency earlier in the context of the accountability act. This place is not working because the government just does not accept amendments from others, no matter how well reasoned they are. That could be a problem in this case.

We have to move forward with the bill, but it could have been improved. I admit that openly. Part of the reason for this legislation not moving forward is that this place and its committees are not working as they ought to work any more, because it is the government's way or no way. It is that simple, and that is a sad commentary on how our Parliament is working.

With respect to the power of the commissioner, yes there needs to be power to discipline. Having a rank and file member just go to the other review agency to protect himself or herself may or may not work, in my view. The RCMP is a command structure. Intimidation from the leader can be a strong and powerful thing. What tends to happen is that people who disagree may just step aside and go into another occupation, such as security, a local police force, or whatever. I am being quite open here. There is some reason for concern. It is too bad that aspect could not have been improved.

Given the incidents that have happened in the RCMP and the force's image and uniqueness in this country, we have to move ahead with Bill C-42, but we have to be wary of the problems that could appear. The minister, the government, and all of us as parliamentarians need to be watchful of that and not be afraid of bringing in corrective measures in the future if it seems necessary to do so. I would suggest that the government be wary of that point and be watchful.

It is true that we need to find ways to exercise discipline and to deal with some of the unique internal problems within the RCMP. We need to deal with those problems. We need to be absolutely confident that if we create some other problems along the way for the rank and file in terms of their interests and their maybe even challenging a commissioner for legitimate reasons, that their ability to do so would not be undermined by the additional power to be given to the commissioner in this legislation. I would therefore suggest that we all be watchful of that fact. If it becomes a problem at some future point, we should be willing to act quickly to address it.

Bill C-42 would replace the existing watchdog agency, the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, with the new civilian review and complaints commission.

Paul Kennedy was a witness before the committee. He was chair of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP. He did a very remarkable job. He was not afraid to challenge the RCMP, or indeed the government. He is one of the ones who lost his job, as did Adrian Measner and others over the last six years, for being brutally honest and challenging the Government of Canada. That should not have happened.

It is one of the reasons that the new body has been brought into place. We need these independent officers. He was not as independent as he had hoped. He was not reappointed, and the reason he was not reappointed was because he had done his job and challenged the system.

In terms of what is now going to be called the civilian review and complaints commission, I will only say, will it be independent enough? Will it have the authority? Will it have the backbone to challenge the system, as Paul Kennedy did when he was chair?

There are a lot of complaints. We do not hear many of them. However, I expect members on the committee have, though I am not a member of the committee. There are all kinds of complaints that come in against the RCMP, for many reasons. There are the complaints in the rank and file, sexual harassment and other things. There are complaints from the public in terms of how their particular case was handled, whether it was fast enough or they were elbowed during an arrest, or whatever it may be. The Arar issue went to the commission for public complaints at one point. There is a range that is all over the map.

In my view, that review body has to have the ability to deal effectively with those complaints, to be willing to listen, to receive complaints from the rank and file. I believe that is under this new proposal as well. They have to have the ability to challenge the system and to work in the interest of the public in terms of their answers to these complaints. It is a very important body. It needs to be there. We absolutely need a way for the public to be heard on issues, whether it is a small or big complaint, and to challenge the RCMP on how an issue was handled.

My key point is that given the experience with the government and its removal or not making an appointment—we are going to see the same thing with the Parliamentary Budget Officer, no doubt—an individual and a body who have the backbone to challenge the government are critical. They absolutely must have that independence and they must be made of the character to challenge them.

I have raised some issues. There is no question that we are going to support this bill moving forward because I believe decisions have to be made. I believe the bill could have been improved. It was not because the government does not allow anybody else's thoughts to enter its jurisdictions. Unless it is its own, it thinks it has no merit.

Let me close by saying there does need to be some changes within the RCMP. It is our national police force. It is unique around the world. People look to it as a symbol of Canada. This bill is a step forward in terms of regaining that reputation.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-42 at third reading today.

First, I want to begin by paying tribute to the women and men of the RCMP who work every day to help keep our communities safe. Often we talk about the wondrous blessings of this very large and diverse country, but I would also add that sometimes it can be a large and cold country, which can be a curse as well as a blessing. With the conditions we faced in most of the country over the last week, I think we need to remember that the emergency services people, the RCMP and all those other front-line people, are still out there working in the cold, keeping us safe despite the harsh weather conditions that keep many of the rest of us at home.

I think that the opening of the third reading debate is a good time to remember why the bill is before the House. The government likes to emphasize the word “modernization” and say that it is time to review the act, that this is the first major revision over 25 years and, therefore, that we can bring things up to date since we last debated this in the House in 1988.

I would like to argue that it is before the House not just because time has elapsed and it is time to look at it again; it is before the House because we have very serious concerns to address regarding the RCMP.

I do take exception to the position that has been stated this morning, that somehow the NDP has an interest in this. What we are talking about is what we heard from witnesses and from stakeholders about some things that needed to be in this bill and were not there. We did propose amendments at the committee stage, and again at report stage, to address the serious concerns. I want to just remind the House what those are.

First, there is a declining confidence in the RCMP, despite the fine work done by women and men on the front lines every day. Overall, we have seen the public losing some of the confidence it has had over the years, which confidence has made the RCMP a national symbol in many ways.

Yes, the public still has confidence in the RCMP, but that decline in confidence, no matter how small, has to be a concern for members in this House.

Second, we have a clear problem with sexual harassment within the RCMP. We also heard in committee that we have problems with other kinds of harassment. Therefore we have to address that problem directly. It is not just updating the bill; it is dealing with something that has happened inside the RCMP over time that has led to 200 women bringing a lawsuit against the RCMP for the damage to their careers that happened as a result of sexual harassment in the RCMP.

Third—which the government focuses on almost exclusively, and I would agree—there is a need to deal with serious concerns about management of human resources and labour relations inside the RCMP.

Let me talk about each of those in a bit more detail and start with the declining confidence.

Obviously, we have had a number of unfortunate high-profile incidents over the last few years involving the RCMP, which resulted in deaths and serious injuries to the public. Some of this loss of confidence is to be expected whenever there are serious incidents of this kind.

However, in large part, I think the loss of confidence is attributable to the police investigating themselves. In these cases that involve, as I said, serious bodily harm and/or death, the public worries that somehow when police investigate police there will be a tendency to take care of one's own and to perhaps not pursue the investigation to its full length.

I believe that the police, generally, do a good job investigating themselves. However, if the public does not have confidence in that investigation, then we need to proceed in a different way.

Some of that loss of confidence is a direct result of public concern about the structures we use to hold the RCMP accountable.

Yes, the hon. member who is the parliamentary secretary talks about a very confusing set of overlapping jurisdictions, and we would agree with her. That is why we proposed, in committee, that there be one clear independent body that is able to investigate in these kinds of incidents; not adding that as another layer on top of existing bodies, but having one national civilian investigative agency in which both the public and the police could have confidence in the investigations that take place in these very serious cases.

Second, I talked about the problem we obviously have with sexual harassment within the RCMP. We cannot just brush this aside, saying the RCMP will deal with it, because obviously it has failed to do so. Anytime, as I mentioned, 200 members of the RCMP, for any reason, go outside the normal RCMP processes and ask the courts to intervene because of what they see as very damaging policies and practices within the RCMP, then we have a serious problem—and it is not a problem of just a few bad apples, but it is a systemic problem within the RCMP.

We on this side have a serious concern that there is a flaw in the culture of the RCMP, which is now deeply ingrained. It is a culture that all too often tolerates harassment in the workplace, specifically sexual harassment. Therefore, we put forward an amendment to the section that lists the responsibilities of the commissioner of the RCMP. This section outlines certain things that the RCMP commissioner must do, but does not list everything the commissioner does, as the hon. member on the other side implied. It establishes some clear responsibilities.

In committee, we heard from representatives of women who are bringing forward law suits. We also heard from experts on sexual harassment that, instead of trying to deal with the problem at the back end using discipline, there is a necessity to change the culture of the RCMP through training at the front end and make people aware of what they sometimes do not even perceive as harassment.

I know this from serving on a municipal police board. Some 10 years ago, we required all employees on the police board to go through harassment training. At the end of that training, some officers whom I respected said they had done some things over time that they had not realized had an impact on others within the police force.

That is the importance of stressing that putting harassment training into the responsibilities of the commissioner would help change the culture that results in the limitation of careers of women within the RCMP. We spend a lot of money training these officers, they gain a lot of experience, and they find their careers blocked or frustrated by a practice that is unacceptable, which is sexual harassment.

As I have said, when we have so many instances come forward, we have a systemic problem. This not an NDP proposal that would benefit the NDP, but most organizations have dealt with sexual harassment at the front end through training. Therefore, it is beyond me why the Conservatives fail to accept at least this one amendment, which is a very simple amendment, to add harassment training to the specific responsibilities of the commissioner.

Also, adding this specific responsibility for training would create accountability. When the commissioner comes before the House at the public safety committee, if there is a specific responsibility listed in the act, then it makes it possible for members of Parliament to ask questions on how that responsibility is being carried out, what the commissioner has done in this area, and how he or she has met the statutory responsibilities, instead of leaving the act silent on the question of sexual harassment.

As my hon. colleague said in his question, the words “sexual harassment” do not even appear in the bill that is put forward as a solution to the problem of sexual harassment. I will accept the parliamentary secretary's argument that harassment is not just sexual in nature and that there is a larger problem in the culture of the RCMP. However, that is why we put forward the amendment, which was rejected by the Conservatives, to make the bill something that would be part of the up-front efforts to change the culture of the RCMP. I believe this is a measure that would go a long way, along with independent oversight, to help restore confidence in the RCMP.

Our third concern, the management of labour resources, I think really comes down to what the parliamentary secretary raised. It is a discipline process that seems convoluted, sometimes arbitrary and often ineffective. We have had some egregious examples, especially in dealing with discipline regarding sexual harassment.

For example, a senior officer in one of the provinces was found guilty through the internal process of numerous incidents of sexual harassment of his female colleagues. The punishment that came out of this disciplinary process was to transfer him, near the end of his career, from a posting in a very cold part of the country to a posting in what I, of course, regard as one of the best parts of the country when it comes to climate. It did not seem like much punishment. It did not seem like very effective punishment to simply transfer the person, with no training required, and without any remedial work being done with the person. It was to simply transfer the person to another jurisdiction, and those problems may in fact have been transferred with the individual.

Therefore, we agree that the discipline process is sometimes convoluted, slow, arbitrary and ineffective. Of course, if the discipline process is not effective, it does make it difficult to deal effectively with all of those other challenges the RCMP faces.

Bill C-42 is before the House this session, and we on this side supported it at second reading because we acknowledge the seriousness of these challenges currently facing the RCMP, and we hoped to have a dialogue at committee that would result in a stronger bill. We heard from many witnesses and, as I said in my question to the parliamentary secretary, we heard from no one who was an independent witness, who was not an official of the RCMP, that he or she actually supported this bill.

I have talked at great length with the president of the Canadian Police Association, and he does have reservations about this bill despite the comments of the parliamentary secretary.

The Conservatives presented this bill to the House last summer, just before the break, and on this side we responded with the serious set of hearings of witnesses in the fall. I would argue we had a good set of hearings. We dealt with the issues substantively.

However, what it demonstrated was there was lots of room for improvement in this bill. Again, we put forward a package of amendments that we believed would serve to strengthen the bill and address those serious problems. All of those amendments were rejected. We also put forward amendments at report stage, and once again they were rejected.

It should come as no surprise to the government that on this side of the House we have found that we cannot support the bill at third reading. It leaves those major issues unaddressed.

It really exacerbates the problems that result from the paramilitary model that the RCMP initially adopted. When the RCMP was set up, the Government of Canada looked to the Royal Irish Constabulary, which had been established in Ireland in 1822. This was a paramilitary model that was designed to help police an Irish population that was hostile to what it saw as the British occupation.

There is another model from Britain, a model that I believe would better serve the Canadian context. That model is nearly as old. It was set up in 1829 for the Metropolitan Police of London based at Scotland Yard. Instead of being a paramilitary organization, the Metropolitan Police was set up on a community policing model and a model of shared governance, where there was more consultation with the cop on the beat about how to do policing and less of a top-down structure.

The solution in terms of administration and labour relations that the government has adopted here is to give the commissioner more power. To me, a lot of the problems we are facing result from that concentration of power in the hands of one person. What we suggested were some amendments that would help spread out that power, increase the authority of the external review committee, increase the confidence that rank and file members would have in the internal discipline process in the RCMP and, therefore, also increase public confidence in the RCMP.

We are opposing this bill because we believe that in the House of Commons we have a duty to do the best we can in terms of reforming an act, especially when these kinds of issues only come before the House once every 25 years.

To repeat, sexual harassment is still not in the bill. Our solution to tackle sexual harassment at the front end through training and a change in the culture rather than simply the disciplinary end was rejected by the Conservatives.

In terms of oversight, what we suggested in our amendments was a fully independent complaints commission reporting to the House of Commons. What do we have in the bill? We have a complaints commission that continues to report to the minister, and a commission that cannot make binding recommendations; it only can make non-binding recommendations to the minister and the commissioner.

To have a more fully independent commission, we thought some changes were needed: to report to the House of Commons, to allow binding recommendations. Those suggestions were rejected by the Conservatives.

Even the parliamentary secretary mentioned that there are four provinces, and of course the three territories, where there is no provision for independent investigation of the police. In those serious incidents involving serious bodily harm or involving death, in four provinces, even after this bill passes, we will still have police investigating police. This remains a serious confidence problem for the public.

The minister and the parliamentary secretary have both mischaracterized our proposal as one of adding to bureaucracy. Instead, what we were suggesting is an independent, civilian, national investigation organization that could replace some of those other organizations, replace some of the duplication, but most importantly would establish public confidence that when there are unfortunate incidents, they have been thoroughly investigated and will result in an outcome that has the appropriate consequences.

I want to take a couple of minutes to talk about two statements made by witnesses at the public safety committee. They both spoke about the solution of giving additional powers to the commissioner. One of those was Mr. Tom Stamatakis, president of the Canadian Police Association. In committee, on October 29, this is what he said:

Bill C-42 provides the commissioner with extraordinary powers in this regard, powers that go beyond what one might find in other police services across Canada. For example, in Ontario, a police officer who is subject to a disciplinary process retains the right to appeal the decision to the independent Ontario Civilian Police Commission, a quasi-judicial body that provides an impartial review of the process and ultimately a decision. Without any additional, and most importantly, independent avenue for appeal, I would suggest there is a possibility that RCMP members could lose faith in the impartiality of a process against them, particularly in situations in which the commissioner has delegated his authority for discipline.

In short, what Mr. Stamatakis was saying was in line with the amendment we proposed. We have an external review committee that looks at disciplinary decisions within the RCMP, but it only makes recommendations to the commissioner. If a rank and file member appeals his or her discipline, it goes to the independent external review committee, but the commissioner does not have to pay any attention to its decisions. Our amendment suggested that we could have greater independence for the external review committee, and that was supported by the Canadian Police Association.

Other witnesses at the public safety committee also spoke out against the power imbalance, in terms of labour relations, within Bill C-42. Most recently, we heard from Rob Creasser, media liaison in British Columbia for the Mounted Police Professional Association. It is sometimes called the non-union union, since the RCMP is prevented from unionization. What he said in committee was:

One major problem that exists in the RCMP is the tremendous power imbalances within the organization. Bill C-42, rather than mitigating these issues, will only make them exponentially worse.

If Bill C-42 is passed in its current form with the charter violations and avenues for continued abuse of power by managers, rather than correcting the issues that have plagued the RCMP, our Parliament would be promoting the bad behaviour and cronyism by legitimizing this type of behaviour.

That is a somewhat stronger statement than I might make on this issue, but it points to the direction of our amendment, which is that we need a more collaborative management structure, not a strengthening of the powers of one person and not a concentration of those powers in the hands of the commissioner alone.

It became apparent to us, after hearing witnesses and experts at committee, that the bill has deep flaws that will not fix the concerns the public and the rank and file members of the RCMP have.

Since Bill C-42 was passed in committee, 2,000 members of the RCMP have signed a petition stating that they were not properly consulted on the changes in the bill and that they do not believe the government is representing their best interests in this bill. Two thousand serving RCMP members signed the petition opposing this bill.

Bill C-42 still allows, in four provinces, for police to investigate police. Really, the solution adopted by the Conservatives is to dump responsibilities onto provincial investigating agencies rather than to guarantee that there is one high-quality civilian agency at the national level.

The NDP has put forward its package of amendments reflecting what independent witnesses said in the committee and reflecting the things we believe are necessary to address the three main concerns I talked about earlier in my speech.

Measures to address harassment training at the front end are critical to changing the culture in the RCMP. Measures to strengthen the independence of review bodies are critical to restoring public confidence in the RCMP.

The Conservatives are standing by their argument that putting more power in the hands of the commissioner to fire individual officers will curb all the ongoing issues in the RCMP. Giving the commissioner this concentration of power, we believe, would contribute to ongoing problems and not solutions.

I would conclude by saying that the NDP wish we could have supported the bill at third reading, but the government was not able to see its way clear to accepting any of the amendments that would have addressed these serious concerns.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when 200 women decide to take action and file a class action lawsuit, I think that speaks volumes about the problem of sexual harassment in the RCMP.

The term “sexual harassment” does not even appear in Bill C-42, and the Conservatives rejected an amendment as simple as providing all RCMP members with training in that regard.

Can someone explain this for me?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite pleased that my colleague spoke to the bill today because it is very important. I am very proud of the work that she has done on this file and in moving the bill forward.

In preparation for the debate today I was looking at some of the feedback that we have had from stakeholders across the country on the bill who would see a direct impact because of its proposed passage. For example, Catherine Ebbs, the chair of the Canadian Mounted Police External Review Committee stated:

Bill C-42 creates the opportunity for the force to renew and modernize their internal processes, and one focus in that development will be streamlining processes.

I think that's a very worthwhile exercise.

There are all sorts of people who would see a direct influence or impact with respect to the bill who have supported it because it is necessary. I was hoping my colleague could speak to some of the feedback that she has heard across the country on this important piece of legislation.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today to speak in favour of Bill C-42, the enhancing RCMP accountability act.

With a history extending back to the very formation of our country, few national institutions are more symbolic of Canada than the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. For many Canadians and people in other countries, the Mounties have come to represent certain values associated with Canada, the values of integrity, honesty, courage and determination. When those values are questioned or tarnished, it not only undermines the functioning of the RCMP but also affects the very heart of how others see us and how we see ourselves.

For that reason, the government has taken a key interest in modernizing the RCMP to meet the challenges of the 21st century. I remind everyone that the RCMP Act was last substantially amended in 1988, some 25 years ago. The world has changed very much in the last 25 years. Canadians are rightly demanding greater accountability from the RCMP, alongside heightened transparency. The cumbersome RCMP human resources management framework, which is so heavily reliant on paperwork, only makes the situation worse, and the well-publicized charges of sexual harassment are further evidence that far-reaching changes are required within the RCMP. Yes, the institution has made valiant efforts to correct its problems through its transformation agenda, but these internal changes can only go so far. What is needed now is an overhaul of the legislation affecting the RCMP's oversight and operations.

The RCMP and Canadians understand the need for legislative changes. It is very unfortunate that the NDP cannot understand this and, sadly, will not be supporting this important bill. It was made clear throughout the committee hearings that there are structural deficiencies that must be fixed within the RCMP. There are management challenges that must be faced. There are issues of trust and confidence that must be resolved. The government is determined to deal with these questions head on.

As members will recall, the government came to office on a platform of clear priorities. These included enhancing public safety and security and strengthening accountability and transparency. Bill C-42 contains many of the provisions included in legislation introduced in the last Parliament to address accountability issues within the RCMP.

I would now like to review the key components of the bill along with amendments that were introduced at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

Canadians recognize the limitations of the current system of RCMP oversight. They want to know that public complaints against RCMP officers are handled expeditiously with thoroughness and impartiality. They want greater transparency so that justice is not only done but also seen to be done. The government has listened carefully and recognized the need to strengthen external oversight of the RCMP.

I do not want to suggest for one moment that this move denigrates the valuable work that has been accomplished by the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, the CPC, since its inception in 1988. It has done excellent work. Yet we must also acknowledge the concerns raised in many quarters that the current legislation hampers the CPC from doing its job thoroughly. For that reason, Bill C-42 proposes replacing the CPC with an arm's-length body to be known as the civilian review and complaints commission for the RCMP.

Bill C-42 enhances the powers of the CPC. For example, the new entity would continue to focus on reviewing public complaints through enhanced access to information. It could also summon witnesses to testify at a hearing. In addition, the new body would be able to more broadly review RCMP activities in a particular area of interest and report on its findings. What is more, the new commission would also be empowered to share information or conduct joint complaints investigations with counterparts in other jurisdictions, and it would produce customized reports on public complaints for each jurisdiction holding contracts with the RCMP. These reports would analyze the number and nature of complaints in a given period. They would also identify any trends within the complaints. In this way, the new commission would deliver a tailor-made report that would meet the needs and expectations of contract jurisdictions. These new measures have become the standard tools for modern review bodies.

One of the most sensitive areas of RCMP conduct involves what is known as “serious incidents”. These are cases where RCMP contact with the Canadian public results in serious injury or death. In these high-profile events, it is vital that investigations of these cases is carried out independently, transparently and impartially. As I indicated earlier, it is important to the integrity of these investigations and the reputation of the RCMP that this impartiality be apparent from the very start of the investigation of these serious incidents. That is why the proposed bill would require the RCMP to refer all cases of serious incidents to a civilian investigative body within the relevant province. This body would ensure that the investigation is conducted in an impartial, transparent manner.

Of course, not every province has a civilian investigative body that can handle cases of this nature. If a provincial civilian agency does not exist, the case would then be referred to another police force. However, there are situations where there is no civilian body or other police agency available to conduct the investigation. For instance, at some remote RCMP locations the legislation would provide for this third possibility. In the absence of an external body, the RCMP would investigate the incident itself. Since this would justifiably raise all of the old concerns about independence, transparency and conflict of interest, the proposed legislation would go even further. If the RCMP or another police force were in charge of investigating these serious incidents, the jurisdiction in question or the new commission could appoint an independent observer to assess the impartiality of these investigations.

The government has worked hard to promote the accountability and transparency demanded by serious incidents. I know we have succeeded with the provisions that are outlined in Bill C-42.

Until now, I have concentrated my remarks on how the bill would enhance the accountability of the RCMP to all Canadians. However, accountability is also a concern within the RCMP itself. Over the past year, incidents related to alleged misconduct and sexual harassment in the RCMP have been well documented by the media. The current human resources management framework clearly does not allow for the commissioner to deal with these internal issues expeditiously. That is why a large portion of Bill C-42 is devoted to revamping and modernizing the RCMP discipline, grievance and human resources management practice. The chief concern with disciplinary action is the requirement to turn over serious cases to an adjudication board. The current policy embedded in existing legislation accomplishes and, in some cases, results in two things. First, it sets in motion a bureaucratic nightmare, a process full of delays that can stretch on for years and can create animosities that poison workplaces. Second, by taking away power from front-line managers, the latter lose the ability to correct behaviours and return the members to work quickly and put the incident behind them, or to demonstrate to others in the workplace that inappropriate behaviour is not acceptable. Currently, front-line managers do not have the ability to do this within the RCMP. It is time they have the ability to manage the people they work with in a modern, efficient way.

Bill C-42 would modify this process substantially. Most significantly, it would empower front-line managers within the RCMP. Under the bill's provisions, these managers could impose consequences or measures for most contraventions of the code of conduct. For example, managers could impose remedial training or corrective action or, in some cases, dock the officer's pay. Managers would only hand over the case to a conduct board if the review could lead to the firing of an officer.

The grievance process is just as troubling as the process for discipline, perhaps even more so, if that is possible. There seem to be as many processes as there are issues. A member who has a problem with his or her terms and conditions of employment goes one route. A member appealing a discharge goes yet another. Another member appealing a disciplinary sanction takes yet a third route. There are so many different administrators and processes for each one of these incidents that through it all, front-line managers are kept in the dark many times. It is time to shine the light of accountability on it and to find solutions.

Under Bill C-42, a single process would be instated for both grievances and appeals by members. The same set of administrators would deal with them. The same decision-makers would review the results. In this way the system would be much simpler, more consistent and operate with greater efficiency. Complementing this formal approach, front-line managers would be encouraged to deal with minor problems informally and at the first occurrence, as human resource managers across the country in other police forces are able to do before these occurrences become official grievances and before they undermine a positive workplace culture.

Our improvements to RCMP management would not be complete without also considering the important role of the commissioner. In short, the commissioner currently lacks authority for decisions that would be part of any senior manager's tool kit, including those provided to other police chiefs. To rectify these shortcomings the proposed legislation would give the commissioner new authorities. These include, for example, the power to demote and discharge members, to appoint commissioned officers and to investigate disputes involving workplace harassment.

I have highlighted the major provisions of Bill C-42 for consideration by the House. I would now like to take note and explain the changes that were adopted by the House of Commons at report stage. The committee accepted three substantive amendments. These were issues that were raised by witnesses throughout the hearings. We were pleased to further strengthen the legislation by these amendments.

As amended, the bill now supports the establishment of a strengthened reserve program, relying heavily on retired RCMP and other police officers. Currently, reservists are limited to how long they can serve consecutively. This change is important for a number of reasons, one being that it gives managers much needed staffing flexibility and helps ensure a healthy and strong workplace by reducing the amount of overtime worked by regular members. I am pleased that the committee agreed to enhance the RCMP's ability to benefit from the reserve program without interruptions in service time.

The second amendment provides clarity for the chairperson regarding immunity. The original provision provided immunity to every member, officer or employee performing the duties, powers and functions of the new commission. This was always intended to include the chairperson. As such, the committee saw fit to formally spell out in the legislation that the chairperson also has immunity. The final amendment clarifies that the RCMP commissioner cannot refuse to investigate a complaint initiated by the chairperson.

The proposed legislation, together with the three substantive amendments, would bring the laws governing the RCMP into the 21st century. It is puzzling that the NDP would work with us at committee to further strengthen the legislation and then sadly play these games at report stage and now not support this important piece of legislation. I sincerely call on the NDP to support the legislation and to work with our government to help stop harassment within the RCMP.

We heard repeatedly at committee stage that the proposed legislation would give the RCMP the flexibility it needs. At the same time, by addressing structural problems it would enhance accountability and transparency. In doing so it will bolster trust and confidence in the RCMP by both Canadians and Mounties.

While sadly it seems that the NDP will not put aside its ideological opposition to our common sense reforms, I can assure Canadians that our Conservative government will be supporting the bill at third reading.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

moved that Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Yes, I have a plan, Mr. Speaker.

This afternoon, we will continue today's NDP opposition day.

Tomorrow, we should finish the second reading debate on Bill C-52, Fair Rail Freight Service Act. Then, we will resume the second reading debate on Bill C-48, Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012.

Before question period on Monday and Tuesday, the House will debate third reading of Bill C-42, Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act. After question period those days, we will turn to second reading of Bill C-51, Safer Witnesses Act.

On Wednesday, we will debate second reading of Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act. I do not expect that this bill, which responds to views of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, would need a lot of House time. I hope we can deal with it quickly. We could then turn to report stage and possible third reading of Bill S-7, the combating terrorism act.

Next Thursday shall be the fourth allotted day, which I understand will see the Liberals choosing our topic of debate.

On Friday, we will resume any unfinished debates on the bills we just mentioned, or we could also consider dealing with any of the many bills dealing with aboriginal issues. That being raised as a concern, we have Bill S-2 dealing with matrimonial property; we have another bill dealing with safe water for first nations; and we have another bill dealing with fair elections for first nations. On all of these bills we would welcome the support of the official opposition. We have not had that to date, but if we do, we can deal with them very quickly on that day. I would be delighted to do that. I will await with interest the response from the NDP.

[Robin Kers]

As an offshoot of a normal labour management consultation process, USGE was offered the opportunity to take part in a variety of working groups to assess or deal with different elements of Bill C-42. As I mentioned earlier, in my case, I sit on the working group that is dealing with the issue of harassment. Quite frankly, from the assessment of the membership I have contact with—I represent the RCMP in western and northern Canada, while my colleague does Ontario east—I think it's safe to say that the assessment of the public servants is that changes to Bill C-42 won't make a hill of beans of difference in the handling of harassment, sexual harassment, or many other issues at the RCMP.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Thank you very much for that.

Going back to Bill C-42, what consultation took place with your colleagues? What sense do civilians working on the ground have that Bill C-42 will make any difference?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Can you give the committee a list of some recommendations you think need to be done, over and above Bill C-42, that our committee can make specifically to the RCMP and the kind of people working in the Solicitor General's office and so on?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Is Bill C-42 going to really do much in its current form?

[Robin Kers]

A lot of problems have been identified in dealing with the issue of sexual harassment in the federal workplace. Part of the problem is a lack of accurate statistical information. In a PSAC brief, for example, a suggestion was made that when we do our next public service employee survey, we clearly delineate a question concerning sexual harassment.

When Ms. Truppe raised a question earlier about informal, I mentioned that one of the problems is that essentially, the so-called solutions to these issues are being kept hidden. Too often in government departments, whether it be the RCMP or whatever, the resolution is buried in legalese and the complainant is essentially obliged to agree to a confidentiality agreement in order to obtain some form of redress to address the complaint. The consequence of this, of course, is that there's no statistical information for government departments at the end of the year so that they can say that they've had x number of sexual harassment files. The other problem is that this methodology for dealing with cases doesn't provide any assurance to co-workers who may have similar problems with respect to how their department or their government handles sexual harassment in the workplace. There's no way, for example, to advertise successes in dealing with sexual harassment.

In Donald Ray's case, for example.... I sit on the RCMP working group that's going to deal with a response to the changes as a consequence of Bill C-42. I pointed out to the RCMP regular member chair of that committee the other day two particular areas I thought we needed to deal with. One was that not just at the RCMP but throughout the federal government recognition needs to be given to applying the reasonable woman standard of assessing evidence when dealing with sexual harassment in gender discrimination files, rather than always looking at it through the optics of a man's eyes.

The other point I raised, in particular with the RCMP, is that you can't always focus on how we're going to change the way we deal with regular members in the RCMP. You have to have a corollary process that addresses the victims and the victimization. They've taken cognizance of both things.

At the end of the day, people like Donald Ray should be fired. If they were to be fired, and if that was a clear message that was pronounced in the media and within the department, I think it would embolden and provide courage and support to females who are being harassed to come forward with these issues. Until such time as the government and its various arms are prepared to take that step and deal with this issue in a concrete fashion, change will be very, very slow.

[Mark Potter]

Perhaps I'll kick it off.

Certainly the bill you referred to, Bill C-42, is in third reading. The RCMP accountability act will strengthen the complaints regime, but as you noted, it will lead to certain improvements in HR management that should realize greater efficiencies within the RCMP, going forward, to manage their human resources, their discipline, their grievance processes, and so on. That's the federal responsibility.

As noted, the jurisdictional responsibilities are quite clear. You have, for example, in both Ontario and B.C. comprehensive reviews under way right now on their policing acts and their policing models. I expect we may see more of this across the country, given the fiscal challenges, but those governments are looking at their police service acts in a very comprehensive way, asking whether they need to make legislative changes to advance policing and improve efficiency and effectiveness. It's happening at that level.

Maybe I'll leave it at that.

Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question and for his excellent work during the committee review of Bill C-42.

The member himself proposed this change to the bill to provide training to RCMP officers in order to make them more aware of their obligations regarding sexual harassment. During her testimony before the committee, an expert on this issue fully supported this measure to raise police officers' awareness.

The best way to do so is to give them training on their obligations, the rules to follow, the content of the legislation and the aspects that they need to consider. The hon. member is absolutely right: the best way to raise police officers' awareness is to train them in this regard.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported (with amendment).

Motions in amendment

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before addressing Bill C-42, now before us, I would like to wish a happy holiday to all hon. members, to our support staff, including the pages, clerks and officers of the House, to our listeners and to you, Mr. Speaker. This is probably my last speech in the House in 2012.

In my previous speech on Bill C-42, I said I was pleased with the introduction of this legislation in the House. The issue of harassment is a public and urgent concern for Canadians. We put a lot of pressure on the Department of Public Safety to make the issue of sexual harassment in the RCMP a priority. That is why we supported this bill at second reading, in the hope of improving it and proposing amendments in committee to make it acceptable and efficient, so as to adequately tackle the issue of sexual harassment.

The first version of the bill did not deal directly with this systemic problem, which is deeply rooted in RCMP corporate culture. The wording of the bill introduced at first reading would not have changed the existing climate within the RCMP.

When the bill was drafted, the Minister of Public Safety did not seem to take into consideration the various recommendations of the Task Force on Governance and Cultural Change in the RCMP. As I mentioned, we still supported the bill at second reading to properly study it and improve it in committee. Unfortunately, the study in committee did not go very well. I am really disappointed by the government's lack of co-operation on this issue.

The Conservatives did not really want to co-operate with us to ensure a balanced representation of the various views and positions. The government presented 12 witnesses to the committee, while we could only have seven. Moreover, in my opinion, the Conservatives' witnesses were not completely independent. All but one of the witnesses, who represented the government or the RCMP, presented the government's position without any real nuances. We feel the witnesses selected by the Conservatives did not come to express a completely independent opinion.

The Conservatives were also in no hurry to call the witnesses that we wanted to appear before the committee. The first witness was called to appear only at the fourth meeting, and most of our witnesses were called only on the last day scheduled to hear evidence. In a way, the Conservatives forced us to present all our amendments on the last day scheduled to hear our witnesses. They also asked us to present our amendments three and a half hours later, on the same day. That did not leave us much time to assess and examine the recommendations made by witnesses.

We also wanted to table amendments, based on the witnesses' recommendations, in order to make the legislation much more effective, so that it would achieve its objective. Such behaviour on the part of the Conservatives is totally unacceptable and impedes the work of Parliament.

We also proposed a number of amendments that were rejected by government members without any discussion. We proposed to include mandatory training on harassment for RCMP members in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, but that was also rejected. The Conservatives simply do not want to hear a dissenting opinion, or even recognize its validity.

The director of the Groupe d'aide et d'information sur le harcèlement sexuel au travail de la province de Québec appeared before the committee and said: “With the 32 years of experience we have, we have found out that when companies do have a clear policy, when employees do know what is acceptable and not acceptable, it makes it much easier for management to deal with the problems.” But the Conservatives preferred to ignore this important testimony.

It is also disappointing that the minister did not ask for a clear policy on sexual harassment in the RCMP, with specific standards of conduct and criteria for assessing the performance of all employees. Such a policy is necessary to provide a basis for a much fairer disciplinary process. The director of the Groupe d'aide et d'information sur le harcèlement sexuel au travail de la province de Québec also spoke eloquently on the importance of such a policy.

They chose to ignore her evidence and stubbornly insisted on a magic solution that will not resolve all the RCMP's problems.

We too put forward an amendment that would guarantee the independence of the body set up to investigate complaints in the RCMP. Once again, the answer was no. We also proposed adding provisions to establish a civilian investigative body, to stop the police from investigating themselves. Once again, this amendment was thrown out. Yet all Canadians are asking for such a provision. Trust in police investigations has to be rebuilt. When a police force investigates another police force, there may well be a conflict of interest or a perceived conflict of interest.

If the Conservatives do not want to listen to Canadians, perhaps they will listen to a former commissioner of the RCMP Public Complaints Commission. He believes that the bill is not in line with the review procedures established by Justice O'Connor and that it will not meet the needs of Canadians or the RCMP.

I would like to remind the House that Justice O'Connor mentioned in the Arar inquiry that it was important for Parliament to set up an oversight agency for the RCMP. It would appear that his recommendations have simply been gathering dust.

The bill would give the RCMP commissioner new authority, the authority to decide on appropriate disciplinary measures. This would include the authority to appoint and dismiss members as he chooses.

During my initial speech, I also said that the approach by the public safety department was a simplistic solution to a much bigger problem: they were just giving the commissioner final authority for dismissing employees. This is why we proposed an amendment to create police forces that were better balanced in terms of human resources, by removing some of the more extreme powers held by the RCMP commissioner and by strengthening those of the external review committee in cases of possible dismissal from the RCMP.

As I said earlier, while Bill C-42 may give the commissioner greater authority to set up a more effective process for resolving harassment complaints, and greater authority over disciplinary matters, it cannot provide the RCMP with the genuine cultural change that it needs to eliminate not only sexual harassment, but also cases relating more generally to the discipline and behaviour of RCMP officers.

Commissioner Paulson himself stated that legislative measures alone would not be enough to retain the public's trust, and that far-reaching reforms would be needed to address the serious underlying issues in the RCMP and foster a work environment that is more open, more co-operative and more respectful for all.

It is obvious to the NDP that the department lacked leadership with regard to dealing with the broader issue the RCMP is facing. Commissioner Paulson told the Standing Committee on the Status of Women that the issue goes well beyond sexual harassment. This situation must change. I believe that the minister should have taken the extensive experience of the RCMP commissioner into account.

In conclusion, if the Conservative government really wanted to modernize the RCMP, it would have agreed to implement the recommendations from the oversight agencies and proceed with an audit of the RCMP by a group of independent auditors that would have reported directly to Parliament. NDP members attempted to amend the bill so that it would deal with issues raised in the evidence heard, but the Conservatives refused to get on board.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak to Bill C-42 on behalf of my constituents from Surrey North.

Surrey has the largest RCMP detachment in the country. The men and women who work in my city, RCMP members and civilian members who work with them, do a wonderful job. Not only that, my office meets with them on a regular basis to deal with some of the local issues that come up in my constituency. I am very thankful to them for providing that wonderful service to the citizens in Surrey.

First, it should be a priority of the House and the government to restore public confidence in the RCMP. A functioning, effective RCMP that holds the public trust is critical to building safer communities across the country.

On this side of the House, we support the stated intent of the bill and we hoped to make some amendments in committee that would address some of our concerns. I will talk about that a little later on, as to what happened. I have stood in the House, time after time, and called on the government to step up and deal with problems that years of Conservative mismanagement have caused in our national police force.

The goals stated in the preamble of the bill, transparency, improving conduct, strengthening the review and complaints body and dealing with the climate of sexual harassment that exists in the RCMP, are all good goals. We hoped that we could make some amendments at the committee stage to improve the bill and make it more effective, so we could deal with the issues the RCMP had been dealing with for a number of years.

For those reasons, we supported the second reading of the bill, because we thought we would actually get to address some of those real issues plaguing the RCMP. Unfortunately, every amendment the NDP put forward in committee to improve upon the very things I talked about were turned down, without even simple consideration.

We would have thought that maybe one amendment might have made sense to them. We have seen this in many other committees. I sit on the international trade committee, as well as other committees, including the public safety committee. Not one amendment from the opposition, out of the thousands and thousands of amendments that have been brought forward in committees, has been accepted by the Conservative government.

One would think that out of the thousands of ideas we have presented maybe one would fit the Conservative ideology, but that is not the case. It is very unfortunate. This was an opportunity for the Conservatives to right the wrong of the mismanagement of the RCMP over the last six or seven years. This just did not happen.

The reputation and the respect of the RCMP has been built over the years, but let us look at what has happened over the last six or seven years. The Conservatives have totally mismanaged those issues.

One of the amendments that the opposition put forward basically added mandatory harassment training for RCMP members, specifically through the RCMP Act. Another amendment we brought forward was to ensure a fully independent civilian review body to investigate complaints against the RCMP.

In my province of British Columbia, that has been an ongoing issue, where the police investigate themselves. Canadians deserve clarity on this. Conservatives have the opportunity in this bill to bring that in to help Canadians have the RCMP be accountable and transparent. Again, the Conservatives have, and I hate to use these words, missed the bus on this part of the amendment.

We wanted to add provisions to create a national civilian investigation body that would avoid police investigating police. We also wanted to create a more balanced human resources policy by removing some of the more draconian powers proposed for the RCMP Commissioner and by strengthening the external review committee in cases involving possible dismissal form the force.

What did the Conservatives do? Again, they voted down every single one of those amendments. Those amendments would have provided some form of clarity and transparency to Canadians. Yet the Conservatives chose not to accept any of those recommendations or committee amendments.

The Conservative government is ignoring calls for more balance and standing by its argument that putting more power in the hands of the RCMP commissioner to fire individual officers would curb ongoing issues at the RCMP and that the RCMP commissioner should have the final say on all dismissals. Expert witness after expert witness explained that the legislation alone would not help to foster a more open and respectable workforce for all and that the concentration of power in the hands of the commissioner is part of the problem, not the solution. We need to see an ongoing effort from the RCMP and the government to modernize the RCMP, and the bill would lack the transparency and accountability necessary for that change.

Basically, the bill would not go far enough. My colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca and a number of other NDP members have called upon the government to be more transparent and more accountable. The Conservatives had this opportunity to make the RCMP, our national police force, more accountable and more transparent, yet again they missed the opportunity. My colleagues have also talked about having a safe work environment for the men and women who work in our force. Clearly, the Conservatives have missed that opportunity.

It is clear that sexual harassment is not only a problem, it is a symptom. It is endemic to the internal culture of the RCMP. The Conservatives' approach would not make women in the RCMP a priority, which is necessary if we want to deal substantially with this problem. My primary concern is that, over and over, we see the Conservatives attempting to gloss over the real issues within the RCMP. They implement quick fixes instead of truly taking the steps necessary to fix the force for the sake of those serving in the force, and to restore public confidence in the RCMP ultimately for the safety of our communities.

The scope of the problem of sexual harassment in the RCMP is massive. More than 200 women, both current and former RCMP officers, are seeking a class action suit against the RCMP on the grounds of sexual harassment. That does not include the individual lawsuits that could be filed by them. My NDP colleagues and I pushed for the minister for months to prioritize the issue of sexual harassment in the RCMP. Unfortunately, Bill C-42 would not directly address the systemic issues in the culture of the RCMP. It is clear that the bill by itself would not change the current climate in the RCMP.

I have a lot to speak about on this particular issue, but in summary I will say a few things. The Conservatives had an opportunity to fix the RCMP, to address the issues of sexual harassment and of transparency and accountability. They have clearly not taken advantage of the opportunity to do that. I stress that in my community of Surrey and in communities across the country, crime and violence are a reality. A few weeks ago in the Lower Mainland, a known gang member was shot and killed in broad daylight.

This kind of violence is unacceptable, but instead of investing in measures to prevent crime in our communities by supporting the work of the RCMP, the Conservatives are making it harder for police to do their jobs. We have come to know that 42 RCMP office support staff in B.C. have received notices stating that they could lose their jobs.

We need to be supporting the work of the RCMP, not making its job harder. The government has put forward a bill that seems to finally acknowledge some of these problems, but it simply does not address the major issues that we need to address. An effective RCMP is a matter of public safety and real action is long overdue. The Conservatives have failed Canadians again.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as we can see from these initial exchanges in the House, Bill C-42 is very substantial and complex. In fact, even those who studied it in committee sometimes are proposing minor changes. So, it is an honour for me to rise today as the official opposition deputy critic for public safety to defend the NDP's position and explain why we will vote against Bill C-42.

Before I get into the substance of my remarks about processes and what happened in committee, I want to say it was a real pleasure and honour for me to work on Bill C-42. This gave me the opportunity to meet members of the RCMP, and I made friends along the way. I met courageous men and women who poured their heart out to explain their position on the bill. Today, I want to sincerely thank them for doing so. They have enabled me to learn more about the RCMP, which is not present in Quebec. That is why we are somewhat less familiar with it, even though it is a national police force.

The NDP supported Bill C-42 at second reading so that this legislation would be studied in committee, because we had many questions about it. We felt that a lot of work remained to be done on this bill. At the time, I very much appreciated the Minister of Public Safety's speech, particularly when he said he was open to amendments from all sides of the House. For us, it meant that the door was wide open to improve a bill that really deserved to be examined. It was also a way of showing Canadians that, regardless of the side of the House on which we sit, we can work together to ensure that bills are the best they can be once we have reviewed them in committee and returned them to the House.

As I mentioned earlier, we supported Bill C-42 at second reading and we were very pleased to study it in committee. In this regard, the first thing I want to mention is that the committee had very little time. Sometimes, we even had to invite several witnesses at once. This meant that we could not ask them very many questions, which was quite unfortunate. Bill C-42 is huge and it deals with many provisions of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act. We therefore did not have time to update this legislation, even though it would have been necessary. I was deeply saddened that the debate was cut short. We did what we could with what we had. We tried to work with that.

The second point I want to mention is the time allocated for committee review. Some RCMP members who worked on a similar bill over 20 years ago told us that, the last time the government amended the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, the process took over 10 years. By contrast, we had only a few weeks. I think we worked too quickly. However, that is not really a problem since at least we are still here today to spend a little more time on this legislation.

I also found it sad that none of the amendments proposed by the opposition were accepted. The only amendments that were accepted were those proposed by the government. What I found even sadder was that most of these amendments had to do with correcting spelling or translation mistakes. They were not substantive amendments. They merely sought to correct spelling mistakes and typos. It seems as though the bill was drafted in a rush, on the back of a napkin, and that the government then wanted to correct the mistakes it found. That was also a sad thing to see.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives did not take a serious look at the points made by witnesses in their testimony. That is the work that we, as the official opposition, decided to do regarding Bill C-42. We really wanted to take a closer look at what witnesses told the committee, and we wanted to work with them to make substantial and important amendments to give more substance to the bill.

Today, we are back in the House and, considering that none of our amendments were accepted and that the work in committee was done so quickly, we cannot support this legislation. I will explain why a little later on in my speech.

It is also important to mention that RCMP members were not consulted before Bill C-42 was drafted. My colleague, the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, pointed this out at the beginning of his speech, and it is important to remember that.

They were presented with a fait accompli. They were told what was going to be done and what would be introduced. The government did not even deign to ask the members of our national police force what they thought. I am extremely disappointed about this.

Again this morning, I spoke with members of the RCMP. In particular, I spoke with Mr. Gaétan Delisle, who represents the Quebec Mounted Police Members' Association and is someone who has filed several hundred grievances for RCMP members from all parts of Canada. In fact, he is still doing so strongly and passionately.

We talked about some of the clauses in the bill. It can be quite difficult to understand what is in this bill.

We looked at clauses 31.3 and 31.4, and we had a hard time figuring out what they involved. Eventually, we figured out that these clauses really had to do with the grievance process and the possibility of using notes, reports and other material in filing a grievance.

Bill C-42 does not deal just with sexual harassment. I would also like to mention here, for the information of members who do not sit on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, that a very large part of Bill C-42 involves workers' rights.

From now on, they will not be able to use certain important notes or documents in filing their grievances. This applies specifically to one particular case in the RCMP's code of ethics, which says a member cannot disobey a lawful command, except if he can prove that the command is illegal or breaks a law.

Without access to certain documents, notes or reviews as evidence, it cannot be proven that such a command may be illegal, at the end of the day. This is a huge protection for workers that is being taken away, and I think it is totally wrong. We were told in committee that Bill C-42 took rights away from workers. I still cannot believe that no one has been able to remedy the situation.

However, what can we do? This is the way things are; we do not have a majority.

Because I cannot raise all the issues in Bill C-42 that should be discussed, I want to talk about sexual harassment. In this bill, which is supposed to resolve the sexual harassment issue, there is no reference to harassment or sexual harassment.

This is incredible. In fact, this is one of the reasons why we are moving a motion to remove clause 1, the title, because it has no connection with the content of the bill.

Credible witnesses appeared before the committee to give us their views on sexual harassment in the RCMP. As I mentioned earlier, the Quebec Mounted Police Members' Association told us how important it was to mention it in the bill. That would have helped to protect workers in the RCMP, but it was not done.

The committee also met with Ms. Séguin of Quebec's Groupe d'aide et d'information sur le harcèlement sexuel au travail. She spoke passionately about her work, which involves protecting employees who are victims of harassment, regardless of their line of work. She was shocked that there was absolutely no mention of sexual harassment in the bill.

We in the official opposition tried to propose amendments of substance to remedy the situation. Some of our amendments sought to make it mandatory for all members of the RCMP to take training on harassment, in connection with the RCMP Act. Part of the work should have involved education and helping RCMP members do that work.

In conclusion, I hope that I am asked a number of interesting questions because I still have so many things to say about Bill C-42. That being said, I have to reiterate that, unfortunately, for these reasons, we will be unable to vote in favour of Bill C-42.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to take the opportunity to express warm season's greeting to my colleagues on both sides of the House.

I will say at the outset that the Liberals will be supporting Bill C-42 at report stage and at third reading.

Fundamentally, it is because, even though the bill is not by any means perfect, we find there are no compelling reasons not to support the bill and not to take the step forward in trying to solve a problem that has appeared to have become a little bit intractable over the years and which is undermining the credibility of one of our finest national symbols, which is, of course, our great national police force, the RCMP, which is composed of thousands of Canadians, some police officers and some civilians with a strong ethic of public service whose reputation, unfortunately, is being tarnished by the actions of a few who are not following the codes of conduct and not behaving properly as members of the RCMP. On top of that, their misconduct appears to take far too long to be addressed.

That is what the bill is about. It is about changing the culture of the RCMP. I believe it was Mr. Brown who said that the current set of procedures, the current way of managing problems within the RCMP is just not up to the task of what has become a major organization.

One of the things that happens when organizations get very big as things progress and so forth is that they tend to become very bureaucratized. That is very much what has happened within the RCMP around how to deal with misconduct. Over the years, procedures have been created such that a case of misconduct goes through a hearing, then maybe another hearing and the problem never seems to be resolved, certainly not on a timely basis, and this leads to frustration.

I will now comment on what I observed at committee, especially during the amendment process. I observed that the NDP brought a particular model to the problem. It is not a criticism of the model but it struck me as being very much a labour-focused model, which is based on the notion that management's latitude must always be restricted in the interests of labour within the organization.

There is nothing wrong with standing up for the rights of labour, especially in large organizations where we need unions, we need associations as a kind of counterpoint to the power of a large organization. However, when it comes to managing large organizations, we need effective leadership. We cannot have effective leadership if those leading the organization, in this case the commissioner, has his or her hands tied.

Leadership is not a bureaucratic process. It is an art form and it requires making judgments. If every time the leader of an organization wants to make a decision or make a judgment call, he or she is constrained by having to, for example, adhere 100% to the recommendations of a particular committee within the organization or an advisory board, then I cannot see that leadership in that organization would be effective.

That does not mean that leaders must not seek input from advisory bodies and so on, but to suggest that they must adhere to 100% of the recommendations is a constraint on leadership.

I noticed that, when we received witnesses, the witnesses who were representing RCMP officers, sort of within a union context, they saw the problem of harassment and the root sources of harassment within the RCMP very differently from the way, for example, Commission Paulson sees it. They said that the reason for harassment was because the line officers in the management structure had too much power and that there was a kind of cronyism that had set in. By definition, if we accept that assumption, then we need to restrict the powers of management that much more.

This point of view is diametrically opposed to the basic principle at the heart of this legislation, which is to give the commissioner and managers down the line more latitude, more power, to resolve disputes quickly and to take effective action if someone is found guilty of misconduct and not behaving properly according to the ethics and conduct code of the RCMP.

I think that there is a fundamentally different way of looking at this problem. However, I must say that we come down on the side of giving more authority to the commissioner to deal with these problems. If he or she does not deal with these problems, we can be very certain that the media will bring them to the attention of the minister, the government and the opposition. Outside pressure will be brought to bear on the management of the RCMP. Therefore, it is not as if the RCMP has no accountability to the broader society in which it operates.

It was brought up many times that a sexual harassment code was not included in the legislation. However, members have to understand that when we are dealing with enabling legislation, we do not include that level of detail. I have never seen it where we would include policies and codes in enabling legislation.

I take the point that we are trying to address the problem of sexual harassment in the RCMP as well as other problems of misbehaviour. However, the bill does provide the minister with the authority to create a harassment policy. Of course, that harassment policy will be the subject of great interest on the part of the opposition and the media, which will make sure that it is a proper policy and that it is strict enough. Again, there will be some accountability in that respect.

According to some, the bill may have fallen short with the new commission, which will look into public complaints against the RCMP, in that it could have had its power enhanced. The scope of its power could have been broader. There is no doubt about that. For example, Justice O'Connor thought that review bodies should have the authority to look at issues involving national security and how the RCMP dealt with issues of national security. In that respect, this new body for receiving civilian complaints does not have the same scope of power as the Security Intelligence Review Committee.

One could argue that things could have been pushed a little further in that respect. One could also argue that the commissioner would have an obligation to implement 100% of the recommendations of the civilian review commission or of the external review committee.

We could argue that point, but based on what I said at the beginning of my speech, these may not be shortcomings because the commissioner must retain some leadership freedom. We do not feel that these shortcomings, if they are shortcomings, compel us to vote against the bill.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-42, the enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability bill. I will be speaking to the amendments adopted by the committee and reported back to the House of Commons and how they will strengthen the legislation.

Many of our members have already spoken extensively about the other issues raised in my colleague's speech. Needless to say, I do not agree with him. There was quite a bit of liberty taken with the facts in his presentation. I do not intend to rehash those. I think we can go back to Hansard to see what the true statements are in respect to the legislation, and how the legislation actually responds to the concerns of individual provinces. The types of amendments the member is suggesting are in fact exactly the kind the provinces rejected as too centralizing and outside the accountability they want to see brought back into the RCMP at the local level.

Here, I would reflect on why this bill is so important. It is no secret that the RCMP has endured its share of troubles over the last few years, including charges of harassment. To its credit, the RCMP has recognized the need to transform the institution by enhancing governance and modernizing its operations, including its organizational culture.

The next phase of the transformation process must come through legislation. It has been nearly a quarter of a century since Parliament amended the RCMP Act in any significant manner. In the interim much has changed, not just in terms of the globalization of crime but also in public expectations of greater transparency.

All in all, this bill would go a long way toward improving the accountability of the RCMP to Canadians and its own members.

The committee has approved several housekeeping changes, but there were also three substantive additions that I would like to recap briefly. These concerns were raised by witnesses before our committee, and I am proud that the committee worked together to further strengthen Bill C-42 based on the feedback we received.

The first concerns the rules in clause 11 around hiring retired RCMP officers as reservists. As members may recall, the reserve program provides the commanding officer with important staffing options. Reservists, for example, can help fill temporary vacancies, transfer corporate memory and mentor new recruits. Apart from all of that, senior officials have noted that reservists also reduce overtime work by regular members. In addition to making the workplace more efficient, the use of reservists can also improve safety and health. The amendment adopted by the committee permits the hiring of retired RCMP officers as reservists for six months or more without compromising their pension entitlements.

The second major amendment adopted by the committee addresses the issue of immunity for the commission chairperson under clause 35, and was specifically raised by the chairperson during testimony.

As members may recall, the proposed legislation would provide immunity to all those performing the duties, powers and functions of the commission. That policy was meant to include all members, including the chairperson. However, as the committee rightly pointed out, the bill did not explicitly note that the chairperson would also have immunity. The amendment adopted by the committee amounts to a few words, but they are important.

The final change concerns the powers of the RCMP commissioner around complaints initiated by the chairperson of the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission, also in clause 35. This was raised during testimony as a potential improvement. The committee adopted an amendment to clarify that the RCMP commissioner cannot refuse to investigate such complaints, thereby further enhancing the independence of the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission, CRCC.

Taken together, these three substantive amendments have strengthened an already robust new framework to enhance accountability for the RCMP. The committee did enjoy the support of the New Democrats during second reading and for certain amendments during the committee stage, and that is why I was surprised to hear one of the NDP members mentioning that the NDP would not support this important bill.

I am even more disappointed to see two report stage amendments brought forward by the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. I will speak briefly to the two report stage motions.

The first motion would delete the short title of the bill. Our government believes that the short title clearly captures the intent of the legislation and, therefore, we do not support the removal of clause 1, as we view this motion to be more about politics than about substance.

The member also moved that we delete clause 22, which addresses the RCMP Commissioner's authority to make final and binding decisions regarding serious grievances and appeals. Also under this clause, the commissioner is authorized to delegate this power in the event that he or she is not able to make the decision directly. This is consistent with existing authorities under the current RCMP Act. It also makes it clear to RCMP members that the grievance process is the primary source for resolution of labour issues within the RCMP. That is why these clauses are worded in that particular way.

It is important to note that judicial review continues to remain an option for members who are not satisfied with the outcome of their case. There needs to be some finality to a decision and that is what the legislation would do. If there are any concerns about the decision that the commissioner has made, that can always go to a judicial review. That type of judicial review process is familiar to anyone who has done administrative law. This is not anything unusual. In fact, it is a very clear, well-established way of ensuring that the body charged with making the decisions has the final authority, and the judicial review process ensures that the decision-maker stays within the bounds of his or her authority. As such, we do not support its removal from the bill.

It has been almost 25 years since the RCMP Act was substantially revised and it is now time to act. The government has consulted extensively with Canadians to develop legislation that meets the expectations of all Canadians for greater accountability of the RCMP. With the amendments adopted by the committee, I do believe we have achieved our goal. We now have before us an opportunity to inject new flexibility and efficiency into rigid management systems, to rebuild a culture of trust and to reinforce the faith of Canadians in the RCMP.

This party will be voting in favour of this legislation. I call upon the NDP to join with us in supporting the legislation.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-42 be amended by deleting Clause 1.

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-42 be amended by deleting Clause 22.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to bill C-42 at report stage and to speak to the two amendments that we have just moved.

First, I will begin by paying tribute to the women and men of the RCMP who work everyday to help keep our communities safe. I acknowledge the essential service they provide, often in the face of great danger and ignoring many of the individual challenges which surround their work in order to do their duties.

In particular, I acknowledge the loss of two constables this year, Constables David Brolin and Derek Pineo, who lost their lives in accidents while on the job serving all Canadians. I also take this opportunity, while I am on my feet, to wish all the public safety officials, detective services and emergency services, who will be working when many of us are celebrating, a very happy but also a very safe holiday season.

Bill C-42 is before the House this session and we on this side supported it at second reading because we all must acknowledge that despite its proud history and its ongoing exemplary service, the RCMP faces some very serious challenges. What we are all hearing in our constituencies, and have all heard in testimony before the public safety committee, is that there are at least three major challenges.

Among these challenges facing the RCMP is, first, the loss of public confidence. For many years, the RCMP has been an icon in our society and the trust levels still remain very high, as they should. However, anytime our national police force begins to lose public confidence, we must all be concerned and we must address the causes of that loss of confidence. The causes centre around a number of unfortunate and high-profile incidents involving the RCMP, which have resulted in deaths or serious injuries to the public.

Some of this loss of confidence is to be expected whenever there are these serious incidents and, because the RCMP is charged with the use of force, many times these will inevitably be challenging situations. Some of that loss of confidence is a direct result of public concern about the structures to which we hold the RCMP accountable. In particular, members of the public are concerned about the police investigating themselves in these serious incidents. That loss of confidence in the accountability measures is not only a loss of confidence by the public, it is also a loss of confidence by serving RCMP members who have every bit if not more of an interest in independent investigations which will establish either their responsibility or non-responsibility in these incidents.

We also have serious evidence before us of a second challenge. That is a flaw in the culture of the RCMP. That flaw is that the RCMP has become a workplace with a culture that all too often has tolerated harassment in the workplace and specifically sexual harassment. When we have more than 200 women, who have served or who are serving in the RCMP, who sought to join a class action lawsuit alleging that they had faced sexual harassment on the job, then this is an important issue for the House of Commons to address. The magnitude of the problem cannot be denied.

Finally, it has become clear that there is a problem in the management of human resources and labour relations in the RCMP. This is a flaw that many have acknowledged is responsible for failures to deal with these other challenges in an effective manner. It cannot be denied that procedures are long, complicated, time consuming and fail to bring about changes needed to address problems both with individual behaviour and with more systemic problems. Therefore, again, it is a challenge which we must address in the bill before us.

The Conservatives presented Bill C-42 to the House just before the summer recess and suggested that it was the solution for addressing these challenges. On this side of the House, we responded that we felt the bill did attempt to address the challenges faced by the RCMP, but that it left lots of room for improvement at committee. Therefore, we supported Bill C-42 at the second reading stage in the hope that we could comprehensively address these major challenges. Now that the bill has been returned to the committee, after the Conservatives opposed and rejected every amendment to strengthen the bill, we have little choice but to oppose its moving forward at this time.

We have proposed two amendments at report stage that will allow us to discuss some of the amendments already rejected at the committee stage. The first of those deletes the short title which we believe, as is becoming a tradition here in the House, is one of those overly political titles applied to bills. In this case, it is overly political in our view because it is called the “enhancing the RCMP accountability act” when in fact Bill C-42, in its unamended form, would fail to address that accountability challenge. Therefore, we do not believe the bill would accomplish this goal. I will say a bit more on that in just moment, but that is why we have proposed deleting the title, which would lead the public to believe that this challenge had been met.

Second, we have proposed deleting clause 22 so the RCMP act would retain its original wording in what is section 33 of the actual act. What it does is state clearly that the power to deal with grievances remains exclusively with the commissioner. In fact, what has happened in Bill C-42 is that the government has chosen to enhance the powers of the commissioner at the expense of everyone else working in the RCMP, even in respect to the new review body that is being created. Therefore, further concentration of power in the hands of the commissioner and the Minister of Public Safety is the answer proposed in Bill C-42 when almost every independent witness we heard before the committee said that the problem was exactly the concentration of power in the hands of the commissioner and the minister.

When we asked what consultation had been done on the bill, the answer we received led me to believe that the minister, the RCMP commissioner and a senior RCMP leadership simply put their heads together and came up with a solution that gave them responsibility for resolving the problems. We could not find any of the witnesses who appeared before us who had been consulted about the changes included in the bill. We believe those witnesses provided some very good solutions and good ideas about how to address these challenges.

The approach adopted in the bill, as unamended, relies very much on the model of the Royal Irish Constabulary. It is a 19th century model, dating from 1822, which was designed as a paramilitary model to help police and the Irish population that saw the British as an occupying force. Is this really the model we need for a modern RCMP? It ignores the lesson of the other British model of municipal policing, which was also established in the 19th century for the metropolitan police of London, based at Scotland Yard.

The municipalities throughout our country have taken that model and developed it very effectively into a local community policing model, which has an independent board that keeps policing at arm's-length from a political minister and has very good accountability measures built into that model. Bill C-42, as unamended, sticks with the old paramilitary model instead of learning the many lessons we have learned at the municipal level in Canada about how to improve accountability and responsiveness to communities and how to create a more healthy workplace.

Witnesses at the public safety committee spoke out against these additional powers for the RCMP commissioner and the lack of independent oversight. Mr. Tom Stamatakis, president of the Canadian Police Association, said:

--extraordinary powers in this regard...go beyond what one might find in other police services across Canada.

For example, in Ontario, a police officer who is subject to a disciplinary process retains the right to appeal the decision to the independent Ontario Civilian Police Commission.

As well, we heard from Mr. Robert Creasser, from the Mounted Police Professional Association, who had similar kinds of remarks.

It became obvious to us in the NDP, after hearing the witnesses and experts, that the bill retained its deep flaws and would not meet those challenges referred to. It even fails to look at previous advice offered by Justice O'Connor in the Maher Arar inquiry. It fails to take into account the recommendations from the task force on governance and cultural change in the RCMP from 2007. It fails to take into account the recommendations from the former chairs of the RCMP Public Complaints Commission.

It is clear the bill could have been fixed, that solutions were out there. In order to play a constructive role, the NDP put forward amendments in four areas.

The first of those was in the area of harassment. We proposed a simple amendment to add harassment to the training responsibilities of the commissioner. That was rejected by the Conservatives. Therefore, Bill C-42, which purportedly addresses the problem of sexual harassment, does not even have the word “harassment” in the bill.

Second, we proposed measures to strengthen the independence of the new proposed civilian review and complaints commission. The commission would report to the minister and would make only non-binding recommendations. We need a truly independent commission that can make binding recommendations.

Our third recommendation was to create a national civilian investigative body to ensure that the RCMP would no longer placed in a conflict of interest of investigating itself. The bill addresses this partially by allowing provinces, which have independent commissions, to investigate the RCMP. However, only four provinces have those measures in place.

Finally, we introduced amendments that would have created balanced labour relations within the RCMP, including creating power for the independent review committee to deal with grievances. The concentration of power in the hands of the commissioner is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Given the long time between major revisions of legislation like the RCMP Act, 25 years in this case, there is a great responsibility on us to get it right this time. As Bill C-42 stands unamended, we will be opposing its moving forward in the House.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There are two motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-42. Motions Nos. 1 and 2 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I shall now propose Motions Nos. 1 and 2 to the House.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment about my colleague's speech and about the questions he was asked in this House.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North told us that it is completely ridiculous not to support this bill at second reading, when the Liberals did exactly the same thing with Bill C-42, the Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act. They said that the Conservatives would never agree to any amendments and it was foolish—that may not have been the exact term they used—to believe that they would. Yet, now, they are saying the complete opposite.

I am shocked to see that the Conservatives are not respecting the work that was done by parliamentarians during consideration of Bill C-41 in the last Parliament. Does the hon. member really believe that any work could be accomplished in committee?

If amendments are going to be accepted, why are the amendments that were agreed to in the previous Parliament not already included in this bill?

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking everyone involved in supporting us as members of Parliament in Tuesday’s voting. Despite all of the amendments at committee and in the House, the balance of the government’s 2012 economic action plan will become law shortly.

This afternoon, the House will resume consideration of second reading of Bill C-15, the Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act. Once that has concluded, we will turn to report stage of Bill C-37, the Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act, Bill C-42, the Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, and Bill C-43, the Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act.

We will continue working on these bills tomorrow.

Monday shall be the seventh allotted day, which goes to the New Democrats. This gives the official opposition one last opportunity before the new year to lay out its plans and schemes for a $21.5 billion job-killing carbon tax that will raise the price of everything.

For the rest of the week, I hope to advance a lot of legislation that continues to sit on the order paper. In addition to the bills I mentioned already, we will also consider Bill C-48, the technical tax amendments act, 2012; Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act; Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act; Bill S-6, the first nations elections act; Bill S-10, the prohibiting cluster munitions act; Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act; Bill C-17, the Air Canada and its associates act; and Bill S-7, the combating terrorism act, once that bill has been reported back from committee next week, which I anticipate.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, the member is completely incorrect. We have not cut funding at all to front-line officers. In fact, what the RCMP and the commissioner have asked for is that they have the ability to update and modernize the human resources management processes to give the complaints commissioner more ability, among other things. That is what Bill C-42 would do.

We are giving the RCMP what it has asked for, but the NDP continues to vote against common sense, reasonable measures to help the RCMP restore pride. New Democrats talk a lot about it, but when it comes to action, they do nothing.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Yes, absolutely, I think we all agree with that in this room.

Given that, and the different appeal systems—and we've heard about the Treasury Board guidelines and what the RCMP have to go through—would you say, because we ended up here in the last place, that Bill C-42 will have an impact?

Given the lead in management and the importance the commissioner has put on this, obviously, and the fact that earlier on we had people who said there's no magic bullet, there's no one solution that's going to make all this go away or solve all these problems, we have to do a number of different things, because there is an existing, very complex system that we have to improve on in various aspects, whether it be training, whether it be leadership, etc.

What are your thoughts, given that you have a bit more time now, on Bill C-42 and how it will help the system?

[Catherine Ebbs]

To the extent that Bill C-42 will assist the commissioner when he is revising these policies and making them even more timely, more fair, it will be of assistance.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Would you say Bill C-42 will help?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

I want to turn to Bill C-42. As I noted earlier, we in the NDP will not be supporting it in third reading, because the gaps are still extensive and we're concerned about the fact that harassment isn't mentioned in the legislation.

I want to ask about C-42's impact on your work. C-42 would require the External Review Committee to establish time limits within which grievances and appeals would be dealt with. Will the legislation result in shorter times, or will it simply make the current timeframes public and subject to an annual report to the Minister of Public Safety?

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

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

You mentioned also—

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Thank you.

I have a quick question regarding a point that was made earlier on the use of the word “incident” versus “sexual harassment” specifically as terminology in Bill C-42. Will that terminology in any way hinder you in being able to deal with sexual harassment cases?

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Thank you very much.

Thank you so much to both of you for being here. I appreciate not only that you're here, but that you are both empowering your daughters to make their own decisions. Certainly I would be in exactly the same position, and it would be at my peril that I would think any other way. But you're dealing with somebody's daughters, and that's very important. I really want to understand better exactly what you're doing.

Bill C-42 has some changes. You've both made references to C-42, to the fact that Treasury Board currently governs all employees of the federal public service, and yet there is a juxtaposition of that responsibility with part IV of the RCMP Act. Could you take a few minutes to enlighten me and the committee on exactly how that fits, and how it's going to work?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

That is in one division and one area. Clearly, the comments are that the old boys' club is alive and well. Again, it's not from 2011. This is a report just put out in April 2012 by someone who is lauded as being a very progressive deputy commissioner, who clearly really cares about this issue and who has taken this kind of initiative to interview over 400 people who have come forward with these complaints. I would suggest that's just the tip of the iceberg. Many people will have experienced it but have decided not to put their careers in jeopardy by going forward on it.

Exactly what would they need to do to change that, other than to get up to 50% in numbers and maybe get better control, which would give women the attitude that they can break out of this old boys' club or get rid of the old boys' club? Maybe we can make it a women's club. Maybe it's time for a whole new attitude. How do we get there? I am not hearing about anything being done, whether through Bill C-42 or otherwise, that gives me any kind of confidence. There are lots of great words but little really serious action.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Thank you kindly.

Thank you to our witnesses.

To be frank, the driver behind this study began with wanting to look into the egregious experiences brought forward by women in the RCMP. It was extended more broadly to sexual harassment in the federal workforce. But as we know, the stories brought forward by women RCMP members have gripped Canadians, and they have also had a general impact on how they view our national police force.

We've had few occasions to discuss what is going on, and unfortunately, today, we're not hearing from rank-and-file women members who would have experiences to share that reflect the harassment and discrimination they have faced. Certainly for us in the NDP, that is an omission, especially when our role as a committee is to bring forward recommendations on how things can be improved within the RCMP and, more broadly, in federal workforces.

On the public safety committee I also had the chance to work on Bill C-42. I just want to pause on that for a moment to say that I was shocked to know that Bill C-42 doesn't use the word “harassment” anywhere in the entire document, which I think to anybody is an indication of the.... I mean, if you don't actually name the problem, is it the elephant in the room? I know there's a reference to “incidents”, but certainly the words—“sexual harassment” particularly—that have been at the top of mind for so many Canadians aren't actually mentioned in Bill C-42.

The NDP initially said that we would support it, based on what we believed to be a true intent to modernize the RCMP and to deal with critical issues like sexual harassment. Unfortunately, we saw that it was lacking, and the amendments we put forward were not passed. Whether it was adding specifically to the RCMP Act mandatory harassment training for RCMP members, ensuring a fully independent civilian review body to investigate complaints against the RCMP, adding a provision to create a national civilian investigative body that would avoid police investigating police, and creating a more balanced human resource policy by removing some of the more draconian powers proposed for the RCMP commissioner, and by strengthening the External Review Committee in cases involving possible dismissal from the force—all of these amendments were not passed. We believe, therefore, that Bill C-42 is inadequate in dealing with a host of gaps, but, very predominantly, sexual harassment in the RCMP.

We've been made aware of the intention of dealing with sexual harassment, which is encouraging, but intention isn't enough. It's not as though these allegations came up in the last couple of years; they've been going on for a long time, and talk is not enough. We have also heard about the disincentive to women, and men as well, in joining the RCMP as a result of these allegations of harassment.

When we hear about intention—and certainly we believe training is important, but one of the recurring themes is of the culture in the workplace. Commissioner Paulson referred to it as well when he first came to speak with us a number of months ago. We've heard from other witnesses that when you have a highly hierarchical organization—like the RCMP, but others as well—and you don't have women in positions of power or women represented in an equitable manner, that creates a culture far more prone to harassment.

We've heard about the target to hire 35% more women, and you spoke a bit about how you're planning to do that. What is the timeline, and how solid is that target? We'd like to see 50% so that the RCMP actually reflects our population.

What are your solid timelines and goals, so we know when to look forward to that result?

[Supt Michael O'Rielly, Director, Legislative Reform Initiative, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

Absolutely. One of the barriers we face right now is the structural difference between applying the processes for investigation and resolution of a harassment complaint where a member is a respondent under the Treasury Board policy or applying part IV of the RCMP Act. They are two very different processes. Bill C-42 would provide the opportunity to overcome that barrier.

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

Do you think the changes brought forth in Bill C-42 would allow the RCMP to address the issues of harassment within the RCMP?

[C/Supt Sharon Woodburn, Director General, Workforce Programs and Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you so much for this opportunity to come before the committee to contribute to your study of sexual harassment in workplaces in the federal jurisdiction.

Here with me today is Superintendent Michael O'Rielly, who is leading the legislative reform initiative for the RCMP. He will be able to answer any questions relating to Bill C-42.

The work of the RCMP has a profound impact on all Canadians. The RCMP's mandate is multi-faceted, and every employee within the force contributes their skills and expertise to deliver quality policing services. All employees of the RCMP are responsible for enhancing and maintaining the health and strength of the organization. The commissioner and senior management have committed to an “every employee engaged” approach, whereby expectations of conduct relating back to our core values are discussed with each RCMP employee and agreed to.

Men and women are recruited into the RCMP with the expectation that they will become part of a world-class policing organization. Employees of the RCMP expect that their colleagues, no matter their position or role, will do their very best to maintain and further this image, in how they deal with the public and each other.

The RCMP is privileged to enjoy high levels of public approval and support, and the vast majority of the women and men carry out their duties every day in a professional and diligent manner. However, over the past few years, concerns regarding harassment, accountability, and existing human resource management practices have been raised. In this regard, we are not meeting the high expectations of Canadians.

I would like to take this opportunity to describe some of the efforts we are making to show accountability and establish a work environment with zero tolerance for inappropriate behaviour, such as harassment.

The RCMP is taking steps to effect organizational change that will address two key factors: numerative inequality, or the difference between the number of men and women in the workplace; and normative standards, or those aspects of organizational culture that can contribute to harassment.

According to Statistics Canada, the representation of women within policing services across Canada has increased from 17.3% in 2005 to 19.6% in 2011. The representation of female regular members within the RCMP has kept pace with this increase, rising from 18.1% to 20.1% over the same period. In spite of this, these rates remain below the labour market availability for women who are interested in a career in policing, which was estimated to be 27% in the 2006 census. This means there is room to have more women in policing.

The commissioner has announced an increase in the recruiting benchmark for women from 30% to 35% to have a more equitable level of representation of female police officers in all ranks throughout the RCMP. We are committed to achieving a more equitable gender balance to help create a better, more respectful workplace.

I will now talk about the normative factors. The RCMP must develop the means to change behaviours, to set new standards and expectations, and to hold all employees accountable for their behaviours.

The results of the Public Service Employee Survey, in both 2008 and 2011, indicate that about 30% of RCMP respondents reported being harassed in the past two years. This percentage is essentially the same as those found throughout the core public administration.

Since 2005 there have been 1,102 complaints of harassment filed in the RCMP. This is an average of 150 complaints a year. Of these, 57% refer to interpersonal deportment; 36% are identified as abuse of authority; 4% relate to discrimination, as defined under the Canadian Human Rights Act; and 3% relate to sexual harassment.

What this tells us is that harassment continues to be reported at a consistent rate in the RCMP. This is unacceptable. The steps we are committed to taking to overcome this issue include focusing on a more respectful workplace, improving training practices, and establishing procedures and processes to prevent, investigate, and resolve harassment complaints.

Part of changing our culture is the identification and handling of harassing behaviour at the onset. Some unacceptable actions are more obvious than others, and some forms are more insidious.

Any definition of harassing behaviour, sexual or otherwise, will always be subjective to a certain extent. The challenge is to clearly define what is considered to be unacceptable conduct and to know when to intervene.

By identifying such behaviours, expectations can be established that action will be taken to point out and stop improper conduct immediately. The RCMP is identifying and developing a continuum of what is considered to be disrespectful and harassing conduct to better hold employees, especially supervisors and managers, accountable for taking action.

Establishing the responsibilities of supervisors and managers is also vital to achieving this. The commissioner or senior manager, such as commanding officers, cannot oversee the daily interactions of every employee. We put this trust in our many managers and supervisors. We must also give those managers and supervisors the training and tools to prevent and effectively handle conflict in the workplace and any inappropriate behaviour they see at an early stage.

The RCMP has had mandatory online harassment awareness and prevention training for all employees since 2005. This was a step in the right direction in raising awareness; however, we recognize the need to do more.

We are also enhancing leadership development focusing on core components, such as how to manage workplace relations, how to identify and address conflict and harassment, and how to build and maintain respectful workplaces.

The RCMP is implementing a respectful workplace program that sets out expectations for all employees of what supports respectful and harassment-free workplaces. The program also outlines how to recognize when these expectations are not being met, how to engage in early intervention, and how to rebuild relationships. The program is built on the Treasury Board policy on the prevention and resolution of harassment in the workplace and supplemented by the RCMP Act; however, the two processes do not align in purpose, process, or outcome.

Bill C-42, the Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, if passed, would provide the RCMP with a number of tools in the areas of conduct, grievances and discipline.

The proposed legislation will provide the commissioner with the authority to deal with harassment directly, by establishing streamlined procedures for the investigation and resolution of harassment complaints.

I would like to thank the committee for inviting us here today and for undertaking this study. Our intention is to continue making changes through the actions that I have outlined today. Our goal is to become a primary contributor to the creation of safe, healthy, and respectful workplaces in the federal public service.

Thank you.

My colleague and I would be pleased to provide further information in response to any questions.

Public Safety and National Security

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security in relation to Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Good afternoon, everyone.

This is meeting number 56 of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security on Wednesday, October 31, 2012. This afternoon we are going to continue our consideration of Bill C-42, an Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.

We are going to move now from hearing witnesses, as we have over the last number of meetings, into our clause-by-clause examination. We have senior officials from the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness on hand for reference.

Also, I want to remind all members that later on this afternoon, at a quarter after five, we will move to committee business, at which time we will go in camera to discuss future business.

We've gone through the process on clause-by-clause examination before. But a problem has arisen. I want to read from the Minutes of Proceedings.

It was agreed, — That, in regards to the study of Bill C-42, Enhancing RCMP Accountability Act: the Committee hear witnesses beginning with the Minister of Public Safety on [Wednesday] October 3rd, 2012; the Committee begin clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-42 no later than Wednesday, October 31, 2012, and, if the clause-by-clause consideration has not been completed by 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, November 7, 2012, that the Chair put all and every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the Bill forthwith and successively, without further debate, and the Chair then be ordered to report the Bill back to the House at the next available opportunity; and that amendments to Bill C-42 be submitted to the Clerk in both official languages before 9 p.m. on Monday, October 29, 2012, and that these amendments be distributed to members in both official languages before the end of [that] day.

I need to say that one of the most disappointing things that has taken place here is that we basically received no opposition amendments before nine o'clock.

I am instructed by the Table that these amendments then are not even allowed to come before this committee, because they did not comply with the motion that we had moved, passed, and were trying to live under.

If you remember the last meeting we had, I made it abundantly clear that these amendments must be in by nine o'clock, in both official languages.

When one party calls the Table and says “We are going to be late with our amendment” and they are told that then we cannot accept that amendment, and then they do the translation themselves for whatever they did and get the amendments in on time, it becomes very difficult to allow other amendments that were not in on time to even be entertained at this meeting. My intent at this point is based on instruction from the committee.

That being said, amendments did come: 18 amendments came from the NDP, and 16 of them were marginally late—just a little bit late—while one came later and one came the next day. When we go by the Minutes of Proceedings and by the motions that we have agreed to that amendments to Bill C-42 be submitted to the clerk before 9 p.m. on Monday, if they come in the next day, they are not to be entertained.

Mr. Garrison.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Yes, you're done. Thank you very much.

I want to thank all the witnesses for appearing before our committee today.

Actually, you have...I don't know if it's the honour of saving the best for the last or whatever the deal is, but this will be the last of the testimony that we hear before our committee.

To our committee, I would remind you that we begin clause-by-clause study on Bill C-42 on Wednesday.

I would also remind all members here of the original motion that was agreed to. I'll just read the last part of that motion or what was agreed to:

That amendments to Bill C-42 be submitted to the Clerk in both official languages before 9 p.m. on Monday, October 29, 2012, and that these amendments be distributed to members in both official languages before the end of the day.

Just so you're completely aware of what this means, it means that our clerk will be working here. He's brought in extra staff to work here as long as he has to, to make certain that the amendments are circulated and in your mailboxes tomorrow.

We've agreed to have these amendments in today. Please honour that.

With that, I again thank each of you for your testimony.

The meeting is adjourned.

[James Duggan]

With all due respect, it's what they call “Romnesia” in the United States. That's the situation of having accepted certain principles, but flip-flopping from one day to the next and doing the opposite.

In Bill C-43, what this Conservative government provided for was access to collective bargaining and for a balanced and fair approach for members. After a decision in the Ontario Court of Appeal, Bill C-43 was completely disregarded, and now we have Bill C-42.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I'm asking you, if you were writing Bill C-42 or if you were restricting the powers of the commissioner, what would you restrict his powers to? How would you restrict them?

[S/Sgt Gaétan Delisle]

Are you only working on Bill C-42 or do you want to impose some other stuff? Can you do that as a committee? I don't think so.

[S/Sgt Gaétan Delisle]

You asked us what we thought about Bill C-42. Bill C-42 enhances the power the commissioner already has in the law.

[Tom Stamatakis]

One concern is that there doesn't appear to be any distinction between the types of examples of conduct or misconduct that Mr. Hiebert is referring to versus allegations of criminal misconduct. That's one big concern.

The other thing is that in other provincial statutory regimes that exist to deal with police misconduct, there is an obligation to provide a statement. I would tend to agree that typically in an employee-employer situation, employees are obligated to account. In those provincial statues that have been established to deal with misconduct, there are also protections for the officers so that when those statements are provided in response to a complaint around rudeness or what would typically be viewed as minor or less serious misconduct, there are protections so that those statements can't be used in some other form. Bill C-42 doesn't appear to contain any of those similar kinds of protections.

We have to recognize that when you are dealing with police officers, it's not just going to be an investigation into misconduct within the context of a police act or within the context of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act; there typically will be a civil suit. There will probably be some kind of a coroner's inquest. There may be a public inquiry. There may also be a criminal investigation.

That's where you have to find the balance. You have to create the mechanism for an employer, whether it's the RCMP or some other municipal or provincial police force, to be able to get the information they need and to be able to respond to the public, but while doing that, provide some protection so that information can't then later be used in some other process that puts the police officer in a significant amount of jeopardy, and even the organization in some jeopardy, with respect to civil litigation or other risk management issues.

[Dr. Alok Mukherjee, President, Canadian Association of Police Boards]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Members of the committee, thank you for giving us an opportunity to offer our comments on this legislation that is very important to our organization, as it is to you and to the government.

The police boards and commissions that make up our members are responsible for the governance and oversight of more than 75% of the municipal police in Canada. They manage the police services of their municipalities, set priorities, establish policy, and represent the public interest to civilian governance and oversight. It is from this perspective of governance and oversight that we generally welcome Bill C-42.

It was over five years ago that we were consulted, and I was one of them, by officials of the Department of Public Safety regarding issues of governance and oversight for the RCMP. We believe that Bill C-42 is a good step forward in enhancing accountability, modernizing the force's human resources practices, and strengthening civilian oversight. It is to be hoped that these measures will increase public trust in the RCMP, which, as Minister Toews and others have noted, has suffered of late.

To this end, we applaud the objectives stated in the preamble to the proposed legislation.

Rather than dealing with any specific element of the bill, I wish to comment generally on some of the proposals with respect to governance and oversight in terms of the implications of certain provisions.

Our interest in effective governance and oversight of the RCMP is twofold. First, insofar as the RCMP provides contract policing to local communities, we believe that it should have a system of governance similar to that for municipal police services. Second, insofar as RCMP engages in joint operations and integrated policing with our municipal police services, we believe that it should be subject to effective oversight similar to that which exists for its municipal counterparts.

Local governance in jurisdictions where the RCMP provides contract policing is an important issue for us, as it should be for the force and the government. About 65% of the RCMP's budget, we are told, comes from contract policing. Further, in addition to providing policing services to provinces and territories, the RCMP serves more than 200 municipalities and 165 aboriginal communities across Canada.

The proposed legislation does attempt to address some local concerns. While beneficial, they are not measures that enhance local governance in contract policing jurisdictions. We would urge you to give consideration to this area in your deliberations. A report on RCMP municipal contract policing prepared for the Federation of Canadian Municipalities in 2009 makes the following observation:

A number of characteristics are generally accepted as essential to good governance; these include being accountable, transparent, responsive, effective and efficient, equitable and inclusive. Most respondents had concerns with governance in RCMP municipal policing on these fronts.

Accountability to the community is perceived by many municipalities to be a lower priority within the RCMP than accountability to RCMP headquarters.

Attention to governance generally, and not only to local governance, is largely absent from Bill C-42. We—that is, the CAPB—submit that strong governance would greatly enhance the RCMP's accountability and transparency. This is, for us, a matter of great importance, particularly given the increased powers proposed to be vested in the commissioner by Bill C-42. It is one that we have discussed extensively during our consultation with public safety officials.

We submitted a letter to your committee dated October 18 that deals with this subject at some length, so I will not say much more about it other than that in our respectful submission, adopting a modern, effective governance system for the RCMP will build confidence by ensuring greater accountability to elected officials, taxpayers, and most importantly, the communities served by the RCMP.

I would now like to talk about effective oversight as distinct from governance, particularly from the point of view of communities that do not have contract policing but whose police services are nonetheless involved in joint operations and integrated policing with the RCMP.

The current situation is unacceptable, as I discovered in my role as chair of the Toronto Police Services Board during the G20 summit in Toronto. While the police service that we oversee--that is, the Toronto Police Service--was held accountable by a system of provincial and local oversight, the RCMP was not subject to anything that came close for its role in this highly sensitive integrated policing project with significant national security implications.

The current oversight mechanism, the CPC, as has been noted by several witnesses appearing before you, is woefully inadequate. I believe that the provisions in Bill C-42 will go a long way in filling this gap. We are heartened by the fact that the proposed CRCC will have the power to undertake reviews of the RCMP's policies and procedures, have access to more documents than is the case at present, be able to compel evidence, and deal more expeditiously with public complaints.

We are also very supportive of the ability of provincial ministers responsible for policing to initiate investigations and of provincial oversight agencies to undertake independent and joint investigations. These are good measures and should contribute to greater public confidence.

We do, however, share the concerns that have been expressed already about some of the other provisions of the bill. We fear that they could undermine true, effective oversight. In particular, we would urge you to review the justification for the limits on what documents the CRCC may not have access to, the ability of the commissioner to cause an investigation to be suspended because of the possibility of a criminal investigation, the ability of the commissioner to refuse to investigate a complaint that in the CRCC chair's view it would be in the public interest to investigate, the absence of service standards requiring the force to take timely action when such standards are envisaged for the commission, and the lack of what interim CPC chair Ian McPhail in his comments to you called “a robust review regime”.

We share Staff Sergeant Abe Townsend's concern regarding the concentration of that much power in one office, on the one hand, and the inability of the commission on the other to make compelling recommendations. Those are Staff Sergeant Townsend's words.

Finally, we take issue with Director General Mark Potter's characterization of handling of public complaints as CRCC's core business and with Bill C-42's subjecting of reviews to availability of resources, among other considerations. Unless these imbalances are fixed, we are afraid that despite all the enhanced powers given to the new commission, it will be seen to exist on the sufferance of the very institution and the very head that it is supposed to oversee. We do not think that this will contribute to achieving the objective that Bill C-42 seeks, namely greater public trust through greater accountability.

I'll be glad to answer any questions, and thank you very much.

[Tom Stamatakis, President, Canadian Police Association]

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for providing the opportunity to address you today regarding Bill C-42, the Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act.

I'm speaking today on behalf of the Canadian Police Association, an organization that represents over 50,000 front-line law enforcement personnel across Canada in over 160 member associations, including some members of the RCMP.

I have just a few brief opening remarks, and then I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have.

I'd like to begin my remarks by saying that as police officers, whether within the RCMP, a provincial police force, or a municipal police force, having the confidence of the public we serve is of paramount importance. While there's no doubt that recent events have put our colleagues within the RCMP under the microscope, we cannot emphasize enough that the men and women who make up Canada's national police force are, by and large, a credit to our country and the communities they represent.

Bill C-42contains a number of positive elements. However, there are some areas of this proposed legislation that cause concern, and I'd like to take this opportunity to briefly highlight those, particularly from the perspective of a front-line police officer.

The first area I'll touch on is that there is no doubt that streamlining the discipline and grievance process for RCMP members is a desirable goal. Bill C-42provides the commissioner with extraordinary powers in this regard, powers that go beyond what one might find in other police services across Canada.

For example, in Ontario, a police officer who is subject to a disciplinary process retains the right to appeal the decision to the independent Ontario Civilian Police Commission, a quasi-judicial body that provides an impartial review of the process and ultimately a decision.

Without any additional, and most importantly, independent avenue for appeal, I would suggest there is a possibility that RCMP members could lose faith in the impartiality of a process against them, particularly in situations in which the commissioner has delegated his authority for discipline.

Clause 40 of Bill C-42 is another area of serious concern, as it deals with investigations when an RCMP member has contravened the code of conduct within the force. First, the legislation specifies that an officer can be compelled to testify against herself or himself. Second, the legislation sets out the conditions under which a warrant can be issued under the RCMP Act to potentially search the residence of an RCMP member, under the direction of the commissioner of the RCMP or another officer who has been delegated that authority. That's particularly troubling when we're dealing with largely an administrative process designed to deal with conduct issues that arise through the RCMP officer's employment.

Unfortunately, both of these provisions, while hopefully well-intentioned, are seemingly violations of the basic Charter of Rights and Freedoms that all Canadian citizens enjoy and that should not be ignored simply because someone is a member of the RCMP. In fact, I can only imagine the public outcry that would follow should our front-line officers conduct their own criminal investigations under provisions similar to those included within Bill C-42.

A final area that I'd like to highlight comes out of the testimony this committee has heard regarding avenues of redress that RCMP members might be able to take following a ruling that calls for the dismissal of an officer.

Officials from the Department of Public Safety, including Mr. Richard Wex and Mr. Mark Potter, pointed out that judicial review was always available for an officer who wished to appeal a commissioner's ruling under the new provisions of this legislation.

Unfortunately, this runs up against a long-standing issue that the Canadian Police Association has been trying to address, which is that the RCMP remains the only police service in Canada that continues to be denied the right to associate.

There's no doubt that judicial review is an important aspect, but, as this committee knows, taking a case through the court process is not without cost, and without an association to represent the member or to help defray the cost, this avenue may be beyond the means of an officer who has just recently lost employment based on a discipline judgment in what most often will be largely an administrative process.

Obviously this is only a brief overview of the concerns that the Canadian Police Association has on this legislation. I'd be happy to expand on or clarify any of these areas for the benefit of committee members during our question and answer period, or on any other areas I might be able to assist members with before you begin your substantive deliberations on this legislation.

To conclude, there's no doubt that our colleagues within the RCMP face unprecedented challenges, but there needs to be a sense of balance. We cannot take steps to restore or enhance the public's confidence with the RCMP at the expense of weakening RCMP members' own confidence with their employer. There is room for management and front-line officers to come together, as evidenced by the collective agreements arrived at with provincial and municipal police forces across Canada. I hope this committee is able to amend Bill C-42 at this stage in order to best find that balance that allows the RCMP to continue its role as Canada's national police service.

Thank you for your time, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

[S/Sgt Gaétan Delisle]

I think they're going to let me speak.

Let's not delude ourselves here. The point of Bill C-42 is to give the commissioner of the RCMP more power. But, as you can see from our brief, he already has all that power. Conversely, if we had independent labour relations tribunals or other specialized tribunals, you would see a major change in labour relations.

The committee has heard from division staff representatives such as Mr. Townsend. They told you first-hand that they were responsible for labour relations and represented all the members of the RCMP. And yet, all of them told you that they weren't consulted on Bill C-42. Imagine what kinds of work relationships occur in an organization that has 17,000 officers across Canada. Don't kid yourselves. These individuals don't represent members because they are paid. These people work for the organization and are promoted from within. I know, I used to be one of them.

But you won't see regular members coming here to testify. In fact, I tip my hat to my colleagues who have already appeared before you. The reason is quite simple. My colleague, André Girard, who was also a division staff representative, and I have both been the targets of harassment complaints. My colleague wasn't even able to represent himself. Mr. Girard had sent a letter to the solicitor general expressing his views on certain practices within the RCMP. Don't kid yourselves. It has to be done.

Do I still have a minute or two?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I call this meeting back to order.

In our second hour, we have a panel of witnesses today as we continue our consideration of Bill C-42.

We’ll hear from the Quebec Mounted Police Members' Association. Gaétan Delisle is the association's president, Staff Sergeant André Girard is the treasurer, and Mr. James Duggan is the association's legal adviser.

We also have Tom Stamatakis from Vancouver, the president of the Canadian Police Association, ready to testify. Also to testify by video conference, we have Alok Mukherjee from Toronto, the president of the Canadian Association of Police Boards.

We welcome each of you.

We will begin with the Quebec Mounted Police Members' Association. Please give us your prepared statements. Then we'll move on to statements from others and then to a round of questioning.

Monsieur Delisle, go ahead.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

You're basically saying that this isn't something that changes with Bill C-42.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much.

Before we go to the next question, I have one question that I would like to put.

Earlier you were talking about the ordered statement. Your concern was that you felt that the ordered statement could be used against you in a further civil or criminal code charge. However, the act already says that you're compelled to give a statement but that the statement can't be used against you. That's what the RCMP Act says now.

How do you believe that this bill changes that? I can't see any change in Bill C-42 that would change that. In the old act it says you're compelled to give a statement but that the statement, under no circumstance, can be used against you in a criminal charge or civil suit.

[Cpl Patrick Mehain]

It may, but part of the problem is that it's management, whether that's a non-commissioned officer, a corporal of my rank, or all the way up to the commissioner. We're generally the ones who are conducting the harassment, because you're the supervisors.

There is a big fear among the membership to say anything against their bosses for fear of being classified as a troublemaker, a problem child, or whatever. Those managers, whether they're corporals, sergeants, staff sergeants, officers, or whatever, continue to harass through giving them negative duties to do, or assignments they don't really want to do, or making belittling comments, or going over their work with a fine tooth comb, simply making it generally troublesome for them coming to work. It happens today. It's still going on. Members have told me, prior to my coming here, that they won't be complaining; there is no point in complaining, because nothing is ever done.

With regard to Bill C-42, if members aren't allowed to speak or aren't allowed to blow the whistle, nobody is going to be talking, so while you've effectively muzzled the RCMP and got rid of the problem by shutting us all up, it doesn't take away the difficulties.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Even if Bill C-42 were to give the commissioner more power, it would not change the facts or necessarily prevent harassment within the RCMP?

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you kindly, Mr. Chair.

I want to start by thanking the witnesses for joining us today, both in person and from Whitehorse, up north.

If you don't mind, my questions will be for the gentlemen who are sitting around the table today, Mr. Creasser and Mr. Mehain.

Bill C-42 supposedly tackles sexual and psychological harassment, or workplace harassment in general, within the RCMP. Will it really change anything in terms of the sexual and psychological harassment that goes on?

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Okay, thank you very much.

I think it's important to make that distinction. Some people, such as the average civilian who is not a police officer working within the police community, wouldn't understand that.

To go back to Bill C-42, I am interested to know why you don't believe that a timely resolution to problems or complaints wouldn't be in the best interests of the officers themselves. This committee has heard evidence from other witnesses....

Mr. Creasser, these questions are for Mr. Mehain, since he's a serving member, but please feel free to kick in if necessary.

In your opening statement you said it has taken up to seven years. Under proposed Bill C-42, many or most of these complaints would be dealt with in a far more expedient manner. I'm interested to know why you don't think that's a good thing.

[Corporal Patrick Mehain, President, British Columbia, Mounted Police Professional Association of Canada]

The issue we see with Bill C-42 is that streamlining takes away from the due process that all members should be entitled to with regard to a fair hearing, etc.

The way we look at it is that the commissioner and his officers are able to make decisions based on whether you provide a statement or not. They could make a decision that could affect your career, fire you, or do anything they want, so you either have to testify or ultimately you could face a decision of being fired.

One of the problems with the grievance system we have is that, as the RCMP, we can grieve anything. If I don't like anything, I can grieve absolutely anything.

We agree that this whole process needs to be speeded up and addressed and certain things designated that can or cannot be grieved. The problem we have, as you stated, is outside the scope of this bill. There is too much that isn't addressed or isn't under our collective agreement that we can understand. As a member, I can say I understand I can do this or that, and management can say they understand they can do this or that.

One of the problems we have had historically is that we're supposed to be governed by the Treasury Board, yet there is a caveat in every part of the RCMP Act that allows the commanding officer or the officer in charge to change that ruling simply because it makes his business line much better or more effective, regardless of the fact that we're supposed to be governed by Treasury Board. The way we see it is that the bill, as it is now drafted, provides the commissioner too much power. As Rob stated earlier, the commissioner has always had the ability to fire people. That has never been an issue.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Yes, it does, absolutely.

In part of those meetings, now or in the future, will the public there be made aware of any of the recommendations and changes in Bill C-42, outside of the efforts that I make in the territory?

[Rob Creasser, Media Liaison, British Columbia, Mounted Police Professional Association of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and this committee for recognizing the need to hear the views of the rank-and-file members with regard to Bill C-42.

My name is Rob Creasser, and I am the national spokesperson for the Mounted Police Professional Association of Canada and a retired 28-year member of the RCMP. With me is Corporal Patrick Mehain, a current serving member in Coquitlam, B.C., with 15 years of service.

One major problem that exists in the RCMP is the tremendous power imbalances within the organization. Bill C-42, rather than mitigating these issues, will only make them exponentially worse.

Staff Sergeant Abe Townsend, when asked about whether the staff relations representatives were consulted on Bill C-42 during the drafting stage, stated they had not been, yet in the commissioner's own testimony before the Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence in Ottawa on June 21, 2012, he stated that he views the SRR program as vital in the RCMP.

This dichotomy is not a surprise to us, because this is the way the consultative process works in the RCMP. Management only consults when they want their directives transmitted to the rank and file, yet the staff relations representatives still hold out hope of meaningful consultation. In the meantime, members of the force continue to face bullying, harassment, and undue delays in resolving their grievances.

While there are many provisions of concern in the bill, we will focus on four major headings under the following: charter violations, independence of the RCMP from political interference, extreme powers given to the commissioner, and women's issues and harassment. We will also provide three simple steps to remedy the major issues of harassment, intimidation, and bullying in the RCMP while making it more accountable.

Under charter violations, with reference to ordered statements and proposed subsections 40(1) and 40(2), the requirement that compels a member to make a statement even if it is self-incriminating is contrary to charter rights and must be removed.

Ex parte warrants for the discipline process under proposed subsection 40.2(1), again, are a violation of the charter rights of members against unreasonable search and seizure. It is surprising, because by Commissioner Paulson's own testimony police officers had a vital role to play in drafting this bill and yet these very obvious charter violations, which RCMP members would not be allowed to commit during criminal investigations, are somehow okay when it comes to dealing with citizens who are members of the force.

On independence from political interference, the appointment of the commissioner and deputy commissioners at pleasure in proposed subsection 5(3) opens the office of the commissioner up to the problem of political interference in police matters. The commissioner and deputy commissioners of the RCMP should serve at the pleasure and be answerable to an independent bipartisan parliamentary committee in order to prevent the RCMP from being used to promote political motives.

Chief Superintendent Craig MacMillan highlighted various problems in the RCMP in his doctoral thesis, “A Modern Star Chamber: An Analysis of Ordered Statements in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police”, yet Chief Superintendent MacMillan has completely gone against his own research into the culture of the RCMP in helping draft Bill C-42.

This highlights yet another of the main issues that Bill C-42 does not actually remedy, this one being that the current promotion system has been used very effectively to silence those members who point out issues, first by promising promotions and then, when that does not work, by threatening their careers by withholding job and promotional opportunities.

On national security, under proposed subsections 31(1.3) and 31(1.4), the Minister of Public Safety has the right to direct the RCMP to take an action under the guise of national security, but the minister does not have to provide any evidence of the threat. The RCMP has been ordered to violate existing Canadian law in terms of the use of torture-related info. As police officers, we are sworn not only to protect life and property but also to bring those who violate our laws to justice.

Terrorism is a concern, but we can draw from the experience of our compatriots across the pond in the United Kingdom and set up a national security committee, which would include members from all political parties in Parliament and would also have as members the heads of the RCMP, CSIS, CBSA, and CSE, as well as special judges who would hear the evidence the government has and make the final decision. That way we involve those entrusted with national security and also those who are sworn to protect Canadian and international law decisions.

On power given to the commissioner, here we refer to proposed paragraphs 20.2(1)(c), 20.2(1)(e), 20.2(1)(g), 20.2(1)(i), and 20.2(1)(k) and proposed subsections 20.2(3) and 20.2(4). The Commissioner of the RCMP has always had the ability to get rid of members who have contravened their sworn duty to uphold the law. We agree that this process needs to be streamlined, but Bill C-42 gives the office of the commissioner much too much power. The RCMP has had problems with commissioners who have abused this power in the past.

We also have concerns with the requirement for a member to attend a doctor of management's choosing.

On firing people for economic efficiency, the force spends tens of thousands of dollars to recruit, train, and equip members, and then it fires these members, thus essentially flushing the money spent and the investigative experience gained by these members down the drain. When times improve, we have to spend taxpayers' money to start the process all over again. This provision also leaves the employment of members open to the problem of becoming another tool for harassment and bullying by managers.

Another issue is the power of the RCMP commissioner, under proposed subsection 20.2(4), to delegate authority to subordinates for dismissals. The RCMP is predominantly made up of small work sites—detachments—so quite low ranks could be making decisions that reflect the entire force, yet training is sorely lacking.

Finally, on women's issues and harassment, there can be no grievance in respect of the right to equal pay for equal work under proposed subsection 31(1.2). Gender discrimination and harassment are two of the most troublesome areas in the RCMP. This provision in the bill actually works to legitimize the problem of treating female and minority members in the RCMP as being unequal members in the force.

Under Bill C-42, there is no provision for the protection of whistleblowers within the force. Bill C-42 expressly prohibits a member from speaking publicly about issues within the force and lays out sanctions that the member will face for doing so.

If Bill C-42 is passed in its current form with the charter violations and avenues for continued abuse of power by managers, rather than correcting the issues that have plagued the RCMP, our Parliament would be promoting the bad behaviour and cronyism by legitimizing this type of behaviour.

In Chief Superintendent MacMillan's doctoral thesis, he stated:

One finding from the research is that the form of employee representation in the R.C.M.P., which was created, paid for and run by management, contributes to the actual or perceived vulnerability of members. Unlike other police employees who enjoy some protection by membership in an employee association, this feature is lacking in the R.C.M.P. Members simply do not have the numerical, moral or financial support to challenge improper actions by management. Denying the right to choose the form of employee representation by members undermines the R.C.M.P.'s newly proclaimed empowerment and management philosophies.

If Parliament is truly interested in beginning the process to address the problems that currently plague the RCMP, there are three simple and yet powerful steps that can be taken.

The first step is to bring in a process of collective bargaining to deal with employer/management-labour relations in the RCMP.

The second step is to bring in a process of independent binding arbitration to resolve grievances that cannot be resolved between management and labour. Make sure the arbitrator is independent of the influence of government, Treasury Board, RCMP management, and RCMP labour representatives. In the Vancouver Police Department, for example, grievances take, on average, a maximum of 28 days to be settled. The RCMP process takes much longer, and some have gone on for seven years or more.

Finally, the third step is to enact legislation that repeals section 96 of the RCMP Act and thereby allow the members to have the ability to have a free and truly democratic vote to elect independent, member-funded labour representatives.

The rank-and-file members of the RCMP are proud to serve the citizens of this country in all capacities, from the municipal level to international areas. All we ask is to be treated with the same dignity and be afforded the same rights as every other Canadian citizen.

Thank you.

[Thomas Ullyett]

Well, then, Mr. Chair, I will continue.

Like many places in the country, Yukon is now working under a new police services agreement. As you know, there is a new 20-year agreement in place. These changes come at a very opportune time. In fact, during the negotiation for the new agreements we now have, the need for reforms about many of the things contained in Bill C-42, including public complains and internal disciplinary systems of the RCMP, were raised by the Yukon government and other contract partners. Certainly in terms of the discussions we had with our colleagues at Public Safety Canada, we anticipated that the RCMP's legislative regime would be changed. That was our understanding, so we are happy to see that come. We're also aware of the Reform Implementation Council's work and their recommendations made in that regard.

We certainly support the concept that it's difficult for an organization, much less a police organization, to change and move forward into the 21st century with archaic legislation. That's another reason we are supportive of the changes. As I mentioned a moment ago, Mr. Chair, Yukon had conducted extensive public consultations in 2010 on policing as part of the policing review. That policing review was instituted as a result of an in-custody death in police cells of a gentleman named Raymond Silverfox in 2008. That led to the RCMP, the Yukon government, and the Council of Yukon First Nations to collaborate on an extensive policing review, resulting in the report called “Sharing Common Ground” two years ago.

During the course of that review, we heard from members of the public about the internal discipline system and what they felt was a baffling and very opaque system, a system they generally found to be remote and inaccessible. This is what we heard from Yukoners with respect to the complaint process. It was also a system that did not seem to be tuned in to the cultural sensitivity and realities of policing in a northern remote area of Canada.

Many of the 33 recommendations, Mr. Chair, that are found in the “Sharing Common Ground” report relate to the very changes being made in Bill C-42, such as the internal disciplinary system and the public complaints system. As I mentioned, we are supportive of the changes because the Yukon public asked us to make changes, and we know the changes fall within federal jurisdiction. You would certainly hope that the new civilian review and complains commission will shore up what is seen as a gap in terms of complaints and by complainants with the system.

Here in Yukon, we ventured into arrangements with Alberta to establish a regime for the investigation of serious incidents involving RCMP members, utilizing Alberta's serious incident response team—ASIRT, as it is called. Certainly Bill C-42 is in sync with that, providing independent investigations for serious incidents and changing the policy into legislation.

Finally, Mr. Chair, I would say that the implementation of these legislative changes, we hope, will strengthen the partnership that we have as a contract partner with the RCMP and that the actual practice on the ground will be mirrored by the very good intentions that are set out in Bill C-42.

Those are my opening remarks. Thank you.

[Thomas Ullyett]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and members of the committee.

We're proud to appear before the committee. We're particularly proud because our member of Parliament, Ryan Leef, is a member of your committee.

The comments I make this afternoon are on behalf of Mike Nixon, Minister of Justice and Attorney General for the Yukon. Minister Nixon has asked me to make the remarks that follow.

I should say two things at the outset.

First, our comments today are of a more general nature. They are not technical comments on the amending bill, as such, on Bill C-42. We don't have any particular difficulty with the amending provisions as provided in Bill C-42.

Second, our comments are not particularly lengthy, but I'll provide, if I could, Mr. Chair, a brief opening statement.

The Government of Yukon is in support wholeheartedly of the changes that are found in Bill C-42. We are in support largely because the concerns that we've seen across the country in relation to the RCMP are concerns that are found in the Yukon as well.

We did our own policing review and issued a public report two years ago, in December 2010, called “Sharing Common Ground”. Many of the findings in that report, and the recommendations, dovetail with the changes in Bill C-42, so we are very much in support of the effort that Parliament is making in this regard.

Mr. Chair, I should just stop there and ask how long you're anticipating I would have for opening comments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I call the meeting to order.

Good afternoon, everyone.

This is meeting 55 of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, on Monday, October 29, 2012. This afternoon we'll continue our consideration of Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.

On our first witness panel we have, from the Government of Yukon, by video conference from Whitehorse, Mr. Thomas Ullyett. He is the assistant deputy minister of legal services.

Welcome. I trust you can hear us loud and clear?

[Dominique Valiquet]

That part is a consequential amendment, so it's not really part of the bill. It's just modifying some wording, because Bill C-42 creates a new commission. That part, which is called the ship-rider part, was already adopted by Parliament in Bill C-38, so this is already law. Bill C-42 is just making some consequential amendments.

To address your second issue on joint investigation cross-border, maybe you can find your answer at section 45.95. I can read the first paragraph, “If a complaint concerns the conduct of a designated officer,” for example an RCMP officer who is working cross-border with the FBI, or DEA, or cross-border law enforcement—an American officer—the new commission created by Bill C-42 may “conduct an investigation, review or hearing of that complaint jointly with an authority that is responsible for investigations, reviews or hearings with respect to complaints from the public against law enforcement officers in any relevant jurisdiction, whether in or outside Canada.”

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

First of all, I would like to thank you Mr. Allmand, Ms. Robichaud and Ms. Séguin, for being here today. We greatly appreciate your comments on Bill C-42. My questions pertain to Ms. Robichaud and Ms. Séguin's work, and their opinion of Bill C-42.

I know that you have done a great deal of work on sexual harassment in the workplace. You have mainly focused on helping people who are not unionized and your work has been done on an individual basis. I am certain this is greatly appreciated by people who enjoy less protection under labour standards.

You mentioned Bill C-42's inadequacies and lack of firmness. In your opinion, handling harassment complaints in the workplace should be an obligation and not an option, as is currently the case. It will remain so since the commissioner will still have the power to decide whether or not to implement the internal review committee's recommendations.

Do you believe Bill C-42 does not take sexual and psychological harassment cases seriously enough? Would it be possible to go to greater lengths in order to treat this problem more seriously?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

I'm happy that you brought that up. There are a couple of things that I think are important.

First of all, whether it's in a private workplace, a government organization, or a small business, it's important to have certain procedures in place to deal with harassment of all kinds. There should be zero tolerance for harassment, whether it's sexual harassment, racial harassment, sexual-orientation harassment, or any other kind. Strong businesses and private and public organizations have policies in place to deal with that.

What's happened under the RCMP is that the complaints process is so onerous. It's a very long process. Direct supervisors cannot deal with issues like this when they arise, and that's been a huge problem. What Bill C-42 does is it modernizes the whole system. It gives direct supervisors an ability to deal with it.

My concern with your suggestion is that if we start pulling out different types of harassment and try to deal with them in a piece-by-piece way, we would not be dealing with the foundational premise, which is that all harassment is wrong.

I wonder if you could comment on that, the idea that no harassment should be tolerated. If we start to break it up, it could become confusing, or we might miss a piece.

[Warren Allmand]

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am here today on behalf of the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, which is a pan-Canadian coalition of civil society organizations that was established in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

This coalition brings together 40 international development and human rights NGOs, unions, professional associations, and faith groups. Its purpose is to monitor the impact of anti-terrorism legislation on human rights standards, and to advocate against abuses and violations. The ICLMG was an intervener in the Arar inquiry, the Iacobucci commission, and we appeared before the Supreme Court of Canada in the security certificate case relating to Adil Charkaoui.

Our comments in response to Bill C-42 are based on our experience before the Arar commission, and the findings and recommendations set out by Judge O'Connor in his two reports following his inquiry into the Arar incident.

In his first report, tabled in September 2006, Judge O'Connor found that Maher Arar's detention by U.S. officers in New York in 2002, and his surreptitious transfer by them to Syria a few days later, where he was imprisoned and tortured for approximately one year, was in large part due to the negligence of the RCMP who incorrectly labelled Mr. Arar as an Islamist extremist linked to al-Qaeda, and then irresponsibly shared this inaccurate information with American authorities. Judge O'Connor was especially critical of the RCMP for its failure to gather and verify correct information, for its sharing of inaccurate information, and for its inadequate direction and oversight of the investigation team.

In his first report, Judge O'Connor made 23 recommendations to correct these failures and shortcomings. In his second report, dated December 2006, also to correct the problem cited above, Judge O'Connor proposed a new review agency for the RCMP, and a new review process for five other federal agencies carrying on security and intelligent activities.

As a result of his inquiry, Judge O'Connor discovered that there were 24 federal agencies in Canada involved directly or indirectly in the security and intelligence business, the principal ones being CSIS, the RCMP, Communications Security Establishment Canada, Canada Border Services Agency, Transport Canada, DFAIT, DND, Immigration Canada, the PCO, Justice, and the Coast Guard. He discovered that there were 247 agreements by which intelligence information was shared internationally and within Canada.

In addition, he found that there were an increasing number of joint intelligence operations known as INSETs, integrated national security enforcement teams, made up for example of CSIS, the RCMP, provincial police forces, and municipal police forces. With all this sharing and with all these joint operations, it is easy to understand how errors and mistakes by the RCMP and other agencies might escape review and go undetected. The problem is that the existing review bodies—the CPC, the Commission for Public Complaints, SIRC for CSIS, the CSE commissioner—have different, limited powers and mandates, which in each case are only directed at a single agency. Therefore, how do you get at problems resulting from joint operations and sharing arrangements?

Some of these review bodies have the power of subpoena and some do not. Some have the right to audit and others don't. Some, such as the Canada Border Services Agency, have no review body whatsoever. This leaves us with an impossible situation where issues and violations can easily fall between the cracks.

In chapter 10 of the second report, Judge O'Connor asked the question, “Is the status quo adequate?” He said, “Categorically, no”. He said that the RCMP internal controls were not adequate. The existing powers of the Commission for Public Complaints, CPC, were not adequate, and the powers of other accountability bodies were not adequate. He therefore proposed a new body to replace the RCMP's CPC, to be known as the independent complaints and national security review agency. The name doesn't matter. For what you're proposing in this bill, that name would do as well. The purpose of this new body would be to review the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency, with increased powers to audit and to investigate complaints.

He also proposed that SIRC be given additional powers to review the security and intelligence operations of Immigration Canada, DFAIT, Transport, and FINTRAC, in addition to CSIS. He leaves the CSE commissioner as is to review the activities of the Communications Security Establishment. However, to coordinate these three bodies, to review all national security practices, and to make sure that nothing falls between the cracks, he proposes an integrated national security review coordinating committee.

Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, six years after O'Connor's two reports, we have Bill C-42. Since it is a very large and complicated bill, some 120 pages, amending nine major statutes, I have not had the time to examine and analyze all parts of the bill. Therefore, today I will deal specifically with those issues raised by the Arar commission, that is, the work done by the RCMP and others in security and intelligence, and especially in joint operations such as the INSETs. I will deal with both joint operations and sharing within Canada, as well as cross-border.

There are two parts of the bill that might be relevant in this respect. Proposed section 45.75 states:

45.75 (1) If a complaint concerns the conduct of a member or other person appointed or employed under Part I and a law enforcement officer of any other jurisdiction, whether in or outside Canada, the Commission may conduct an investigation, review or hearing of that complaint jointly with the authority in that other jurisdiction that is responsible for investigations, reviews or hearings with respect to complaints against law enforcement officers. (2) The Governor in Council may make regulations respecting investigations, reviews or hearings conducted jointly under subsection (1).

The problem is, do the words “any other jurisdiction” include the other review authorities under federal jurisdiction, such as SIRC, the review agency for the CSE, and so on? That has to be clarified. I say that because most of the RCMP joint operations include two or three of the other federal security authorities. I remind you that Judge O'Connor found that there were 24 of them. Does the application of this article regarding joint reviews, the purpose of which is good, extend not only to provincial and non-Canadian authorities, but also to the other authorities under federal jurisdiction?

What about those federal agencies, such as the Canada Border Services Agency, which has no review or oversight whatsoever? How do we investigate joint operations between the RCMP and CBSA, of which there are several? Judge O'Connor said that the new review agency should deal with both the RCMP and CBSA.

As a result, this article may require amendments and clarification. We should also know more about what the government means by “regulations” under proposed subsection 45.75(2).

In the same vein, we should seek clarification of part VII.2, starting with proposed section 45.88 and following. This part is entitled “Review of Integrated Cross-Border Law Enforcement Operations”.

First of all, in reading the bill, I can't quite understand the relationship of these proposed sections with proposed section 45.75 to which I just referred. Will these sections, for example, allow the new civilian review and complaints commission, CRCC, to investigate, review, and hold hearings on cases like those of Arar, or El Maati, Almalki, and Nureddin, who were dealt with under the Iacobucci commission?

I read the minister's testimony before this committee, and it is my view that the minister should be invited back to the committee and asked to clarify these articles that I've referred to about joint reviews—joint reviews within Canada and joint reviews cross-border--and, if necessary, propose amendments.

I think the government had the right intention in mind in allowing for joint reviews with other oversight bodies, but those sections are not clear at all. There must be clarification. Maybe amendments will be required.

The cases studied by Judge O'Connor and Judge Iacobucci should not be overlooked and forgotten. Judge O'Connor spent three years. Judge Iacobucci spent two years. They used millions of taxpayers' dollars to look into these cases. They cannot be ignored.

I would like you to remember that Judge O'Connor was able to get to the bottom of the Arar tragedy because he had full powers to look at all agencies, joint operations, and all information-sharing agreements. If this new CRCC is to do its job correctly, it must have similar powers.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Excuse me, madam, our time is somewhat limited here, and we're just coming up to the 10 minutes. I know you have a section dealing specifically with Bill C-42.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Good afternoon, everyone. This is meeting number 54 of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

It is Wednesday, October 24, 2012. This afternoon we are continuing our consideration of Bill C-42, an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act .

We have two witnesses before us today. Hon. Warren Allmand is a spokesman for the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, and he was also a former solicitor general here in Canada.

Yvonne Séguin is the executive director of Groupe d'aide et d'information sur le harcèlement sexuel au travail de la province de Québec. We welcome you here. Madame Robichaud is a board member of the said group. Welcome.

We look forward to your opening comments. Mr. Allmand, you know how the process works. We hope you will be open to some questions after your opening statement.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

But should it not do so? After all, it is in fact that issue that forced the drafting of Bill C-42. People want to change the culture, they want to establish some kind of ethics, a code of conduct thanks to which there will be fewer problems of that type in future.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

My next question is for Mr. Jolicoeur. Perhaps I will come back to you afterwards, Mr. MacMillan.

Mr. Jolicoeur, I would like to talk about gender equality within the RCMP, where harassment cases did in fact lead to the creation of Bill C-42. Tell me not only how this bill will correct the perception that people now have of the culture within the RCMP, but also how the work environment needs to change attitudes within that police force. At first blush, there is no incentive, for example, to have women promoted to higher levels. And yet, that could have had a direct impact on the culture. Once again, regarding promotions and things of that nature, all discretionary power is being left in the hands of the commissioner or Treasury Board

What is your opinion on that, Mr. Jolicoeur?

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to start with Mr. MacMillan.

Should the amendments to the act proposed in Bill C-42 be adopted, are the provisions of the RCMP Code of Conduct sufficient to make the management of complaints more transparent?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Does Bill C-42 create that balance, in your opinion?

[C/Supt Craig MacMillan]

There are factors to be taken into account in the individual case but it's not necessarily automatic termination. It was when I started on the job, but medical evidence has become more and more predominant in the processes and in what happens.

We recently had a case of a senior NCO who was dismissed as a result of a shoplifting case. When you get into intent and what was evolving, PTSD, post-traumatic stress disorder, there are factors coming in. As a profession, policing needs to do a better job in general on how we respond to misconduct. I was surprised when I looked into it. In one major department on the west coast, impaired driving can get you a reprimand. In another department, maybe in central Canada, it can get you suspended for 45 days, and it might get you demoted. In the RCMP it's going to average seven to 10 days' suspension without pay.

Policing in itself does not necessarily have an agreed-upon approach to specific types of sanctions.

One of the comments I would make is when you talk about integrity, assuming we have common ground on exactly what's captured by that term, yes, it's serious, and yes, it should be dealt with in a serious way, but whether that would necessarily mean a formal process in every instance, under Bill C-42 that would mean a dismissal case.

We would have everything available under dismissal, which we don't have now, to be dealt with at the most appropriate level. When I hear about independence and objectivity the difficulty is that you've got to balance those things. You can't have something completely independent, because when you introduce that, you're taking it way far away from where the person has personal knowledge and understanding. I get the objectivity component. You want to make sure there's a check there to make sure appropriate sanctions are being imposed.

[C/Supt Craig MacMillan]

I definitely agree it's too cumbersome, but we're in that catch-22 where we want to have any serious integrity issue dealt with formally. When you start talking that language in our current process, it would just come to a halt. It's not moving that fast right now, but if you're saying every integrity issue has to go into a formal hearing....

Under Bill C-42 we have the ability to have increased levels of sanctions imposed at a lower level, so we should have more flexibility with that.

I have seen discipline ebb and flow to a certain degree. I'm no expert, but I would say that to some degree it's a reflection of social views as well.

For example, impaired driving or shoplifting at one time were considered to result in automatic firing. It's not considered to be that way anymore. There are mitigating factors. But in the case of shoplifting, I do see us moving back in the direction where it could result in termination.

[C/Supt Craig MacMillan]

I will answer your question in two parts.

There is some sensitivity around the role of adjudicator. As it's set up under the current act, it's a quasi-judicial role. Rolling in and saying that they have it all wrong, that they have to do everything differently from now on, and this is how they're going to judge those cases isn't quite how it unfolds.

What I currently do is read each formal decision that comes out—I'm only talking about formal decisions; I'm not talking about informal decisions—as part of examining the case and the direction in which it was going. A range of sanctions are usually available, so you can know whether it's within the expected range of sanctions.

We publish an annual report, which includes all the formal discipline cases that have been adjudicated and the sanctions that were imposed. We're in our fourth year. That's made available to the minister. It's available on our website, so it can be accessed by external parties.

That's part of the process we go through in showing what dispositions we've been imposing for certain sanctions.

There are going to be disagreements over certain cases. I can't speak to Mr. Plecas's report. I've read the report, but I don't have the substance of the specific cases he's talking about.

My general sense is that we don't have integrity cases that aren't being dealt with seriously. But if there's a structural issue why we're not seeing more cases in the formal process, it's probably for some of the reasons that were discussed. The minute you put it into that formal process, and as I stated before, you're talking months and years, there might be some inclination to try to deal with it, to get the member back to work. It's not a career-ending thing that's happened.

Bill C-42 would get rid of that bottleneck. Right now if it's more than a reprimand, you're into a formal hearing. Now your local line officer should be able to deal with it.

I understand the point about objectivity and independence of the local decision-making, but that's inconsistent with the trend in reforms and policing generally to try to have your appropriate managers deal with it. We will build in checks and balances so it isn't a matter of “my best friend” or “I don't like that guy or gal” that's going to be taking effect. We'll have checks in there to make sure Canadians know an appropriate sanction was considered or applied.

Another minor but important element is that in a public complaint context, Bill C-42 would permit the RCMP to disclose to the public complainant the measures or discipline that will have been opposed. That's a historical issue that has caused us some difficulty. Now they can be formally told this is what happened as a result of their complaint.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

You talked about the perception of the RCMP by the population, in connection with human resources. Bill C-42 would help to improve the perception...

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you very much.

Mr. MacMillan, before I turn the rest of my time over to Mr. Norlock, could you comment on a couple of things? I'm not sure if you were here for Mr. Kennedy's testimony with regard to the new civilian review and complaints commission. Could you comment on some of his opinions, and if you agree or disagree?

Perhaps you could also tell us from where you are and what you have seen in terms of dealing with RCMP discipline, with member discipline, and the adjudication services, if Bill C-42 will help and will have a positive effect on the RCMP as well as Canadians' trust in them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Kennedy.

Our time in this first hour has come to a close.

We want to thank both of you, Mr. Plecas and Mr. Kennedy, for your submissions today, and for your attendance via video conference and your presence.

We're going to suspend for about one minute to allow Mr. Kennedy to make his exit and to invite our other guests to take their place.

In our second hour, we're going to continue our consideration of Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts. We're hearing from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police today.

We have Chief Superintendent Craig MacMillan, who returns with a little different hat today as the director general of adjudicative services. We also have Alain Jolicoeur, chair of the audit committee.

I would invite each of you to make a brief opening statement, and then we'll proceed with a round of questioning by members of the committee.

Mr. Jolicoeur.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I need to clarify a couple of things for the record.

Many of the recommendations in Mr. O'Connor's report are in Bill C-42, and I'm reading from the bill:

45.39 (1) Subject to sections 45.4 and 45.42, the Commission is entitled to have access to any information under the control, or in the possession, of the Force that the Commission considers is relevant to the exercise of its powers, or the performance of its duties and functions, under Parts VI and VII.

We move along to where it says:

45.4 (1) In this section and sections 45.41 to 45.48, “privileged information” means information that is subject to....

It lists client-lawyer privilege, the witness protection program, the security of Canadians, and then medical information. Even if that is deemed to be privileged, that decision would then go to:

...a former judge of a superior court of a province or the Federal Court or an individual who is a member of a prescribed category of individuals to review the information and make observations to the Commission and the Commissioner.

I do understand, Mr. Kennedy, that you think the commission should have complete unfettered access at all times to all the information. There is some protection for all Canadians, that they are innocent until proven guilty. There is some protection for Canadians regarding privileged information.

With regard to when investigations that the commission would be looking at when they cross over to criminal investigations, it would appear that you would agree they should be suspended. You're just saying that you believe the commission should have the ability to say that, and the commissioner should have no ability to say that. I guess, under this bill, it would also give the commissioner of the RCMP the ability to say, “This is a criminal investigation. We're going to move it now to...”. If it's a serious incident, there are several processes to set up, whereby there will be investigations.

I think that we are in agreement that with the spirit and intent of this new bill—and Mr. Plecas, I'll come to you as well—we are moving forward with some much-needed changes to the RCMP. We're giving the commission many more powers, tremendous powers that they've not had before, as well as the commissioner, the ability to do his or her job.

Mr. Plecas, you said things like, the desire to be remedial is so strong, that there's a high level of tolerance for misbehaviour. When you look at modernizing the disciplinary processes whereby the RCMP right now are able to discipline complaints of lesser seriousness, do you think that with the ability to deal with things at a less serious level, it will send the message? It's like the broken window analogy, where you deal with things immediately and you deal with things, sometimes with education, sometimes with mediation, sometimes with discipline. Will it send a signal. Do you think your research shows that there would be an effect? Would members see that accountability is now required under this new act?

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Kennedy, in the bill, proposed new clause 45.74 provides that the new commission must suspend any inquiry at the request of the RCMP commissioner if that person considers that the inquiry interferes with an ongoing criminal investigation.

You have a lot of experience in this area. Honestly, are you in favour of that provision in Bill C-42, or do you think it interferes with the autonomy of the commission that is going to be created?

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Plecas and Mr. Kennedy, I want to thank you for having come to share your point of view on Bill C-42 with us. We greatly appreciate it.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Yes, I think most people would probably agree with that.

One of the things they're trying to do with Bill C-42 is push the disciplinary authority down to the lowest possible level, presumably to speed it up and so on.

In your reviews of this process, did you look at that at all with respect to the training required down to the detachment commander level? Whether it's a corporal or a staff sergeant, whoever is commanding the detachment and has the authority to administer discipline would presumably need some kind of training and guidance to make him or her more effective.

[Paul Kennedy, As an Individual]

I certainly want to thank you for offering me the opportunity to comment on Bill C-42.

I will be making comments with respect to parts VI and VII, which deal with the civilian review and complaints, as found at approximately page 35 of the bill.

To be effective and credible, a review body must, as of right, be able to access any information held by the RCMP that it deems necessary and relevant. The provisions of Bill C-42, at pages 40 to 44, establish an elaborate regime that authorizes the commissioner of the RCMP to withhold from examination and review by the civilian review body a broad range of privileged information. The proposed regime calls for the designation of a third party, who will be afforded access to the information, and, following receipt of submissions, will offer observations concerning the relevance of the information to the review undertaken by the civilian review body. Throughout the entire process, the review body will be kept in the dark as to the nature of any information that it has in fact requested.

I envisage that these provisions would have greatest application in respect of the federal mandate of the RCMP as it pertains to provincial, interprovincial, and international organized crime, economic crime, terrorism, and a host of investigations that entail collaboration with foreign agencies both in the police and national security areas.

The scheme as outlined in the proposed legislation is a direct repudiation of the policy recommendations made by Justice O'Connor of the Ontario Court of Appeal, who sat as a commissioner on the Arar inquiry, as well as the observations of Mr. Brown in respect of his task force report of December 14, 2007, on governance and cultural change in the RCMP. The existence of such a regime in the legislation fails to take note of the abuse to which such claims of privilege can be put by the RCMP, which abuse was a subject of severe criticism by Justice Major, formerly of the Supreme Court of Canada, in the Air India inquiry. This provision also stands in stark contrast to the power of access afforded the Security intelligence Review Committee in respect of information held by CSIS.

Of some concern as well are the provisions of proposed section 45.74 as found at page 64 of the bill. Proposed subsection 45.74(1) authorizes the chair of the civilian review body to:

suspend an investigation, review or hearing with respect to a complaint if, in the Commission’s opinion, continuing it would compromise or seriously hinder an ongoing criminal investigation or proceeding.

Proposed subsection 45.74(2) covers the same factual situation, but states that the chair of the civilian review body shall—it's mandatory—suspend the process if “requested to do so in writing by the Commissioner” of the RCMP.

One must ask oneself how much credibility the civilian review body would have in the public eye were it to have its review process terminated by a letter authored by the head of the organization over which it purports to exercise review. I would submit that it would have no credibility.

The bill provides for service standards respecting time limits with which the review body will deal with complaints. Other than a provision found in proposed section 45.63, which is on page 57 of the bill, the RCMP has no firm timeframes. The only obligation imposed on the RCMP is to respond as soon as feasible. Inordinate and unjustifiable delay was the hallmark of the RCMP during the four-plus years that I was chair of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP. I should note it wasn't just because I was the chair. When I was there I inherited a situation where there were backlogs of five years. The first case I signed was 10 years old. It was a cell death case and I was writing a letter to the family members of someone who had died 10 years before. It was not a very good situation.

I believe that an essential role of civilian review is to restore and maintain the public's confidence in the police. Delay in resolving complaints erodes the review body's ability to fulfill that function.

I believe that the chair of the review body should be appointed for a fixed non-renewable term. Ideally, the chair should be an officer of Parliament, in light of the national role the RCMP fulfills in the three territories and eight provinces.

Thank you for your kind attention.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Good afternoon, everyone. This is meeting number 53 of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, on Monday, October 22, 2012. Today we are continuing our consideration of Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

In our first hour, we will hear from Mr. Paul Kennedy, who is appearing as an individual. He has been in the Department of Public Safety in the past.

Also, by video conference from Upper Fraser, British Columbia, we have Darryl Plecas, Royal Canadian Mounted Police research chair and the director of the Centre for Public Safety and Criminal Justice Research at the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of the Fraser Valley. He is also appearing as an individual today.

I would invite each of you to make your opening comments. Mr. Kennedy, I would invite you to go first. Then we will proceed with rounds of questioning from all parties and from different individuals around the table.

Welcome, Mr. Kennedy. Welcome, Mr. Plecas.

Mr. Kennedy, go ahead, please.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Just so we're clear, Bill C-42 will not affect the work you do and your ability to continue to have external review processes of decisions.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

I see, so it could actually be the complainants within the RCMP.

What I'm quite pleased with in Bill C-42 is that it looks like there's a real modernization of the way discipline is dealt with. A move more towards education, towards dealing with things immediately, conflict resolution—some of the basic tools that most human resource managers have in just about any organization in the country.

Do you anticipate fewer appeals, more satisfaction of outcomes, and fewer cases going to an adjudication board? Do you anticipate that things would result in a more satisfactory manner for all parties?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

And thank you, Ms. Ebbs and Mr. Paradiso, for being here with us today.

I think for a lot of Canadians watching, it can be a bit confusing—all the different review boards and types of processes whereby the RCMP are able to file a grievance, or even further back, if there's discipline required. I think for most people the entire process is a bit confusing.

I'll tell you what I understand it to be, and you can tell me if I'm confusing things as they are currently. Then we can compare and contrast what the process will be under Bill C-42 and the role you will continue to play.

Our understanding is that if discipline is required for a specific member of the RCMP, many times it's not been able to be dealt with in a quick and efficient way. It has to go to an adjudication board, and it can take quite a long time for that to be determined. If the member is not satisfied, that's when it comes to you.

Am I correct?

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

How exactly will the reform set out in Bill C-42 change the process? Will you have the authority to do more than just make recommendations? In other words, which changes will affect you the most?

[Catherine Ebbs]

As I just explained, we know that the commissioner accepts our recommendations in the majority of cases. Under the current legislation—and this will not change after Bill C-42 is passed—if the commissioner ever decides not to accept our recommendations, he must provide his reasons in writing. That is the current procedure.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

To your mind, will Bill C-42 lead to a fairer and more equitable process?

[Catherine Ebbs]

No, not before Bill C-42 was drafted.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Ebbs and Mr. Paradiso, thank you for joining us today. It's really great to have you here, especially since I live in Quebec and don't know a lot about the RCMP's systems. We don't have as much access to that information in my province. It's wonderful to learn more and find out how it all works. More specifically, it is fascinating to see how the ERC operates now and how it will operate after Bill C-42 is passed, since you will be affected.

In fact, I read some of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act as regards the ERC and its operation.

Before Bill C-42 was drafted, were you consulted about the proposed changes to the ERC?

Combating Terrorism Act

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in this House about Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Security of Information Act.

The official opposition is opposed to this bill because it will not solve any of the problems related to terrorism and it rides roughshod over civil liberties and values that are very dear to Canadians. Once again, the Criminal Code would be amended by the government, when there are already provisions that make it possible to protect society by investigating and detaining persons who commit offences. I am referring here to part II.1 and sections 83.01 to 83.33 of the Criminal Code. Moreover—and this is what is most worrisome, in my opinion—this bill creates an imbalance between security and the most fundamental rights that exist in society.

I will remind members of the four objectives of Bill S-7. First, it would amend the Criminal Code in order to include investigative hearings and recognizance with conditions. Second, it would make changes to the Canada Evidence Act. A judge could order the public disclosure of potentially sensitive information concerning a trial or an accused person once the appeal period is over. Third, new offences would be created in the Criminal Code concerning individuals who have left or attempted to leave Canada for the purpose of committing a terrorist act. Finally, the Security of Information Act would also be amended. The maximum penalty for harbouring an individual who committed or is liable to commit a terrorist act would be longer.

To begin with, one wonders why this bill was introduced in the Senate at first reading. That is always a legitimate question, and I hope that later in this debate, the government will give us an answer. Moreover, I would point out that my hon. colleague, the member for Gatineau and the justice critic for the official opposition, asked the same question in the House on October 15.

Secondly, I am confused about what motivated the government to introduce Bill S-7. I am going to read the remarks made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice in the speech she gave on October 15, 2012.

Since the horrific events of 9/11, the absence of terrorist violence on Canadian territory does not preclude the possibility of a terrorist attack. Canada's solidarity with the international community of nations in the fight against terrorism has rendered Canada a potential target.

I am troubled by such statements because, since 2007, nothing has happened in Canada. The country has not been subject to terrorist attacks. Leading Canadians to believe that our country could be a target for terrorist acts and then using that argument to put in place a legal arsenal that is very questionable in terms of our civil liberties and legal rights—we will talk about this later—is not the right approach. The NDP believes that terrorism will not be fought on the legislative field but, rather, by improving intelligence gathering and the sharing of information among the various intelligence agencies.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice went on to say the following:

It is our responsibility to lay down the rules by which terrorism is fought. We are responsible for tracing the difficult line between combatting terrorism and preserving liberties in a way that is effective and gives clear guidance to those charged with combatting terrorism on the ground.

Once again, I would like to express my disagreement with the hon. member. I repeat: this bill creates an imbalance between fundamental rights and security.

I would like to draw the House's attention to some provisions of this bill that could infringe on the rights of children. I would also like to talk about those that would be a welcome improvement in terms of intelligence gathering and the sharing of information among the various intelligence agencies in Canada, which are found in clauses 4 to 8 of this bill.

First, I am going to read the words of the hon. member for Gatineau with regard to Bill S-7 and the youth criminal justice system. These questions should be of great interest to all members of the House.

What will we do about minors living in these kinds of situations? Who will have precedence? Will it be the youth courts, which usually have exclusive jurisdiction over children under the age of 18? Will those provisions take precedence? There is a great deal of concern here. What rights are there? What do we do about the right not to incriminate oneself? What need is there for us to impose this kind of direction on a system in which we have no evidence of this kind of need?

A distinction must be made between a habitual criminal and a young person whose parents have forced him or her to commit a crime. That is not at all the same thing. I have the same questions for the government again today.

Based on Senate committee evidence, the bill clearly violates Canada's international obligations regarding the protection of children's rights.

Kathy Vandergrift, chair of the board of directors of the Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children, has expressed some reservations about detaining minors, especially considering the Convention on the Rights of the Child and other international agreements signed by Canada. She suggested amending the bill to ensure that it complies with international laws that apply to people under the age of 18. She said, and I quote:

The Paris Principles emphasize using detention only as a last resort, not as the primary response to evidence of unlawful recruitment activities. Recent research in Australia documents the negative impacts of even short times in detention for the healthy development of young people.

I would now like to focus on one particular aspect of clauses 4 to 8 of the bill. Those clauses create a new Criminal Code offence: leaving Canada or attempting to leave Canada for the purpose of committing certain terrorism offences.

My hon. colleague from Toronto—Danforth very clearly explained the problems associated with those provisions. I would like to quote something he said in this House on October 15, 2012, regarding border security and controls. This issue is of particular concern to me, since my riding of Brome—Missisquoi has an airport and border crossings.

At the moment, we all know there are no exit controls at all the borders, notably at airports, other than no-fly lists for those deemed to be a threat to aviation. Testimony before the Senate made it clear that co-operation protocols or memorandums of understanding would be needed among CSIS, the RCMP and the CBSA.

Mr. Fadden, the director of CSIS, went further and noted that would have to extend likely to CATSA, the agency of the Department of Transport that regulates security. How these protocols will be developed and what kind of accountability there will be for their operation remains a concern especially because the RCMP, a key link in the inter-agency collaboration that will be needed here, has been shown by both the Arar and the Air India inquiries to be an agency that suffers from lack of accountability and inappropriate oversight mechanisms. Yet, with the government's Bill C-42, we see that it has no intention of acting on the Arar commission's carefully thought through recommendations for RCMP accountability and oversight.

Perhaps the government could provide some answers today to this important question raised by my honourable colleague.

I want to list the risks and flaws associated with this bill. This bill would allow individuals who have not been charged with any crime to be imprisoned for up to 12 months or subjected to strict recognizance conditions. The NDP believes that this is contrary to the core values of our justice system. The provisions of this bill could be used for purposes other than to combat terrorism, such as to target individuals engaged in protest activities.

In closing, this bill to combat terrorism raises too many key questions with regard to protecting our fundamental rights and our civil liberties. The presumption of innocence, the right not to incriminate oneself, the right to be told quickly what we are accused of and the right to defend ourselves against those charges are essential concepts in a society where the rule of law prevails.

Accordingly, the NDP firmly believes that neither combating terrorism nor preventing terrorism should jeopardize these fundamental rights and civil liberties. For all these reasons, the NDP is opposed to this bill.

[Catherine Ebbs]

It is true that there are delays in the system at the present time. Bill C-42 creates the opportunity for the force to renew and modernize their internal processes, and one focus in that development will be streamlining processes.

I think that's a very worthwhile exercise. It will also be important to ensure that the principles that exist now will continue in the streamlining process, which include that the process be fair, open, and consistent, and hopefully, with the new process, more timely.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

There has been some criticism in the past, at least, about the length of time it takes to get discipline or whatever sanction is imposed through all these systems.

How do you see Bill C-42 improving the length of time it takes? Maybe you have a case file example, not necessarily naming specifics, where you see the timeframe to process a discipline that moves right up to your level being improved by Bill C-42.

[Catherine Ebbs]

In the new system, under Bill C-42, there will be a provision that if the conduct board dismisses and the member appeals, there is no stay of that decision.

[Catherine Ebbs]

The disciplinary process starts with a review. You are talking about the new process under Bill C-42.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have been chair of the RCMP External Review Committee for seven years, since 2005.

I'm pleased to have Mr. David Paradiso, our executive director and senior counsel, here with me.

I'd like to begin by reading a short presentation.

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, I am pleased to appear before you as the chair of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police External Review Committee or ERC.

The ERC has a vested interest in Bill C-42, and I am delighted at the opportunity to explain our position on the matter.

The RCMP External Review Committee, or ERC, was created in 1986 to provide RCMP management and their regular and civilian staff with an independent, arm's-length labour relations tribunal. For almost 25 years the ERC has provided the RCMP with an objective and neutral case review service, delivering to it extremely specialized expertise. Equally important, the ERC also offers the general public a unique window into the labour dispute mechanisms of the RCMP.

The RCMP is the only non-unionized police force in Canada. Therefore, the ERC's independence from the internal processes is essential to assuring that grievances and disciplinary rulings are examined in a fair and completely neutral manner.

We conduct a full, impartial review. In all matters referred to it, the ERC bases its review on the record before it. This includes all of the original documents, submissions of the parties, and the decision made. In this respect, we operate somewhat like a court of appeal, as we only conduct our review on the record of evidence. However, unlike an appeal court, our reports are not rulings, only recommendations; our word is not law. We prepare recommendations and findings that are given to the parties as well as to the Commissioner of the RCMP. The law requires that the commissioner consider our recommendations but is not bound by them. The final say in all cases resides with the RCMP commissioner.

Historically, the commissioner's acceptance rate of ERC recommendations is in the range of approximately 85%. If the commissioner decides not to follow them, the commissioner is required to explain in writing why our recommendations were not followed.

Now to the subject at hand, Bill C-42.

The proposed legislation provides the force with the authority to create and implement a restructured discipline system and grievance system. Under Bill C-42, the disciplinary process would be streamlined and senior managers would be given a wider range of options to sanction members immediately. Severe cases would still be referred to an internal conduct board. It has been proposed that the board would now have discretion to resolve some cases without a formal hearing.

As for the grievance system, the force is going to develop an entirely new system, the details of which won't be known until changes have been made and Bill C-42 has been passed.

We are glad to be able to contribute to renewed and streamlined RCMP processes. Regardless of the changes the government deems necessary, the ERC's approach will not change. The ERC endeavours to provide RCMP staff and leadership with every protection under the law and to ensure both parties are always on equal footing in the eyes of the law.

To most of us, the RCMP is a national institution and one of the world's best known police forces. For the thousands of regular members, civilian members, and public servants, it is also their workplace. We know that the quality of the workplace has a direct impact on the quality of the services rendered. For 25 years, the ERC has added objectivity and clarity to the resolution of workplace disputes within the RCMP.

Now more than ever, an independent outside vision is crucial to assure both management and members that the internal processes are solid, and to assure Canadians that the RCMP takes its employer responsibilities seriously.

Thank you for this opportunity. I would now be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

[Ian McPhail]

Frankly, I think what's being done now is quite important. Let me give you an example.

We've seen complaints over incidents that took place five, seven, and ten years ago, where records, not unreasonably, haven't been fully maintained. There's no reason that commission funds should be expended in investigating these long-dead complaints. What Bill C-42 does by setting a time limit, but giving the commission the authority to vary or to waive that time limit in cases where we believe it's in the public interest to do so, I think is a very good balance.

[Ian McPhail]

I wouldn't say that we were intimately involved. As an independent agency, it's quite correct that there be some separation. That having been said, on operational matters as to how Bill C-42 would affect the workings of the commission, we were consulted, yes.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Okay. That's standard.

Can you talk about any consultation that you had in the development or implementation of Bill C-42? Were you intimately involved in that?

[Ian McPhail]

It's not necessary that it take place in Bill C-42. It could take place by regulation, by ministerial direction, or by the RCMP adopting service standards in terms of dealing with public complaints. All we're saying is, they should be in place.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

With Bill C-42, which is going to hopefully streamline that process, do you see that turning into written and sort of laid-down service standards for the RCMP in this area?

[Ian McPhail]

I'm very pleased to answer both of those questions.

First of all, in terms of independence, Bill C-42, in my opinion, actually increases the independence of the commission by giving it the expanded powers that I discussed earlier, and in addition, as a practical matter, flowing from Bill C-42 will be stabilized and modestly increased funding.

It's also interesting how the increased cooperation and responsibilities towards the contracting provinces also contribute to the independence of the commission, because when the commission has to report and justify itself to additional bodies, the commission is thereby, by that very process, given increased autonomy.

In terms of how Bill C-42 responds to the concerns of the contracting provinces, it does so in a number of ways. To begin with, when a complaint is received, a notice of that complaint will be sent to the review agency in the appropriate province. Copies of all the reports will be provided to the policing minister in the appropriate province. This is particularly beneficial, because—remembering how the RCMP is really acting in seven of the ten provinces as the provincial police force as well as the national police force—when a complaint is made that may be quite newsworthy, it's only reasonable that the provincial authorities understand how the commission has investigated and what findings it's made, what recommendations it's made. At the present time, the commission can't do that, so I think that's actually a big step forward.

Most importantly, policing itself has become more complex in recent years. There are many more joint policing operations. Just to pick an example out of the air, I can think of one where an integrated operation between the RCMP operating as the provincial police force in British Columbia worked with the Vancouver Police Department. Assuming—and this didn't happen—that a review were necessary or that complaints had been received in an instance like that under the new legislation, the CPC, or the CRCC as it will become, will be able to work jointly with its provincial counterpart in investigating that. So the provincial review body is brought right in as a full partner to the review and investigation.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Through you to the witnesses, thank you for appearing today.

I have two questions. I think what I'll do, in order to afford you the opportunity to take as much time with either one that you wish...I have two basic questions.

The first one is fairly simple and straightforward. Does Bill C-42 ensure the independence of the chair and the commission?

Second, as we know, the provinces that contract RCMP policing services have expressed concerns about the accountability of the RCMP, and they've indicated their interest in having a greater role in a compliant and review regime within their respective jurisdictions.

In your view, does Bill C-42 address their concerns?

[Ian McPhail]

I would say that the Commissioner of the RCMP has the right to withhold access to privileged information but that the commission can challenge that. And essentially, Bill C-42 provides a fairly straightforward dispute resolution process.

[Ian McPhail]

The present RCMP Act gives the commission the power to compel a witness or to require the production of a document in the course of a public inquiry. But that's not something we do or would wish to do frequently. It's cumbersome and expensive. Bill C-42 will give the commission the power to compel witnesses, to require the production of documents or information as part of a regular investigation as of right.

[Ian McPhail]

Absolutely it will. I'll just outline what the commission is currently doing and how C-42 would make a difference. The commission is currently conducting a public interest investigation into allegations of workplace harassment in the RCMP. We have all seen many articles in the media about this.

The investigation is examining the thoroughness and impartiality of the RCMP's investigation of harassment allegations, whether policies were adhered to, and whether they are adequate to deal with allegations of workplace harassment.

Approximately 70 individual submissions were received by the commission following the announcement of the investigation and a public call for submissions. The CPC also received over 1,000 files from the RCMP related to harassment issues between February 2005 and November 2007. The commission has had three experienced investigators reviewing all of these files.

We anticipate completing our report near the end of the calendar year.

Let me just put it on the record that the RCMP has cooperated absolutely fully with the commission in providing whatever information the commission has requested.

The new provisions in Bill C-42 would ensure that the commission is able to conduct its investigation even if this level of cooperation is not present.

I hope that is helpful.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. McPhail, for being here. Thank you as well to you and your staff for the good work you do in serving Canadians and serving the RCMP and public safety.

I have a very direct question that I'd like to ask you. Can you tell me if Bill C-42 will give the new complaints commission the ability to deal with harassment?

[Ian McPhail, Interim Chair, Commission for Public Complaints Against the Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I would like to thank you and the members of the committee for this opportunity to provide the observations of the CPC with respect to Bill C-42.

Both Mr. Evans and Ms. McCoy have worked very closely with me in examining Bill C-42 and its effect on the commission. I will keep my comments brief.

The work of the Marin and McDonald commissions of inquiry in the 1970s and 1980s formed the basis of the current model of civilian review of the RCMP, established in 1988. Since that time, a succession of parliamentary reports, blue ribbon task forces, and public inquiries have sought to improve on the original model, calling for stronger and more effective civilian review of the RCMP.

The RCMP is a large organization with a diverse and complex mandate and jurisdiction.

The integrated nature of its operations with other law enforcement agencies adds to this complexity, and its presence in virtually every corner of this country and abroad is unique in law enforcement circles. All of this serves to increase the visibility of the organization and its members' contacts with the public, thereby providing ever-widening opportunities for public criticism.

That is the backdrop against which Commissioner Paulson identified the serious challenges facing the RCMP.

He has suggested that the organization is on the brink of losing the public trust it needs to do its job effectively.

Today it is a widely accepted view that a strong, credible, and independent civilian review mechanism is essential to maintaining that public trust and cementing the resulting public confidence in any policing organization. It is for that reason that the RCMP and the public need a robust review regime that has the necessary authorities and resources to independently investigate and assess the facts and render credible findings when concerns are expressed by the public regarding the manner in which the RCMP is fulfilling its responsibilities.

The review regime must be able to offer constructive, remedial recommendations that address concerns both about the conduct of RCMP members in the execution of their duties and about policy, procedural, and training gaps that risk contributing to systemic problems.

I believe that Bill C-42 satisfies these requirements to a great extent.

It sets out new authorities, which will assist the new Civilian Review and Complaints Commission, or CRCC, in providing an enhanced level of remedial review. The way in which these authorities are addressed in the legislation may at first appear complex. In my view, this complexity is for the most part a necessary reflection of the current legal landscape and is in many cases consistent with procedures adopted by both the commission and by the RCMP to compensate for gaps or ambiguities in the existing legislation.

The new authorities provided for in Bill C-42 arise in five key areas. First, the bill clearly sets out the CRCC's right to access to information held by the RCMP and to determine what information is relevant to an investigation or review. Although in recent times, the RCMP has demonstrated increased cooperation with the commission in this regard, this has not always been the case. The clear definition in Bill C-42 of the CRCC's right to access RCMP information will remove ambiguity and a potential source of conflict between the two bodies. In cases where conflict nonetheless arises, the legislation provides a dispute resolution mechanism, which offers an alternative to a lengthy and expensive court process.

Second, the bill gives the CRCC the authority to self-initiate reviews into specified activities of the RCMP. This will allow the new commission to identify problems and suggest improvements to policies and procedures in advance of public complaints or emergency or crisis situations that may affect public confidence in the RCMP.

Third, the CRCC will have the ability to summon witnesses, compel oral statements, and examine records, all without having to take the extraordinary step of calling a public hearing.

Fourth, Bill C-42 enables the CRCC to work cooperatively with the provinces that contract for RCMP policing services. The new commission will be able to share information and reports with provincial ministries and provincial counterparts whenever appropriate. It will also have the authority to conduct joint investigations, reviews, or hearings with other law enforcement review bodies. I believe Bill C-42 responds in large measure to these requirements.

Finally, the bill provides the new commission with more control over the complaint process. For example, under the existing legislation there is no time limit on making a complaint. Bill C-42 imposes a one-year time limit for making a complaint while providing for the ability to extend time limits for complaints and reviews where reasonable.

While these enhancements go a long way in addressing many of the weaknesses in the current review regime, I do have some observations that the committee may wish to consider.

The first of these, which admittedly I raise out of self-interest, is the issue of immunity of the commission chair. Bill C-42 offers some immunity to CRCC members in the exercise of their powers and duties, yet no equivalent immunity is provided to the CRCC chairperson. I believe this could be easily addressed. I know I would be grateful, as would my successors, I'm sure, not to have the spectre of jail time hanging over my head every day I come to the office.

The second issue I would like to raise relates to the provisions in the bill that give the RCMP commissioner or his delegate the ability to refuse to investigate a complaint that the CRCC chair has determined is in the public interest to investigate. Under the existing RCMP Act, the RCMP does not have that ability: a chair-initiated complaint must be investigated. The justification for this limitation is plainly evident. The credibility of any civilian review process will be lost if the agency subject to review is in a position to control when investigation may or may not occur. I believe this could be easily resolved with a simple amendment.

My third issue of concern is that while the bill requires the CRCC to protect privileged information it receives from the RCMP, it does not require the RCMP to identify information as privileged. The privileged nature of the information may not be obvious on its face, especially given that the definition of privilege in the bill is non-exhaustive. The commission recognizes the importance of safeguarding privileged information. However, to ensure these safeguards are properly applied, the RCMP should be required to notify the commission when it is providing it with privileged information.

Finally, it is a generally accepted principle that for civilian review to be effective, it must be timely. The commission has adopted this principle and imposed on itself strict time limits for all phases of the complaint process. It publicly reports annually on its performance in respect of those time limits.

I am pleased to see that this concept of service standards for the CRCC is incorporated in Bill C-42. I believe service standards would be a good idea for the RCMP as well.

These observations aside, I am of the view that Bill C-42 codifies in many ways a number of practices adopted by the RCMP and the commission in recent years. I would argue that these practices are evidence of the RCMP's growing support for external review and its recognition that we're working toward the same objective—a more accountable and more trusted RCMP.

This recognition has certainly contributed to the effectiveness of the commission's work during my time as interim chair of the commission. I assure you that there has been no shortage of work.

In addition to responding to the ever-increasing volume of contacts with the public about RCMP member conduct, the commission has responded to a number of high-profile incidents such as the in-custody deaths of Raymond Silverfox, John Simon, and Clay Willey, and the actions of the RCMP in the context of the G-8 and G-20 summits.

The commission also completed a full review of RCMP policing services in the Yukon, and we continued our yearly analysis and reporting on the RCMP's use of conducted energy weapons.

The commission is currently conducting an investigation into the RCMP's handling of allegations of workplace harassment. In the context of that investigation, we have reviewed approximately 1,000 RCMP files and 70 individual public submissions regarding the issue.

In examining this information, we are looking at how the RCMP responds to complaints regarding harassment in the workplace and whether their policies are adequate to deal with those complaints. We anticipate completing our report near the end of the calendar year.

I am very proud of all of this work. I look forward to the CRCC continuing such work and being able to do even more with enhanced authorities and regularized funding. As you know, for the past several years the CPC has relied on year-to-year interim funding to carry out its mandate. This has made it particularly challenging to maintain the commission's strategic focus while ensuring a full response to significant emerging issues. I am of the view, however, that the enhanced authorities set out in Bill C-42, along with a modest increase and stabilization of funding, will set the new CRCC on firmer ground and allow it to accomplish even more for the RCMP and for Canadians.

I would be happy to respond to any questions you may have.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Good afternoon, everyone.

We are beginning a few moments late today. We just had a vote after question period in the House of Commons, and bus connections being what they are, some of our members may not be here yet. We do have a quorum, so we will begin.

This is meeting number 52 of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, on Wednesday October 17, 2012.

I would like to begin our meeting today by paying tribute and extending best wishes to Lori Bowcock, the Canadian border guard who was shot at the Peace Arch border crossing in Surrey, British Columbia, on Tuesday.

This is the first time in Canadian history that one of our border guards has been shot in the line of duty, and our committee is aware of the dangers and the risks that our Canada Border Services guards face every day. We acknowledge their bravery and commend them for protecting our country. Certainly our best wishes and our prayers are with Ms. Bowcock.

Today we are continuing our consideration of Bill C-42 an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.

In our first hour we will hear from the Commission for Public Complaints Against the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Mr. Ian McPhail is the commission's interim chair.

Our committee thanks you for attending today.

Also appearing with him is Mr. Richard Evans, senior director of operations; and Ms. Lesley McCoy, legal counsel, executive director's office.

We thank you for your presence here today. We look forward to your comments, and we invite them at this time.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Thank you very much.

We are all awaiting the beginning of our study, but actually I would also like to start the meeting by moving a motion to better clarify the central point of this study dealing with sexual harassment, as well as the role that Status of Women Canada has to play in this study.

Of course, we did our research to make sure the motion was in order.

Therefore, I'd like to present a motion.

Whereas the Standing Committee for the Status of Women has committed to taking on a study of sexual harassment in the federal workplace, Whereas it is the mandate of the committee to guide Status of Women Canada, Whereas it is the legal mandate of Status of Women Canada “to coordinate policy with respect to the status of women and administer related programs”, Be it resolved that given the severity of allegations of sexual harassment within the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) that the Standing Committee on the Status of Women call upon Status of Women Canada to take the lead in coordinating policy with respect to sexual harassment within all federal departments, including the RCMP.

The reason we're putting this motion forward—and as I mentioned, we did research to ensure this motion was permissible—is that we want to make sure the work we're doing here day in and day out is useful, that we're not only studying something for the sake of studying it but that we're also giving some guidance to Status of Women Canada as to the serious issue of sexual harassment, not only in the RCMP but across the federal public service.

We know that today we have the Treasury Board in front of us. This isn't a case of taking over the work of Treasury Board, but is a case of recognizing that Status of Women Canada has a role to play.

It's also very important to clarify and recognize that Status of Women Canada states in its own mandate that it has the capacity to coordinate policy with respect to status of women and administer related programs. It can work with other departments, and that's an issue that has raised some question in the past. I think it is critical that we look to the mandate and take that mandate as the scope of the department, and therefore the kind of role we can play.

As members of the opposition, we would like to see that we're all coming here to give some guidance and that the testimony of witnesses, such as those here today but also others who will be joining us over the next several weeks, can be used to contribute to shaping policy. That's undoubtedly what women who are facing sexual harassment want to see. They don't want to see more studies; they want to see action coming from those studies. We as committee members have a duty to make sure that the work we're doing here, using parliamentary resources, actually amounts to something, that we're taking the feedback of the witnesses we're inviting here seriously and taking it to the next level and directing some kind of action and directing Status of Women Canada to follow its mandate, which is to work with other departments.

I'm very excited to examine the new policy put forward by Treasury Board, but I also realize that one of the policies that has been put forward by the government most recently is Bill C-42, with respect to the RCMP. I've had the chance to be part of the public safety committee in the last couple of weeks, and it's quite clear that work remains to be done when it comes to defining a sexual harassment policy. What better department to do that than Status of Women Canada? What better department to take on a leading role for women in the public service and in the federal workplace than Status of Women Canada?

Again, we're not simply focusing on the RCMP, though we recognize that some of the most serious allegations have come from the RCMP. We note that leadership is required there, as well as in the broader federal civil service. We certainly hope that members around this table will support this motion, will support the need for our committee to give guidance, and will support the mandate of Status of Women Canada to work with others to provide leadership and take the leading role, a role that we can all be proud of in shaping policy when it comes to something as serious as sexual harassment in federal departments, including the RCMP.

Madam Chair, this is meant to provide a scope, a noble goal that we can work toward in this committee: to put the testimonies and the research that we receive to best use and to truly provide leadership for women and for all people who work in the federal civil service and federal departments, including the RCMP.

With that, I would like to put forward the motion. I'd be happy to hear any further discussion and reflection on the importance of defining exactly what we're doing here.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you very much for your attendance here today. It is good to hear your comments, those of members on Bill C-42 and potential impacts.

You said that under current legislation, it was very difficult to manage sexual harassment issues within the RCMP. What changes would you bring to this bill to make it easier to manage the situation? Can we get there through legislation? Is the solution not rather an internal culture change within the RCMP?

[S/Sgt Abraham Townsend]

Under the current RCMP Act and under Bill C-42, the commissioner is the final decision-maker. It has always been a frustration for our members that the external review committee only makes recommendations. Our members quite honestly have concern with that much power in one office. It has been the feedback from our members that they see that power being dispersed more broadly into an external board that would be able to make compelling recommendations as opposed to simple recommendations.

The challenge beyond the commissioner is Federal Court, judicial review. While individuals have the ability to do that, it's a limited ability. Quite honestly, in my opinion, it's not a good way to operate a human resource aspect of any organization. If you rely on judicial review as your only external point of resolution, it's a difficult way to get along as people within an organization. If in fact the legislation, Bill C-42, is amended in such a way so that some of the power the commissioner has, which is uniquely his, is dispersed to a board that is focused and unique to the RCMP, it may go a long way to serve the best interests of the organization, of Canadian people, and of the members.

[S/Sgt Abraham Townsend]

Under Bill C-42, they anticipate that when the regulation is finally built they'll be able to deal with 98% of the grievances. I won't disagree with that.

Our current grievance system has an early resolution phase that encourages alternative dispute resolution. Unfortunately, it only encourages that; it doesn't mandate it. We have paid little attention to alternative dispute resolution. That said, we have attained some really huge and good results, timeline-wise, on grievances under what we have presently.

Under Bill C-42, I believe we'll work at building a regulation that will mandate alternative dispute resolutions and facilitate a reasonable answer that will improve on what we have now.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Okay.

I'd give you half a minute, Rick, but you probably couldn't do much with it, so I'll take the half a minute and ask the question that was stated earlier—if I'm remembering it correctly. Under Bill C-42, the feeling was that 98% of the grievance cases and so on would be dealt with more quickly.

Would you share that assessment?

[S/Sgt Abraham Townsend]

Under Bill C-42, with the stay provision gone, the member would be an outsider.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

You are suggesting that nothing would effectively change for the member under Bill C-42.

[S/Sgt Abraham Townsend]

Under Bill C-42, that stay provision is eliminated, so that person would have to fight their appeal as an outsider. They would no longer be a member of the force, based on the first decision, and they would have to fight their appeal from the outside. The appeal is an internal process and the RCMP controls the timelines of the appeal.

I listened to Chief MacMillan talk about these timelines—a year to do an investigation, two years for the ERC—and I was thinking that once the allegation is made, the member controls none of these timelines. They're all internal to the RCMP.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I'm asking you what would have happened under Bill C-42.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

You asked a rhetorical question. You talked about a couple of cases, and you talked about the sexual assault that dragged on for years—the guy was ruined, and so on.

You asked what would have happened under Bill C-42. Let me ask what you think would have happened under Bill C-42.

[S/Sgt Abraham Townsend]

Since the introduction of the bill, there has been.

In fact, as recently as Friday of last week, Superintendent O'Rielly and Chief MacMillan presented to our caucus of 42. We have caucus meetings going on right now. Prior to that, shortly after the bill was introduced, we met with Superintendent O'Rielly and scoped out a process and a pattern of consultation as we look forward to new regulations.

There was no consultation on Bill C-42, but we all recognize that once the bill is out in the public venue, there will be regulations, rules, and policies that will actually make this bill operational. As recently as this morning we had discussions with the commissioner, and he again committed to the consultation. In fact, he said this won't work unless we work together.

[S/Sgt Abraham Townsend]

We were not consulted on Bill C-42.

[Staff Sergeant Abraham Townsend, National Executive, Staff Relations Representative Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and ladies and gentlemen. We thank you for the opportunity to appear before your committee today on behalf of the 24,000 regular and civilian RCMP members who serve across Canada and internationally, to provide their perspective and input.

My name is Abe Townsend. I am in my 32nd year of service. With me is Mike Casault, in his 23rd year of service. We are the national executive of the staff relations representative program.

During my service I have served in four different provinces and two territories. My duties have included general duty policing, federal policing, and major crime investigation. My last uniformed posting was as a detachment commander in Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, at the rank of staff sergeant.

I have been an elected representative since 2004. Mike has served in the province of British Columbia, and was elected to represent our members in 2008.

The staff relations representative program is the non-union labour relations program for all 24,000 members of the RCMP. The program is authorized by law, and is the officially recognized program of representation on all issues that affect the welfare and/or dignity of RCMP members.

Our program is comprised of 42 representatives, democratically elected by and from the membership in all territories and provinces. The program has its own constitution, attached to this submission as appendix A, and a formal agreement with the commissioner, attached as appendix B.

We welcome the parliamentary hearings and your consideration of our feedback in relation to Bill C-42. We were not consulted during the drafting of Bill C-42. We look forward to providing this committee with our members' perspectives as well as updates on the outcomes of your work.

While there are some aspects of Bill C-42 that we appreciate, we have some fundamental areas of concern that we wish to express on behalf of our members.

We have heard much criticism directed towards the present RCMP Act and the need to change. Unfortunately, there has been no reference to the report of Mr. Justice René Marin. His report was the framework for the RCMP's current disciplinary and grievance system. I have attached as appendix C the historical overview taken from the RCMP Internet site. The emphasis was to have discipline administered and dispensed at the lowest possible level. The 1988 act brought into play procedural fairness and natural justice. Emphasis was on identifying weaknesses and unacceptable behaviours and taking appropriate remedial action—corrective action versus punitive action. Grievance rights and processes were introduced, as was the external review committee.

We believe some managers at all levels of the organization did not do what the act encouraged and empowered them to do, and we find ourselves here today.

Accountability is no stranger to our members. As peace and public officers, they are accountable to the rule of law. Accountability touches every aspect of our job. The vast majority of our members meet and exceed these expectations.

Our members execute their duties realizing the dangerous and conflict-ridden environments in which they serve.

We realize that internal and external review may be the byproduct of honourable service.

Legislation must serve their unique interests as they serve the community.

The present act contains the necessary authorities, but they have not been utilized properly. Managers at all levels have not been held accountable for their behaviour, action, and inaction. What will change with new legislation?

Unfortunately, I can speak of instances where internal processes of the RCMP have failed individual members, and by extension the force and the public we have sworn to serve. I can speak of a young member, a single mother who endured almost a decade of suspension, only to be reinstated, after appeal, by Commissioner Paulson. I venture to say that this female member, under the provisions of Bill C-42, with the stay provision removed from the act, would no longer be employed with the RCMP. Where is the fairness?

I can speak of a female member who alleged sexual harassment and faced roadblock after roadblock in seeking resolution.

I can speak of the file of a member who was accused of sexual assault. This member was investigated by the RCMP and criminally charged. Only later was the truth revealed: there was no assault. In the meantime, the RCMP member's career and personal life were in ruins. Yes, there was a public apology by the attorney general of the province involved, but it was too late. What would happen to this member under Bill C-42?

There has to be protection for such instances. We have far too many cases of harassment left to drift aimlessly, and we have conduct investigations and decisions associated with those investigations that are delayed beyond reason—delayed by bureaucratic obstructions and avoidance. It has been my experience that these failures were not always due to faults with or restrictions imposed by the present act.

My purpose is not to focus on failure. The vast majority of our members will not come into conflict with the RCMP Act during their career—the majority will serve with distinction without internal challenge—but for the few who do, we must have legislation that will serve in a fair and constructive manner. Our managers must be trained to properly utilize the authorities available.

There has been much debate in relation to the RCMP culture. Millions of taxpayer dollars have been spent to examine the RCMP on many important issues. This is an investment in our national police force. My concern is not with the investment, but with our ability and desire to pay real attention to the recommendations of those various reports: the Brown task force and the reform implementation committee reports, the reports of Dr. Linda Duxbury, or the RCMP Pay Council report on discipline. All are reports having been made with the goal of advancing our organization.

As we focus on discipline, I am left to wonder: if the recommendations of the pay council report on discipline had been implemented when written in 2005, would the criticism and frustration we now realize have been avoided?

Bill C-42 will see the commissioner given broad authority to make rules. These rules must have accountability on outcome. We look forward to working constructively in building these rules. Principles of procedural fairness and natural justice must remain. The legislation and the rules that follow cannot simply be about dealing with the very few bad apples, but must nourish the entire orchard. We must invest through learning and development.

I would like to draw specific attention to areas of the proposed legislation. The first is grievance procedures and discipline appeals. In Bill C-42, the commissioner makes the final decision on grievance procedures and discipline appeals.

On behalf of our membership, we believe grievance procedures and appeals for discipline cases should be expedient and impartial. Further, the decision-maker should have expertise and broad experience in labour relations. We have attached appendix D for your consideration.

With regard to the code of conduct, we commend the authors of this act for their proposed section 36.2. As a member, as a former detachment commander, and as a representative, I believe that if we adhere to these principles, we will find success.

With regard to the authority under the code of conduct for investigation of warrants, our members have expressed fear and apprehension in relation to this new authority provided under proposed section 40.2 of Bill C-42. We urge your consideration: remove or amend this section as suggested in our appendix E.

On conduct boards, under proposed section 43 of Bill C-42, we believe conduct boards must be reserved for the most serious of alleged breaches of the code of conduct. In these cases, legislation should clearly articulate the implicit right to an oral hearing wherein evidence can be examined and cross-examined.

In relation to the CRCC, the enhanced authorities provided to the CRCC in Bill C-42 will only serve to reassure the Canadian public, in their eyes, of our members' accountability.

We invite external review; however, we must express our concern and objection in relation to the escalation of powers provided to the CRCC in proposed section 45.65, specifically the authority to order a statement during an investigation. While there are protections offered, we believe these protections against self-incrimination do not go far enough. We have similar concerns with proposed section 45.56.

In concluding my opening statement, I wish to make one final comment.

The “category of employee” issue has been with us for several years. We would also like to see a time when all employed in the RCMP are just that—employed under the authority of, and accountable to, the RCMP Act.

Thank you.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

I have read the provisions contained in Bill C-42 which would add new ones to the act. I was struck by proposed subsection 4(1), which is on page 16. I will read it out loud, since some of you might not have it on hand:

(4.1) A member is not entitled to have access to a standardized test used by the force, or to information concerning such a test, if in the opinion of the commissioner, its disclosure would affect its validity or continued used or would affect the results of such a test by giving an unfair advantage to any person.

I don't quite understand this subclause as worded in the bill. What is its purpose? What is it going to change or bring about within the RCMP?

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank you for being here to answer our questions. We have several of them, because this is a large bill. I am very pleased to see you here, and to hear your answers to our questions.

I tried to go through the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act over the last few days. There is a lot in there.

Bill C-42 contains many amendments to the act. If you could shed some light on a few issues for me, that would be greatly appreciated.

Under the current legislation, the commissioner has the power to hire and fire members. Under Bill C-42, the commissioner would have more power to fire or to sanction a member of the RCMP. I would like to know why this is necessary, since the commissioner already has this kind of power.

[Mark Potter]

Thank you very much.

In terms of the composition of the commission itself, Bill C-42 allows for the appointment of a chairperson, as well as up to four additional members of the commission. These are Governor in Council appointments by the government, and these are the individuals who will lead that organization and have certain powers within the context of the act.

To support these individuals there is a public agency that is made up of some 40 to 50 individuals. I believe you'll be hearing this week from Mr. McPhail, who's the current interim chair of the commission, and he can give you more details. It's a fairly robust body that exists to provide the support to conduct the investigations and to compile the information on complaints. That's the office in Ottawa.

In Surrey, B.C., they have an intake office that works with complainants to process the complaints and ensures that particularly those individuals who may not understand the process very well or need support can be assisted in preparing their written complaints so they can be submitted and reviewed by this agency.

These public servants form the bulk of the agency, conduct the investigations, and develop the reports, but ultimately, it is the chair, appointed by the government and acting independently within its legal mandate, that approves those reports and submits them.

[Chief Superintendent Craig MacMillan, Director General, Adjudicative Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for providing us the opportunity to appear before you.

I will briefly highlight how Bill C-42 will contribute to enhancing accountability and responsibility within the RCMP through the reform of certain key human resource management processes.

One of the primary concerns regarding the existing RCMP Act is that it limits the ability of a manager or supervisor to deal with incidents of misconduct. If an incident is considered to require more than a reprimand or forfeiture of one day's leave, responsibility for the case is taken out of the hands of the immediate manager, as it must be forwarded to an adjudication board for a formal hearing. There, before a board composed of three officers, an adversarial and time-consuming process of formally presenting evidence in a court-like setting occurs. Bill C-42 provides a framework that permits and empowers managers closest to the action, so to speak, to identify and respond more promptly and more effectively to the vast majority of incidents of misconduct.

Particularly important to all stakeholders and to the public is that the bill expressly articulates the purposes of the conduct regime, including a code of conduct that emphasizes the importance of maintaining the public trust and the high standard of conduct expected of members, establishing a process for dealing with contraventions in a fair and consistent manner at the most appropriate level and for the imposition of measures that are proportionate to the nature and circumstances of the contravention and, where appropriate, are educative and remedial rather than punitive.

Managers will be provided with the ability to ensure that relevant information is gathered to determine if a member has contravened the code of conduct, and, once a member has had the opportunity to provide a response to the allegations, to determine the most appropriate response.

This approach is not only consistent with how issues of misconduct are generally dealt with in the public service, it also accords with a trend in police reform in other Commonwealth jurisdictions to handle incidents of misconduct through less formalistic mechanisms.

Cases in which a member may face dismissal will be referred to conduct boards that have greater latitude to manage hearings as informally and expeditiously as the circumstances and considerations of fairness permit. During conduct proceedings, members will have access to representation from either a staff relations representative or legal counsel. Decisions on measures may be appealed to the commissioner.

When a manager has imposed a measure that includes a penalty of more than one day of pay or demotion, the member will be able to seek a review through an independent third party, the external review committee. The committee will provide a report containing findings and recommendations for the commissioner, who then makes the final decision on appeal, subject to judicial review. Timelines will be established to ensure the process is conducted in a timely fashion, including the establishment of service standards for the external review committee.

The bill also provides the commissioner with the authority to establish procedures for the investigation and resolution of harassment complaints, including sexual harassment, when the respondent is a member. This authority is necessary for the commissioner to deal with concerns that have been raised in respect of harassment in the RCMP workplace. Presently, the RCMP is required to consider complaints of harassing behaviour through two processes, one defined by the Treasury Board harassment policy and the second through the legislative provisions of the RCMP Act.

The Treasury Board harassment policy focuses on preventing and stopping harassing behaviour through early intervention in order to return the workplace to a respectful and professional state. The current RCMP Act discipline system is designed to determine if a contravention of the code of conduct has occurred, and, if so, to impose a consequence on the offending member.

The issue of relationship repair or complainant participation during investigation or hearing does not really form part of the discipline process at present. This dichotomy has resulted in an inordinate amount of time being spent trying to comply with conflicting processes in place of addressing and resolving the matter of harassment.

In addition, the RCMP is actively pursuing the establishment of a comprehensive respectful workplace program that focuses on the prevention and early resolution of harassing behaviours, which will also be bolstered by the new investigation and conflict resolution processes in Bill C-42.

During the October 3 meeting of this committee, the minister and commissioner described how the bill will provide new authorities for the commissioner to, among other things, discharge and demote members on non-disciplinary administrative grounds. A question that has been raised in relation to these authorities is whether members will be adequately protected.

First, it is important to note that these proposed authorities essentially mirror those provided to deputy heads under the Financial Administration Act and to other Canadian police executives. The authorities are remarkable in the RCMP context only in that they were not previously available to the commissioner in the proposed form. Second, it is important to note that Bill C-42 requires that these authorities be based on cause.

Finally, as with cases of misconduct, members will have access to representation and advice and will have the right to grieve these decisions, which will be subject to independent examination by the external review committee and to judicial review if necessary.

I'd also like to briefly address how the bill will support cultural change in the RCMP.

Legislation alone cannot bring about a cultural change, nor can it ultimately prevent any or all bad behaviour. However, what the bill can do is to serve as a catalyst for change.

First and foremost, the bill provides a statutory framework to ensure that members are responsible and accountable for the promotion and maintenance of good conduct in the force.

Further, it will permit and require managers to manage. Where members have not behaved consistent with expectations, managers at the most appropriate level will have both the responsibility and authority to deal with most incidents of misconduct in a timely, fair, and proportionate manner. The requirement to create and apply a professionalized, informal conflict management system will also provide members, their representatives, supervisors, and managers the ability to identify and resolve workplace issues as they arise and not let them fester. All of these factors are important to sustaining a culture of accountability and responsibility in support of a respectful workplace.

Finally, unlike the strictures of the current act, an important feature of Bill C-42 is that it provides an overall framework that enables ongoing reform and modernization of RCMP human resource processes. The ongoing ability to develop and adapt such processes based on experience and practice is a central component to enhancing accountability and assuring the continuing transformation of the RCMP.

It will be our pleasure to provide further information and response to any question the committee may have.

Thank you.

[Mark Potter, Director General, Policing Policy Directorate, Law Enforcement and Policing Branch, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. It's a pleasure to be here again.

You've already introduced the five of us at the table. I'd just like to say that we and others have been heavily involved in developing this legislation, and we very much appreciate the opportunity to meet before this committee and to discuss Bill C-42 with all of you today.

As you heard from the minister on October 3, this bill has three main components. I will provide an overview of the first two, namely, the strengthened RCMP public complaints regime and the establishment of a statutory framework for handling criminal investigations of serious incidents involving RCMP members.

My RCMP colleague, Chief Superintendent Craig MacMillan, will speak to the RCMP's modernized discipline, grievance, and human resource management framework.

Before going into the substance of the bill, I think it would be helpful to provide some context around oversight of RCMP conduct. When an incident or event occurs that puts into question the appropriateness of an RCMP member's conduct, up to three distinct processes can be triggered. Although each process is distinct, sometimes all three are engaged. Permit me to quickly outline each of these three processes.

The first is a public complaint, which is usually investigated in the first instance by the RCMP. If the complainant is not satisfied with the RCMP's handling of the complaint, which only happens with about 15% of all complaints, he or she can seek further review by the current Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, or CPC.

The second is internal RCMP conduct or discipline investigations. Similar to that of all other police services in Canada, the internal discipline regime within the RCMP is based on its code of conduct. If an officer conducts himself in such a way that may be contrary to the RCMP's code of conduct, for example, by behaving in a manner that is disgraceful or disorderly or that could bring discredit on the force, an internal review process is undertaken.

If the officer is not satisfied with that outcome, the RCMP external review committee, an independent review agency similar to the CPC, will review the case and make recommendations to the RCMP commissioner, who renders the final decision. Judicial review is available should the officer wish to appeal further.

The third element of oversight is the investigation of police conduct that could lead to criminal charges against an RCMP officer. It's important to note that a criminal investigation will take precedence over the other two processes, which may be placed on hold until the conclusion of the criminal case.

To recap, you could have a single incident that gives rise to one, two, or all three processes, namely: public complaint, internal discipline, and criminal investigation.

Bill C-42 enhances and streamlines each of these three processes, and in so doing contributes to improved oversight, accountability, and, ultimately, public confidence in the RCMP.

In terms of the public complaints regime, this bill modernizes it in several important ways. First, it creates a new independent complaints commission—the civilian review and complaints commission for the RCMP, or the CRCC—in order to strengthen and bring the RCMP's complaints regime in line with other modern provincial, federal, and international review bodies. The chairperson of the new commission, acting independently within the framework of the CRCC's legal mandate, reports to Parliament through the Minister of Public Safety. The minister is required to table the commission's annual report in each House of Parliament within the first 15 sitting days after receiving the report. This is a long-standing statutory obligation that would be continued under Bill C-42.

I would note that this reporting structure is common among review bodies and respects the RCMP accountability structure, where the commissioner is responsible for the control and management of the RCMP under the direction of the minister.

The CRCC will have strengthened investigative powers similar to that of a superior court of record whenever it undertakes a complaint investigation or a public hearing of a complaint. The CRCC will be able to summon and enforce the attendance of witnesses, compel witnesses to give oral or written evidence under oath, and compel the production of any documents or material considered relevant and necessary for the investigation.

Bill C-42 provides the CRCC with access to all RCMP information that it deems relevant to the performance of its duties and functions, including national security information as well as privileged information, with two important qualifications.

In terms of privileged information, which is sensitive and requires a higher standard of protection, the commission will now have access to such information if it is both relevant and necessary to the work of the commission. To my knowledge, no other police review body has access to privileged information by statute.

This regime sets a new standard in this regard. The commission will not have access to cabinet confidences. This is consistent with other federal and provincial review bodies.

Currently the CPC's work is centred on complaints. It does not have the legislative authority to conduct reviews of RCMP policies and procedures without a complaint first being lodged. Under Bill C-42 the CRCC will have the ability to review RCMP activities to assess whether these were carried out in accordance with legislation, regulations, and policies.

Such reviews will serve as an early warning signal, identifying issues or trends before they become the subject of a complaint or delving into matters for which there is often limited direct interaction with the public, for example, national security activities. These CRCC reviews will examine the RCMP's compliance with legislation and policies and make recommendations to the RCMP commissioner and the Public Safety minister through public reports.

Further, the bill addresses provincial and territorial calls for enhanced RCMP accountability to contract jurisdictions. As you would have heard from the Minister of Public Safety, the proposed changes to the RCMP Act are designed to enhance the accountability of the RCMP and to support the implementation of the new 20-year contract agreements entered into with the provinces and territories this year, which include enhanced governance and engagement.

Provinces and territories that contract RCMP police services have told us that they want to be kept apprised of police complaints in their jurisdictions. Accordingly, provincial police complaints bodies, which exist in all provinces, will be notified whenever a complaint against the RCMP is filed in contract jurisdictions.

In addition, contract jurisdictions will receive the CRCC's reports on relevant individual complaints in their respective jurisdictions, tailored annual reports, and reports on relevant policy reviews.

Separate from the complaints process, Bill C-42 will increase the transparency and accountability of criminal investigations into serious incidents involving RCMP members, essentially addressing long-standing concerns regarding the RCMP investigating its own members.

A serious incident is any incident in which the actions of an RCMP member may have resulted in death or serious injury or is of significant public interest that it merits an independent criminal investigation. In these latter cases, the Commissioner of the RCMP, the Minister of Public Safety, or the appropriate provincial or territorial minister will determine if the public interest is such that an external investigation is required.

There will be a clear, legally mandated three-step hierarchy for handling criminal investigations involving RCMP members. First, investigations into these incidents will be referred, subject to the province's approval, to an independent provincial civilian investigative body that has as its mandate to undertake criminal investigations of incidents involving police officers. Civilian investigative bodies currently exist in B.C., Alberta, and Nova Scotia. Manitoba has also passed legislation to allow for such a body.

Second, if these provincial bodies are unable to take on the investigation, or in those provinces where they do not exist, the RCMP will be required to refer the investigation to another separate police service where feasible. For example, for a serious incident involving an RCMP member in Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, the case would be referred to another police service, such as the Regina Police Service.

Finally, as a last resort, when neither of these options apply, the RCMP would undertake the investigation itself and would be required to take special measures to ensure the investigation is unbiased and impartial. It is important to note that when these criminal investigations are undertaken by the RCMP or another separate police service, an independent observer could be appointed from the province or the new commission to ensure the impartiality of the investigation.

That concludes my overview of the proposed strengthened RCMP public complaints regime and the new statutory requirements placed on the RCMP regarding serious incident investigations involving RCMP officers.

Let me now turn to my RCMP colleague, who will outline the provisions for the new RCMP HR management framework.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Good afternoon, everyone.

This is meeting number 51 of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security on Monday, October 15, 2012. Today we are going to continue our consideration of Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.

On our first panel of witnesses we have, from the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Mark Potter, director general for the policing policy directorate, law enforcement and policing branch, and Anita Dagenais, senior director of the RCMP policy division, law enforcement and policing branch.

Welcome.

Also, from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we have Chief Superintendent Craig MacMillan, director general, adjudicative services, and Superintendent Michael O'Rielly, director of the legislative reform initiative.

From the Treasury Board Secretariat, we have Carl Trottier, executive director of strategic compensation management, compensation and labour relations sector.

We're looking forward to your comments.

We'll extend the time for our first panel to ensure that our witnesses and members have ample opportunity for questions and answers. We are going to go beyond 4:30, if that would be all right. We have three different groups here.

Also, I see Mr. Potter here. I recall that the last time Mr. Potter was here in the spring we started three-quarters of an hour late, I think, and we had votes and we went back and forth. His day was cut short then, so we certainly don't want to do that again today.

We welcome you.

Mr. Potter, perhaps we will begin with you.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my remarks today will be on a series of clauses in Bill S-7, clauses 4 through 8, which would add a number of sections dealing with the question of leaving or attempting to leave the country for purposes related to terrorism.

These proposed provisions that will make it a crime to leave or attempt to leave Canada to join a terrorist group or participate in a terrorist activity respond to very real concerns. Assuming the accuracy of testimony before the Senate, there are worries about a non-trivial number, even if a proportionately small number, of citizens or permanent residents contemplating leaving Canada for this reason or having already done so. There is reason to believe that male youth under age 18 or young men over age 18 in some diasporic communities are targeted, especially for recruitment to join in terrorist activities abroad. There is very much reason to be concerned.

All that noted, we are led, as we must always be when youth are highly likely to be the main subject of criminal law measures, to wonder if criminalization will be as productive a measure as its proponents hope. Let us assume that we all believe in preventive measures of a social, educational, mentoring sort alongside addressing root causes of alienation that lead to the kind of radicalization we are concerned about in this context. The question then becomes what the value would be of criminal charges against youth arrested at airports or other borders seeking to leave Canada.

At least for those under age 18, it is true that the Youth Criminal Justice Act will apply and that the act allows for holistic education-centred sentences, for example. That is a good thing, although everyone needs to be reminded of two caveats: one, that youth still receive criminal records; and two, that the Crown can always seek to apply for adult sentences. However, once one reaches that magic number of 18, we are left with the full-blown application of the criminal law. At minimum, we need to know that the approach of government is more multifaceted than reliance on these new Criminal Code provisions alone.

In this respect, there is one thing proponents have in common with those of us who are concerned about promoting non-criminal measures to divert people, especially youth, from radicalization of the sort that embraces violence, and that is prevention. If prevention could be achieved in ways short of the cumbersome and often clumsy invocation of the criminal law, I suspect that some productive consensus could be arrived at. The problem, however, is that it is very hard to design coercive measures to prevent a person's departure shy of using the criminal law while still remaining faithful to principles related to liberty and the rule of law that we cherish.

It might be thought that one way to use the criminal law in a way that falls short of full-scale criminalization would be for these new provisions to be used as the basis for detention by the Canada Border Services Agency and then arrest and charge by the RCMP, but then have the Crown decide not to prosecute. Keep in mind that when I say the Crown, I mean the Attorney General because these new provisions are among those in the Criminal Code that require the Attorney General's consent to prosecute.

When one reads the Senate committee records for Bill S-7, one gets the impression that there may be in part some who may mean, by the new provisions, this kind of idea in terms of the preventive purpose. If these new provisions allowed the state to prevent people, for example, youth, from joining terrorist enterprises while not resulting in criminal convictions and sentences, would this not be a defensible result? The answer seems clear. Criminal law will not be able to function within acceptable limits if it becomes a tool for disruption, whereby arrest is the end goal, but not prosecution. The more a system can be used with no real intention of prosecuting, the more it will over time be used in exactly that way.

For the Criminal Code to maintain its integrity, its implication must only ever be on the basis of good faith that each stage of decision-making is relevant, good faith that there is adequate evidence to sustain a prosecution. All this leads to the question of whether we actually do have a prosecution system in Canada that is willing and able to prosecute, considering that much of the evidence for the new offences will be produced from intelligence that CSIS and perhaps other agencies may well not be prepared to allow to go to court for fear of revealing sources and methods.

We know from the Air India inquiry how such considerations can inhibit effective prosecution. We have no reason to believe that the prosecution capacity has changed since the 2010 Air India report. Therefore, we may end up with a system that theoretically allows for proof of intention to leave the country for these purposes. We can all imagine the kinds of proof, ranging from emails, parents or community members, provision of information, information from foreign intelligence and so on. Therefore, a system that theoretically allows for proof of intention is possible but in practice may lead to charges being dropped because intelligence agencies will not want evidence made public. If so, we may inadvertently end up with the criminal law being used, in the way I talked about earlier, as a means to disrupt behaviour with limited prospect for use for its prescribed purpose of criminal prosecution. Therefore, in committee this may be an issue worth probing. Will the sort of evidence available actually usable before the courts?

Let us now look at another challenge, which is the interface of acquiring evidence of intent to leave the country for this purpose and logistics. This is the issue of how all of this will work at the point of exit from Canada.

At the moment, we all know there are no exit controls at all the borders, notably at airports, other than no-fly lists for those deemed to be a threat to aviation. Testimony before the Senate made it clear that co-operation protocols or memorandums of understanding would be needed among CSIS, the RCMP and the CBSA.

Mr. Fadden, the director of CSIS, went further and noted that would have to extend likely to CATSA, the agency of the Department of Transport that regulates security. How these protocols will be developed and what kind of accountability there will be for their operation remains a concern especially because the RCMP, a key link in the inter-agency collaboration that will be needed here, has been shown by both the Arar and the Air India inquiries to be an agency that suffers from lack of accountability and inappropriate oversight mechanisms. Yet, with the government's Bill C-42, we see that it has no intention of acting on the Arar commission's carefully thought through recommendations for RCMP accountability and oversight.

However, there are two comments by Director Fadden that most definitely will need to be followed up in the House of Commons committee after second reading.

I will turn to the first one. He said:

—I emphasize that we have not developed the protocols yet. What we will need to do is work closely with the Mounties and make sure [that] we are communicating at all times with border services.

The other complicating factor...is that Canada has no system for controlling exits. We do not even have a system to be aware when people are leaving. This will involve more than the CBSA; it may well involve CATSA, the agency of the Department of Transport that regulates security.

I should not say much more because I will get myself into a situation I will not be able to get myself out of.

We will need to better understand what is being considered, what is being referred to here by the director of CSIS. Is some form of cross the border surveillance system to clock everyone's exits being contemplated? That seems to be hinted at within the statement, especially the sentence, “We do not even have a system to be aware when people are leaving”. The suggestion is that such a system of awareness is some sort of requirement, a sine qua non for the protocols to be implemented to give effect to these new Criminal Code provisions.

One way to be aware of someone exiting the country is to already have identified them as having the intention that this criminal provision talks about and then to track them to the airport. However, that kind of specificity may not be what Mr. Fadden is actually alluding to.

To return to the question I have already asked once, are we looking at a more general surveillance system that CATSA, for example, would operate? We need clear answers on this in committee.

It might also be that a revision of the no-fly list is part of what is being contemplated as a general surveillance mechanism.

At another point in his testimony before the Senate, Mr. Fadden discussed why no-fly lists would not currently provide the mechanism: (a) for being aware of when someone is seeking to leave; and (b) for preventing that person from boarding the aircraft. Here is his observation:

The current structure of the no-fly list program is such that you have to be a threat to aviation....My understanding is that officials are preparing a series of proposals for ministers to try to make this list a little more subtle, but I do not know where they are on it.

Is it possible that the government is considering a mechanism to put people on a no-fly list based on evidence, at whatever standard of proof, that the person intends to leave Canada in a way that would violate one of these new leaving the country provisions? If so, we need to know much more about how this would work in relation to enforcement of these new provisions in the code, how people would be put on this list and how they could get off.

Would this be an alternative to arrest and possible prosecution under the criminal law provisions? If so, is this possibly preferable to direct intervention of the RCMP to arrest, followed by possible prosecution? I think in particular of how this would avoid criminalization of youth where the primary concern with respect to the kind of radicalization that leads them to want to leave Canada to get involved with terrorism.

At the same time, however, what we know about how no-fly lists currently operate in a zone of non-accountability leaves me deeply doubtful that this approach would provide a preferable preventive mechanism.

Just for example, the experience of Maher Arar and other Canadians like Mr. Almalki, Mr. Elmaati and Mr. Nureddin create real worries about what could happen to a Canadian who ends up on a no-fly list for reasons related to CSIS or RCMP speculation about intentions to engage in terrorism.

The Canadian government's purpose might be to stop the person from leaving Canada. Perhaps the purpose is to get youth to think twice before trying to leave Canada by another means. However, foreign intelligence agencies that might get access to our no-fly list might act very differently on that very same information if the person in question ever did leave Canada and then showed up on the radar screen of some country when seeking to use that country's airport.

The reason this is of such concern is that the connection between a person and terrorism within this new leaving the country criminal law provision can be very attenuated. Intentionally attempting to leave becomes itself a terrorism offence and the evidentiary basis for being put on a no-fly list as opposed to being brought forward for prosecution may be far below the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt within our criminal law system. Yet on such a possible thin basis, someone's name could enter into the interconnected global system of surveillance that could lead to preventive arrest or worse in other countries on that basis alone.

I emphasize that those are concerns prompted by an admittedly very brief reference from Mr. Fadden, but in the context it is potentially a very telling reference. We must be aware how collaboration and information-sharing works between intelligence agencies between countries. This is something I have had the chance to study in some depth several years ago when preparing a report for the settlement process in Mr. Arar's lawsuit against Canada.

Unless we have confidence in how people would get on this new, more subtle, to use Mr. Fadden's language, no-fly list and confidence in whether, how and with whom the names on that list and the reasons for being on that list are shared, there is much to be worried about with respect to Mr. Fadden's revelation about a more subtle no-fly list.

In any event, I think the point is clear that, based upon the testimony of the director of CSIS before the Senate, this needs to have detailed testimony and scrutiny in committee after second reading in this House.

I will now turn to a few comments, one, in particular, made by Minister of Justice when he was testifying before the Senate. He talked about how investigative hearings could produce the evidence to discern the intent of a person to leave the country for purposes of terrorism. However, we know that investigative hearing provisions, which are being proposed to be restored in the Criminal Code by this bill, state that testimony cannot be used as evidence in court against the person giving that testimony.

This leaves us with one of two possibilities with respect to what the minister was referring to.

The first is that he is actually thinking about using this mechanism as a mode of detention and arrest but not necessarily going to prosecution. We return, therefore, to the problem of use of the criminal law system to allow for disruption with no real prospect for prosecution.

More likely, however, the minister could not have meant that. He must have meant that investigative hearings will be used to question people about other people's intentions and, thereby, use that as evidence for the attempt to leave provisions of the Criminal Code. If so, this would have profound implications with respect to how often and to which people these investigative hearings would be used as evidence-gathering tools. We need to discuss this in committee.

The minister also suggests evidence of intention to leave the country could come out of the hearings that deal with preventive recognizance with conditions. Presumably, again he means someone else is brought to such a hearing about some impending terrorist act and information is then revealed about another person and that evidence is then used to prove that person intends to leave the country for purposes of terrorism.

We need to ask the minister and his officials what he meant by reference to those two sunsetted provisions, if they come back into law, as being mechanisms to gather evidence of intention to leave the country.

That raises another question. Would the proposed new clause 83.3, resurrected from the 2001 Anti-terrorism Act, allow for recognizance with conditions if someone can be shown to be on the point of leaving? Because this would be a terrorist act, when people attempt to leave, they are now engaging in a terrorist act according to the new provisions. They can then be required to stay and their passport taken away for up to 12 months. Is this scenario possible? Is this in fact a planned sequence? Does the government have this in mind?

Keeping in mind how the United Kingdom actually uses control orders to prevent departures from the country, the question has to be asked whether or not this is something the government contemplates. This is a question to pursue, again in committee.

I will conclude with the overall comment that there is much to look at in committee if we are to fully appreciate and make judgments about the utility of these new attempting to leave or leaving the country Criminal Code provisions.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a very big bill. With all due respect, it is a bit of a simplistic argument that the term 'sexual harassment' should be literally in this legislation. We are talking about all kinds of issues that may arise in serious incidents. It is very simplistic to name every type and form of whether it is harassment or a serious incident.

The bill would give the RCMP the ability to deal with all harassment, and that is what we want. When we start segregating it, that is where the problem is. Let us deal with all harassment. When we do that, the RCMP will be able to deal with sexual harassment and other forms of harassment.

That is what Bill C-42 would do. It would also help deal with a serious incident. If we want to start listing what a serious incident is for the RCMP, again, it is not a good way to deal with issues that might arise within the force, which we respect immensely. Ninety-nine per cent of the members of the RCMP are doing a fantastic job and we respect them. However, we will deal with it under Bill C-42.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the answers from the parliamentary secretary.

I find it sad is that there is absolutely no mention of sexual harassment in Bill C-42. It is extremely unfortunate because this bill is supposed to deal with sexual harassment.

Also, with respect to the consultations, during his presentation on Bill C-42, the minister confirmed in committee yesterday that he had not formally consulted members of the RCMP prior to introducing Bill C-42. It is unfortunate that members were not formally consulted before this legislation on the RCMP is imposed.

I am sure that everyone here, all the parties, recognize that we must deal with the problem of sexual harassment, especially when it concerns our federal police force. However, we need something more. We need an anti-harassment policy, we need wide-ranging, real action.

I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary why is more not being done, why is an anti-harassment policy not included in Bill C-42?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the question put forward to the House by the member for Alfred-Pellan regarding the issue of sexual harassment in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, RCMP.

All of us are very concerned with this issue. We are all definitely concerned with the issue of sexual harassment within the RCMP and in any workplace. We are also concerned with the issue of general harassment within the RCMP.

As my hon. colleague will recall, yesterday we heard testimony from Commissioner Paulson. He talked about the fact that men and women both felt harassment. About 33% of women and 26% of men feel they have been harassed. In terms of sexual harassment, about 3% of women feel they have been sexually harassed. All members certainly were certainly concerned with that.

I disagree with the member's premise that our government is not taking action on this. In fact, we are taking very firm action and have made strong statements on these issues. We took immediate action by asking the Commissioner for Public Complaints Against the RCMP to take an in-depth look at how harassment complaints were managed in the workplace. We also have a commissioner who, from the time he was appointed, has taken a strong stance on this issue, and we congratulate him on that.

In addition to that, our government, which has been a majority for just over a year, has brought forward a lot of initiatives. One of those initiatives is the introduction of Bill C-42, which would update the RCMP Accountability Act.

As my hon. colleague heard testimony from the commissioner yesterday, and we will hear more testimony, changing the RCMP Accountability Act and legislation by which it is governed is the fundamental foundation to change the culture in the RCMP. This would address the harassment and certainly help bring an end to sexual harassment. It would change the complaints process and modernized it, among a host of other things that are being done under Bill C-42.

I do not know whether the member heard the testimony yesterday, but the commissioner was very clear in wanting the legislation to pass. He was very technical in the way he spoke about how accusations of any kind of harassment had to be dealt with and how draconian it could be right now. That is why he asked that we get the legislation passed.

We have consulted with the provinces and other stakeholders and introduced the proposed legislation. It is good legislation that addresses a number of factors within the RCMP: how public complaints are made; how to deal with serious incidents by the RCMP, ensuring that police are not investigating police; and it lays the foundation to deal with issues like sexual harassment.

We would encourage the opposition to reread the bill and look, in a foundational way, at what can be done. When a human resource department is able to deal with issues like this, it is usually the best to help change the culture, but it needs the tools. The RCMP, under the current legislation, does not have the tools.

The commissioner was clear yesterday when he said that the RCMP did not need more money, that it just needed these rules changed so it could do the work it needed to do. He wanted his human resource managers and supervisors to be able to deal with issues at the level they appeared. Sometimes it is education, working together, mitigation and discipline. These are all things that the RCMP need tools to do and they are in Bill C-42.

We encourage the opposition to get the bill through committee and into law so the RCMP can work at these sexual harassment and other harassment cases.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today in the House to talk about an issue that is of great concern to me. Unfortunately, this matter has been in the media several times in recent years and especially in recent months.

As the deputy critic for public safety for the official opposition, I recognize the excellent work of the police officers who protect Canadians by risking their lives every day. In the past few years, many Canadians have said that they are concerned by the allegations about the RCMP. For some time, the RCMP has been plagued by scandals involving sexual harassment, among other things, and several female officers have said that they were victims.

On July 30, in Vancouver, 200 women made headlines when they came forward to join a class action suit to bring to light the sexual harassment they allegedly suffered as members of the federal police force. Women such as Officer Janet Merlo, Corporal Catherine Galliford and Constable Karen Katz had the courage to take a stand and denounce the sexual harassment they suffered for years in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

For these women, every day was a challenge. Today, I congratulate them for having the courage to report this unacceptable situation. Last November, Corporal Catherine Galliford was the first to report that she has been the victim of sexual harassment. Officer Merlo filed her complaint in March. The lawyers for these women expected a dozen other women to follow suit. Instead, more than 200 women contacted their law firm to join the proposed class action lawsuit.

It has been confirmed that the allegations in question range from sexism in how promotions were awarded to accusations of sexual assault, and that these allegations have been made across the country. On May 10, 2012, I asked this government to take action and give the RCMP the resources it needs to combat sexual harassment. Last week I participated in the debate on Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts. Although this bill gives more disciplinary powers to the commissioner and the ability to establish a more effective process to resolve disputes relating to harassment, the bill itself cannot bring about a change in corporate culture, which is absolutely necessary to specifically address the allegations of sexual harassment.

In fact, this bill does not go far enough to address the concerns of women working in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. These women are calling for immediate action to create a safer and more open work environment. Unfortunately, the government failed to take initiative and leadership on this issue. It has been in power since 2006, and despite several reports and recommendations, such as Justice O'Connor's 2006 report and David Brown's 2007 report, which proposed major changes to the RCMP, it took six years to decide to address the situation.

Why did the government wait so long to address this situation? Why did it not take the situation of these women seriously and take action to put an end to these crimes as quickly as possible?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

To give you the support to do that, because we're talking about a comprehensive approach that is necessary, the issue of a culture that needs to be changed keeps coming up. This is a massive undertaking, and one would assume that specific funds ought to be allocated. We've heard about funds with respect to Bill C-42, but again, we've also heard about some of the challenges that the RCMP in general is having to deal with in terms of budgetary decisions.

When having to undertake this kind of huge initiative and having to send that signal to Canadians, and it's not just the words you're using, as commissioner, but that the work is happening all throughout, is there the money to back that up? Is there a commitment specifically around sexual harassment? I'm not speaking about the bill, but is there an understanding of the kinds of funds that are necessary?

That is my first question.

Secondly, are those funds available?

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Wex, I would quickly like to go back to something you said earlier. You mentioned that if a provincial body had to investigate the RCMP, but was not available—which is very rare—the RCMP would investigate itself.

Do you think that this shortcoming is also found in Bill C-42? Do you believe that public confidence would be undermined by the knowledge that a body not independent of the RCMP could carry out such investigations, even though it would only happen very rarely?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

This has been a work in progress—even before the commissioner came onto the scene. The predecessor bill was a much larger bill and encompassed the issue of unionization. As you will recall, certain decisions of the courts came out that talked about the constitutional right to unionize, which created significant confusion because of the lack of clarity in those decisions.

We waited for a long period of time for the courts to clarify that. Ultimately we said no, that we were going to proceed without that unionization issue. Subsequently, the courts did clarify it, after we had tabled the legislation.

But in respect of the unionization issue and various issues, not only have I had extensive discussions with members of the RCMP, but the commissioner has, and certainly, through Public Safety, I have had extensive briefings on every aspect of this bill, including the three main components that I'm bringing forward today in the form of Bill C-42.

I've had informal discussions with RCMP officers as late as this summer, when I travelled from Labrador to the Northwest Territories, discussing issues of discipline and sexual harassment and concerns about the RCMP that they might have, and I have invited them to bring those concerns forward.

But generally speaking, I think the sense I got was that these reforms were welcome, and we were urged to bring them forward as quickly as possible.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Okay.

I was also wondering if you consulted the members who will be directly affected by Bill C-42 before it was drafted.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

No. Under Bill C-42, that commission will report directly to you, rather than to Parliament. Why was it decided to proceed in this fashion in the bill?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for your invitation to speak about Bill C-42, the Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act. I am pleased to be accompanied by the RCMP commissioner, Mr. Paulson, and the assistant deputy minister, Richard Wex, of the Department of Public Safety.

I would like to also mention that these two individuals had a lot to do with the completion of the 20-year contract signed between the RCMP and the various provinces. They put in a lot of hard work. The fact that all the provinces signed back on to the RCMP, with some changes in the contract, is a good indication of the satisfaction of all provinces with the RCMP. It is also a credit to these two individuals and their staff and the work they did in that respect.

Mr. Chair, it is essential that Canadians have full confidence in the RCMP. However, this confidence has been tested over the past few years, which has highlighted certain challenges in the RCMP. As Canada's national police force, the RCMP must overcome these challenges and regain public trust. In particular, over the past number of months, Canadians have heard some extremely disturbing reports about the conduct of some RCMP officers. That's why our government made it clear that we would work closely with the commissioner to take action to restore pride in Canada's national police force.

Part of the problem is that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act has not evolved to allow the organization to keep pace with changes in modern police management, or, frankly, to meet public expectations. In fact, the RCMP Act has not been significantly amended in almost 25 years. Over the last decade, a number of stakeholders, committees, and inquiries have called for changes to the RCMP's accountability framework. The RCMP has made some changes to address these deficiencies, including implementing an external investigations and review policy, instituting operational response and readiness policies, and enhancing the conducted-energy weapons policy.

While it is clear that a culture change is needed within the RCMP, changes to the RCMP's legislative framework are also required.

The legislative amendments in Bill C-42 focus on three key areas. First, Mr. Chair, the bill creates a modern and independent civilian review and complaints commission for the RCMP, essentially referred to as CRCC, to replace the existing Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, the CPC, and it provides it with enhanced powers.

Second, it imposes statutory obligations on the handling of criminal investigations of serious incidents involving RCMP members, which are designed to improve the transparency and public accountability of these investigations.

Third, the bill modernizes the RCMP's discipline, grievance, and human resource management framework, while also aligning the RCMP commissioner's human resource authorities with those of public sector leaders and other senior police executives.

I'd like to take a few moments to outline each of these three components, beginning with the new RCMP public complaints regime.

As committee members may know, complaints against the RCMP are currently handled by the CPC. However, there have been increasing concerns expressed by the public contract jurisdictions, parliamentary committees, public inquiries, and others that this commission lacks sufficient powers to effectively investigate public complaints about the conduct of RCMP officers. The proposed legislation responds to the key recommendation flowing from all of these groups.

Specifically, it would create a strengthened independent civilian review and complaints body for the RCMP that provides the new body with powers and authorities similar to other modern international, federal, and provincial review bodies. It also grants the new commission broad access to RCMP information, strengthens the commission's investigative powers, and allows the new commission the power to conduct policy reviews into RCMP activities, including those relating to national security.

Consistent with judicial inquiries and all other federal review bodies, such as the Security Intelligence Review Committee, the Auditor General, and the offices of the information and privacy commissioners, the new commission will make non-binding findings and recommendations to the commissioner and the Minister of Public Safety.

Mr. Chair, let me address this point clearly: the RCMP commissioner is held accountable for the operations of the RCMP and must decide whether to act on the findings and recommendations of the commission. The commissioner is accountable and responsible for the operations of the RCMP, and we will not undermine that accountability by making recommendations binding. However, consistent with the existing legislative requirements, it's also clear that whenever the RCMP commissioner decides not to act on commission recommendations, he must explain, in writing, the reasons for doing so to the new commission and to me.

While some have called for binding recommendations, others, such as Justice O'Connor and the RCMP Reform Implementation Council, support the approach of non-binding findings and recommendations.

Separate from the complaints process, Bill C-42 sets out a statutory framework to improve the transparency of serious criminal investigations of incidents involving RCMP members that result in death or serious injury. The RCMP will now be required, by statute, to refer serious criminal cases involving RCMP members to an independent provincial investigative body, where one exists—for example, British Columbia, Alberta, and Nova Scotia. This is in keeping with the provinces' authority for the administration of justice in their jurisdiction. In provinces and territories where such bodies don't exist, these investigations must be referred to another police service. Only in rare instances, and as a last resort, where neither of these options is available, would the RCMP undertake the investigation itself.

This framework is designed to address public concerns about the impartiality of RCMP members investigating other RCMP members who are involved in a serious incident. Some have called for the creation of a national investigative body, but what has been proposed in that sense would create significant redundancy in jurisdictions where a civilian investigative body already exists, while consuming resources and delaying investigations. The most important consideration is that the provinces and the territories, which have the constitutional responsibility for policing and the administration of justice, have not called for this.

We will continue to work with the provinces and territories in this regard.

Mr. Chair, the last component of the bill modernizes the RCMP's discipline, grievance, and human resource management framework. The current processes embodied in the RCMP Act lack flexibility and are disjointed. Discipline and grievance processes carry heavy administrative burdens and can be drawn out for years.

For example, an RCMP member was suspended from duty after being arrested and charged with uttering threats and weapons offences. While the member was not permitted to work, he stayed on the payroll, receiving salary for 18 months. This is clearly a problem. Under Bill C-42, managers will be given the authority to impose remedial measures, like counselling and corrective sanctions, when performance and conduct are not acceptable.

The bottom line is that this legislation would also empower managers, allowing them to deal with issues before they turn into big problems. An example I've used before is this one. In August of 2004, a grievance was filed over a dinner allowance claim of $15. Under the current system, it took seven years to obtain a final decision on the matter. Under this bill, that would be streamlined and dealt with in a matter of weeks. This is a vast improvement over the current system, where all formal sanctions must be handled through a time- and resource-consuming discipline board. Only in those cases where dismissal is being sought would the issue be referred to a conduct board.

Under the current grievance system, a formal, resource-intensive, paper-based process is the norm. With this legislation, front-line managers would have access to a less formal conflict management and resolution system that would allow for matters to be dealt with quickly, fairly, and effectively.

Similarly, we are proposing changes to the current authorities of the RCMP commissioner. Under the current regime, the commissioner, in contrast to other police chiefs, lacks the authority to directly make determinations on certain human resource processes that are necessary to effectively manage the organization.

Bill C-42 would enhance accountability by now permitting the RCMP commissioner to both appoint and promote the majority of the officers of the RCMP below the rank of deputy commissioner. That being said, the federal cabinet process, through orders in council, would be used to appoint the commissioner and all deputy commissioners.

The commissioner would be given the authority to establish a system to create a seamless way to respond to harassment complaints in a timely, transparent, and fair manner that would be specific to the investigation and resolution of complaints where a respondent is an RCMP member. This would help to overcome the current challenges of attempting to simultaneously apply the Treasury Board harassment policy and the RCMP Act to addressing harassment concerns.

Finally, Mr. Chair, we propose changes to the current human resource structure in which the RCMP employees are divided into three categories: regular members, civilian members, and public service employees. This requires three different human resource systems, making it difficult to manage human resources efficiently and effectively across the organization.

To increase human resource efficiencies, the proposed legislation provides a mechanism through which Treasury Board may convert current civilian members to public service employees, thus reducing the number of categories of employees by one.

In conclusion, Mr. Chair, the proposed changes to the RCMP Act are designed to enhance the accountability of the RCMP and to support the implementation of the new 20-year contract agreements entered into with the provinces and territories this year, which I mentioned at the onset of my comments. Accountability and oversight were focal points for the provinces, territories, and municipalities in the announcements of the new police service agreements. In fact, the British Columbia justice minister has stated that she is “very pleased” and thinks it's a very positive first step.

We have listened to our provincial and territorial counterparts and recognize that in order to keep pace with changes in modern policing, reform of the RCMP's legislative framework is required. I have spent the summer consulting RCMP members, community leaders, and Canadians on this bill. The response has been encouraging, and I believe this bill addresses the concerns I have heard.

Mr. Chair, even David Eby of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association has said that—and I quote—“it's good to see these changes coming”.

In closing, thank you for giving me the opportunity to provide you with an overview of this important legislation designed to help bolster confidence and accountability in the RCMP. I look forward to following your deliberations on the bill and possible amendments. Our goal is to ensure we have the best bill possible.

I'm now happy to answer any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Good afternoon, everyone. This is meeting number 50 of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security on Wednesday, October 3, 2012.

This afternoon we're beginning our consideration of Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

We have a number of witnesses appearing before us today. Our first witness is the Honourable Vic Toews, Minister of Public Safety. We also have Commissioner Bob Paulson, Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. As well, from the Department of Public Safety, we have Richard Wex, the assistant deputy minister.

Our committee wants to thank all of you for coming back. You have appeared a number of times before our committee. Actually, you have appeared when we have asked. We very much appreciate that. Thank you for coming back at your earliest convenience.

The way the committee is going to work this afternoon is that the minister will be giving an opening statement. After one hour, he will have to leave. The commissioner and Assistant Deputy Minister Wex will stay and answer any questions we may have. What we will do is suspend after one hour and allow the minister an opportunity to leave, and then we will reconvene in one or two minutes.

Again, we want to thank Minister Toews. Because we are televised today, I would remind all members to kindly turn your cellphones off if they are by the microphones, or at least put them on silent or vibrate mode. That just makes things a lot easier. To all those in the audience, perhaps do that as well.

Minister, welcome back. We look forward to your comments.

Business of the House

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, last week on the Thursday question we asked the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons to respond to a sincere offer by the opposition to make Parliament work for Canadians by listing a number of bills on which the opposition was willing to work with the government. In response to that question, the government House leader spent a great deal of his time fabricating New Democratic Party policy rather than doing the job of House leaders, which is to formulate a strategy to make this place function for Canadians.

If the government spent at least 50% of its energy working with the opposition on such bills, it might acknowledge the progress on such bills as Bill C-42, Bill C-21, Bill C-44, Bill C-37, and Bill C-32. They are proof of the opposition's willingness to make this place function for Canadians. They also disprove the myth that the government had to use closure out of necessity rather than its own ideology and perspective of how a democracy ought to run.

The clear question in front of the government is twofold. When will we see the opposition days in the coming calendar for the official opposition? Also, a question which is on the minds of many Canadians with respect to a second budget implementation bill is, will we see a repeat of the one we saw in the spring? Many people called it a Trojan horse bill because it contained many measures that had absolutely nothing to do with the budget.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much for that vote of confidence. I will also note that it was Laurie Hawn who cleared his throat when the nays were supposed to come forward.

I would also invite our analysts, Tanya Dupuis and Christine Morris, to take the table.

We have new committee members this fall. Let me say that I'm very pleased with our analysts' work. Our analysts, as is typical with parliamentary librarian representatives, are very good at the work they do. We have been very pleased with their reports and their work. I would encourage the new members on the committee to use the notes that the analysts prepare. They prepare us for meetings and questions and all that. Take advantage of the work they do.

Also, our clerk, Andrew Bartholomew Chaplin, has been here for many years. I've served with him on the defence committee, the Afghanistan committee, and undoubtedly other committees, and we appreciate the work they do.

To our committee, I'll say that it's good to be back this fall. I hope you've all had a good fall. Certainly we wish John Rafferty all the best and a speedy recovery, and I think congratulations are in order to Jean Rousseau, who is a proud daddy, so that's all good.

Now that those items are out of the way, let me say this: last week Bill C-42 was referred to our committee, so our intent is to receive this bill as soon as possible. We do have other studies under way at the present time; we have just begun one study, and we can perhaps have a meeting on Wednesday, if that would suit, to do a little bit of future business and planning as to the process here.

I know we have a motion in the motions at the beginning of the year to the effect that when we have referred legislation, we start on that fairly promptly, so I would encourage all parties—and I include our own government committee members as well—to get your witnesses in as soon as possible. I've spoken to some already and have suggested to have witnesses by the end of the week. That gives time to start putting together different panels or different groups as they would appear before our committee. I don't think there would be any problem with that.

Congratulations, Randall, and also to Francis, on the position. I look forward to working again with you and all committee members.

Is there anything else in regard to the witnesses? We'll talk Wednesday about how long we anticipate dealing with Bill C-42.

Candice, did you have something?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, first, let me formally welcome back all hon. members to the House of Commons from their productive summers in their ridings, which I trust they had, working with and listening to constituents.

On the government side of the House, we heard loud and clear that the priority of Canadians remains the economy. It is our priority too. Not one person raised with me a desire to see a $21 billion carbon tax implemented to raise the price of gas, groceries and winter heat. I do not expect the member will see that in our agenda.

I also want to extend a warm welcome, on behalf of Conservatives, to this year's class of pages. I am certain that their time with us, here in our hard-working, productive and, I hope, orderly House of Commons, will lead to lifelong memories.

Yesterday, we were able to pass Bill C-42, Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, at second reading. I want to thank hon. members for their co-operation on that.

I am optimistic that we will see similar co-operation to allow us to finish second reading debate tomorrow on Bill C-37, Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act, which the hon. Leader of the Opposition talked about.

This afternoon, of course, is the conclusion of the New Democrats' opposition day. As announced earlier this week, Tuesday will be a Liberal opposition day.

On Monday, the House will start debate on Bill C-43, the faster removal of foreign criminals act. This legislation would put a stop to foreign criminals relying on endless appeals in order to delay their removal from Canada and it sends a strong signal to foreign criminals that Canada is not a safe haven. I hope we will have support from the opposition parties for rapid passage of the bill designed to make our communities safer.

Starting on Wednesday, the House will debate Bill C-44, the helping families in need act. Once the opposition caucuses have met to discuss this important bill, I am confident they would want to support the early passage of this legislation as well. It would enhance the income support provided to families whose children have been victims of crime or are critically ill.

If we have additional time tomorrow or next week, the House will consider Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the Defence of Canada Act; Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act; and Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act.

We are interested in Bill C-21, which deals with accountability for political loans and making that consistent with the other political contribution provisions. If we have a consensus among parties to bring that forward, we will certainly do that.

Similarly, if we can see a consensus among parties on passing Bill C-32 as it has been presented to the House, we would be pleased to do that on unanimous consent.

Enhancing RCMP Accountability Act

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that last night Bill C-42, the enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police accountability act, passed second reading. This bill would give the RCMP the tools it needs to enhance trust and restore accountability in its ranks.

The positive response to our government's proposed reforms has been heard loud and clear. This legislation is urgently needed. I was also pleased to hear that the NDP has stated it supports this legislation. However, it seems it cannot keep from playing some parliamentary games, even on bills it supports. The member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River read word for word the same speech that the NDP public safety critic had read on the previous day.

The NDP needs to get serious and work with our government to pass these very vital reforms.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the concern that the hon. member brings forward to this discussion.

Our government is trying to lay a strong foundation within the RCMP so that things like sexual harassment can be addressed. Under the current act that the RCMP works under it can be very difficult to address these issues. Sometimes it is at the initial level, whether it is education or people working together.

We are trying to get Bill C-42 through committee and passed into law so that there can be a stronger foundation for the RCMP, for direct supervisors, the commission and members themselves to deal with these specific issues. I believe we are on the right path.

Again, there is always more work to be done, whether for the government or the people working together and being respectful to each other.

We want to lay the foundation with Bill C-42 to enhance and change the RCMP Accountability Act so that it can move forward, change the culture and have an even better police force.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as the member will have heard, I also referred to Bill C-42 and the important debate that took place in this House, including looking at the various aspects that are indeed raised by this bill. I certainly know that our critic on public safety has spoken to that as well.

However, the reality is that there is only one court case where about 200 women have come forward with serious allegations of sexual harassment, based on the fact they are women working in this workplace. There is no other workplace for which there is such a court case presently. There is no other allegation of abuse within the RCMP where 200 people have come together to put forward such a court case.

The specificity of sexual harassment remains the question at stake. Men can also be sexually harassed, although we know that the greatest number tends to be women in our society, and certainly in the case of the RCMP the allegations have been made by women. That specificity must be considered and financial and political priority must be placed on it.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you on your recent appointment.

I am very pleased today to rise and to be able to address the question by the hon. member for Churchill. All of us, men and women alike, civilians, politicians, the RCMP, and Canadians generally are very troubled by the idea of and recent reports about harassment and, certainly, sexual harassment within the RCMP. I agree with the hon. members that the RCMP should be free to face the daily challenges of protecting our streets and our communities without harassment, which makes their workplace that much more difficult.

That is why the Minister of Public Safety, in consultation with Commissioner Paulson, referred this matter to the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP. On the specific allegations, nonetheless, it would obviously be inappropriate for us to comment because they are before the courts.

What I think is so important for my hon. colleague to realize is that harassment of any kind needs to be addressed, and to segregate the various types of harassment actually lends less credibility to the issue. What we have done is to have introduced Bill C-42, the Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act. I am very pleased to see that the House agreed to send our recent bill to committee.

Many of us participated in the debate, and tonight we are sending it to committee. I look forward to all of us working together. The member for Churchill is not on the public safety committee but serves on another committee. The public safety committee is working to see this bill pass, getting it through committee and working together.

We have heard calls for better civilian oversight, more accountability and a stronger framework to handle investigations of serious incidents involving RCMP members. We have also heard the calls for a more modern, and I think that is a very important word, disciplined grievance and human resource management framework, one that would bring about a cultural shift within the RCMP.

We have responded, working together with our stakeholders. Our government believes that the time has now come to put this legislation onto the books and set out a pathway for the future. This legislation is vital to the future of Canada's national police force and indeed vital to the future of our community safety initiatives over the short and long terms.

Bill C-42 addresses the call for increased oversight and accountability of the RCMP, and builds on the progress that is already being made by the management and the workforce. It is a comprehensive bill. It will allow us to move forward with certainty in our transformation exercise. I think all of us agree that we have an excellent RCMP force but there is a change that needs to be made, not only with sexual harassment but also with harassment of any kind, in the complaints process, and in the way civilian oversight is addressed.

Bill C-42 addresses these issues, and I think that as we work together to see it pass, we can see a new culture shift happen in the RCMP. We can see both men and women working and enjoying their jobs, contributing not only as protectors of Canadian society but also in the individual jobs they do.

We look forward to the NDP working together with us in the public safety committee. Let us get Bill C-42 through committee quickly. Let us work through the different parts of it. Let us bring more accountability to the RCMP. Let us help stop sexual harassment in any workplace and harassment of any kind.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to congratulate you on your appointment as Deputy Speaker. We are excited to have you in the chair, even at this late hour.

I am also pleased to have the opportunity to raise what is a critical issue for so many Canadians.

One of the paramount needs that we all have is to feel safe and to live in a safe community. In that context there are many factors that come into play, but one of the most important is policing.

While we recognize that critical work is done in this area, many Canadians, particularly many women in Canada, have raised real concerns around the allegations of sexual harassment in our national police force, the RCMP.

As the status of women critic for the NDP, I have the opportunity to work through Parliament's status of women committee, which is looking at this issue. Within the next couple of weeks we will embark on a broader study, looking at sexual harassment in the federal workplace, including, we hope, a special focus on the RCMP.

All of this connects to my question to the government in late spring. At that time, I asked what specific commitment it was making in terms of funding and financial support as well as political support and political direction to ensure that the issue of sexual harassment in the RCMP became a priority going forward.

The government has repeatedly referred to the ongoing court case by the women who have brought forward these serious allegations, women who have talked about verbal abuse, sexual assault, post-traumatic disorder, depression, having to leave their work as a result and not being able to go on with their lives and, in some cases, not finding gainful employment as a result.

Every Canadian would agree that it is unacceptable that the people who are charged with keeping us safe would also have an environment in which some among them would feel not just unsafe, but also abused. While we all acknowledge the severity of the problem, the Conservative government has been unwilling to draw specific attention to it.

Earlier this week I was in the House taking part in the debate on Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, something that we voted on today. It was clear in the deliberations in the House that the focus of the legislation was not on sexual harassment. That is where I want the question to be once again.

When will the government commit to funding and giving political priority to the need to find out what is going on in terms of sexual harassment in the RCMP and ultimately put an end to it now and for all?

Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the previous question at the second reading stage of Bill C-42.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that this question be now put.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I have mentioned previously in the House, I have had the great privilege of working in the field of environmental enforcement during my career. I have done this overseas, in Yukon, Alberta, Nova Scotia, Montreal and Ottawa. I have had the privilege of working with very dedicated men and women who are inspectors, investigators and enforcement officers. One of the most important things is morale. It is very important to those officers because they tend to be at the bottom of the totem pole in getting staffing, proper equipment, and attention within their respective agencies.

The bill is absolutely imperative for the protection of officers who may feel they are being maligned by sexual harassment. The bill is also important for the purposes of protecting the credibility of the RCMP and the rights of the public to bring forward complaints and to have them properly reviewed in an independent manner. The bill is also important for the credible and effective enforcement of the laws in this country.

I stand with my fellow members of the official opposition in support of sending Bill C-42 to committee. However, I implore the government to give serious consideration to not only some of the proposals that will come forward by our members but also likely some of the same witnesses who have appeared in the many reviews that have gone on over the last decade. These are wise people with a lot of experience. I would also encourage that some of the enforcement officers be brought in. Who knows better than those who are working on the front lines what is needed to do a proper review?

As has been mentioned, we commend the government for finally bringing forward this legislation, which is long overdue, to improve harassment review procedures, to deal with discipline in the force, and also to provide for an improved complaints review process. It is also important that the agency be properly staffed and resourced.

Mr. Speaker, I am having a hard time hearing myself speak. Perhaps members could take their conversations outside.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his excellent speech on Bill C-42. He raised a number of points that the NDP would like to examine in committee.

I have a very simple question. Is my colleague not disappointed to see that this bill does not go further, when this is an opportunity to make some significant changes within the RCMP?

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to speak to Bill C-42, an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.

Before I do that, I want to take this opportunity to thank the men and women who are currently serving in the RCMP and those who have served in the RCMP for their dedication and hard work in making our communities safer places to live.

Also I have had the opportunity to work with a number of retired RCMP officers at my previous job. I want to thank a former colleague of mine at the Justice Institute of BC who I worked with for 15 years, Al Lund. He retired from the RCMP after serving our country for 29 years. I thank him for his service.

Having worked with RCMP officers, I know the dedication and the hard work they put into the job to make our communities safer places. I thank all of them.

First, it should be a priority of the House and of the government to restore public confidence in the RCMP. A functioning, effective RCMP that holds the public trust is critical to building safer communities in our country.

On this side of the House, we support the stated intent of the bill and we agree with some of the measures in it.

The minister has said that the legislation should have come to the House sooner. I completely agree with him. In fact, I have stood in the House countless times and called upon the government to step up and deal with the problems that years of Conservative mismanagement have caused in our national police force.

The goals stated in the preamble of the bill, transparency, improving conduct, strengthening the review and complaints body and dealing with the climate of sexual harassment that exists in the RCMP, are all good ones and are what New Democrats have called for over and over in the House.

We support the bill at second reading. However, we firmly believe it does not go far enough, particularly with regard to those issues of sexual harassment in the RCMP. The bill does not go far enough in directly addressing the concerns of women serving in the RCMP who are calling for urgent action to foster a more inclusive and safe environment for women.

The bill has been introduced without the benefit of findings of the internal gender audit of the RCMP ordered by the commissioner, which is currently under way but not yet completed.

It is clear that sexual harassment is not a problem of merely discipline. It is endemic to the internal culture of the RCMP. The approach of the Conservatives does not make women in the RCMP a priority, which is necessary if we want to deal substantially with the problem.

My primary concern is that over and over we see the government's attempt to gloss over real issues within the RCMP and implement quick fixes instead of truly trying to take the steps necessary to fix the force.

For the sake of those serving in the force, to restore public confidence in the RCMP and, ultimately, for the safety of our communities, we need transparency and accountability in the RCMP and solutions that would get to the heart of the problems within the force. On those accounts, the government has failed time after time.

The scope of the problem of sexual harassment in the RCMP is massive. More than 200 women, both current and former RCMP officers, have joined Constable Janet Merlo in seeking a class action suit against the RCMP on the grounds of sexual harassment. That does not include other lawsuits against the RCMP from proceeding, including Corporal Catherine Galliford and Constable Karen Katz.

My NDP colleagues and I have pushed the minister for months to prioritize the issue of sexual harassment in the RCMP. Unfortunately, Bill C-42 does not directly address systematic issues in the culture of the RCMP. It is clear that the bill by itself will not change the current climate in the RCMP.

Despite our repeated questioning and urging in both the House and in committee, the Conservatives have chosen to only focus on the issue of RCMP discipline and RCMP sexual harassment. They did not take a leadership role in presenting solutions. Now we have a bill that would not address the root cause of the problem.

The bill does give the RCMP commissioner the ability to create a more effective process for dealing with sexual harassment complaints, which is an important step in the right direction, but it is not enough. We need to go further on this issue. There needs to be a clear anti-harassment policy in the RCMP that contains specific standards for behaviour and specific criteria for evaluating the performance of all employees. Such a policy is needed to serve as a basis for fair disciplinary hearings.

The Minister of Public Safety has stated, “Canadians' confidence in the RCMP has been tested over the past few years and this legislation will ensure that the RCMP is fully accountable for its actions and is open and transparent in its service to Canadians.”

Bill C-42 would not lead to more independent and transparent oversight of the RCMP. It is simply the same body that reports non-binding recommendations to the minister but with a new name.

The minister has also adopted the simplistic solution of giving the commissioner the final say on the dismissal of employees.

Once again the Conservatives have rushed through this legislation. As one member has already stated, some grammatical and translation amendments are going to be made at committee.

We agree with Commissioner Paulson that legislation alone is not enough to keep the public's trust and that profound reforms to change deep underlying cultural problems within the RCMP are needed to foster a more open, co-operative and respectful workplace for all employees. The minister has clearly failed to provide leadership on these larger issues facing the RCMP. That must change.

The proposed new civilian complaints commission looks remarkably like the current RCMP Public Complaints Commission, especially since it would not be a fully independent commission reporting to the House of Commons. Instead, it would continue to report to the Minister of Public Safety.

As well, the new commission would have serious restrictions on its ability to undertake independent investigations. Also, its findings would be presented only in the form of non-binding recommendations to the commissioner and the Minister of Public Safety. These restrictions on the independence of the new commission will be a major issue for us at committee stage.

The proposal also fails to create an agency with any teeth, since primary investigations into incidents of death or serious bodily harm would largely be contracted out to provincial or municipal forces even though some have no civilian investigation bodies, or still would be conducted by the RCMP itself. The government must take the next step and allow binding recommendations and full civilian investigation of the RCMP through a truly independent watchdog panel that would report directly to Parliament.

The NDP believes that this bill is a step in the right direction, but it does not go far enough. We will be working to improve the bill at committee.

I would stress that in my community of Surrey and in communities across the country, crime and violence are a reality. Two weeks ago in Surrey, a known gang member was shot and killed in broad daylight. This kind of violence is unacceptable. However, instead of investing in measures to prevent crime in our communities by supporting the work of the RCMP, the Conservatives are making it harder for the police to do their job.

Just last week I spoke in the media about 42 RCMP support staff in B.C. who had received notices stating that they could lose their jobs. Pay cuts affect staff who help our police officers to do their jobs. These are people who work in forensic labs and records, member pay, and recruitment.

We need to support the work of the RCMP, not make its job any harder. This bill is being rushed. I hope the committee will be able to make some amendments and make those improvements that I have talked about.

An effective RCMP force is a matter of public safety and real action is long overdue.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat troubled by Bill C-42. I would like to ask my NDP colleague what she thinks. I find that what the Conservatives are proposing—the creation of an organization that has very close ties and reports to the minister—is a little troubling.

Does my colleague not think that it would be better to have an independent oversight body that would report directly to Parliament and that could subsequently make binding recommendations concerning the RCMP and even conduct a complete, civilian investigation into the RCMP?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech I would like to read a bit of the summary of the bill because it puts into context some of my forthcoming remarks. The summary states:

This enactment enhances the accountability of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police by reforming the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act in two vital areas. First, it strengthens the Royal Canadian Mounted Police review and complaints body and implements a framework to handle investigations of serious incidents involving members. Second, it modernizes discipline, grievance and human resource management processes for members, with a view to preventing, addressing and correcting performance and conduct issues in a timely and fair manner.

It establishes a new complaints commission, the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (CRCC). Most notably, it sets out the authority for the CRCC to have broad access to information in the control or possession of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, it sets out the CRCC’s investigati2powers, it permits the CRCC to conduct joint complaint investigations with other police complaints bodies and it authorizes the CRCC to undertake policy reviews of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

People viewing this will see that the bill is a comprehensive one with many pages of amendments.

I want to refer briefly to the speech by the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, where he clearly outlined the NDP position on Bill C-42. In that outline he indicated that the NDP does support getting this bill to committee for second reading, but he also raised some concerns. Those are a couple of concerns that I am going to deal with.

The member said:

We on this side agree that there needs to be action to strengthen the RCMP review and complaints body. The RCMP Public Complaints Commission has provided a valuable service but we have concerns about its full independence and its ability to oversee independent investigations....

Finally, there needs to be action in the area of modernizing discipline, grievance and human resource management processes. The minister has cited anecdotal evidence of things that take way too long and we all know that is true. However, what is lacking is clear guidance for RCMP members of what those standards are and how failure of those standards will be dealt with in a judicious and fair manner. In addition, when RCMP members have grievances they need to have the understanding that their concerns can be brought forward in a timely manner and that those grievances can be resolved and not drag on for years and years....

In his conclusion, the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca stated:

—I would stress the importance of both the independence of the RCMP from government and the independence of investigations into RCMP conduct from the government and the RCMP, and also the independence of the commissioner, who really ought to be the chair of this new civilian agency and report to Parliament rather than to the minister of the day.

Those are a couple of aspects that I am going to focus on during my brief time before the House. We have been clear that we welcome the minister's comment that he would entertain amendments to the bill. Although we support the principles of the bill, as I mentioned, we do have concerns. I am going to specifically focus on those concerns around the independent complaints commission and the issue of sexual harassment.

I want to put this into context as well. There was a report back in September 2007 called “Rebuilding the Trust”. Part of the reason I want to read excerpts from that report is that it does set the table for this legislation, but it also reinforces to the Canadian public the importance of the RCMP to them.

My own province of British Columbia is largely policed by RCMP officers. As many others have pointed out, by and large most RCMP officers are excellent at their jobs. We rely on them and trust them. However, there have been some very serious cases in British Columbia that have called into question some of the disciplinary aspects within the RCMP.

The report, “Rebuilding the Trust”, indicates that the RCMP is a national symbol. It states:

The "red serge" has been a source of national pride and is recognized around the world as a symbol of who we are and what living in Canada means. However, in the last few years, trust in the management of the RCMP has been shaken. This has had a stunning impact on the members and employees of the RCMP and on the Canadians they serve. Trust in the management of the RCMP needs to be rebuilt.

That is an important point because it is not only Canadians who rely on the police for its services who need to have that trust but fellow workers, the men and women who serve in uniform, also need to have the trust of their co-workers. That is an important piece. Members need to have confidence that their co-workers are behaving in an appropriate manner.

Although these numbers are from 2007, they are important. They may have shifted slightly but it does show the breadth and scope of the men and women serving in uniform, and the civilians who support them. This is the section titled, “The Business and People of the RCMP”. It says:

The RCMP is arguably the most complex law enforcement agency in the world today. The RCMP provides, under contract, rural and municipal policing services in all but two provinces, in all three territories and in approximately 200 municipalities and aboriginal communities.

It then states:

There are currently over 27,000 members and employees of the RCMP comprising regular and civilian members of the Force and public servants. The approximately 17,000 regular members are trained as qualified peace officers, are entitled to wear the uniform and are entitled to carry weapons. There are also approximately 3,000 civilian members of the RCMP who are not trained as peace officers. Civilian members provide specialist support to the Force in areas such as forensic science and technology. Additionally, the RCMP employs approximately 4,700 public service employees who are not members of the Force, but who provide specialized services in key areas such as human resources and financial management.

In the report, it was discovered that the task had to expand because they realized that during their consultations there were problems around “accountability, governance and cultural issues that ran far deeper and were more fundamental to the Force than those described in the earlier Investigative Report”.

At the end of this report, there were 49 recommendations for things like board management. One of the recommendations was that:

Legislation should be enacted by the Parliament of Canada as soon as possible to establish a Board of Management of the RCMP responsible for the stewardship of its organization and administration including the oversight of the management of its financial affairs, resources, services, property, personnel and procurement.

There was a recommendation “to establish an Independent Commission for Complaints and Oversight of the RCMP having the attributes outlined in Chapter 2” of this report, and that it “should be established and commence operation as quickly as possible following legislative enactment”.

However, there were far-ranging recommendations that also included issues around health and safety for officers, training, education and ongoing support, such as backup and what happens when an officer is disabled.

Again, it is a comprehensive report with 49 recommendations. Although some of these recommendations were undertaken in this piece of legislation, not all of them were and it would be important for the government to indicate why some of these recommendations were not taken under advisement.

Another report in December 2010, called “From Reform to Continuous Improvement: The Future of the RCMP”, also outlined a couple of other key recommendations, and I will just touch briefly on this. It indicated:

Canadians understand the importance of the RCMP in both its local and its national roles. They want the Force to live up to its well-earned reputation in meeting their needs for community safety and national policing. They know, of course, that in carrying out its complex responsibilities and interacting daily with tens of thousands of Canadians, the RCMP will inevitably get some things wrong – sometimes badly so – even as it gets most things right. When it does make mistakes, they expect the Force to be accountable and to respond openly and effectively to scrutiny. If, as we fully expect, the RCMP acts decisively to improve its performance in the future, Canadians will know that it has learned from its errors as well as from its successes.

The report goes on to say:

To meet new challenges and ever-higher expectations, it is clear that the RCMP must be committed to fundamental change and must have the means to bring about that change. Everyone now understands that – the federal government; the provinces, territories and municipalities for which the RCMP delivers police services; the general public and, perhaps most importantly, the leaders of the Force itself. They also need to understand that change must become a permanent condition of the RCMP.

I know other members have referred to the need for cultural change.

There were a couple of key reforms that the report focused on. One was that “the Council was convinced that the RCMP requires a new framework of governance and management, including a continuing source of outside advice and challenge for senior management, as well as a redefinition of the status of the organization”.

They go on to say that they consistently endorse the concept of a civilian board of management. The other recommendation was also around the board of management. In this particular one, they are suggesting that a board of management for the RCMP would be made up of eminent Canadians chosen for their independence, insight and expertise. The council sees such a board as bringing a broad range of benefits to the RCMP, including things like challenging senior management to make better substantive decisions, and it would add to the credibility of the RCMP management inside government.

Those were a couple of other key recommendations. We can see that all of this has to do with increasing and maintaining the credibility of the force because of the importance of its policing role domestically. I am not even going to begin to speak about the international role that we play.

I wanted to point out that some other provincial jurisdictions are undertaking work around independent police watchdogs. An article out of the Canadian Press on September 10, 2012, indicated that starting Monday, police incidents in British Columbia that end in fatalities or serious injury will be investigated by an outside agency.

This outside agency's primary recommendation came about as a result of public inquiries into two high-profile police-involved deaths: Robert Dziekanski, who died at the Vancouver airport in October 2007 after being stunned with an RCMP taser, and Frank Paul, who froze to death in the Vancouver alley where he was taken by Vancouver police after being ejected from a drunk tank. We also had the very sad case of Mark Surakka's daughter who lay dying for four days after an RCMP officer failed to properly investigate a 911 call.

There are still some concerns in British Columbia, and although this is the province, I just want to point out that there are some steps happening here. David Eby of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association said that his group, which has long advocated for the creation of an independent watchdog, was glad to see this day finally arrived. Its members think that although this is an improvement in the accountability of the province, they would also like to see it have a somewhat expanded role, including looking at previous cases which have been closed.

There was also the shooting of Ian Bush, a 22-year-old sawmill worker who was arrested after having an open beer at a hockey game in Houston, B.C. He ended up being shot in an RCMP cell in 2005. Although that was investigated and the case is closed, many community members and family members are still not satisfied. They would like to see that independent body have some oversight there.

Ontario has an arm's-length watchdog to conduct investigations into police-involved deaths. Alberta has its own oversight unit similar to Ontario. Nova Scotia has now appointed a watchdog. Quebec is considering the same. My point in raising these is that there are other examples of independent watchdogs, and presumably one of the things that the government is looking at and considering is what works with some of those independent bodies, what does not work and what we can learn from it.

In the time remaining I want to turn to the issue of sexual harassment lawsuits. I agree with my colleague from Welland that there is a systemic problem within the RCMP. When more than 200 women, both current and former RCMP officers, join Constable Janet Merlo in a class action lawsuit against the RCMP on the grounds of sexual harassment, those numbers speak to a broad problem. That does not even begin to touch on the number of female officers who have not come forward.

A story in the Globe and Mail stated that it obtained an internal report which said that a survey of 462 members of RCMP's “E” Division in British Columbia has found that female members do not trust the force's system to deal with harassment complaints and frequently avoid reporting instances of perceived wrongdoing:

Participants strongly expressed that they were fearful of coming forward to report harassment as it could hinder promotional opportunities, have a negative impact on their careers, and possibly cause them to become a scapegoat for anything supervisors wanted to fault them with.

The opinion was also expressed that the RCMP is known for moving the complainant rather than dealing with the problem. I am going to touch on a very recent case in British Columbia. It goes on to say that the internal report makes it clear that there remains much work to be done inside the RCMP to solve a problem that has persisted for decades. The author of the report, diversity strategist Simmie Smith, pointed out there is confusion with the RCMP between harassment and bullying.

In addition, the report points out that the majority of respondents did not feel that harassment was rampant inside the force, but they still expressed frustration at the handling of existing cases and the high number of unreported cases.

A point has been made that certainly not every female officer has been harassed and not every male officer does the harassing, but again, I point to the 200 officers filing a class action lawsuit. It does speak to a much broader problem.

A majority of the respondents expressed that they had no faith in the current reporting system.

The Summary Report on Gender Based Harassment and Respectful Workplace Consultations decried the “significant failure to report incidents” by Mounties, adding that the lack of formal complaints has resulted in “pent up” frustrations in the force.

Again, although Bill C-42 does reference some changes around human resource management, it does not specifically address the issues around sexual harassment and the ongoing problems.

The report talks about removing the complainant rather than dealing with the problem, and we recently had a case in British Columbia that was adjudicated. It was a staff sergeant who ended up being moved into British Columbia after there were several serious complaints against this officer's conduct within the force. I will read a couple of lines of the synopsis of the decision. It says:

Seven allegations of disgraceful conduct were established against the member.... The board considered both dismissal and a considerable demotion but paid great deference to a joint submission and imposed a sanction consisting of a reprimand, the forfeiture of 10 days' pay, a demotion from the rank of Staff Sergeant to Sergeant, a recommendation for transfer, and a recommendation for continued counseling.

When I read through this report, in the decision on the sanction, the board indicated that:

The seven incidents of misconduct describe a disturbing pattern of activity covering a period of years, involving inappropriate behaviour affecting a number of women who, in one way or another, were directly involved with [the staff sergeant] in his capacity.

It goes on to name his various jobs, and that the “gravity of this misconduct in its totality is such that dismissal was in the forefront of the Board's collective mind”. It also says that:

Victim Impact Statements were particularly troubling, revealing wounds which on a personal and an institutional level will require some time and attention to heal. It will take considerable effort to rebuild the damaged trust in our organization, and the Board can only hope that its decision in this matter will prove to be an important step along that path.

The member forfeited 10 days' pay and received a demotion, and the warning in the board's conclusion says:

The board recommends a transfer to a suitable position. In the Board's opinion, such a position should ideally be one which removes this member from working in the direct vicinity of the complainants and takes into account the potential (albeit limited, given the expert evidence) risk to other employees.

The member for Welland and the member for Hull—Aylmer mentioned that there are cultures within organizations and if we do not establish clear anti-harassment policies in these organizations, women would not feel comfortable coming forward.

In conclusion, we will be supporting the bill going to committee for review. We hope that the minister will truly entertain amendments that look at strengthening some of these aspects of the bill.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Hull—Aylmer for allowing me the opportunity to speak to this very important bill.

We have said quite openly that we support the bill at second reading, but we see opportunities to amend the bill to actually make it better. There are things that have been omitted simply because they were not thought through. They are not omissions by default or just because, but there are other things we could actually do.

My colleague pointed out the systemic nature of this, but I will quote Commissioner Paulson's testimony before the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, where he said:

It's the culture of the organization that has not kept pace...We haven't been able to change our practices and our policies, or provide systems that would permit women to thrive in the organization and contribute to policing, which they must do....I've said it publicly, and I'll say it again. I think the problem is bigger than simply the sexual harassment. It is the idea of harassment. The idea that we have a hierarchical organization overseeing men and women who have extraordinary powers in relation to their fellow citizens, which requires a fair degree of discipline.

What he talks about is what I saw as a very young person, when I was a student and worked in the auto sector. That workplace was dominated by men. There were very few women in that workplace. There was a culture that had evolved over the years. That culture needed to change as we saw the workplace change. However, when we saw the workplace change, its culture lagged behind. We took steps to remediate that, such as through harassment training in the workplace, so that people felt protected. They could come forward knowing there was an investigation process that was neutral and unbiased, that was not going to be heavy-handed for either party, regardless of who the complainant was or who the person being complained about was. People knew the process was available and that they could take part in that process.

Unfortunately, we have seen over the last year or so that former women officers of the RCMP have come forward after leaving the RCMP. It was a career that they desired and cherished, but because of the actions and the culture inside the organization, they felt they had to leave. Now they have finally come forward and said that all of that needs to change. They are standing up and saying to us as the policy-makers that we need to change the organization so that does not happen to other officers ever again, that people would have to leave their job because of the culture they faced within that workplace.

This is the 21st century and the national police organization finds itself mired in the 19th century. I guess this is better late than never, as one would say, but it is too late for those who have left. We will have to find a way to remediate that. The appropriate authorities will have to do that.

It has been mentioned that there are some misgivings in the sense that the powers in Bill C-42 would be arbitrarily given to the commissioner. The commissioner would become the absolute judge.

In every organization there is always a final decision maker, whoever that may be, but in this particular case, there is no balance. There is no balance for the person who perhaps would be subject to discipline and dismissal. One needs to find the balance, because what could happen is it could have the opposite effect. Folks would be forced into not coming forward because they thought the charge may end up in a dismissal and they would not want that to happen. We would end up with a system that still would not work.

The RCMP is our national police organization. I know that a lot of folks who live in Ontario and Quebec do not necessarily see the RCMP, but for folks in the west, the RCMP is a very visible police organization. We want to have an organization that functions well, which it does.

I also need to say that the vast majority of RCMP officers in this country do remarkable work. They go to work every day, work hard at what they do and do the things required of them under the act. They are good employees and good folks to work with. Unfortunately, there is an undercurrent of the situations that we have witnessed. We have heard about the nastiness of those things and we are now trying to address them. Bill C-42 is a step in the process of finding a way to resolve the issues that came up in the past and to ensure they get rectified and do not happen again.

In my view, we need a sense of independence and an independent body that can look at this organization and not appear as if it were the army. The army has a process as well, which is an internal one. That is justifiable and fair for it. However, this is a police organization that deals with citizens, the folks who interact with it. We need to have a civilian oversight authority that actually has authority and teeth. This is the only policing organization in this country that does not have civilian oversight. Municipal, regional, and provincial police forces in the case of Quebec and Ontario have civilian oversight. The RCMP does not.

That being the case, Bill C-42 has to address the issues of how we can give authority to civilian oversight so that folks can see that complaints are indeed taken seriously, are dealt with effectively and that the remedies that come out the other side are fair and just. I say this because in every remedy, there are two parties. There is always the complainant and there is the one who is aggrieved, and they deserve justice on both sides of the ledger. If we end up with an arbitrary process, there will always be someone who feels as if his or her grievance or complaint has not been handled judiciously in a fair and even-handed way. We would end up back at the same place we are now, with people coming forward and saying that the system did not work when they were involved with it.

I have heard members on both sides of the House say many times that they do not believe people should go to work to be harassed. They should go to work to do the work that we ask them to do, regardless of where they happen to go. Mr. Speaker, you say that you will not condone harassment in the House. However, we have this national organization that for far too long has allowed that to happen and a system to take hold that perpetuates it. It is not even the nudge, nudge, wink, wink routine. It really is a systemic issue, which is much harder to remedy than situations where someone simply does something untoward to someone else, which can then be dealt with by an immediate supervisor by taking the person aside and remedying that particular situation.

When it becomes a systemic issue, it literally inculcates the entire organization and then it becomes okay. If one takes oneself outside of such an organization and steps to the side, outside of the organization one would say in everyday life that others should not do that. However, because it is systemic, when one steps back into that role, it becomes a case of, “Well, that's what we do”. Moreover, because it becomes the norm, “We will continue to do it”. Even though individually we might think something is morally reprehensible, that we would never do it at home, never do it to our neighbours or to our broader community, as soon as we step inside the organization we think it is okay, because the system says to us, “That's what we do”. We need to put an end to that. I think everyone in the House wants to put an end to that.

That is why New Democrats want to send this bill to second reading and improve it. There are opportunities here to improve it. I believe the minister is telling us to bring our amendments forward, that he wants to work on the bill together. I commend the minister for that. Ultimately, we need to make Bill C-42 work for the good women and men in the RCMP and, indeed, the broader public across this country. Let us put the pride back in the RCMP that Canadians have always had in it, and which I know the officers in the RCMP truly want back again so that the organization is the proud organization that we all know it can and will be in the future.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Hull—Aylmer for her excellent speech on Bill C-42. She raised some extremely interesting points, including the reason why we are pleased with this bill, the type of gaps in the bill and what needs to be improved.

We know that Bill C-42 is a step in the right direction, but unfortunately it does not go far enough. What is sad is that this bill was introduced following much pressure from the official opposition and questions that were put to the government. It was as a result of those questions that the government introduced this bill in haste in June.

I think it was an excellent opportunity to address the problem directly, to really take on the RCMP's internal culture and to ensure that women are protected in the workplace.

I know that my colleague worked very hard in her career for the rights of workers. Is she not a little disappointed to see just how far short of the mark this bill falls, in our view?

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for months now, the NDP has pressured the minister to give serious consideration to the sexual harassment issues in the RCMP. The fact that 200 women have launched a class action suit against the RCMP shows that there is a problem in Canada in 2012.

But I would like to ask the hon. member whether she shares my view that Bill C-42 will not address the systemic problem of culture within the RCMP. I actually think that the bill will not be able to change the culture and that the 200 women—like the other women who have worked or will work for this institution—will be subjected to this culture within the RCMP and are not very likely to see their conditions improve.

Does the hon. NDP member think that Bill C-42 will change the culture within the RCMP?

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be sharing my time with the member for Welland.

Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, addresses issues of urgent public concern with respect to the RCMP.

The men and women in uniform at the RCMP have a difficult and often dangerous job to do every day, a job that requires a great deal of judgment and conduct beyond reproach. We should be mindful of the fact that the majority are fathers and mothers who risk their lives to ensure our safety. However, the admiration we have for their courage and commitment should not prevent us from collectively examining the corporate culture of the RCMP and the repercussions this culture may have on workplace relations and the RCMP itself, which is accountable to the public and must be more transparent.

We have all heard that over 200 female employees and former employees of the RCMP have joined a class-action lawsuit alleging sexual harassment. Other individual lawsuits have also been filed. Sexual harassment has no place in our society. It should not be tolerated anywhere, least of all in the RCMP.

We have also heard about disciplinary measures imposed on RCMP officers accused of gross misconduct, measures that many believe to be too lenient. For the past few months, we have been urging the Minister of Public Safety to make sexual harassment in the RCMP a priority.

Bill C-42 appears, at least in part, to be a response to public concerns about this issue. But is it an adequate response? Does the bill go as far as it should to reassure the public that the government is doing everything it can to change the prevailing culture within the RCMP? Like many others, I have my doubts.

Let me be clear. Yes, Bill C-42 is a step in the right direction, but it does not go far enough. We will support it at second reading knowing that the committee will have to work hard to improve it.

I would like to commend the minister for the openness he expressed in his opening remarks earlier this week. He said that he was open to the committee amending the bill. I think that we should all make an effort to collaborate more here in the House.

As I said, we agree with the spirit of Bill C-42. For example, we agree that restoring public confidence in the RCMP is a priority. One would have to be blind or wilfully ignorant not to have noticed public confidence declining over the past few years. The tragic death of Robert Dziekanski and the force's response to it, along with the sexual harassment allegations that I mentioned earlier have done serious damage to the RCMP's reputation.

Second, we also recognize that civilian review is vital to promoting the RCMP's obligation to ensure transparency and public accountability; it is crucial. This is especially true because, without accountability and transparency, the goal of regaining public trust cannot be achieved.

As for the goal of promoting irreproachable conduct within the RCMP, that is self-evident. That being said, it would be in everyone's best interest to clearly specify the consequences of and the procedures to follow in cases of misconduct on the part of any employee. This is the kind of proposal that could be discussed in committee.

On both sides of the House, we share certain ideas about the goals we wish to achieve with this bill, but where we might disagree is on how to go about achieving them. While we support some aspects of the bill, we believe that it should be more ambitious regarding certain points.

It is not a question of criticizing for the sake of criticizing, but rather being constructive and proposing options and solutions.

For instance, we believe it is crucial to allow the RCMP commissioner to carry out reforms in the area of discipline in order to deal with the climate of sexual harassment that exists in the organization. No one is against virtue.

Everyone agrees that the current process to address problems and misconduct in the workplace is too complex and needs to be simplified. However, we also think it is crucial to bring in a clear anti-harassment policy. Specific standards of behaviour regarding sexual harassment and specific criteria for evaluating the performance of all employees must be put in place. It is also important to ensure that these reforms in the area of discipline do not lead to any arbitrary dismissals.

The RCMP is the only police force in the country that does not have a collective agreement. Under these circumstances, we must ensure a balanced disciplinary process in order to avoid any abuses.

We also support reforms to the old RCMP Public Complaints Commission. The public must have full confidence in the independence of that institution. I think the Conservatives and the NDP can agree on that.

Where we perhaps disagree is with regard to the degree of independence that the new civilian review and complaints commission should have. Everyone agrees that we should strengthen the RCMP's review and complaints body. However, Bill C-42 is not robust enough in that regard.

The bill sets out that, like the former commission, the new commission will report directly to the Minister of Public Safety rather than to the House of Commons.

We believe that this way of doing things does not promote the independence of the commission and the investigations that it will conduct. If we really want to restore the public's confidence in the RCMP, we have to guarantee that the civilian review and complaints commission is fully and completely independent.

In order to guarantee the civilian review and complaints commission's independence, we must also do things differently when it comes to the contracts of the commissioners who will oversee it. The current commissioner, Ian McPhail, inherited a one-year contract when he replaced Paul Kennedy. This one-year contract was recently renewed for just one more year.

One year contracts are meant to ensure that the complaints commissioner has an arm's length relationship with the government and to avoid any perception that he does not. Some people will wonder whether the commissioner is able to do his work properly if he does not know whether he will have the job from one year to the next.

The bill provides for contracts of more than five years. Now, we must ensure that this way of doing things does not open the door to a practice similar to the one that is currently in place, that of a one-year renewable contract.

In closing, I would like to emphasize the importance of working together within the House. Above and beyond our political allegiances, we all have the duty to best serve the interests of Canadians.

As I mentioned, we agree with the spirit of Bill C-42 and that is why we will support it at second reading.

However, there is still work to be done. We still have to fine-tune this bill in committee. I raised a few ideas that I hope will be incorporated. My colleagues will do the same. Together, the government and the opposition must ensure that we come up with the best bill possible.

The House resumed from September 18 consideration of the motion that Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to committee, and of the motion that this question be now put.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as a retired member of the RCMP, I do agree that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act does need to be overhauled, and as it is an act of Parliament, it must be done in this House.

The one thing I will say with respect to the part of her speech regarding the sergeant is that, as she well knows, under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act right now, the commissioner has no authority to remove members of the RCMP, whether they be male or female. There is nothing for that in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.

My question for the hon. member is this. Does she believe that Bill C-42, which would empower the commissioner of the RCMP to dismiss members for dereliction of duty—which would include harassment, in my opinion—would be a good start for the commissioner to move forward with such things as dealing with sexual harassment in the workplace?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my comments I have to acknowledge the comments from my colleague from Newton—North Delta. Clearly we are talking about trying to engage in getting a piece of legislation to the best that it can be. On this side of the House, in the Senate and elsewhere, we have lots of people who have various backgrounds and who could be very helpful.

If the goal is to strengthen a piece of legislation then it should be taken up by all of us in open debate and discussion, which is what is supposed to happen in the House. The government side seems to feel it has done all its work already and is prepared to move forward on this piece of legislation. It is clearly our intent to do what we were elected to do, which is to look at a piece of legislation, offer our comments and hope to improve on it. With the many smart people that we have in the House, on all sides, I am quite confident that would happen if we would just allow democracy to do what it is supposed to do, which is to allow us all to participate in a proper manner.

As the Liberal Party critic for the status of women I am particularly pleased to be able to speak to the bill. I had been working on this issue for well over a year now when I started getting many calls about sexual harassment from other members of the RCMP. I am pleased to see that the government has responded to the issue and the pleas from Commissioner Paulson and others to start to make some legislative improvements and untie the commissioner's hands.

Is it enough? In its present form, I do not think so, but that is exactly what we are going to do between the House and the committee.

As most members will know, the issue surrounding sexual harassment and workplace bullying within the RCMP is one that many of us have been hearing about and getting involved in. It is unfortunate, however, that it took so much to finally get the government to reluctantly take the step forward to reform the RCMP. However, it is a first step. Let us take it one step at a time.

From the outset I want to make it very clear that I, and I believe everybody else in the House, have nothing but the utmost respect for the RCMP and all of the officers in various divisions and cities who work so much to keep us all safe. Over the years the force has been an honourable, proud and iconic symbol for our country. When asked what they think of Canada, one of the first things people say is the RCMP and their red uniforms. We are very proud of them. I would hope that, as a result of some of the changes that are coming forward and the work of Commissioner Paulson and others, we will see those changes happen.

Despite its legacy, in more recent years the force has received a very black eye due primarily to a failure to address certain internal cultural realities that unfortunately cast the RCMP in a very negative light. Bill C-42 is perhaps the first step down the road toward addressing some of these issues. I say some of these issues because I am not convinced that this legislation is going to address all of the issues at hand. I fear it will miss the mark if the government is not prepared to hear from those affected. This is not just a problem with process. It goes much deeper than that.

A short time ago I was speaking to Senator Roméo Dallaire, who all of us know. We are familiar with the heroic deeds of Senator Dallaire in the military context. During that conversation the senator made connections between the military of the early 90s and the RCMP of today. We all remember some of the challenges faced by DND in the early 90s. Most of these problems revolved around a culture that had not changed or kept pace with the times. There were terrible headlines and terrible comments coming from a variety of different quarters. As a result, the public confidence in the military was again shaken and real change was demanded. The culture of the military at that time needed to be modernized.

Much of what we are talking about in Bill C-42 is an attempt to move forward. It is about modernization. It is about things that were not acceptable 20 years ago but have managed to continue on. Women, in many cases, are the victims of sexual harassment in a variety of different avenues. Especially when we get into places like the military or policing, somehow there seems to be an opportunity for more bullying and sexual harassment.

The Liberal government had a problem on its hands in trying to deal with the outcome of what was very negative publicity in and around our armed forces. The Liberal government at the time made those changes. It modernized DND and the military. It put in place a senior management team that instituted far-reaching change in the Canadian military. It was put in place specifically to change the military culture of how people treated each other, how they treated people at different levels, how they needed to respect each other, and that harassment should not exist in that kind of culture. That was real leadership and that kind of leadership is again needed in the context of the sexual harassment and workplace bullying that we are hearing about within the RCMP.

Even the commissioner is asking for this. Commissioner Paulson was at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. He effectively said that he needed changes to the legislation that would untie his hands so that he would be able to deal effectively with those he knows are not following the rules as they should be followed. I want to be optimistic but I am not seeing that level of leadership as much as I am seeing a careful response based in a public relations strategy.

That is part of the reason why it is so important for there to be a debate in the House and for this legislation to go to committee, where it will have a true opportunity to be debated and strengthened so that this is not a public relations strategy and we really will attempt to fix the problems that we all know exist in the organization.

It is a serious move for 138 people to file harassment charges against the RCMP. It certainly is a career ending move, but it should not be that. Those people who came forward know that their careers are effectively over, but they felt strongly enough about their belief in the RCMP that they wanted to see a change come about anyway.

It should not have taken a public appeal from the Commissioner of the RCMP, either, to prompt a government response to the problems within the RCMP. That was reckless on the part of the government. Clearly the commissioner felt the only way to say this publicly was at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. He felt that was necessary. If we were going to see change, that was the only way for him to come out and make such a statement. Even now, according to the The Hill Times, government MPs on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women are reluctant to really deal with this matter in an open and transparent manner.

I give credit to the standing committee, of which I am also a vice-chair, for dealing with the whole issue of harassment and sexual harassment. Rather than focusing strictly on the RCMP, as I would have preferred us to do, we are broadening that and looking at a dozen different Government of Canada departments. We are looking at what the policies are when it comes to sexual harassment. Some departments have them and some do not. They should all have them. I want to applaud the committee for taking a leadership role in doing that. A serious look at harassment would benefit not only government departments and employees of the Government of Canada but we would be showing effective leadership for the provinces and many other people across Canada. That is the kind of thing that I would like to see the committee do. I want to applaud it for dealing with that issue. It took a lot of pushing to get it there but it is there. We are going to work together this fall on that study.

The reluctance by the government to deal with the changes needed in the RCMP is really an affront to people like Jamie Hanlon, Nancy Arias and Catherine Galliford. These are dedicated people who dreamed of being part of the RCMP but found their dream to be a nightmare once confronted by a system that allowed, and even encouraged at times, harassment according to some of the comments that have come forward.

These issues must be resolved. Abuse, sexual intimidation or workplace bullying should never be acceptable. These issues should never flourish in any agency or organization in Canada, least of all the RCMP.

To put it into perspective, I would like to read from an email my office received from one of the women who faced sexual harassment within the force. She said, in reference to Bill C-42:

Bill C-42 is an important step towards the future. However, it in no way addresses the serious issues of violence in the workplace at the RCMP that has been around for more than 20 years, and it is for this very reason that it is extremely important and imperative that the victims of these crimes be heard and that accountability prevails. Only then can we all move collectively into the future.

That is a very important statement from someone who has been part of this, who has experienced that kind of harassment, who wants to see the RCMP improve and go forward.

Whatever happens, there will very much be watched by many of the police services throughout our great country, no doubt, because there is an awful lot that goes on that is not reported for a whole lot of reasons.

No one wants to lose their job. They know that it could clearly impede their opportunity for advancement, but these are very serious issues. I hope that at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women we will be able to give these women an opportunity to speak, and men are part of this as well, but an opportunity to be heard because they are in it for the right reasons. They want to see changes and improvements happen. I agree and I am truly hopeful that the government will get serious about tackling this issue when Bill C-42 arrives at committee.

Further to this, in May of this year, RCMP Commissioner Paulson wrote an open letter outlining his current limitations in weeding out the so-called bad apples in the force. Never in the 13 years I have been here have I ever seen a department head, a deputy minister or a commissioner write an open letter in the newspaper appealing for help to make change in his organization. It took a tremendous amount of courage on his part to do that. The Minister of Public Safety took that very seriously, went to work and created Bill C-42.

This letter added to his testimony before the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. He said his officers did not have the confidence in the ability of the force to resolve these matters. I did not say that. Commissioner Paulson, head of the RCMP, said that.

When we go back to how the Liberals dealt with the issue in the military, it would set up a separate group of people outside of the RCMP who would deal with all of those issues and come forward with some recommendations. Over and above the work we are doing on Bill C-42, there should be a separate team of people, experts in the field, that would really make those differences.

In essence, an exasperated commissioner was begging for help. Only then did the government step in.

The minister would say that he is addressing the matter at hand, but I fail to see how reworking the force's bureaucratic grievance system and giving increased power to the commissioner would address cases such as the one involving the infamous Sergeant Don Ray. Sergeant Ray admitted that over a three year period of time he had sex with subordinates, drank with them at work and sexually harassed them. He was also found to have used his position to favour female potential employees.

Those are very damning things for a member of the RCMP to do. What happened to him? In return, rather than facing charges, Sergeant Ray was docked 10 days' pay. He intimidated and harassed women in the service, and all of that went on over a period of years. Women would get fired and dismissed and all kinds of things, but what happened to Sergeant Ray? He got a 10-day suspension and was transferred to another detachment.

I have to wonder where that other detachment is. If a woman in Edmonton or Manitoba has difficulty getting home one night, will Sergeant Ray, on a dark night, be the one to help her fix her car, or whatever has happened, when she is stranded? I would not feel safe having him out there. It is absolutely unbelievable that he would be allowed to be out there with a 10-day suspension.

However, I think we can agree that this is not an administrative failing. This runs far deeper than that.

This is precisely why I think Bill C-42 would not be enough to address these cultural matters without real debate, which is what we should be having in the House, open dialogue and several amendments at committee.

I certainly hope the committee will be able to do that, that the committee will not be hamstrung and will be able to hear from all the individuals who are part of a variety of different positions in the RCMP, whether they are part of a lawsuit or whatever it is, that they will be encouraged and allowed to come to committee. In that way the committee will have a full picture of what is going on and can make the amendments necessary and can make a recommendation to put a leadership team together to ensure that the changes needed in the RCMP happen and that this is simply not a bunch of paper and another bill that would have no teeth and no real ability to do anything.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise to debate Bill C-42. As we all know, the bill was tabled just days before Parliament recessed for the summer. It was introduced in light of the many challenges the RCMP had faced over the last number of years, with the numerous struggles, scandals around sexual harassment and the internal processes and a feeling of a lack of trust in one of our most iconic institutions, the RCMP.

I will speak in support of the bill getting to the committee stage so major issues can be addressed. However, I cannot proceed without echoing the concern of my colleague who spoke before me about the lack of debate from one part of the House.

Parliamentary democracy is a treasured institution, of which we are very proud. My experience as a member of Parliament, since the very short time I have been in the House, has been the lack of respect for our parliamentary democracy. I have seen it through the movement of closure, time allocations and all kinds of ways to muzzle debate.

In parliamentary democracy, the government proposes and the opposition critiques, not with the idea of just simple opposition, but with the idea that through debate, the initial debate and then the committee stage, we end up with legislation that best serves Canadians and that has been chiseled, questioned and put under the microscope.

We saw how our voices were silenced in June, May and April, all those months, but today I am experiencing a different kind of eery feeling in the House where the government has brought forward significant legislation for debate. Debate does not mean a few people having a conversation. This debate, to be truly effective, has to be with people from government who will respond to issues we raise, answer questions and explain some of the elements of the legislation. That is what debate is. Then we examine it on its merits.

I will echo my colleague who spoke earlier who has said that lack of debate and that lack of response from one end of the House seems very disrespectful of our parliamentary democracy and of the role we play as elected parliamentarians who are here to debate, not to just sit in silence, in this very well-respected institution.

I am very proud of the work done by the RCMP. In my riding of Newton—North Delta, on the Surrey side, we are served by the RCMP and I have always been truly impressed by its professionalism, dedication and the way it carries out its work.

The government has presented legislation to enhance trust and restore accountability in the RCMP. It takes more than some words on paper to enhance accountability in the RCMP.

We ask our men and women in uniform to carry out some pretty serious responsibilities, which is the protection of our citizenry, and they do that. However, we also have to give them the resources to ensure the staffing exists and they have the tools and resources so they can carry out their tasks, whether their tasks are in their duties as RCMP officers, the investigation processes, the forensic processes or the internal workings of the RCMP. The government is cutting 149 positions from the RCMP, the same government that talks constantly about increasing our community safety and security, greater policing and vigilance and all of those issues. The cutting of those positions seems a little at odds with those positions.

I also want to bring to the attention of members that 42 of those positions will be cut are in B.C. The positions being cut across the country include cuts from the investigation branch and the forensic's area. I wonder how much trust people can have in the RCMP when we do not give it the tools to do its job. Only when RCMP members carry out their jobs and the functions we ask them to do people build trust in our iconic institution. However, we are denying them access to some of those basic tools.

I want to talk about a major driver behind this legislation, which has been the litany of sexual harassment allegations within the RCMP. No one in the House supports sexual harassment anywhere and when it happens in one of our iconic institutions, which is there to protect citizens, it gives us a great deal of concern. We have to remember that the vast majority of members in the RCMP is not implicated in these allegations. However, even one allegation is one too many. There have been many and this needs to be addressed.

I know we cannot address an issue like sexual harassment and the culture that I would not say facilitated but allowed it to happen. We cannot change that culture or stop sexual harassment simply by passing legislation. When we talk about the major elements, we have heard that the culture has to be changed, the hierarchical and accountability culture. Yes, we need legislation and processes in place, but they need to be clear, transparent and independent processes so the investigations and consequences are not determined by those who are part of the institution. However, as a teacher and counsellor, in order to bring about cultural change within any institution, one cannot impose things from Parliament or the commissioner. In order to bring about cultural change within the RCMP or any other institution, there has to be a great deal of buy-in. The way to get buy-in is by engaging the community and the RCMP in a very meaningful way, as well as ensuring the RCMP is part of the end solution.

One of the concerns I had when I read this bill was about the amount of power that would be given to the minister. This seems to be a new trend. When it comes to immigration, every piece of legislation that has come forward recently seems to put even more power in the hands of the immigration minister. This is not against any individual, but I do not believe we need to give ministers that kind of centralization of power or that much control.

We have to look at putting in place a process that involves the police, the communities and the different agencies to have structures in place so there is a great deal of independence. If we have a independent commission looking a this, to whom should it report? It should be Parliament. This is the body that needs to take this on.

On the issue of sexual harassment, the commissioner had started an investigation and report into gender balance and other issues. That report has not been released yet. In many ways there are elements in the bill that are very premature, but also elements which should have been acted on a long time ago to address the immediate issue of sexual harassment. Issues of sexual harassment cannot wait one, two, three or four years. We all know the kind of damage that does not only to the individuals involved, but to the whole institution of the RCMP. I have a great deal of concern with the way this process is playing out.

Giving so much power to the minister and centralizing quite arbitrary powers in the hands of the commissioner should also give us some concern. One of the things I have learned over the years is that Canadians believe in the rule of law. They also believe in due process. If individuals are charged with something, we want them to have due process. That does not mean we want to be tied up in the courts for years and years. It means we need a very clear process where the rights of the individuals who have allegations against them are respected as well. If we do not have that, we are in danger of moving toward omnipotence being placed in the hands of a few who then believe they can take action without any recourse by others. That is not the Canadian way of doing things. We have to absolutely ensure we do that.

I do not think anyone believes there should not be oversight of our RCMP and other institutions, but we need the kind of oversight that actually moves us forward and not have people digging trenches and making things worse.

I have had a number of conversations with RCMP officers in my riding. Summer is when we get to be in our ridings and we meet with our constituents at barbecues or on the street. Others come to meet with us individually. I was very impressed by the conversations I have had with RCMP officers. It is a group which is feeling oppressed right now. There is a lot of insecurity and a feeling of what is happening, of the unknown and the feeling that a hammer will fall on them, that they will be expected to do more with less. They do not even know what kind of due process and rights they will have in the new systems that come into play.

When people with years and years of experience, people who serve our community as valiantly as these officers do, raise those concerns, we have to pay attention. Legislation that is as unclear and convoluted as this helps to create more confusion and does not really take into account the short-term actions that we spoke about last May and June. We need to take those actions immediately. We also need to put some independent but fair processes in place for everyone.

I do not think anybody wants fairness for themselves at the expense of other people. As a government, we want to ensure that the legislation we bring forward and passes in the House provides our men and women in uniform that due process they so need and deserve.

Putting power in the hands of ministers also sends a different kind of message. It takes away the independence and professional service we expect from policing. If the minister has extraordinary powers to overrule, direct and delegate here, there and everywhere, that actually creates more instability not only in the force but also in the communities because they are not clear as to who is making the decisions, who is finally responsible and who will be held accountable for those actions.

I went into teaching because I am hopeful and always expect situations to improve. I am hopeful that when we get to committee stage opposition committee members, including our critic, will be given the time they need in order to make the kinds of amendments that will make this legislation more palatable to the opposition and also move us forward in a more positive way.

The one thing I have learned over the years, whether it was dealing with kids or adults, is that if we want them to change their behaviour, hitting them on the head does not make it happen. Therefore, having more legislation with more of this will not do it.

I would urge that the RCMP be more actively engaged. Its members are very concerned about the damage to their image. The RCMP officers who I have talked to are just as outraged and upset by the sexual harassment cases and other scandals as we are. They want to be part of the solution. I would say that if we put them outside of the solution, outside of that circle that is coming up with a solution, we are not acting smartly or strategically and I would question how serious we are about addressing the issues that exist within the RCMP that require our attention.

Once again I urge the government to reconsider centralizing the powers to ministers in a way that does not serve our democracy well. I also urge the government to get engaged in debate. This is the House of Commons where debate happens between different parties. If I were sitting on the government side, I would want to actually engage in a discussion about a piece of legislation if I were serious about it. To just sit quietly is a waste of taxpayer dollars and goes against parliamentary democracy because taxpayers send us here to play an active role in Parliament. That is what we are here to do.

There are many other issues that I could speak to but I see I am out of time. I will finish off with the idea that we cannot bring about cultural change and build trust and accountability by just words on paper but rather by actions and how we engage people in a meaningful and respectful way.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity today to speak at second reading of Bill C-42. It is called An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, but the government has chosen to call it by its short title, the enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police accountability act. The government is fond of naming these bills in some sort of public relations move. This is intended to cover everything that is included in the act but also to respond to public concerns.

It is fair to say that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police was an institution that, up until recent years, had a great deal of respect among Canadians, whether they be members of the policing field or members of the general public who looked to the RCMP as the embodiment of a system of justice that had high standards of professionalism and respect from the public and from other police officers.

I started practising law in 1980 and in my early days the RCMP was known by other police forces as the senior police force in Canada. The police forces in my jurisdiction and others would look to the RCMP in terms of standards, whether they be of training, establishment of procedures and investigative procedures or standards of ethics and conduct, and this went on for many years.

I am only saying what many others have said before me, including members of the RCMP, many of whom I have spoken to over the last few years. There is a great deal of concern about the institution itself and about its ability to ensure the level of trust and respect that a police force demands. Others have rightly spoken about the high regard in which the RCMP is held throughout the world in terms of its effectiveness, its investigative ability and the forensic and technical expertise it has and lends to other forces throughout the world. In terms of training in other nations under various international agreements and United Nations efforts, we have made a significant contribution through the RCMP.

However, we have seen, at sometimes very senior levels of the RCMP, a failing that needs to be corrected. The most recent controversy has been about complaints of sexual harassment and, more importantly I suppose, the failure to adequately respond to the question of sexual harassment. Although we do have incidents of sexual harassment, as the report published today pointed out based on a survey of 426 members of the RCMP in British Columbia, the majority of respondents did not feel that the harassment was rampant inside the force. However, they expressed frustration at the handling of existing cases and the high number of unreported cases.

That is not saying it is rampant throughout the force, so we are not condemning the RCMP when we talk about the existence of sexual harassment cases. However, we are condemning the institution both for failing to respond properly to those incidents that have been reported and for failing to provide an atmosphere in which reporting can take place and—because primarily we are talking 99% of the time about women who are subject to such sexual harassment—in which they actually have a safe place to bring forth their complaints knowing it is the complaint that will be dealt with and not them.

That is important. It is important that the public have a clear understanding, belief, trust and faith in our senior police force representing the nation in symbolic ways, whether it be on our coins or through the musical ride. The RCMP is well known as a symbol of Canada and of respect. Even the ancient comment, which I suppose is praise, that the RCMP is the force that always gets its man or woman as the case may be, is emblematic of the esteem in which this organization is held in the popular culture of Canada. However it has to be fixed.

The question here is whether or not Bill C-42 is that fix. We know that the RCMP and the authorities within the RCMP need to be able to deal with bad behaviour. We know we need to have effective civilian oversight, and this has been commented on in various speeches here for many years. We also need a fair grievance procedure, one that ensures that grievances, whether they be about sexual harassment, pay and benefits or the conduct of some officer towards an individual, are dealt with fairly and in a timely manner. These are things that have to be done.

In this atmosphere, where we are talking about one of the principal recent reasons—the issue of sexual harassment—for the public outcry for accountability of RCMP officers and the force itself, what I find surprising is that in this bill we do not have a standard or even a statement with regard to sexual harassment and the unacceptability of it in an organization and in employment relationships. It may be a matter of policy in some organizations. In an institution of this nature, which is regarded as quasi-militaristic and has a hierarchy of authority where officers are expected to listen to and obey the commands of senior officers, more particularly there is a need to ensure that officers who have authority over others are prohibited and exhorted in a specific way not to abuse that authority, especially when it comes to the serious issue of sexual harassment.

Today's news, as mentioned by the previous speaker, is of the release of a survey done five or six months ago, interviewing a fairly large number of British Columbia members of the RCMP, and an internal report that found female members do not trust the force's system to deal with harassment complaints and frequently avoid reporting instances of perceived wrongdoing:

Participants strongly expressed that they were fearful of coming forward to report harassment as it could hinder promotional opportunities, have a negative impact on their careers, and possibly cause them to become a scapegoat for anything supervisors wanted to find fault with.

The opinion was also expressed that the RCMP is known for moving the complainant rather than dealing with the problem. In that context, I have to challenge the minister's statement in his speech yesterday that all we need to do is give the front-line managers power to make decisions, in fact, give them more power to deal with circumstances in situations.

We are supporting the bill at second reading and our public safety critic, the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, spoke very eloquently yesterday on it. We are supporting it because we do know there is a need to fix some of the problems in the RCMP and provide for a greater accountability and an ability to deal with these problems. However, we want to ensure we do not see merely a pendulum swinging one way and then the other, giving more authority and power to those at the top without ensuring that the job that needs to be done gets done. This is what I see and fear about this legislation.

We need timelines to deal with grievances. We need timelines to deal with situations. We need standards, particularly around conduct and behaviour. In that respect, a code of conduct is a good thing. However, we also have to make sure there would be due process.

I have a worry that the checks and balances are not there when I see a grievance procedure that gives the commissioner final and binding decision-making authority that he can delegate to somebody else, who in turn can delegate it to somebody else below him or her. It would be a final and binding decision without any reference to third parties, civilians outside or standards that may exist in other elements of public life.

This is a concern that has been raised within the military where there are similar circumstances. The grievance boards do not have sufficient outside involvement and it is all done within the context of the military circumstances, just as with this bill, where there would be an internal grievance procedure that would not have the checks and balances we would want.

Many of the matters that are dealt with are not specifically policing matters but rather of compensation, fair treatment or whether a dinner allowance was properly awarded. Yes, these things should be dealt with quickly, but with fairness and not arbitrarily.

We need due process in terms of grievances and conduct that may result in dismissal without powers arbitrarily set with the commissioner. The proposed legislation would give the commissioner the absolute right to appoint or discharge members, but it could be subject to a conduct board, which is probably a good thing.

If we are going to have a code of conduct, we have to have someone able to interpret and apply it. However, from my opportunity to peruse it, it is not clear in this proposed legislation who would actually do that or who the members on the conduct board would be. This is something that the committee would look closely at. We would like to see a code of conduct that specifically prohibits and explains what sexual harassment is, for example.

We do have codes of conduct with respect to the use of force. Clearly, the conduct of the RCMP and policing communities in the use of force in certain circumstances is another issue that has brought about concerns from many people. We had the Dziekanski investigation and hearing in British Columbia and there are other instances throughout the country that question the behaviour of RCMP members and police officers on other forces. It is not an exclusive issue to the RCMP, but behaviour, standards and conduct are brought into question and challenged.

These are the subject of lawsuits in some cases, and inquiries and other investigations. There has to be a proper code of conduct for that. There has to be a disciplinary procedure when it is necessary to impose discipline. There has to be due process to ensure that officers themselves are protected when they find themselves accused of certain breaches of conduct. It has to be fair. I believe the word used yesterday by my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca was “balance”. There has to be a balance struck that does not simply let the pendulum swing one way because there is a perception that there is insufficient authority being exercised.

I want to talk about something else that others have mentioned, namely that legislation alone is not going to change the culture within the RCMP. It has to come from leadership and education. It perhaps also has to come by involving people from outside the force, that is by having them come in to help in solving some of these problems. The RCMP internally has been aware of these problems; they are not new. There has been report after report expressing concerns about the structure of the RCMP and the problems there, yet we do not see solutions. They are not all going to come from the top. The leadership has to come from the top but other people can be brought in to solve the problems.

This is an internal report that was commissioned after Commissioner Paulson was appointed. The commissioner himself has vowed to root out so-called dark hearted behaviour in the RCMP. Rooting things out is one thing, but changing the culture is another. It is a little harder job. It is not simply a matter of passing legislation. It is a matter of replacing the culture with a new culture based on respect: respect for each other, respect for women, respect for citizens and respect for the fact that police officers are given significant authority to use force in keeping the peace. That is something that has to be used with great care. It is a big responsibility that we give to police officers. From those to whom that responsibility is given, much is expected.

What is interesting in the response to the internal report, a pretty damning report referred to in today's Globe and Mail, is that the majority of the respondents in the report said they had no faith in the current reporting process. That is why we have unreported cases of sexual harassment and other forms of harassment. That is a fairly damning conclusion by individual members of the RCMP in this internal report. This results in severe morale problems and also a lack of faith in senior officers and the structure itself.

One response by Deputy Commissioner Callens, who is the commanding officer of the B.C. RCMP, was to send more than a hundred officers for training to ensure greater timeliness and follow-up to complaint investigations. Indeed, this is what the RCMP said in a statement. Well, follow-up and timeliness is one thing, but there are also other aspects to this whole notion of how does sexual harassment exist in the first place. Why is it tolerated? Is there a culture of toleration? Is there something more deep seated that has to be dealt with outside of legislation but internally within the RCMP? It is a big job and they may need outside help to do that.

Therefore, I realize this is a big task and that the legislature cannot fix everything by legislation. Nonetheless, the legislation itself is a step in the right direction. We support the notion of having more authority to deal with problems and having things dealt with in a more timely fashion.

We are concerned about some of the measures here. There need to be a lot of changes in the bill before it will be acceptable to the official opposition. We will work assiduously in committee to help make that happen.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that with a long-standing institution like the RCMP that has not had a lot of change, relatively speaking, in the course of its history, when it comes to reform it is always a big shock. It is a big shock to most of us in Canada and certainly within the RCMP.

The process is on its way but it is important that these reforms not be a one-time shot. It is important to ensure in this bill that there are ongoing reforms. This organization, like any other organization, is a living organism that continually changes. With some of the issues that we have been dealing with in the last few years with the RCMP, it is quite clear that this organization has been slow to change. With Bill C-42, we need to ensure that the mechanism exists to ensure that reform can happen on the basis that it is needed over the next 20, 30, 40 or 50 years so we do not have to revisit this and it can act as a body the way Canadians expect it to act.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there has been some movement in the last couple of years, which the commissioner has been an important part of, but there has also been an increase in awareness, not only in this place but also in the general public in terms of the kinds of jobs that we ask RCMP members to do and the kinds of obstacles they have in performing their jobs to the best of their abilities.

I believe, as I said in my speech, that we are on the right path. Bill C-42 is a step forward but it is not a giant step forward. As we deal with this in the public safety committee, we in the New Democrats will ensure as much as possible that this bill gets changed for the better and we will work to ensure that happens so we can come back to the House with an amended bill that takes a giant step forward.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to see you back in the chair again in this session after a summer of working hard for your constituents. I say that not to get extra time for my comments here, but to let you know that we are very pleased that you are here.

I will be supporting Bill C-42 at second reading because, while it falls short on a number of accounts, it is still a step in the right direction and should, hopefully, help the membership of the RCMP receive better personal protection in its workplace and could help restore public confidence in this institution. I say that because police officers like other first responders put their lives at risk every day when they are on the job and Canadians are very grateful for their sacrifices. It only makes sense that while they are busy protecting Canadians, the members of our RCMP staff can go to work knowing that they, themselves, are protected in their own workplace.

In a majority government the government has an opportunity to make a real difference and has an opportunity to take real action. Unfortunately the bill does not far enough. I will support it going to committee because I think in committee we can make this a bill that everyone in the House can be proud of as well as in the RCMP.

We can go further on these issues as there needs to be a clear anti-harassment policy in the RCMP, one which contains specific standards for behaviour and specific criteria for evaluating the performance of all employees. Such a policy is needed to serve as a basis for a fair, disciplined process, but will not be guaranteed, unfortunately, with the passage of Bill C-42 as it now stands.

Also, Bill C-42 does not go far enough in directly addressing the concerns of women serving in the RCMP. New Democrats are calling for urgent action to foster a more inclusive and safe environment for women in the RCMP. This bill has been introduced without the benefit of the findings of an internal gender audit of the RCMP, ordered by the commission that is currently under way but not yet completed. The Conservatives' approach does not make women in the RCMP a priority.

Another criticism I have heard from members of the public, who are affected and concerned about the implications of Bill C-42, is that the proposed new civilian complaints commission looks remarkably like the current RCMP public complaints commission, especially in that it would not be a fully independent commission reporting to the House of Commons. Instead, it would continue to report to the Minister of Public Safety.

The new commission would also have serious restrictions on its ability to undertake independent investigations and its findings would be presented only in the form of non-binding recommendations to the commissioner and to the minister. Removing these restrictions, allowing truly independent investigations and making those recommendations binding is needed. Removing these restrictions on the independence of the new commission will be a major issue for us at the committee stage.

The proposal also fails to create an agency with any teeth since primary investigations into accidents of death or serious bodily harm will largely be contracted out to municipal or provincial police forces, even though some of those police forces have no civilian investigation body or are still conducted by the RCMP itself.

Bill C-42 is a step in the right direction, so I will be supporting the bill at second reading in the hope of improving it at committee.

I believe our RCMP personnel deserve better and with some improvement I am certain that public trust will once again be restored in this most important national institution.

My hon. friend from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca made some very interesting comments yesterday, and I would like to further some of the things he had to say.

The first is that we really should have had this legislation much sooner. There is an urgency for the public in terms of confidence in the RCMP. There is an issue where RCMP rank and file members are working in a workplace climate that is not always supportive of the difficult and the very dangerous work they do. Of course it is important to the RCMP leadership, which is charged with the task of making those necessary changes, but, first and foremost, I believe there is a necessity to restore the confidence of Canadians in our international police force.

The RCMP has long provided excellent service to Canadians coast to coast to coast, but over the previous years, dating back to the Liberal government, we have had increasing questions about incidents involving use of force where public confidence has waned in the RCMP. That is a problem, not just for the public, but also for serving members of the RCMP.

The bill's second purpose, as stated, is to promote transparency and public accountability in law enforcement. We could not agree more that this is essential if we are to meet the first objective, which is to restore public confidence in the RCMP. The only way to do that is through enhanced transparency and public accountability.

The third reason for reforming the RCMP Act, which is stated in the bill's preamble, deals with the relationship with provincial, regional and municipal governments that hold contracts with the RCMP. They have entered into those contracts in good faith, but often feel they do not have adequate input into the policing of their jurisdictions, or adequate accountability measures for the RCMP when they have questions about what has happened in those jurisdictions.

A fourth measure, also as stated in the preamble of the bill, is to promote the highest levels of conduct within the RCMP. This, of course, is a goal that is shared by governments, RCMP members and the public at large. Day in and day out the vast majority, virtually all of the RCMP members, strive to meet those levels of conduct. However, we need clear statements of what happens when those levels of conduct are not met, with clear consequences and procedures that would also protect the rights of RCMP members who have dedicated themselves to the service of Canadians so they do not find themselves subject to arbitrary procedures as part of discipline.

Finally, the bill's preamble states that we need to reform the legislation to create a framework for ongoing reform so we do not find ourselves in this situation again 25 years later, since government after government have failed to address these questions and failed to provide leadership on these issues.

We in the official opposition can agree on the goals expressed in the legislation and I believe we can go further. We can even agree on the key areas for action identified in the summary of the bill. Although the bill's summary counts the areas of action as only two vital areas, I would count three.

First, we agree that there needs to be action to strengthen the RCMP review and complaints body. The RCMP Public Complaints Commission has provided a valuable service, but we have concerns about its full independence and its ability to oversee independent investigations.

Second, we believe there needs to be a framework to handle investigation of serious incidents involving members, incidents that involve death or serious injury, which will help enhance transparency. In this day and age the public has said very clearly that it does not accept that the police forces investigate themselves in very serious incidents. We believe an independent investigation would not only benefit public confidence, but it would also benefit those who serve in the RCMP by guaranteeing the public would understand the outcome of those investigations and where their names are cleared, they would be cleared once and for all.

Finally, there needs to be action in the area to modernize discipline, grievance and human resource management processes.

The minister has cited anecdotal evidence of things that take way too long, and we all know that is true. However, what is lacking is that clear guidance for RCMP members of what those standards are and how a failure of those standards would be dealt with in a judicious and fair manner.

In addition, when RCMP members have grievances, they need to have the understanding that their concerns can be brought forward in a timely manner and that those grievances can be resolved and not drag on for many years.

Therefore, we do agree on the areas in which we need to make reforms to the RCMP Act.

In particular, we believe it is crucial to allow the RCMP commissioner reforms in the area of discipline to deal with the climate of sexual harassment that exists in the RCMP. We would like to see leadership from the government in mandating the commissioner to bring in a clear anti-harassment policy and a clear process, which would contain specific standards of behaviour with regard to sexual harassment and specific criteria for evaluating the performance of all employees in this important area.

However, having said how much we agree with the objectives of the legislation and with the areas that need to be reformed, I am not standing today in the House simply to present bouquets to the minister. We in the opposition have our concerns both about government inaction by Liberals and Conservatives and government inaction in particular in the areas of transparency and accountability.

The government has been in power since 2006. Yes, it inherited a record of inaction, but it has been six years, three ministers and two RCMP commissioners and we are just now embarking on the process to reform this legislation so we can get measures which would make a real difference in the performance and the work lives of RCMP members now in 2012.

In the meantime, more than 200 women members of the RCMP have joined lawsuits alleging sexual harassment within the RCMP. There has been an ongoing series of problems with loss of public confidence in the RCMP in investigations of serious incidents.

We have wasted valuable time. Numerous studies have presented solutions to these problems. I give the government credit for appointing a task force, which reported back in 2007, nearly five years ago. It reported back with important proposals for reforming the culture of the RCMP, discipline of the RCMP and important recommendations to the Public Complaints Commission.

An internal review was completed in 2008 of the process of using independent observers in police investigations of themselves.

In 2006 Mr. Justice O'Connor made recommendations in the Maher Arar inquiry with regard to the national security activities of the RCMP.

Most recently former public complaints commissioner Paul Kennedy made recommendations both on investigations of serious incidents, which was tabled in 2009, and also when he appeared before the justice committee in January of last year to give recommendations on increasing the independence of the job that he used to hold.

There is no shortage of advice available.

However, in a question that was asked earlier of the minister, it is unclear why the government chose to pick only certain recommendations and a certain piece of all of those reports. It is hard to see the overall theme that guides this legislation.

We have said that government leadership is required, and that means more than just legislation. Therefore, I cannot let this opportunity go by without pointing out some of what the government has done in the area of the RCMP and the Public Complaints Commission.

Just this past week, the government issued layoff notices to two staff members of the RCMP Public Complaints Commission when we are in the midst of reforming it and the commission is in the midst of a massive study of the sexual harassment complaints that have taken place in the RCMP. Why has the government chosen to lay off staff members at the complaints commission in the midst of this crisis over sexual harassment that the commission is trying to address?

Also in the last week, we saw layoff notices given to 149 support staff members of the RCMP across the country, including 42 support staff in British Columbia alone. These are people who provide important services to help the RCMP do its job on a daily basis. These were not uniform members who received layoff notices but people who work everywhere from the forensic labs to personnel recruiting and in all the other very important functions that support the basic duties of the RCMP.

When it comes to the Public Complaints Commission in the RCMP, the government has been following a peculiar practice. When Mr. Kennedy produced his strong recommendations on investigations, the response of the government was to fail to reappoint him to the job. Having appointed him in 2005 and giving him annual reappointments every year, when his very strong recommendations came out suddenly he was no longer the government's first choice for the job of public complaints commissioner.

Ian McPhail, the new interim commissioner, was initially given a one-year term as interim chair and has now been appointed for another year. I am emphasizing one year because we are talking about someone who should have independence from the government to do the job of providing civilian oversight for the RCMP. How can someone do that job with any confidence when at the end of every year he or she could lose his or her job?

While I am encouraged to see that the new legislation talks about terms of up to five years for the new chair of the civilian review agency, I am concerned that the government will continue its practice in making only annual appointments, which gives it far too much power over what should be an independent commission.

Those are just some of the concerns that I have outlined with respect to Bill C-42. However, I am happy to be part of the committee that will deal with these issues should it pass second reading.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North for his speech and for his interest in Bill C-42.

I believe that all members of the House agree that we need to examine this bill more thoroughly in committee to ensure that the amendments that need to be made to strengthen this bill are actually made.

I noted that, in his speech, my colleague criticized the Conservative government for taking so long to act. I agree with him. It took a very long time for this bill to be introduced, and our questions were being answered very evasively.

However, I still have more questions because we have been hearing about sexual harassment within the RCMP for years. We had already heard about it when the Liberal government was in power.

I do not know if my colleague can explain to me why the Liberals did not do anything to address these issues when they had the opportunity to do so before 2006.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to provide a few comments on this important piece of legislation. In fact, the Liberal Party is quite supportive of it going to committee. When the government decided to bring in this legislation back in June, it should hardly have been credited for bringing it forward as one of its own personal initiatives, because the reality is that it was a result of Commissioner Paulson's persistence in trying to get some changes because of the limitations within that particular office. It was when the letter became public that the government started to listen to some of these concerns. We recognize the important role that the commissioner has played in allowing us to have this debate.

After having used the word “debate” and bringing in Bill C-42 yesterday, one of the first things the government did after introducing the bill was move a motion that the question be now put. As a result, we are now in a situation where the member for Yukon posed a question and has raised some points and an interesting perspective. The Conservative caucus has members who have served in the RCMP. It would be interesting to hear what its members' perspective might be on the issue, but that has been limited primarily because the government has decided to limit the amount of debate on Bill C-42. It is somewhat disappointing. It is not surprising. We have seen a different attitude and style of government since the Conservatives have achieved a majority. It is not a pleasant style that we have witnessed over the last number of months.

The conduct of our police officers, whether the RCMP or any other local police agency, is of critical public importance. It is a question of how we deal with these complaints. This is the core of the bill.

I will start by reflecting on some questions for other members because it is something I passionately believe in. I have had the opportunity to serve in the Canadian Forces, where I took a great sense of pride from the role it plays throughout the world. However, we must acknowledge at the end of the day that we have to do so much to continue that perception and reality of how wonderful a force we were and still are today, but it takes a great effort by many to do that.

It only takes a few people to make the entire force look bad in the eyes of the public. There is a great deal of scrutiny given to the Canadian Forces. If something occurs that is wrong and not supported by the vast majority of members of the force, the minority involved unfortunately has far too much influence on public perceptions because of the way in which the media will quite often blow up a particular incident or raise that issue before the public.

The same principle applies to the RCMP. In the questions I have put forward in the past, I have often talked about the important role that our RCMP officers play in our society.

I have attended many citizenship courts where an RCMP officer will stand there in a red stetson. After the service is complete, new Canadians will want to have their pictures taken with the RCMP officers. Yesterday I made reference to RCMP officers being on the Hill and tourists wanting to stand beside them and have their pictures taken.

On the whole, the RCMP as a police agency and force has received all sorts of acclamations worldwide. Many police agencies throughout the world have seen the RCMP as a model agency, something they strive to achieve within their own countries. This is because Canada has done quite well with its national police force. We need to acknowledge that up front because at the end of the day, even though this legislation before us deals with the conduct of its members, I believe it is important to highlight how wonderful a job the RCMP has done for decades, since the birth of our country.

I can talk about isolated cases in which I have had the privilege of working with members of the RCMP, whether in the days I served in the forces to the days I was a member of the Manitoba legislature. There was one individual in particular, retired RCMP officer Al Pasquini, who lived in the community of Spruce Grove and contributed immensely to that community. He expressed a great deal of goodwill, participating in things such as the youth justice committee in a volunteer capacity so he could work with the young people who live in the community. He left a very positive impression. Al also volunteered with many other organizations. I would get a call saying that he was going to be at restaurant X, which was trying to raise money for cancer.

If we take a look at the lives of the vast majority of RCMP officers, we will find that they are absolutely outstanding Canadians and are very proud to be members of the RCMP. These are the types of stories that need to be told. I do not believe that Al was unique. People will find that the majority of RCMP officers play very active roles going beyond the salaries they are paid, and that they are excellent ambassadors. Because of the efforts of those individuals, at the end of day Canadians as a whole have a wide, deep-rooted respect for the RCMP. Realizing that is in fact the case is why I have started my comments recognizing that.

The conduct, as I said, of police officers is taken very seriously. It is not just with the RCMP, but applies to all police agencies. When I was the justice critic in the province of Manitoba, there was a great deal of discussion about police agencies, including the RCMP, I must say, with regard to the city of Winnipeg. We talked about the few who actually caused the problems in terms of public perceptions and the issues that arise and cause a great deal of controversy and lower the morale of the police service itself. These same sorts of things apply with regard to the RCMP.

Sexual harassment has not taken place overnight. It is an issue that has existed for a number of years, and I believe that the vast majority of RCMP officers serving today would like to have seen the government take action a whole lot quicker than it has. It is unfortunate that the government has taken so long to bring forward some sort of answer on the issue of sexual harassment. Why did the government drag its feet on important issues such as sexual harassment and the whole issue of morale within the RCMP?

Nonetheless, I think it is a positive thing to give additional power to the commissioner, as it will allow the commissioner to deal with many of the issues that come before him and our agencies.

On the issue of sexual harassment and the profound impact it has had on the service, we can talk about the impact that people have endured throughout their careers. Even if it is a one-time incident, it is very serious.

People serving in the RCMP should feel comfortable knowing that if they have a concern of this nature they have a place where they can make a complaint. They should feel confident that once a complaint is made it will be resolved in a way that makes them feel comfortable remaining in the force and continuing on and being treated equally. At the end of the day, they should be eligible for promotion just as much as anyone else. Therefore, we must have a structure in place that would allow people to feel comfortable expressing their concerns in their working environment. Moreover, we need to know that there will be consequences, and that these could range significantly.

Over the years we have heard of reported consequences in the form of disciplinary action. I have heard of everything from fines to a reduction of rank, to officers being put on probation and outright dismissals being made. These are the types of disciplinary actions that are there and do take place. I would suggest that we have to ensure that there is confidence in the system so that a person who is putting forward a complaint, whether a member of the force or the public, is confident that the issue will be addressed in a fair, transparent and accountable fashion.

I think that Bill C-42 is an attempt to change the system so that there will be more transparency and accountability. We see that as a good thing, as there are many departments within the federal government, and it could be expanded to include the private sector.

An incident occurring within a government department or the private sector often does not generate the interest of an incident occurring within a police force, and we do hear about it. In the RCMP, the Canadian Forces, and I would suggest even within the chamber here, if something of significance occurs, there is a great deal more attention given to it.

Personally, I do not have a problem with that but I believe we need to be aware of it. As such, we need to have a process in place that allows for relatively quick decisions to be made, so at the end of the day we are able to determine very clearly if something has gone wrong. If something has gone wrong, we need to feel comfortable in knowing that there is going to be a decision to resolve the matter as quickly as possible.

The idea of providing more power to the provinces is something that I believe has a great deal of merit because it goes beyond just the issue of perception, even though perception is critically important. Decisions have to be made where, as much as possible, outside organizations investigate the internal incidents that occur in an organization. The RCMP is no different. Much like when a serious incident occurs in a local police force, it will often turn to the RCMP as a third party to investigate and provide some ideas as to how the issue should be resolved.

My understanding of the proposed legislation is that provincial governments would be afforded the opportunity to play a stronger role when serious incidents occur, which could include such things as the timing of an investigation. It would be interesting to hear in the committee stage from the different provinces, maybe from a provincial minister of justice or other stakeholders, what they believe would be important in ensuring that the role of independent review is taken under consideration. At the end of the day, whether it is the expanded roles of the provinces or looking at giving more powers to the commissioner, these things could help facilitate better decisions and, most importantly, the ability to deal with morale, which at times gets low within the RCMP because of the sense of frustration that grievances or complaints are not being addressed appropriately.

I emphasize its importance in two ways. First, this bill is important to ensure that there is a sense of justice for those who have grievances so they can feel comfortable putting forward their complaint. I believe that this bill would assist us in moving in that direction. The second issue is in regard to public perception and taking the necessary actions to reinforce how important it is that the public not lose confidence with regard to the RCMP because of a few isolated cases. It is important to recognize that we are talking about a very small percentage of RCMP officers who, ultimately, one would classify as the bad apples that spoil it for the rest. The vast majority of RCMP officers do an outstanding job while they are on duty and while they are off duty, as well.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue for her excellent speech on Bill C-42. I know that my colleague was once a member of the Canadian armed forces. So she knows what it is like for a woman to carve out a place in a man's world, and she knows how important it is to be protected and to have rights.

The government introduced this bill in June after many opposition questions and in response to sexual harassment scandals that surfaced. However, in its present form, the bill does not go far enough to punish those who engage in sexual harassment in the RCMP.

I am curious about whether my colleague is disappointed in this bill as it stands now. Does she think that the government should have taken the opportunity to go farther?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Congratulations, Mr. Speaker. I am thrilled to see you in the chair. You have many years experience in the House and have shared many concerns about the conduct members of Parliament. I know you will firmly use the skills you have to ensure this place is a little more civil in this particular term, not that your predecessor did not do everything she possibly could as well. Your years of time here will serve us all well, at least on this side of the House.

I congratulate my colleague on her comments in regard to Bill C-42 when it comes to the RCMP and accountability. I think we are all immensely proud of what the RCMP's image was. I think we are also concerned with the fact that it has been severely tainted in the last few years.

Status of Women Canada is showing some real leadership. In the fall we will deal with the sexual harassment policies of a variety of different departments in the Government of Canada. The RCMP is number one on that review. We will look at what the harassment policies are and what can be done to improve them. It is an area that as a Canadian and as a female is of great concern to me, with respect to some of the things that have been in the media. I have real concerns when we talk about accountability, how far and where the teeth will be in the bill that will allow people to feel confident to come forward and raise issues without the fear of reprisal.

I would like to hear some comments from my colleague on that.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate you on your new role.

I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts. This bill is about the RCMP and is intended to renew public confidence in the institution. It is also intended to renew the confidence of RCMP members in their institution. They have very unusual working conditions. They are required to respond to dangerous situations. I think it is critical to renew the confidence of RCMP members in their institution. We owe them that much because of the work we ask them to do.

This debate in the House is long overdue. Over the years, this government and its predecessors could have and should have implemented a number of measures. In 2006 and 2007, several reports were published, including one by Justice O'Connor and another by the task force set up to provide advice on strengthening the accountability and governance of the RCMP.

Justice O'Connor's report, published in 2006 regarding the Maher Arar case, recommended that Parliament create an organization in charge of overseeing the RCMP similar to the Security Intelligence Review Committee.

In 2007, the Task Force on Governance and Cultural Change in the RCMP suggested creating an independent board, which would help assure Canadians that the government could not intervene directly in the RCMP's activities and give any so-called advice to the commissioner, who reports directly to the minister.

Since that time, over 200 female members of the RCMP have filed a class action suit alleging sexual harassment within that organization. A few other problems have also undermined the confidence of the Canadian public in the RCMP, particularly serious incidents like the death of Robert Dziekanski.

These problems are not new and people have known about them for years. However, in order to open the debate, 200 women had to file complaints and several scandals had to erupt. It is unfortunate that so much time was wasted and that the health and safety of some members of the RCMP—and of Canadians in general—were jeopardized.

I am a nurse by trade, but I also began studies in workplace health and safety. I was particularly interested in psychological health in the workplace. Furthermore, as a woman, sexual harassment cases also interest me. Everyone would have been better off if we had worked on this issue earlier, because by allowing the climate to worsen, we may have missed out on the work of good people who could have made a contribution to the RCMP. We really need to change the corporate culture of that organization. This issue in particular really interests me.

I would also like to emphasize that the RCMP has served Canada with distinction for a very long time. Although these incidents may have shaken Canadians' trust in the RCMP, I have no doubt that it will restore its image, resume its role and regain public trust, and in turn, the trust of its members.

This bill helps on several fronts. It strengthens public trust in the RCMP as the institution responsible for Canada's national security. This goal is extremely important, as I am sure everyone here would agree.

This bill also seeks to enhance transparency and public accountability when it comes to policing and security. This is another essential step in restoring Canadians' confidence in their institutions. The purpose of this bill is to reform the disciplinary investigation procedure and to implement a new civilian complaints commission.

I would like to take a moment to talk about a case of sexual harassment and misconduct that occurred within the RCMP that we heard a lot about. Harassment is not acceptable and should not be taken lightly. Often, the problem is bigger than just one specific case of harassment.

There is one case that many people are aware of that occurred in British Columbia. Having to endure sexual harassment for years leaves a serious mark on a person and can change her life, her family's life and her marriage. This is something that really needs to be taken seriously.

In the case of the RCMP, the complaint and redress mechanism, which consists of transferring a person accused of sexual harassment to another province, is no solution at all. When someone is accused of sexual harassment, transferring him to another province simply moves the problem from one province to another. From a corporate culture perspective, if a person who has been accused of such behaviour has a tendency to have a negative influence on his younger colleagues and he is transferred to another location, then we are merely transferring the problem. We also risk creating another problem. Young members of the RCMP could be influenced by someone who has behaved unacceptably and who, after being accused, may not have necessarily understood that he had to change his behaviour or what caused him to behave in such a manner and how he could do things different to ensure that he did not behave that way again. In addition, by transferring an offender from one province to another, we are completely ignoring the victim and trauma she experienced.

As I mentioned, this could put other women in other places in danger and victimize others. We are thus ignoring a recurring problem in general workplace culture where there are no measures in place to change the situation. Although we talk about harassment in corporate or general culture, it is really the little things that people say and do that everyone considers normal that can lead to sexual harassment. When it comes to sexual harassment, the corporate culture has to be examined and all members have to be educated as to what is acceptable and what is not. Members also need to know why certain behaviours are unacceptable and why something that may seem harmless to some could, in actual fact, lead to an unfortunate trend. This is a very serious problem that must be viewed in global terms. The accused must not simply be transferred and moved from one location to another.

If we want to restore the public's confidence in public safety institutions, and also the confidence of RCMP members, especially women, in their workplace, it is very important to propose changes to the internal operations of the RCMP and to complaint procedures. All hon. members in this House agree that we cannot do without the skills of women working in a workplace such as the RCMP. If women are not interested in joining the RCMP, the organization will not benefit from the talent of thousands of Canadians who could make an exceptional contribution. For that reason alone, it is very important to take this issue seriously and to restore public confidence. We want to ensure that the RCMP is not deprived of the talent of Canadian women who, with everything that is going on, could choose another career given the risks or their lack of confidence in this institution.

They may no longer have confidence and believe if they decide to work for the RCMP, that they may not be protected. They may wonder if anything will be done for them if they experience difficulties. It is very important to restore this trust.

The status quo is unacceptable and we must take action. We will support this bill to ensure that it is sent to committee to be improved, to truly meet women's needs, and to prevent sexual harassment.

Although my remarks today have focused on women, I would like to state that victims of intimidation or harassment, whether or not it is sexual harassment, are not just women. This type of misconduct must be taken very seriously.

I have obviously spoken primarily about women because of the 200 women who have launched a class action suit. However, I realize that men probably face the same problems of harassment and intimidation and are unable to do their jobs in normal conditions. That is also worrisome. We need to take action to resolve this problem.

This bill is a step in this direction because it reforms the disciplinary process. However, I think it is unfortunate and damaging that the government is not proposing that we work specifically on an internal harassment policy in order to clearly define acceptable and unacceptable practices and behaviours, particularly when it comes to sexual harassment, misconduct and intimidation.

I also wanted to point out that the disciplinary reforms the RCMP needs because of the length and complexity of the disciplinary process should not be decided on lightly or be overly simplistic. The RCMP is non-unionized. I think it is important to find a balance in the disciplinary process, since the staff does not have an organization to defend them individually.

As I was saying, members of the RCMP dedicate their careers to helping and serving Canadians. It would be unacceptable for them to be subject to arbitrary dismissals. We must reform the disciplinary process so that it works better and serves victims as much as possible, but we must not go too far the other way.

For example, the bill adds new provisions to the clauses regarding labour relations and gives the RCMP commissioner the authority to appoint and dismiss members.

However, the bill gives the RCMP commissioner the ability to create a more effective process to address sexual harassment complaints, and I support that.

For months, the NDP has been pressuring the government to prioritize the issue of sexual harassment and poor practices within the RCMP. Bill C-42 does not directly address the systematic problems entrenched in RCMP culture, and we want to be clear that this bill alone will not change the existing climate within the RCMP.

However, I think that we must continue trying. We must send this bill to committee to find the best solutions possible.

I also hope that when this bill is in committee, my hon. colleagues will agree to amendments and will be open to discussion. When we are talking about such a serious, systemic problem that involves corporate culture, simplistic solutions are not enough. There are no magical solutions. The problem has become so complex that we need to take the time to consider how to address it.

I know that it is very difficult to introduce a perfect bill on the first go-around. That is what the committee is there for. The committee will get to hear from witnesses and discuss the bill to improve it and make it functional.

The goal of this is not to make political gains, but to enable an institution like the RCMP, which truly represents tradition and history, to restore its image, win back its members and engage people who see the RCMP as a problem. This will also make it appealing to young people who want to contribute to this institution.

All hon. members must work together and discuss this bill with an open mind and try to improve it as best they can in order to restore this remarkable institution to its former glory. I really hope that our colleagues will show such openness when the bill is studied in committee.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are indeed disappointed because a little consultation is all it would have taken for us to share with the Minister of Public Safety some critical elements that could have helped refine this bill and made it easier for us to support. It would not have taken much effort. However, what we have once again is a botched bill that is supposed to fix problems with another bill. Bill C-42 replaces Bill C-38.

The minister could have done a better job if he had consulted the opposition. Had he done so, we would not have to redo the work at second reading, and we would be able to move the bill through as quickly as possible. As things stand, at least we support studying it at second reading so that we can pass a bill that will make the RCMP more accountable and prevent certain types of incidents from happening again.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques for his speech.

I have one quick question. We are supporting Bill C-42 at second reading so that it can go to committee. Still, is my colleague not somewhat disappointed that the Conservatives are not using this bill to do more to change the prevailing climate at the RCMP?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is an important matter.

I would say that it is conducive to a culture of passing the buck, or avoiding and delegating responsibilities. There are some problems in that regard. Therefore, a review of the bill in committee is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that everything that has happened and that has been allowed to happen by the current culture in the RCMP is changed. In my presentation, I spoke about the great powers given to the commissioner. They are major powers and major responsibilities. But if the commissioner can delegate very sensitive powers to shirk his responsibilities, the culture will not change.

In that sense, this side of the House considers Bill C-42 to be a step in the right direction. It is probably not enough, and that is why we will propose a number of amendments to strengthen the mechanism for accountability and transparency. This will ensure that those who commit abuses within the RCMP—sexual harassment is definitely an abuse in the Canadian society of today—will be accountable to a commission that in turn is accountable. In the end, there will be better oversight with more specific duties and responsibilities. All Canadians will benefit because their confidence in the RCMP, our police service, will be restored and there will be no fears for the future.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I touched on this in my presentation. Canadians still recognize that the RCMP represents one of the most respectable and respected police forces in the world. The number of cases is not high compared to the total number of members in the force, but even one case of sexual harassment is one too many, whether it occurs within the RCMP, or in the public or private sectors.

We must take steps to ensure that situations such as this do not happen again. Regardless of the number of cases, the problem that we saw with the RCMP was that there were flaws in the system that allowed such situations to reoccur.

It is therefore essential to table a bill that will re-examine how the RCMP can act transparently in order to reassure the public. In our opinion, Bill C-42 addresses this issue fairly adequately. Even if we vote in favour of this bill, it is still necessary to demonstrate that the RCMP can regain public support and to ensure that Canadians' trust in this organization is well placed. That being said, the review proposed by this bill is a first step in the right direction even if it does have some shortcomings.

We urge the government to take note of the various complaints and situations. The existing structure in which such cases of harassment can occur must also be examined and the system must be fixed so that Canadians can continue to have confidence in the RCMP.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate you on your appointment and on assuming the Chair today.

I am pleased to speak to Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts. The NDP will support Bill C-42 and will vote in favour of it at second reading. However, we want to make some considerable amendments, in order to fix the most problematic areas of the bill, particularly in order to improve oversight and to ensure that independent investigations are conducted. We would also like to increase the independence of the new Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police from the RCMP and the minister.

Canadians' confidence in the RCMP has been shaken over the past few years by the many scandals the police force has been involved in. Now a number of bullying and harassment in the workplace cases are once again tarnishing the Royal Canadian Mounted Police's reputation.

When Commissioner Paulson was newly appointed in November 2011, he was very clear about the priorities he was committed to focusing on: accountability and leadership. Canada's largest police force must be accountable and must not give the impression of being above the law.

Bill C-42 was introduced to modernize the force's systems and make them more efficient. In particular, members accused of an offence will be punished or fired more quickly. Members who commit crimes not only violate the standards and laws that they are supposed to uphold, they also cause significant harm to the organization's image.

In a speech following his appointment to the head of the RCMP, Mr. Paulson said:

The work we do is important, but how we do this work is equally important and can profoundly impact the lives of Canadians. I get that.

In a way, it is reassuring to know that the commissioner cares about more than results. He also cares about how those results are achieved.

Obviously, the RCMP is a huge organization. That is not news to anyone. It has some 30,000 employees whose activities are frequently international in scope. The commissioner recognized that he has “a lot of work ahead of [him] as we continue to transform the RCMP.” Fixing the force is not an easy undertaking. We know that. This bill is a small step, but it remains to be seen whether it will really help the commissioner achieve his goals of accountability and responsibility.

After Corporal Catherine Galliford came forward in November 2011, many other women followed her example. The day after the media reported Ms. Galliford's allegations, another officer, Krista Carle, came forward about the abuses she suffered and the lack of assistance and empathy on the part of her former supervisors, who maintained the environment of silence and fear in which she had to work. Ms. Carle said, “I know for a fact there are at least six women that I know who have left the force or are still in that have suffered harassment.” She added, “I'm sure there are others who are afraid to come forward for fear of reprisals.” Ms. Carle's case was settled in 2007, but she still felt the need to speak up about what happened.

Then, in December 2011, Corporal Élisabeth Couture also took legal action against the RCMP for professional harassment. According to the media, the young woman is currently on sick leave because of stress caused by the incidents.

In Manitoba, another woman publicly denounced the sexual harassment and racism she was a victim of. Marge Hudson was the only aboriginal police officer in Manitoba when she joined the force. It seems that she went through some difficult years during which people were apparently plotting to force her to resign.

Then, former constable Janet Merlo launched a class action suit with the Supreme Court of British Columbia on behalf of over 150 former and current female police officers, who are making numerous claims of discrimination and sexual harassment within the force.

To his credit, Commissioner Paulson has said that he was aware that harassment exists within the RCMP and that this was unfortunately not a new thing, but that mindsets must change and that these behaviours must never be tolerated. On the day of his appointment, Mr. Paulson said, “First on my plate will be addressing the issue of harassment and sexual harassment in the workplace.”

A number of the bill's critics are wondering how this stricter system will be able to stop the specific problems of sexism and harassment in the workplace because, quite often, it is not necessarily the complaint process that is the issue, but the acknowledgement of the action and the very willingness to set this process in motion. Commissioner Paulson spoke about that himself.

He said they have good policies on how to deal with complaints, but “the trouble is ensuring compliance with these policies”.

That is why we are instead talking about the need to change the culture of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The Minister of Public Safety has defended the effectiveness of his bill in this respect by declaring, and I quote:

Under this legislation, the commander cannot allow a negative culture to continue or they will be held responsible. That, in my opinion, will make a huge difference in changing that culture.

Unfortunately, we all know that no legislation can force such a change.

Following the overwhelming findings of the Brown report in 2007, which essentially called for a full review of the entire currently existing culture, governance and management structure within the RCMP, the Minister of Public Safety at the time refused to hold a public inquiry, instead preferring to create the Task Force on Governance and Cultural Change in the RCMP.

The task force issued its report in December that same year. Nearly 50 recommendations were made, 49 actually, but three are essential for starting a true cultural change, improving governance and paving the way for the application of the other recommendations.

The first recommendation was to establish the RCMP as a separate entity within the government, with its own employer status, which would involve giving it the full authority to manage its financial affairs and personnel within general parameters approved by Parliament.

These new powers would require a different structure within the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, which leads us to the second recommendation, which was to create a board of management of the RCMP responsible for the stewardship of its organization and administration, including the oversight of the management of its financial affairs, resources, services, property, personnel and procurement. The board would be accountable to Parliament through the minister.

Finally, the third recommendation of the task force was that legislation be enacted to establish an independent commission for complaints and oversight of the RCMP—the ICCOR. This commission would have the same responsibilities as the ERC and the CPC, with expanded authorities similar to those of an ombudsman. It would present public reports and its decisions would be binding on the commissioner.

When the report was released, David Brown, the chair of the task force, stated that the RCMP is not just another federal department—nor should it be. In his report he added:

In many ways, the RCMP's approach to governance has been based on a model and style of policing developed from—and for—another era...none of these changes will be sustainable without the fundamental changes to structure that we are proposing.

It would be disingenuous to not acknowledge the impact of the recommendations of the Brown report and the task force on Bill C-42, the bill we are currently debating.

However, it is quite obvious that the recommendations central to the reform set out in the two reports, particularly the recommendations concerning accountability to Parliament and the binding nature of the new civilian commission's decisions, have been diluted. The Brown report does state that “confidence by the public and the RCMP family in these results can only be achieved through full civilian oversight.” We believe that this oversight requires public reports to elected officials.

As for separate employer status, there is no mention of it in the bill.

In light of the nature and importance of the responsibilities of an organization such as the RCMP, the task force stated:

Such a consideration [governance and the administration of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police] would require a much broader public policy debate as to the policing model which best suits Canada and best serves Canadians.

Although it is not within the task force's mandate to order such a debate, the simple fact that they mentioned it shows the importance attributed to the exercise by the task force members, especially since the recommendations do not seem to have had the desired effect.

We will get a better idea of the reaction of those affected during the committee hearings. We will vote in favour of this bill at second reading so that committee hearings can be held to thoroughly examine this bill. For now, comments seem to indicate that the bill does not go far enough in terms of the nature and extent of the changes made to the RCMP's structure and organization to ensure a real change in culture.

Bill C-42 thus seeks to ensure that with power comes responsibility, and members will have to realize that. However, let us be clear: this bill puts a lot of power and responsibility in the hands of the commissioner. The commissioner will be given the following tasks: to establish procedures to investigate and resolve disputes relating to alleged misconduct by a member, and to establish an informal conflict management system within the parameters established by the Treasury Board. The dual nature of the two complaints systems—one governed by the Treasury Board and the other by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act—often results in red tape and confusion within the organization.

This bill gives the commissioner two very broad mandates, which much be used very carefully and in a very analytical manner in order to ensure that he is able to fulfill them.

One thing that is surprising, however, is that the government introduced the bill without waiting for the results of the review on gender relations and the place of women in the RCMP that was ordered by the new commissioner, or the findings of the independent investigation that the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, or CPC, is conducting on workplace harassment. These two reports are to be submitted by the end of the year.

We can only hope that the commissioner will wait to consult and consider the findings in these two reports before making any other changes, since the purpose of these reports was to better understand harassment problems within the organization.

According to the Treasury Board's Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer, Bill C-42 “gives the Commissioner human resource management authorities similar to those of Deputy Heads in the federal Public Service and to those of heads of large police services in Canada. This includes the authority to appoint, promote, discipline, demote or terminate the employment of all members...”.

These cases would still go before a disciplinary committee, but the commissioner could appeal the tribunal's decision or change it. Furthermore, this authority could be used for a variety of non-disciplinary reasons, such as absenteeism or poor performance.

It is difficult to know how much this increased authority for the commissioner is related to the government's controversial decision to reduce the number of categories of employees from three to two. Civilian members, specialized employees without police training who directly assist police officers, will now become simple public servants, and this category would be eliminated.

First, I think it is important to say that the Brown report and the subsequent task force report were both in favour of this change. This would lighten the structure and avoid confusion about the rights and responsibilities of the various categories of employees.

These reports aside, however, there are two conflicting views here, and the decision is controversial. The 4,000 or so civilian members see their no longer being members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as a lack of recognition or even a demotion. One civilian member, speaking anonymously, said that the problem was not being part of the public service, but rather no longer being considered members of the RCMP. This would widen the gap between these employees and members, all for budgetary reasons, since this change would jeopardize their benefits and would save the government more than $190 million. However, this amount was contested by the commissioner, who estimated the savings at closer to $10 million a year.

This idea of removing a category of employees is nothing new. For over 15 years, the government and the RCMP have been unsuccessfully proposing this change. Regardless, this is no longer a possibility being considered. It is being put into place with Bill C-42, despite a formal rejection by over 90% of civilian members in an internal poll held in 2010.

It is true that these people do not carry out police duties per se, but they are more than administrative staff.

By agreeing to this change, civilian members will acquire protections related to their status that they did not have before, such as the right to unionize and accordingly, the right to strike. They will be protected from the commissioner's new discretionary powers with respect to human resources as set out in Bill C-42. They will no longer be treated as members, and will therefore not be subject to the same degree of severity as police officers; they will be treated like public servants. We hope that the committee's study will enable us to understand both sides of this issue and better identify the consequences of this decision.

Responsibility and accountability are central to this bill, which, according to the Minister of Public Safety, will ensure that the RCMP is accountable for its actions before its members and the public. By creating a civilian complaints commission for the RCMP, the government wants us to believe that the organization will henceforth be accountable to the public.

What will really make a difference in terms of transparency is the fact that members of the commission will not be drawn from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. That is the idea, anyway, but I think it is dishonest to say that the makeup of the commission will ensure that it renders decisions that it will have to justify to the public. That is one of our biggest disappointments with this bill. The RCMP should be accountable to Parliament, not just to the Minister of Public Safety. That would make the commission truly independent.

In conclusion, I believe that the RCMP remains one of the most respected paramilitary police forces in the world, but given the scope of the allegations and under pressure from the NDP, the Conservative government was forced to act before public trust disappeared altogether. We will have to wait until the committee has had a chance to do its work before the consequences of this bill are felt, but one thing is certain: this government had a duty to act, yet it dragged its feet. I would remind the House of the many questions that were asked during the previous session, the spring session. Indeed, time and time again during question period, we asked the Minister of Public Safety to brief us on the situation. He tended to give evasive answers anytime he was asked the question during question period.

The new commissioner frequently reiterated his intention and his willingness to intervene. It remains to be seen whether this government's proposals will help him. It is important to remember that above and beyond its responsibility to enforce the law, this government, which is ultimately responsible, must do everything it can to dispel any appearance of being above the law.

That is why the NDP will support An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts at second reading, considering the many pressing and extremely problematic allegations of sexual harassment in the RCMP. We plan to propose a number of amendments at second reading, since we believe that they are necessary to ensuring that this bill is effective in addressing the many complaints and criticisms regarding the status quo, not only by members of the RCMP, but also by people who have had to go to court in order to assert their right to dignity in the workplace within the RCMP. In order to ensure that these objectives are met, we must create the mechanisms needed to guarantee the independence of the new civilian review and complaints commission for the RCMP—and we do not think this has been achieved—in order to improve oversight and ensure that investigations really are independent.

That is why we are asking the government to allow this bill to be examined as thoroughly as possible when it reaches the committee stage. By so doing, we will be able to truly understand what mechanisms would allow this bill to fulfill this mandate. I would strongly urge the government to take note of the various working groups and commissions, including the Brown task force, and the report that was published in order to ensure that Bill C-42 meets its objectives. This will make it possible for us to finally set aside—but not forget, since we must never forget—all the abusive behaviour that had such disastrous effects on the work environment and to ensure that complaints are resolved and that situations such as the ones that these women in the RCMP experienced will never happen again.

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in recent years, a number of scandals have rocked the RCMP, particularly with respect to the sexual harassment against certain members in recent years. Furthermore, many Canadians were troubled by the disciplinary measures that were too lenient for some officers accused of serious misconduct. The revelations that came out with these scandals seriously undermined Canadians' trust in this noble institution. I would like to briefly remind members of the various scandals in order to put this bill into context.

More than 200 women who work and have worked for the RCMP in recent years filed a class action suit against the RCMP for sexual harassment. The first hearing was held a little over a month ago, but the class action suit has not yet been accepted by the courts. A number of officers have also filed individual lawsuits in addition to this legal action.

The government introduced Bill C-42 in response to all of these scandals, in order to restore public trust in the RCMP.

From 1994 to 2011, 750 formal discipline hearings were held across Canada. In this same period of time, 206 regular and civilian members resigned from the RCMP. From 2000 to 2011, 715 new formal discipline cases were filed , which represents an average of about 83 new cases a year.

Given the many harassment allegations and serious disciplinary offences, we believe this bill is justified. There is growing public concern among Canadians regarding the problem of harassment.

For months now, the NDP has been urging Public Safety Canada to make the issue of sexual harassment in the RCMP a top priority. Unfortunately, Bill C-42 does not directly or adequately address the systemic, deeply-rooted problems in the RCMP corporate culture, nor will it do anything to change the current climate in the RCMP.

The Minister of Public Safety does not appear to have taken into account the various recommendations made by the Task Force on Governance and Cultural Change in the RCMP. Bill C-42 simplifies the process of resolving problems in the workplace, a process that many saw as complicated and ill-suited to changes in workplace practices.

In 2007, the Task Force on Governance and Cultural Change in the RCMP described the process as too formal, and an overly legalistic and procedural system. More recently, Commissioner Paulson wrote an open letter to Canadians expressing his concerns about the RCMP's disciplinary system, which he described as outdated and administratively burdensome. These problems limit the disciplinary system's ability to ensure that members' conduct is properly managed and corrected or, when necessary, to see to it that the rotten apples are fired.

Currently, RCMP managers faced with having to address harassment issues have two completely different processes they must follow. The first one was created under Treasury Board policy and the other under the RCMP Act. Since these two policies do not always align, this can lead to some confusion about the rights of the parties involved.

Bill C-42 proposes to give the commissioner the power to establish a single framework for conducting investigations into harassment problems and resolving those problems. The bill will also give the commissioner of the RCMP a new power to decide what disciplinary actions would be appropriate, which will include the power to appoint and discharge members.

The first thing we note is that the Minister of Public Safety has adopted a simplistic solution to a problem that is much broader, by simply giving the commissioner final authority when it comes to dismissing employees, for example. Employees are in fact somewhat concerned about this bill.

The bill does nothing to address unionization by the members of the RCMP. Since the RCMP is the only police force that is not represented by a union and is also not subject to a collective agreement, the Mounted Police Professional Association of Canada has concerns about the job security of members of the RCMP and the extraordinary power given to the commissioner over dismissals. But the Conservatives do not want to address that question at all.

While Bill C-42 gives the commissioner greater ability to establish a more effective process to address harassment problems, and also gives him more power in relation to discipline, it cannot bring about the real change of culture within the RCMP that is needed in order to eliminate harassment and problems relating generally to discipline and the conduct of RCMP officers. The evidence is in what Commissioner Paulson has said himself: that legislation alone is insufficient to restore the public’s trust, and that thorough reform is needed to tackle the serious underlying problems in the RCMP, in order to foster a workplace that is more open and respectful for all its members.

The commissioner has also told the Standing Committee on the Status of Women that the problem goes well beyond the question of sexual harassment.

This situation has to change from top to bottom. I think the minister should have taken the opportunity offered by this bill to include a clear policy to combat sexual harassment. The minister did not consider all of the police and civilian stakeholders. The government is also going to have to pay attention to the findings of the two reports that should clarify the problem of sexual harassment in the RCMP, the problem of the RCMP Public Complaints Commission, and the evaluation of the RCMP on gender issues.

Let us move on to another aspect of the bill, the reform of the former RCMP Public Complaints Commission by establishing a new civilian complaints commission called the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP, and by implementing a new framework for handling investigations of serious incidents involving members.

The bill will establish a new civilian complaints commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to replace the RCMP Public Complaints Commission.

This bill will give the new commission a number of powers, including the power to undertake its own reviews of RCMP policies to ensure that the Minister’s directives and the applicable legislation and rules are being followed. It will provide a right of access to information in the control or possession of the RCMP. It establishes new investigative powers, including the power to compel witnesses and officers to testify, and to require them to produce evidence and documents. It also allows the commission to conduct joint complaint investigations with other police complaints bodies. Lastly, the commission will report to the Minister of Public Safety and the commissioner of the RCMP, and its recommendations will not be binding.

The Conservatives have been promising for years that they are going to make an independent oversight body responsible for investigating complaints against the RCMP, as the Task Force on Governance and Cultural Change in the RCMP recommended. The task force had recommended that a model be adopted under which there would be a body responsible for examining every incident or aspect of RCMP operations that was considered to be problematic and making binding recommendations. With this bill, we can see that the government has not kept its promise.

The “new” civilian complaints commission proposed by this bill bears a strange resemblance to the RCMP Public Complaints Commission, because just like that commission, the new one is unfortunately not totally independent. It reports not to the House of Commons, but to the Minister of Public Safety. We would also have liked more powers to be given to an independent external civilian body, to investigate serious incidents in which death or serious bodily injury is caused by members of the RCMP. That type of investigation will largely be assigned to municipal or provincial police forces, even though many of them have no civilian investigation body, and so, depending on the circumstances, some investigations will continue to be done by the RCMP itself.

Canadians want this type of investigation to be done by a body outside the RCMP. That is how we will enhance Canadians’ confidence in our institution. Bill C-42 does not provide more transparency and better independent oversight of the RCMP. The bill simply leads to a single body that submits its non-binding recommendations to the minister.

We believe that this bill is a step in the right direction, but it does not go far enough. We are therefore going to support it so it can be considered in committee, where we will be proposing amendments.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would once again like to thank my colleague from Scarborough—Rouge River. I would be happy to give more information about what could be added to help flesh out Bill C-42.

In my speech, I mentioned that as Canadians, we must have a thorough debate on what we want to do with the RCMP. This is the right time to do so. This is the time to change the RCMP's internal policies.

I would also like to mention that we support Commissioner Paulson's statement that legislation alone is not enough to preserve public trust and that extensive reform is necessary to address the serious underlying problems within the RCMP, in order to create a workplace that is more open, more co-operative and more respectful of everyone.

We completely agree with Commissioner Paulson's statement. We want to ensure that Commissioner Paulson has everything he needs to make the necessary changes within the RCMP.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague again for that very clear answer. She did acknowledge that the NDP will be supporting Bill C-42 at second reading. However, I wonder if she could elaborate a little further on some of the amendments she proposed that would make this a very strong bill moving forward.

I know my colleague has a very thorough understanding of this bill. I ask if she would elaborate on some of the amendments and allow the government members to learn about those that we look forward to proposing during committee stage.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to answer this question and to be the first person you called upon to speak in this chamber. I thank you very much. I would also like to thank my colleague from Scarborough—Rouge River for her excellent question.

The NDP's position is to support Bill C-42 at second reading. However, corrections and amendments need to be made. This bill is going in the right direction, but there are improvements to be made. Yesterday, the Minister of Public Safety himself confirmed that amendments could be made to flesh out this bill and to ensure that it is tougher on members of the RCMP who commit offences such as sexual harassment.

The speech I gave yesterday centred on the problem of sexual harassment and the public's confidence in the RCMP. What is important for us is to see that we will have the opportunity to implement a more independent process to address such offences within the RCMP. The only problem is that if it so happens that no other organization can conduct an investigation—I am talking here about provincial organizations—then the investigation could be conducted by the RCMP itself, which means that the RCMP would be investigating itself.

This process therefore sets a double standard and is not exactly independent. We are really looking to ensure that the bill will implement a completely independent process in all of the provinces and throughout Canada so that women who work for the RCMP are well protected and that the public's confidence in the RCMP is restored.

The House resumed from September 17 consideration of the motion that Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that this question be now put.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before starting my speech, I would like to say that I will share my time with the member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant.

After some consideration I rise today to speak to Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts. In my speech I will focus on the current cases of misconduct and sexual harassment within the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. This extremely delicate subject must be taken into account in the debate here. As a woman and as deputy public safety critic for the official opposition, I feel it is my duty to speak to this issue.

During the last parliamentary session, my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, several other members of the opposition and I asked the government to take swifter action in response to the many allegations of sexual harassment within the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The Minister of Public Safety promised us a bill that would address issues of discipline within the RCMP, which we have now in Bill C-42.

The NDP has long wanted to look at the RCMP, particularly the change in corporate culture that would need to take place within the organization in order to address the numerous allegations of sexual harassment. That is why we support this bill at second reading. We absolutely want to examine it more closely and especially propose the necessary amendments to make it even stronger.

Although women have won a lot of rights in Canada, there are still far too many disparities between men and women. “Working in a man's world” is an expression that is sadly used too much these days. A number of fields are unfortunately stigmatized: construction, forestry and even politics, to name just a few.

As a member of Parliament, I often have the opportunity to meet women who make a difference every day in their workplaces. I am thinking, for example, of all of the female corrections officers who work in our penitentiaries. There are three federal penitentiaries in my riding of Alfred-Pellan. We have a number of female corrections officers, and I am very proud of that fact. They themselves are very proud of their work and of their colleagues, on whom they can always count. They are involved in their union; they are mothers; they are real examples to follow, like many women who are looking to make a difference through their dedication to and involvement in their communities.

Female RCMP officers are women who dedicate themselves every day to keeping Canadians safe, and we thank them for it. However, some of them have been subjected to sexual harassment in the workplace. Sexual harassment is deplorable, no matter the workplace. What is regrettable about the RCMP response is the punishment for the guilty parties. Take the unfortunate and notorious case of a senior RCMP officer in Alberta who was found guilty of several counts of sexual harassment. The consequences were minimal: he lost a few days' pay, was transferred to another part of the country, and kept his job. The consequences for him were minimal, but the impact on the victim is irreparable.

This does not solve the problem, far from it. First, the person who is transferred could reoffend. This reminds me of inmates who do not participate in any programs while incarcerated and who have difficulty reintegrating into society after they have served their sentence. All the experts agree that we must punish wrongdoers, but we must also ensure that they do not victimize anyone else.

Furthermore, ignoring a problem such as sexual harassment in the workplace by not punishing the offenders can have serious consequences for the victims. These women risk their lives every day to protect us and they deserve better. The lack of an internal mechanism for dealing with the misconduct of certain individuals does not improve the work environment and does not allow these women to trust a system that is supposed to protect their rights.

As a result of the allegations and what Canadians have learned about the internal operations of the RCMP, they no longer have faith in their national police force, which is huge.

This faith must be restored by changing the corporate culture within the RCMP. That is why it is so important that we have a closer look at this bill and study it carefully.

Bill C-42 simplifies the complex process that is currently in place to address problems and misconduct in the workplace, including the abuse of power, intimidation and harassment, by giving the commissioner the ultimate authority to determine the appropriate disciplinary action.

When the current RCMP commissioner, Mr. Paulson, took the job last November, he told his troops that harassment would not be tolerated in the workplace. I applaud that comment.

Currently, RCMP managers faced with having to address harassment issues have two different processes they must follow—one created under Treasury Board policy and the other under the RCMP Act. Since these processes do not always align, this can lead to confusion about rights, responsibilities and potential approaches.

Bill C-42 proposes giving the commissioner the power to establish a single comprehensive framework for investigating harassment and resolving these issues.

While Bill C-42 gives the commissioner greater powers regarding discipline and the ability to create a more effective process to resolve harassment complaints, the fact remains that the bill does nothing to change the corporate culture within the RCMP, which is crucial to addressing the allegations of systematic sexual harassment, which we in the NDP strongly condemn.

With respect to changes, we believe that profound changes are needed and we must ensure that this never happens again.

The RCMP's current system cannot be transformed with such a bill, but we would like to emphasize the fact that the bill will give the RCMP commissioner the ability to create a more effective procedure for handing complaints of sexual harassment, and this is a big step in the right direction.

Bill C-42 is missing some other important elements. The government needs to create a completely independent monitoring agency that would report directly to Parliament. Such an agency could make binding recommendations and conduct a comprehensive civilian investigation of the RCMP.

In its current form, the bill would enable the provinces to give an investigative body or a police force the mandate to investigate incidents. However, the RCMP could run the investigation itself if no other organization were able to. The official opposition strongly opposes this proposal, and, based on what I have heard from my colleagues opposite who are looking for a clearer, more independent process, they do not like it either. I therefore suggest that they put forward amendments to change this part of the bill.

First, let us go back to the beginning and talk about whether the RCMP can investigate itself. That is part of why Canadians are losing confidence in their national police force. Moreover, this way of doing things will create an extremely piecemeal system by letting provincial organizations oversee a national police force.

The balance of power will differ from one province to the next. We must absolutely take this opportunity to create a fair, clear and transparent system that will go a long way toward building the confidence of the general public and of the women who work for the RCMP, in their national police force.

A number of reports and commissions have recommended implementing structural and organizational reforms within the RCMP that go well beyond what Bill C-42 proposes. For example, Justice O'Connor's report urged Parliament to create an RCMP oversight body. David Brown's 2007 report on the Task Force on Governance and Cultural Change in the RCMP proposed changes that would make the RCMP completely independent from government with status as a separate employer.

Bill C-42 does not go far enough for women either. Women working for the RCMP have the right to safe access to a more open and transparent working environment.

The sad thing about this bill is that the current government had to be asked about it repeatedly in the House of Commons and in committee before deciding to draft it.

The RCMP needs a clear harassment policy. I will be proud to propose amendments and support Bill C-42.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we in the House are lucky to have the benefit of significant advice when it comes to matters like debating Bill C-42.

I want to draw members' attention to the 2006 report of Justice O'Connor's inquiry into the actions of Canadian officials in relation to Maher Arar. That report called on Parliament to create an RCMP watchdog along the lines of the security and intelligence review committee which monitors CSIS. It would have the right to audit all RCMP files and activities and the power to subpoena related documents and compel testimony from any federal, provincial, municipal or private sector person or entity.

The present RCMP Public Complaints Commission “does not have review powers to ensure systematically that the RCMP’s national security activities are conducted in accordance with the law and with respect for rights and freedoms”. That speaks to the fact that the government must take the next step. It must allow binding recommendations and full civilian investigation of the RCMP through a truly independent watchdog panel that will report directly to Parliament.

Would the member opposite be supportive of creating an agency that actually had teeth and, if that were the case, would he then support that when the bill goes to committee?

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I first thank my hon. colleagues from Lac-Saint-Louis and Winnipeg North for their comments. Before I get into the bulk of my speech, I will read a section from “Sharing Common Grounds”, a document written in the Yukon Territory on the review of the RCMP and its police force. It states:

We have heard many accounts of policing excellence, including stories of RCMP members going above and beyond their normal duties. The purpose of the Review is to improve the quality of policing services for all citizens in the territory.

So I am pleased to rise today to support Bill C-42, the enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police accountability act, because I believe this bill would achieve just what that review was highlighting.

This is a critical piece of legislation that would ultimately have an impact on every Canadian right across this country. The RCMP is a national presence, serving eight provinces, three territories, more than 190 municipalities, 184 aboriginal communities and three international airports from coast to coast to coast. However, it is more than that. It is woven into the very fabric of our nation.

Almost 140 years ago, Canada's first prime minister, Progressive Conservative Prime Minister Sir John A. Macdonald, established the North-West Mounted Police to help bring law and order to the newly acquired western territories. The idea then was to make the force something uniquely Canadian by opting for a red uniform in order to differentiate it from the blue ones worn by the Americans. Since then, the red serge has become recognized around the world as a symbol of what it means to be Canadian. Indeed, it has come to symbolize what we as a nation value the most: peace, honesty, integrity and compassion. The RCMP's reputation follows it around the world, with our officers deployed every day in far-flung corners as part of international peacekeeping operations. This global presence is just one more reason why we must ensure that the RCMP continues its ongoing transformation and modernization efforts.

Unfortunately, these ideals and Canadians' confidence in the RCMP have been tested over the past few years due to high-profile events, public inquiries and most recently by the allegations of sexual harassment brought forward by RCMP members. That is why our government has always placed RCMP modernization at the top of its priorities. Once again, the “Sharing Common Ground” document from the territory notes in its executive summary:

The public expects that police officers will act with integrity and that their conduct will be above reproach at all times. From time to time, police services fall short of this expectation. This can be due to the result of a single act by a police officer that offends public sensibility or through a more general decline in the quality of service over time. When either or both occurs, it erodes the public’s trust in its policing service. In these situations, there must be independent, transparent and accessible processes that hold individual members and the organization accountable.

Since first coming into power in 2006, our government has made great progress helping the RCMP modernize and transform itself in key areas. We have already heard the calls for better civilian oversight, more accountability and a stronger framework to handle investigations of serious incidents involving the RCMP. We have heard the calls for more modern discipline, grievance in human resource management frameworks and one that will bring about the cultural shift within the RCMP. We have responded.

The RCMP has also made changes. For example, it has adopted an external investigation and review policy for serious incidents involving RCMP officers. Whenever possible, it refers these investigations to other agencies. It has also revised its conducted energy weapon policy, and it has introduced new operational responses and readiness policies to ensure front-line officers have the resources they require to do their jobs safely and efficiently.

Overall, the vast majority of Canadians remain confident in and proud of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. This was made clear earlier this year when all provinces and territories that rely on the RCMP to keep their communities secure and their citizens safe re-signed new 20-year RCMP police service agreements.

Notably, among the key issues addressed within the new agreements was accountability, a theme that underpins Bill C-42 and one that I will be returning to often. Although progress has been made on many fronts, we must take further steps to enhance the RCMP's accountability and transparency to all Canadians. Bill C-42 is that body of legislation. It is a comprehensive bill that would allow us to move forward with certainty in our transformation exercise. It addresses calls for increased oversight and accountability of the RCMP and builds on the progress already being made in the management of its workforce.

Underpinning this legislation is the idea of strengthening the accountability of the RCMP: accountability to the Canadian public, and the accountability of senior management to RCMP members themselves and of RCMP members to each other.

Focusing on the first thought, that of accountability of the RCMP to the Canadian public, this legislation would put in place a new civilian review and complaints commission for the RCMP. This new review commission would replace the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, or CPC, which was created in 1980 to review public complaints made against RCMP members. The CPC has fulfilled its role with great fortitude and dedication and we are grateful for the tremendous efforts of its members over the years. The reality is, however, that the CPC's powers have limited its ability to fully and effectively review RCMP activities. As such, its efforts to hold the RCMP to account on behalf of the Canadian public have been hampered. The new commission would maintain many elements of the CPC but would operate under an enhanced framework that would allow it to be a more effective oversight body.

The most important changes are new powers, including the power to conduct policy reviews, subject to certain identified limitations; the authority to summon and compel witnesses to give oral or written evidence under oath, or to provide documents and other materials relevant to the complaint; and the authority to access all RCMP information, except cabinet confidences, that the commission needs to undertake its reviews. For example, the commission would be able to request privileged information if it could demonstrate that it is both relevant and necessary to fully review the conduct of an RCMP member.

I am pleased to note that the framework for this commission was developed in close consultation with the provinces and the territories that contract RCMP services. During the negotiations for new police service agreements, provinces and territories spoke of the need for a more efficient review system that removes overlaps and redundancies as well as meets or exceeds other police review bodies. The new commission would be better integrated and harmonized with provincial police review bodies including the sharing of information, conducting joint investigations as needed, and issuing annual case specific reports to provinces and territories regarding complaints and reviews in their region.

A further step toward better accountability to the Canadian public can be found in the framework proposed for investigations of serious incidents. When an RCMP member is involved in an incident that results in death or serious injury, or some other matter of great public interest, the Canadian public wants to know that there is a system in place to allow an independent and comprehensive criminal investigation. In other words, it addresses concerns regarding the police investigating the police.

I refer back to an earlier remark about this being done in consultation with the provinces. When I reviewed the “Sharing Common Ground” document, an underlying theme that I found within it was that the concerns of the community revolved around the police investigating the police when it involved serious incidents or death. Drawing directly from “Sharing Common Ground”, we see how Bill C-42 is addressing, at least, the specific needs outlined in that territory's review of its police force.

Every time RCMP members put on their badges and leave their homes there is potential that they might have to put their lives on the line to protect Canadians. Because the police hold special powers in our society, Canadians rightfully hold them to higher standards. Canadians have every right to feel confident that there is a very strong system in place to review serious incidents and that the system is fair, impartial, highly transparent and accountable.

Under the proposed framework and building on the RCMP's policy on external investigations announced in 2010, the RCMP would be required by law to refer serious incident investigations involving the RCMP to an independent provincial body that has, as its core mandate, the investigation of police related incidents, for example, Alberta's serious incident response team. Where no such body exists, the RCMP would then be required to refer the investigation to another police service and only in those very rare instances where these two options are not available would the RCMP undertake the investigation itself.

The framework also provides for an independent observer to be appointed to monitor the impartiality of these investigations when they are conducted by the RCMP or another police service. This would go a long way toward maintaining public trust in the RCMP. Public trust and confidence is the cornerstone of policing and without accountability that trust is lost.

The bill also focuses on improving the RCMP's accountability to its employees. It does so with greatly improved and streamlined frameworks to address discipline, grievance and human resource management issues. These changes cannot come soon enough.

All hon. members are aware of the recent headlines about allegations of misconduct and harassment within the RCMP ranks. The proposed legislation would reorient and streamline a system that is currently bogged down in red tape, overburdened with administrative processes and plagued with lengthy proceedings that can last for years in some cases.

All RCMP members deserve to have access to a discipline and grievous system that is timely, fair and transparent. Just as Canadians need to feel confident in their police organization, so, too, do RCMP members need to trust in their senior management. They need to know that there is a strong system in place to hold their managers and themselves to account for their actions.

Our goal is to ensure that the RCMP as an organization has the tools available to address workplace conflict, performance and conduct matters at the first instance and, where possible, at the front line. This means moving decision-making down to the lowest appropriate level, thereby empowering managers and giving them more responsibility for discipline. This means ensuring there is a proper grievous system in place that allows for early intervention into workplace issues that is flexible in how grievances and appeals are managed and that is based on engagement and fairness. The timely resolution of workplace issues means that officers would no longer be crippled by long and drawn out administrative processes.

Bill C-42 also proposes a new human resources management framework that would give the RCMP commissioner enhanced authority closer in line with those of a deputy minister of a federal department and other police chiefs across Canada. In other words, the commissioner would be more fully able to manage the complex and dynamic environment in which the RCMP operates. The bill would give the commissioner the authority to make decisions regarding hiring, demoting or discharging most members, including officers other than deputy commissioners and commanding officers in charge of divisions, as well as the flexibility to delegate these authorities to another person. He or she would also have the authority to establish processes for investigations into disputes relating to harassment in the workplace.

Of course, with these new powers must come strengthened accountability and transparency. For example, while the RCMP commissioner would be able to demote or discharge a member, he or she would be required to show cause for decisions and serious discipline decisions would be reviewed by an independent external review committee.

The final element of the bill is the proposal to streamline the employee categories within the RCMP. To do this, the bill contains a mechanism that would move the RCMP from three categories of employees to two and provides for the conversion of civilian members to public service employees.

Taken together, the amendments proposed in Bill C-42 would truly set the RCMP on a course for a strong future. They would strengthen and modernize the RCMP to make it more accountable and create a more efficient grievance and discipline system.

The bill would help ensure that the RCMP continues to evolve into a more transparent, effective and accountable force of which all Canadians can continue to be proud.

I call on all hon. members to support this important bill and to ensure its passage. Now is the time that we must work together so that the RCMP remains a source of great national pride whose members represent the values we all cherish of honesty, integrity, compassion, respect, accountability, professionalism and the willingness to go the extra mile to help someone in need.

I move:

That this question be now put.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis.

My colleague from Hamilton Mountain asked an excellent question about what is going on with the class action lawsuit regarding sexual harassment brought forward by nearly 200 women against their employer, the RCMP.

It is crucial that we create an anti-harassment policy, and Bill C-42 presents the perfect opportunity to do just that: to create a policy that will transform the unhealthy environment that reigns within the RCMP.

Since this has been going on for years, my colleague likely knew that harassment that existed when he was in government.

Now that they agree that an anti-harassment policy is needed, why did they not do something about it when they were in power?

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, more than 200 women have now come forward in a class action lawsuit regarding sexual harassment in the RCMP. As members know, we on this side of the House have been pushing the minister for months now to prioritize the issue of sexual harassment in the RCMP.

One of the things Bill C-42 does not directly address is the systemic issues in the culture of the RCMP. The bill by itself would not change the current climate in the RCMP. In fact, for me, there is one glaring omission in the bill.

Nowhere in the bill, or anywhere else for that matter, has the minister mandated the adoption of a clear anti-harassment policy in the RCMP, one that contains specific standards for behaviour and specific criteria for evaluating the performance of all employees. It is obvious to me that such a policy is needed to serve as a basis for a fair and disciplined process.

I was interested in the member's remarks on the topic of sexual harassment in the RCMP, but I note that when the Liberals were in government they did not create such a policy. I wonder whether he would indicate to me now whether he would be supportive of adopting a sexual harassment policy in the RCMP.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill to start us off this fall in the House, and I am pleased to participate in this debate.

To start, I would like to talk more generally about the actions of police forces by sharing with members an incident I witnessed this summer.

I stopped at a Tim Hortons restaurant in my riding to get a coffee and work on my work plan. When I entered, there were three people seated at a table: two women and a man. After some time it became clear that the third person did not really know the other two. This third person was a woman in her twenties. She had her head in her hands and was crying. She was obviously very upset. This went on rather quietly for about 15 minutes. Then, two SPVM—Service de police de la Ville de Montréal—police officers walked in. They started to speak to the woman who was obviously upset, and took her outside. There was a long discussion that lasted a good 30 minutes. The police officers were extremely professional. They were very compassionate towards this woman. They asked her questions. This woman may have been suicidal or on drugs, or she may have been going through a psychological crisis. Eventually an ambulance arrived and the police officers helped the woman lie down on a stretcher. The ambulance obviously took her to the hospital.

I shared this story as an example of how wonderful and professional our police forces are, and how patient and attentive they are when they are helping individuals or facing a situation that could turn out badly.

This exemplary conduct on the part of Montreal's finest should not surprise anyone.

I know we are talking about misconduct of police officers, and specifically officers within the RCMP, but I think for every one incident of alleged misconduct or questionable behaviour by the police, there are thousands of incidences every day in the country, like the one I described, in which officers acted in a manner consistent with the highest professional standards, in a manner faithful to their lengthy and rigorous training and in keeping with the highest ideals of service to the community, the same ideals that led them to seek a career in law enforcement in the first place.

On a personal level, the police officers I know in my community are individuals of the highest integrity. They are committed to public service. I think of Roberto Del Pappa, the community relations officer at station 1 in my riding. I think of Paul Dufort, a detective for many years, a gentleman who had a career as a detective with the Montreal police prior to being elected city councillor in my hometown of Kirkland. I think of Michel Lecompte, now retired, but for many years a stalwart presence in Montreal's West Island community as commander of station 1.

There are many police officers serving in the House in a new capacity as elected representatives of the same people they once served as peace officers. I take this opportunity to salute their previous contributions to Canada in their role as members of various police forces.

It is true that what I described did not specifically involve the RCMP, and we are talking about the RCMP's problems today. However, all peace officers are pretty much cut from the same cloth. They are all members of the same family, life members of a true honour society, what used to be called a “brotherhood” before women joined the forces to serve in the same capacity as men and provide the diversity necessary in any public institution that aims to earn and keep the trust, respect and support of the general population.

I came to understand the deep and special bonds that existed within the police community through a friend of mine, the Honourable George Springate, who is now a senior citizenship judge. Many members in the House may have heard of him. He started his career as a policeman and then became a place-kicker for the Montreal Alouettes and helped win the Grey Cup in 1970. After that, he became a lawyer and afterward was head of the police technology program at John Abbott College in my riding. He has been a citizenship judge for a number of years now, doing an exemplary job giving the oath to new citizens. I have come to understand that Judge Springate knows every police officer in the country. Every time he runs into a police officer, somehow he seems to know him or her. Whether it is an RCMP agent or a member of other police forces or municipal police forces, he makes us realize that it is one big community of individuals, men and women, serving society.

It is true that there is some cynicism in our society toward police officers. Even when I was at that Tim Hortons this summer and the police officers were dealing with the situation at hand in an exceptionally professional and noble way, there were people in the coffee shop who somehow thought they were using too much force, which was absolutely not the case. Therefore, there is a level of cynicism toward the police. Obviously, to some extent this bill is intended to reassure the public that our RCMP officers are behaving properly.

However, I would like to suggest that this cynicism is really surface deep. Fundamentally, Canadians truly trust their police officers and feel they are there to maintain order and to do the best in upholding the public good. We just have to think for a moment that everyone here who might have kids probably would have given them the following advice: “If ever you're in trouble, lost or you need some help and there's a police officer around, go to the police officer”. A public that is cynical toward the forces of law and order would not say that to their children.

Also, we all know how much more comfortable we feel if we are in a situation where there is or the potential of a disturbance when we see a police officer not far away. If we see someone speeding on the highway and we just happen to see a police car not far away, we somehow feel much more secure. That means we really fundamentally do appreciate the work of our police forces.

This does not mean that police forces always operate in a perfect way or that reform is not required. Police forces are human creations. They are human constructs and human institutions. As a result, their management structures, procedures and operations are a function of legislation that is created by legislators. Sometimes some reform is required. The system is not perfect and changes need to be brought, especially as society evolves. Fundamentally, Bill C-42 is about changing procedures so that inappropriate behaviours can be dealt with effectively and decisively by the RCMP's internal disciplinary mechanisms. However, it is also about changing RCMP culture.

Organizational cultures communicate signals about what is expected, about what is tolerated and, conversely, about what is not tolerated. I would suspect that, as in any organization, the vast majority of RCMP officers' core personal ethics guide them instinctively toward appropriate behaviour, both as citizens and in their role as police officers.

At the other extreme, there are no doubt those who require clearer signals from the surrounding environment and corporate culture to inform them of what behaviour is acceptable and what behaviour is not.

The RCMP's internal disciplinary structures, policies and procedures must clarify, even simplify, those signals so that expected standards of conduct for a federal police officer are clearly communicated. Obviously, this has not always been the case. One simply has to look at the disciplinary process within the RCMP at the moment to understand how complex it is. It is really hard to wrap one's mind around the various aspects of that system.

Maybe this is one of the reasons why there have been some incidents over the last few years involving the RCMP; for example, the Maher Arar case where matters were not properly dealt with, where the RCMP took some false information to American authorities that resulted in Mr. Arar's imprisonment and torture.

Maybe it is the current system and its failure to communicate properly the inherent, solid values of the RCMP that has led officers to go astray in other ways. For example, in 2004 the RCMP raided the home and office of Ottawa Citizen reporter Juliet O'Neill. Soon thereafter, the Ontario Court of Justice ruled that the sections of the Security of Information Act used by the RCMP violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Somewhere there is a problem in communicating, to some officers anyway, what is expected in standards of behaviour. The court also found that the issuance and execution of the warrants in that case constituted an abuse of process by the RCMP and ordered that they be quashed.

Then in 2007, David Brown, a former head of the Ontario Securities Commission, released his report on allegations that senior RCMP officers covered up problems in the administration of the force's pension and insurance fund. He did not find an issue of cover-up, just mismanagement, saying the force requires major changes to its governance and culture: “We need fundamental cultural, structural and governance changes throughout the RCMP”. He went on to say that the RCMP structure and culture “is completely at odds with the reality of running a $3 billion enterprise”.

Today we are debating a bill that is intended to bring some reform, some clarity and perhaps some simplification to disciplinary procedures and other related procedures within the RCMP so they are clearly understood by RCMP officers.

In regard to the bill, we are especially pleased that the government has finally given in on something Liberals have been seeking for a long time: a civilian complaints commission with the power to compel witnesses to give evidence, to review the RCMP's compliance with legislation and regulations and to appoint civilian observers to assess the impartiality of criminal investigations.

One of my colleagues raised this point somewhat in a tangential way a moment ago in her question to the NDP critic. Yes, provincial police forces will be empowered, and I believe they are empowered at the moment, to investigate situations of potential or alleged misconduct by RCMP officers. However, the new complaints commission or complaints office, the name of which escapes me at this moment, will have the power to review investigations to see if they were truly impartial and will also have the power to call witnesses.

That is an important safeguard. Whether it is a perfect mechanism, we will see in committee. We will hear differing opinions on that, no doubt, and we will produce amendments as a result.

The RCMP is an iconic and thus powerful symbol for Canadians, but its identification with Canada and our Canadian values of order and good government is also international. If I am not mistaken, the RCMP or mounted police, as it is known, is the most identifiable symbol of Canada in the world outside our borders. We must restore that symbol's polish not so much to maintain the global community's esteem for Canada, though that is desirable, but more important, so that Canadians can have the confidence they require that our country's laws are being respected by those who enforce them and that the peace officers who work to uphold that respect are carrying out their duties with integrity. In other words, that the values that they represent are real and that there is no double standard in living and applying those values. That is why this bill is important. That is why we must get its detailed provisions right. We cannot afford, as a committee, as a Parliament, to slip up on this important task before us.

I look forward to participating in the study of Bill C-42 in committee and working with my colleagues in amending it where necessary. I sincerely hope that government members on committee will be open to suggestions from the opposition. The government probably has its own point of view of what needs to be amended, but I sincerely hope the government listens to the debate because these debates sometimes uncover issues that people who prepared the bill did not foresee, people within the department or ministers of cabinet. That is going to be an important part of this process, and I hope the government takes advantage of the committee process to make the bill better.

Finally, it is unfortunate that it took a letter from new RCMP Commissioner Robert Paulson underscoring the need for urgent reform before the government saw fit to act. It is also unfortunate, quite frankly, that it took some high profile sexual harassment cases to encourage the government to act.

We Liberals obviously wish to assist the new commissioner in the mandate he has been given to reform the RCMP's structures, disciplinary processes and ultimately its culture and credibility with Canadians. We are looking forward to working on the bill at committee. We will obviously be supporting it at second reading.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague just spoke about the independence of the RCMP. This reminded me that Bill C-42 is partly based on Bill C-38, which was introduced in a previous Parliament.

Both bills propose similar things. For example, this type of bill would once again enable the RCMP to conduct investigations itself in certain circumstances. For example, the bill proposes that each province be able to choose the organization responsible for investigating the RCMP; if no organization is able to do so, the RCMP itself will investigate.

I would like to ask my NDP colleague what he thinks about this piecemeal system within the RCMP. Does he not think that this type of system would undermine Canadians' trust in the RCMP?

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca for his excellent speech and for doing such a terrific job of summarizing what Bill C-42 is all about.

Like the minister did in his opening remarks, my colleague talked about a number of amendments the committee would be able to make. Can he talk about the kind of amendments he would like to add to this bill to flesh it out and make it tougher on harassment in the RCMP?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-42. I could not agree more with the minister when he said that we should have had this legislation in the House much sooner. There is an urgency for the public in terms of confidence in the RCMP. There is an issue for the RCMP rank and file members who are working in a workplace climate that is often not supportive of the difficult and dangerous work they do. It is also important to the RCMP leadership that is charged with the task of making those necessary changes.

We on this side find much to agree with in this bill and the reasons for undertaking reform of the RCMP Act. In the preamble it talks about many things which we can agree with. First and foremost is the necessity to restore the confidence of Canadians in our international police force.

The RCMP has long provided excellent service to Canadians from coast to coast to coast but over the previous years, dating back to the Liberal government, we have had increasing questions about incidents involving use of force where public confidence has waned in the RCMP. That is a problem not just for the public but for the serving members in the RCMP.

The bill's second purpose as stated is to promote transparency and public accountability in law enforcement. Again, we could not agree more that this is essential if we are going to meet that first objective which is to restore public confidence in the RCMP. The only way to do that is through enhanced transparency and public accountability.

The third reason for reforming the RCMP Act, which is stated in the bill's preamble, deals with the relationship with provincial, regional and municipal governments that hold contracts with the RCMP. They have entered into those contracts in good faith but often feel that they do not have adequate input into the policing in their jurisdictions or adequate accountability measures for the RCMP when they have questions about what has happened in those jurisdictions.

A fourth measure, as stated in the preamble of the bill, is to promote the highest levels of conduct within the RCMP. This, of course, is a goal that is shared by governments, RCMP members and the public at large. We know that day in and day out virtually all RCMP members strive to meet those levels of conduct. However, we need clear statements of what happens when those levels of conducts are not met with clear consequences and procedures that would also protect the rights of RCMP members who have dedicated themselves to the service of Canadians so that they do not find themselves subject to arbitrary procedures as part of discipline.

Finally, the bill's preamble states that we need to reform this legislation to create a framework for ongoing reform so that we do not find ourselves in this situation again 25 years later where government after government, Liberal and Conservative, have failed to address these questions and failed to provide leadership on these issues.

We in the official opposition can agree on the goals expressed in this legislation and I believe we can go further. We can even agree on the key areas for action identified in the summary of the bill. Although, the bill's summary counts the areas of action as only two vital areas, I would count them as three.

We on this side agree that there needs to be action to strengthen the RCMP review and complaints body. The RCMP Public Complaints Commission has provided a valuable service but we have concerns about its full independence and its ability to oversee independent investigations.

Second, we believe there needs to be a framework to handle investigation of serious incidents involving members, incidents that involve death or serious injury, which will help enhance transparency. In this day and age, the public has said very clearly that it does not accept that the police investigate themselves in these very serious incidents. We believe that independent investigation not only benefits public confidence but it also benefits those who serve in the RCMP by guaranteeing that the public will understand the outcome of those investigations and where their names are cleared they will be cleared once and for all.

Finally, there needs to be action in the area of modernizing discipline, grievance and human resource management processes. The minister has cited anecdotal evidence of things that take way too long and we all know that is true. However, what is lacking is clear guidance for RCMP members of what those standards are and how failure of those standards will be dealt with in a judicious and fair manner. In addition, when RCMP members have grievances they need to have the understanding that their concerns can be brought forward in a timely manner and that those grievances can be resolved and not drag on for years and years.

We do agree on the areas in which we need to make reforms to the RCMP Act. In particular, we believe it is crucial to allow the RCMP commissioner reforms in the area of discipline to deal with the climate of sexual harassment that exists in the RCMP. We would like to see leadership from the government in mandating the commissioner to bring in a clear anti-harassment policy and a clear process that contains specific standards of behaviour with regard to sexual harassment and specific criteria for evaluating the performance of all employees in this very important area.

However, having said how much we agree with the objectives of this legislation and that we agree with the areas that need to be reformed, I have not risen in the House today simply to present bouquets to the minister. We in the opposition have our concerns, both about government inaction by the Liberals and the Conservatives and government inaction in particular in the area of transparency and accountability.

The present government has been in power since 2006 and, yes, it inherited a record of inaction from the previous Liberal government. However, it has been six years, three ministers and two RCMP commissioners and we are just now embarking on the process to reform this legislation so we can get measures that make a real difference in the performance and work lives of RCMP members now in 2012. In the meantime, we have had more than 200 women members of the RCMP join lawsuits alleging sexual harassment within the RCMP. We also have had an ongoing series of problems with loss of public confidence in the RCMP in investigations of serious incidents like the death of Robert Dziekanski.

We have wasted valuable time and we have had numerous studies that presented solutions to these problems. We had the task force, which was appointed by the government, and I give it credit for doing so, that reported back in 2007, nearly five years ago, with important proposals for reforming the culture of the RCMP, discipline of the RCMP and important recommendations on the Public Complaints Commission. We had an internal review, completed in 2008, of the process of using independent observers in police investigations of themselves. We had the recommendations from Mr. Justice O'Connor in the Maher Arar inquiry with regard to the national security activities of the RCMP in 2006. Most recently, we had recommendations from the former Public Complaints commissioner, Paul Kennedy, both on investigations of serious incidents, which were tabled in 2009, and when he appeared before the justice committee in January of last year to give recommendations on increasing the independence of the job that he used to hold. So there is no shortage of advice available.

However, in a question that I asked earlier to the minister, it is unclear why the government chose to pick only certain recommendations and certain pieces of all these reports. It is hard to see the overall theme that guides this legislation.

We have said that leadership from the government is required but that means more than just legislation. Therefore, I cannot let this opportunity go by without pointing out some of the things that the government has done in the area of the RCMP and the Public Complaints Commission. Just the past week, the government issued lay-off notices to two staff members at the RCMP Public Complaints Commission. When we are in the midst of reforming this and when that commission is in the midst of a massive study of the sexual harassment complaints that have taken place in the RCMP, why has the government chosen to lay off two staff members at the Public Complaints Commission in the midst of this crisis over sexual harassment that the commission was attempting to address?

Also in the last week we saw lay-off notices given to 149 support staff members of the RCMP across the country, including 42 support staff in British Columbia alone. These people provide important services in helping the RCMP do its job on a daily basis. These are not uniformed members who received the lay-off notices but people who work everywhere from the forensic labs to personnel, recruiting and in all the other very important functions that support the basic police duties of the RCMP.

When it comes to the Public Complaints Commission and the RCMP, the government has been following a peculiar practice. When Mr. Kennedy produced his strong recommendations on investigations, the response of the government was to fail to reappoint him to the job. Having appointed him in 2005 and giving him annual reappointments every year, when his very strong recommendations came out, suddenly he was no longer its first choice for the job as the Public Complaints commissioner.

The new interim commissioner, Ian McPhail, was initially given a one-year term as interim chair and now has been appointed again for another year. I am emphasizing the single year because we are talking about someone who should have independence from the government in doing the job of providing civilian oversight of the RCMP. How can someone do that with any confidence when at the end of every year he or she could lose their job? While I am encouraged that the new legislation talks about a term of up to five years for the new chair of the civilian review agency, I am concerned that the government will continue its practice of making only annual appointments, which gives it far too much power over what should be an independent commissioner.

While we believe that Bill C-42 does deal with issues of urgent public concern about the RCMP, we on this side of the House will be supporting the bill at second reading in order to move the bill to committee. I was very pleased to hear the minister say in his opening remarks that he was open to amendments to the bill at committee. We look forward to seeing all kinds of witnesses come forward at committee, witnesses who have previously provided advice to the minister, although he was unable to name any of them specifically today. We hope to see them called as witnesses at committee so we can hear from them about whether the ways the government has chosen to address these issues are the right measures.

While we agree with Commissioner Paulson that legislation alone is not enough, we do need to produce the optimum legislation at this time. That will require extensive amendments to the bill at committee. We believe a positive aspect is that of giving the commissioner power to create one process to deal with the issue of sexual harassment. We understand there are competing RCMP and Treasury Board guidelines, which have created a great deal of confusion within the force. It is a positive measure, but we have some serious concerns about the independence of a new civilian review agency. There are restrictions on its ability to undertake independent investigations. I have already raised the issue of the length of the term for the chair of that commission.

As I mentioned briefly, we also have a concern that the disciplinary reforms needed in the RCMP because of the lengthy and complicated process involved should not err too much on the other side. The RCMP operates in a non-union environment. Many of the rank and file members of the RCMP we talked to over the summer expressed a concern that where they do not have an organization to advocate on their behalf as individuals, there needs to be balance in the disciplinary process so they are not subject to arbitrary dismissal when they have devoted their lives to helping and serving all Canadians.

Therefore, we will be talking at committee on how to ensure there is a balance in the disciplinary process. We agree that it needs to be streamlined and improved, but the government's solution seems to be to concentrate more and more arbitrary power in the hands of the minister. We remain concerned that we get a chance to explore fully at committee what those disciplinary processes would look like and how people's rights as employees would be protected in a non-union environment.

I find the minister's excuse for the most recent delays in introducing the bill, namely waiting for a court decision on whether the RCMP has the right to unionize, a bit weak. It was obviously possible to bring the bill forward with a previous section of Bill C-38 omitted. However, I hope we will have some discussion of the issue of whether or not having a union in the RCMP might be a good way to address some of these outstanding issues, particularly in the area of sexual harassment where people often need an advocate in the workplace to approach management, especially if management is part of the problem. People need someone to approach management and advocate on their behalf. We might not be in the situation we are in today with more than 200 women filing lawsuits against the RCMP if we had a more conducive work environment and a better way of making sure that individual members had advocates on their behalf in the RCMP.

I want to touch on some of the reports that have been issued and what we believe should be addressed at committee. The 2006 report of the Justice O'Connor inquiry into the actions of Canadian officials in relation to Maher Arar called for Parliament to create an RCMP watchdog along the lines of the Security Intelligence Review Committee. It already monitors CSIS but would also have the right to audit RCMP files and activities and have the power to subpoena related documents and compel testimony. The present complaints commission does not have enough powers over the RCMP's national security activities.

Thus, while we are glad to see provisions in the bill that would increase those powers, given the causes behind the creation of CSIS, we have a question about the RCMP recreating an arm that would undertake national security activities that would appear to operate without adequate parliamentary oversight. That is a question that we will be addressing in committee.

The report filed in 2007 by the Task Force on Governance and Cultural Change in the RCMP proposed reforms to establish the RCMP as a separate entity from government, with separate employer status. That was a very interesting proposal that appears nowhere in this bill. I would like to know why the government, having appointed this commission of eminent persons with expertise to suggest solutions to the problems in the RCMP, including a former commissioner of the RCMP, a vice-admiral of the Canadian Navy, a very prominent Canadian corporate lawyer, and a member of the Alberta Law Enforcement Review Board, set aside a major recommendation of theirs. That is a question for which I would like to hear the government's answer.

In addition to the idea of having separate employer status for the RCMP, many groups in the past have suggested that there needs to be some kind of civilian input mechanism for the RCMP, perhaps only at the national level, but maybe also at the regional level.

While municipalities have boards that provide civilian guidance and control over their police forces and that provide insulation from the local politicians, we have nothing like that in the RCMP. Accordingly, we have had proposals that we create an independent management board, which again came from the 2007 report, which would give Canadians the confidence that the government cannot interfere directly in the activities of the RCMP and cannot give so-called advice to the commissioner, who has to report directly to the minister.

We are depending here upon the integrity of the minister and the integrity of the RCMP commissioner to protect the independence of policing, and reports have often recommended that it would be better to create a structural impediment to that kind of interference than simply depending on the integrity and goodwill of the people occupying those positions.

I am not questioning either the integrity of the minister or of the RCMP commissioner, but the public has to have confidence that independence is there. When those relations go on in private and they are direct reporting relationship, it is difficult for the public to have that confidence in the independence of the RCMP.

Many provisions in Bill C-42 are similar to those in Bill C-38. I would just like to mention a brief comment by Paul Kennedy, the former RCMP public complaints commissioner, that Bill C-38 was so riddled with loopholes that it did not meet the standards necessary to guarantee independence of policing.

Again, here is someone appointed by the Conservatives to the position of public complaints commissioner who presented reports to them on the kinds of reforms that needed to be brought forward. He had serious concerns about what was happening in Bill C-38 and would, I am sure, have those same concerns when it comes to Bill C-42 given that many of the sections remain the same.

With the very limited amount of time I have to conclude my remarks, I would like to say that we do understand the urgency for action here. It is not our goal in this debate to delay these reforms to RCMP accountability and transparency, but it is important that we get them right. We must get them right in terms of public confidence; we must get them right in terms of the careers of individual RCMP members; and we must get them right to give Commissioner Paulson the powers and the abilities he needs to take care of some very serious problems in the workplace climate involving sexual harassment inside the RCMP.

We have one chance to get this right. I am hoping to work co-operatively with the government. Again, as I said, the minister said he would welcome discussion of amendments in the committee, and so we will be putting forward those kinds of amendments.

Finally, I would stress the importance of both the independence of the RCMP from government and the independence of investigations into RCMP conduct from the government and the RCMP, and also the independence of the commissioner, who really ought to be the chair of this new civilian agency and report to Parliament rather than to the minister of the day.

These are the kinds of concerns that New Democrats will be raising at committee.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for his comments on Bill C-42. I would like to revisit a question that one of my Conservative colleagues raised earlier. I do not think a full answer was provided. Apparently consultations about this bill were held this summer before it was introduced.

May we have more information about the associations, members or people who were consulted in the lead-up to Bill C-42?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

moved that Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, with its roots stretching back to the 1870s, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police has evolved into one of the world's most respected police forces. It is clear that the RCMP is a vital national institution but even the deepest roots need tending to remain strong.

RCMP members are hard-working and dedicated Canadians who put their lives on the line to protect us each and every day.

As an organization, the RCMP is respected around the world as a symbol of who we are as Canadians and what we value: professionalism, honesty, integrity and compassion. However, these ideals and Canadians' confidence in the RCMP has been tested over the past few years. As parliamentarians, we are all aware of the high profile events, public inquiries and, most recently, allegations of sexual harassment within the force. I know there is a consensus in this chamber that changes are needed.

There is also no doubt that the leadership of the RCMP deserves modern, updated tools to do its job.

Earlier this year, we signed 20-year contracts with our provincial and territorial partners, further demonstrating our government's commitment to the RCMP. We remain committed to ensuring that Mounties can effectively serve and protect our communities for generations to come. I therefore was very proud to enable the enhancing RCMP accountability act on June 20.

Before outlining the major provisions of the bill, I will paint a larger picture of why these changes are so necessary.

Over the past four years, the RCMP has been busy addressing deficiencies to strengthen the trust and the confidence of Canadians. Most important, in November 2011, our government appointed Mr. Bob Paulson as the new Commissioner of the RCMP. A senior police leader with extensive experience across the RCMP's complex mandate, including in British Columbia, Commissioner Paulson is well-positioned to deal with the challenges associated with maintaining the RCMP as a key Canadian institution.

While we have seen progress in several areas, for example, the provinces and territories recently signed a 20-year RCMP services agreement that addressed key issues such as governance, accountability, program sustainability and cost containment, more needs to be done and that means amending the legislation governing the RCMP.

It is surprising to think that the RCMP Act has not been significantly amended in nearly 25 years. The RCMP Act, last amended in 1988, has served us well but the time has come for a change.

The proposed legislation would further enhance the RCMP's accountability by reforming the legislation in a number of key areas: First, it would strengthen the RCMP's review and complaints body; second, it would create a statutory framework to handle investigations of serious incidents involving RCMP members in order to promote greater transparency; and third, it would modernize discipline, grievance and human resource management processes for members of the RCMP. This would help prevent, address and correct performance issues in a way that is both fair and timely.

If some of those ideas sound familiar it is not surprising. The proposed legislation contains all of the elements of the former Bill C-38 and several components of former Bill C-43 related to human resource management.

I will delve into each of these areas more deeply.

In 1988, the RCMP Act established the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, or CPC for short. As its name suggests, the CPC is an independent, arm's-length, civilian body that ensures that public complaints made about the conduct of RCMP officers are examined fairly and impartially.

In recent years, many different stakeholders have expressed concerns about the limitations of that review body. Whether the criticisms stem from contract jurisdictions, parliamentary committees, reports from public inquiries or critiques from individual Canadians, they all share a similar thrust: a belief that the CPC requires enhanced legislative powers for an effective and fulsome review of RCMP activities.

The government has listened to the concerns of Canadians and I have spent the summer travelling the country listening to the concerns of front line RCMP members, community leaders and Canadians. I have heard clearly these concerns. The government recognizes that a growing chorus is demanding change to the review and complaints framework of the RCMP.

I am proud that Bill C-42 fully addresses these issues. The bill would create a new commission that would enhance, streamline and update many elements of the CPC that are currently working effectively. Additionally, new powers would be conferred on the new commission, including the authority to summon and compel witnesses to give oral or written evidence, grant greater access to RCMP information deemed relevant by the new commission for the performance of its duties and, finally, to conduct policy reviews. This would bring the new commission in line with other modern provincial, federal and international review bodies. The legislation would also permit the new commission to have broad access to RCMP information but subject to appropriate safeguards.

As we know, many jurisdictions contract the RCMP for policing services. They have made it very clear that they want enhanced accountability for RCMP member conduct in their communities. They have also asked that the legislative framework for the new commission be designed to dovetail with their own police review bodies. Oftentimes contract jurisdictions want a detailed analysis of RCMP activity tailored to their individual needs. Here, too, Bill C-42 will deliver the goods.

The proposed commission would issue customized annual reports to contract jurisdictions identifying the number and nature of complaints as well as evidence of trends, if there are any.

By its very nature, the RCMP's work is often difficult and dangerous. Members can be called upon to use weapons and occasionally deadly force in the performance of their duties. When serious incidents occur, such as life-threatening injuries or death, the RCMP would be required to refer the case to the provincial civilian investigative body, where one exists. For example, in Alberta, the Alberta serious incident response team would be in charge of carrying out the criminal investigation into an RCMP member's conduct if serious injury or death resulted from an RCMP interaction with the public. In the absence of such a body, the RCMP would have to refer the investigation to another police force whenever practical. In those rare incidents where neither of those two options are available, the RCMP would conduct its own investigation, but this last option would be the exception rather than the norm. This process is both workable and practical for a force spread across one of the largest countries in the world and has the broadest support from the jurisdictions the RCMP serves.

We have built in safeguards that if the RCMP has to investigate one of its own members or if it refers the case to another police force, an independent observer could be appointed by the jurisdiction or the new commission to monitor the impartiality of the investigation. This policy is a result of concerns about a conflict of interest with Mounties investigating their own members.

The government has taken these criticisms to heart and, while we acknowledge the work that the RCMP has done in this regard with its 2010 external investigation or review policies, it is time to solidify this policy in law. The proposed legislation reduces the potential for bias, promotes transparency and promotes public accountability in serious incident investigations.

Recent allegations relating to misconduct and harassment in the RCMP are well-known and I am deeply troubled by these allegations. No doubt, hon. members are also familiar with criticism of the RCMP for how it deals with these kinds of allegations. That is why we believe it is vital to reform the discipline, grievance and human resource management processes within the RCMP and to do so through legislation.

Thus, Bill C-42 would reorient and streamline current processes and provide the commissioner with the authorities needed to manage the organization more effectively.

Let me touch on each of the three components, beginning with discipline.

Simply put, the current process is not working as well as it could, given the existing limitations in the current legislation. Sanctions and remedial options are limited, and the process is weighted down by red tape. Proceedings can literally drag on for years. This is why we are reforming the adjudication boards currently in place.

For most disciplinary actions of any severity, for example, the RCMP is required to use a three-person adjudication board. These boards effectively undermine the role of front-line managers who lack the ability to resolve issues promptly, as well as the flexibility to make decisions on sanctions. As a result, the use of boards creates an adversarial work climate, not to mention long delays in the process.

Under the proposed changes, front-line managers would finally gain the authority and responsibility to impose appropriate, punitive measures. These measures would range from remedial training to corrective action such as holding back pay. Managers would not have to resort to a formal board process, except in the case of dismissal.

Like cases of discipline, the airing of grievances in the RCMP is terribly inefficient. There are, for example, separate processes to deal with terms and conditions of employment, appeals of discharge for unsatisfactory performance, and appeals of formal and informal disciplinary sanctions. On top of that, each process has different decision-makers and administrative structures.

The proposed legislation would create a single grievance and appeal process, allowing for consistency, fairness and efficiency. The legislation would also empower managers, allowing them to deal with issues before they mushroom into big problems. For example, in August 2004, a grievance was filed over a dinner allowance claim of $15, and under the current system it took seven years to obtain a final decision on the matter. Under our proposed legislation, that would be streamlined and dealt with in a matter of weeks, not years. In other words, the proposed legislation would inject some much-needed flexibility into the current rigid system.

We must also pay attention to how decisions get made at the top. In contrast to other police chiefs, for example, the Commissioner of the RCMP lacks the authority to make fundamental human resource decisions. Specifically, he cannot establish and maintain processes for the demotion or discharge of members for administrative reasons. Nor can the commissioner make decisions stemming from these processes or establish a system to prevent, investigate and resolve harassment cases.

Under the proposed legislation, the commissioner would gain increased authorities to fully manage the RCMP workforce. Given the complex and dynamic operating environment of the organization, these changes are nothing short of essential. Specifically, the legislation would address the shortcomings I mentioned.

The commissioner would be able to demote and discharge members and appoint commissioned officers, everyone but the deputy commissioners and commanding officers of the RCMP divisions. Other powers include the authority to establish processes to investigate and resolve disputes involving harassment in the workplace.

As a final consideration to enhance human resource management, Bill C-42 would reduce the number of employee categories. Currently there are three categories: regular members, civilian members and public service members. Bill C-42 proposes to eliminate one of the three categories by converting civilian members into public service employees. This would allow the RCMP to focus on the RCMP's core mandate, protecting Canadians while saving valuable taxpayer dollars by streamlining its administration.

The time is now for the enhancing RCMP accountability act, as it would enable the RCMP to advance its transformative agenda and improve public confidence in the organization. It would further enhance the RCMP's accountability by reforming legislation in several key areas that I have outlined.

The RCMP has a proud and illustrious past, but this government believes the best is yet to come. As Minister of Public Safety I have had the privilege of meeting RCMP members and staff across the country. This summer particularly I have also witnessed the pride and appreciation Canadians have for the men and women of the RCMP. The legislation would be important in ensuring the RCMP is an accountable, trusted and adaptive organization for generations to come.

We have identified a small number of grammatical and translation errors in the bill that the government will aim to correct at committee stage.

I trust that all members will support these amendments to ensure we have the best bill possible. I urge all members to join with me in supporting the bill and a speedy passage through to committee.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)