Debates of Dec. 12th, 2012

Question No. 1024

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

With regard to Industry Canada, what grants and contributions under $25,000 did it award from January 1, 2011, to the present, including the recipient's name, the date, the amount and the description?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1025

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

With regard to the Department of Justice, what grants and contributions under $25,000 did it award from January 1, 2011, to the present, including the recipient's name, the date, the amount and the description?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1034

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

With regard to the changes made by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to the Interim Federal Health (IFH) Program: (a) what accounting was made of the impact of the IFH changes on those who would no longer be covered by the IFH Program with respect to morbidity on (i) April 25, 2012, (ii) July 18, 2012; (b) what accounting was made of the impact of the changes on those who would no longer be covered by the IFH Program with respect to mortality on (i) April 25, 2012, (ii) July 18, 2012; (c) what amount of cost-savings did the Department of Citizenship and Immigration (CIC) calculate that the changes would result in (i) on April 25, 2012, (ii) on July 18, 2012; (d) what were are all of the assumptions that CIC made in arriving at the cost-savings referred to in (c) (i) and (c) (ii); (e) what information was included in the cost-benefit analysis made by CIC with respect to the changes made on April 25, 2012, including with respect to (i) monetized benefits, (ii) monetized costs, (iii) net benefits, (iv) unmonetized benefits, (v) unmonetized costs, (vi) unquantified benefits, (vii) unquantified costs, (viii) risks, (ix) uncertainties; (f) what information was included in the cost-benefit analysis made by CIC with respect to the changes made on July 18, 2012, including with respect to (i) monetized benefits, (ii) monetized costs, (iii) net benefits, (iv) unmonetized benefits, (v) unmonetized costs, (vi) unquantified benefits, (vii) unquantified costs, (viii) risks, (ix) uncertainties; (g) what has been done to (i) communicate the changes to all relevant health professionals and institutions across the country, (ii) revise the administration of the program within CIC, including any training and monitoring, (iii) revise the contract for the administration of the program; (h) what were the costs of (i) communicating the changes to all relevant health professionals across the country, (ii) revising the administration of the program within CIC, including any training and monitoring, (iii) revising the contract for the administration of the program, including any penalties or additional training or administrative costs; and (i) how will federal funding available to the provinces and territories be modified as a result of the changes, broken down by province and territory?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Motions for Papers

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all other notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Report Stage Motions—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

As I committed to do on November 29, 2012, I am now prepared to provide the House with a more comprehensive ruling on the points of order raised on November 28 by the hon. House leaders for the official opposition and the government regarding the report stage proceedings on Bill C-45, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures.

In making their interventions, both House leaders made two kinds of arguments. First, they made what the Chair would characterize as strictly technical procedural points related to the mechanics of report stage for Bill C-45. At the same time, they shared other views with the House on broader issues, such as the role of the Speaker in general and in relation to report stage, the role of the House and of the Speaker in a majority setting, and the role and rights of independent members in relation to report stage.

In its earlier ruling on some of the purely procedural matters raised in these points of order, the Chair outlined the rationale for its selection for debate and grouping for voting purposes of motions at report stage of Bill C-45, in particular motions to delete. Motions to delete were a preoccupation for both House leaders: the opposition House leader wanted the Speaker to select them all and allow separate votes on all of them, while the government House leader did not want me to select any of them, to avoid votes altogether.

As I explained to the House on November 29, there are several precedents to justify not only the selection of motions to delete for debate at report stage but also to justify their grouping for voting purposes. These are long-standing practices of the House.

References made by the opposition House leader to rulings by Speakers Jerome and Fraser, while of interest, failed to take into account the evolution of our procedures as they relate to report stage, particularly a very clear direction included in the notes to Standing Order 76(5) and 76.1(5) since 2001. These notes outline the desire of the House to circumscribe report stage and instruct the Speaker to select motions for debate in accordance with certain criteria to ensure that report stage is not a mere repetition of the committee stage.

As I stated in my ruling on November 29, Debates, page 12611:

In the absence of any specific guidance from the House with regard to motions to delete and other matters raised in the points of order, the Speaker cannot unilaterally modify the well-established current practice.

Despite the brevity of the ruling, the Chair believes it puts to rest any ambiguity that may have been perceived with regard to the Chair's approach to the fundamental procedural aspects of selection and voting processes as they relate to motions at report stage.

With regard to the broader issues raised by the two House leaders, the Chair intends to address them thematically, beginning with the discussion on the role of the Speaker.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, at page 307, states that it is the duty of the Speaker:

…to ensure that public business is transacted efficiently and that the interests of all parts of the House are advocated and protected against the use of arbitrary authority. It is in this spirit that the Speaker, as the chief servant of the House, applies the rules. The Speaker is the servant, neither of any part of the House nor of any majority in the House, but of the entire institution and serves the best interests of the House...

O'Brien and Bosc further states that:

Despite the considerable authority of the office, the Speaker may exercise only those powers conferred upon him or her by the House, within the limits established by the House itself.

Speaker Milliken provided useful insight into this role when on April 27, 2010, on page 2039 of Debates, he stated:

—the Chair is always mindful of the established precedents, usages, traditions and practices of the House and of the role of the Chair in their ongoing evolution.

This not only confirms that it is not just written rules from which the Speaker’s authority is legitimately derived, as suggested by the opposition House leader, but that the evolutionary nature of procedure must be taken into account. It was on this basis of the House’s longstanding acceptance, and in fact expectations, of the practices at report stage, in conjunction with the need for adaptation to the current context, that the amendments for Bill C-45 were grouped for debate and voting purposes in the manner that they were.

Nor does the role of the Speaker in this regard vary from Parliament to Parliament, as has been suggested by the government House leader, who said:

It may be justifiable in a minority Parliament for the Chair to accept any questions for the House to decide, because it is difficult to predict the intentions of the majority of members. This is not the case in a majority Parliament in general.

Let me be clear, the Speaker does not make decisions based on who is in control of the House. Report stage motions are not and never have been selected for debate and grouped for voting on the basis of who the Chair thinks might win the vote on them. This is why, in the case of Bill C-45, the Chair rejected the proposal made by the government House leader that the Chair group certain motions, to use his words, “in a manner that recognizes the anticipated will of the House”.

The Chair is and will continue to be guided by procedural imperatives in all of its decisions, not by somehow substituting the Speaker’s prediction of the likely outcome of a vote for the expressed will of the House itself.

This brings me to a discussion of the role of the House as a whole.

The role of the House in the legislative process must be seen in the larger context of the accountability of the executive branch and the elected members of the legislative branch. Speaker Milliken, in a ruling given on April 27, 2010, which can be found at page 2039 of Debates, stated:

In a system of responsible government, the fundamental right of the House of Commons to hold the government to account for its actions is an indisputable privilege and in fact an obligation.

He continued:

…it is why that right is manifested in numerous procedures of the House, from the daily question period to the detailed examination by committees of estimates, to reviews of the accounts of Canada, to debate, amendments, and votes on legislation.

The House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, at page 250, puts into context how our practices have attempted to strike an appropriate balance between government and opposition. It states that:

—it remains true that parliamentary procedure is intended to ensure that there is a balance between the government's need to get its business through the House, and the opposition's responsibility to debate that business without completely immobilizing the proceedings of the House. In short, debate in the House is necessary, but it should lead to a decision in a reasonable time.

The underlying principles these citations express are the cornerstones of our parliamentary system. They enshrine the ancient democratic tradition of allowing the minority to voice its views and opinions in the public square, and in counterpoint allowing the majority to put its legislative program before Parliament and have it voted upon.

In advocating a much stricter approach to the report stage on Bill C-45, the government House leader seemed to argue that the existence of a government majority meant that the outcome of proceedings on the bill was known in advance, that somehow this justified taking a new approach to decision making by the House and that anything short of that would constitute a waste of the House's time.

This line of reasoning, taken to its logical end, might lead to conclusions that trespass on important foundational principles of our institutions, regardless of its composition. Speaker Milliken recognized this when, on March 29, 2007, at page 8136 of Debates, he stated:

…neither the political realities of the moment nor the sheer force of the numbers should force us to set aside the values inherent in the parliamentary conventions and procedures by which we govern our deliberations.

Speaker Fraser on October 10, 1989, at page 4461 of the Debates of the House of Commons, also reminded the House that decisions on legislation are for the House alone to make, stating that:

…we are a parliamentary democracy, not a so-called executive democracy, nor a so-called administrative democracy.

I would now like to turn my attention to the issue of the role and rights of independent members in the context of report stage.

While acknowledging that some accommodation for the participation of independent members was necessary, the government House leader was critical of the current state of affairs, which he claims can allow a single independent member, as the government House leader put it, “to hold the House hostage in a voting marathon”.

As all members know, this year the House has had to deal with thousands of report stage motions when considering the two budget implementation bills, which resulted, in the case of Bill C-38, in around-the-clock voting. While this is not unprecedented, it is the first time it has happened since the rules governing report stage were changed in 2001. As is often the case in the midst of such consuming procedural challenges, frustration surfaces, our practices are examined and remedies are proposed.

As I have indicated, the note to Standing Orders 76(5) and 76.1(5) already provides guidance to the Chair with regard to the selection of amendments at report stage, and in particular, states the following:

For greater certainty, the purpose of this Standing Order is, primarily, to provide Members who were not members of the committee, with an opportunity to have the House consider specific amendments they wish to propose.

It is no secret that independent members do not sit on committees in the current Parliament. In light of recent report stage challenges and the frustrations that have resurfaced, the Chair would like to point out the opportunities and mechanisms that are at the House's disposal to resolve these issues to the satisfaction of all members.

Standing Orders currently in place offer committees wide latitude to deal with bills in an inclusive and thorough manner that would balance the rights of all members. In fact, it is neither inconceivable nor unprecedented for committees to allow members, regardless of party status, permanently or temporarily, to be part of their proceedings, thereby opening the possibility for the restoration of report stage to its original purpose.

For inspiration on the possibilities, members need only to remember that there are several precedents where independent members remain members of standing committees. Short of that, there is no doubt that any number of procedural arrangements could be developed that would ensure that the amendments that independent members wish to propose to legislation could be put in committee.

Thus, it is difficult for the Chair to accept the argument that current report stage practices and rules are somehow being used in an untoward manner by independent members when simple and straightforward solutions are not being explored. Were there a satisfactory mechanism that would afford independent members an opportunity to move motions to move bills in committee, the Chair has no doubt that a report stage selection process would adapt to the new reality.

In the meantime, as all honourable members know, and as is stated at page 307 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition:

It is the duty of the Speaker to act as the guardian of the rights and privileges of Members and of the House as an institution.

Accordingly, unless and until new satisfactory ways of considering the motions of all members to amend bills in committee are found, the Chair intends to continue to protect the rights of independent members to propose amendments at report stage.

Finally, as we prepare to adjourn for the Christmas holidays, the Chair invites all members to reflect on how best to strengthen public confidence in this institution and on how best to balance the competing interests with which we always grapple.

I thank all hon. members for their attention.

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.

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.

Motions in amendment

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I first want to extend season's greetings and merry Christmas to my colleagues whom I have been working with at the public safety committee. We have worked very well together. Although we do not agree on a lot, we found a way to work together very cordially. I just want to extend my appreciation for that and my wishes for the season.

I am disappointed to hear my hon. colleague's comments. He identified some of the main challenges that we as a government identified in working together with our colleagues who have been active police officers. We have 13 of them in our caucus. We have worked together with the commissioner and stakeholders to best address some of the challenges within the RCMP.

The bill is not perfect because, to really address this, we need to see a cultural change within the RCMP. Nonetheless, what we are proposing are fundamental changes supported by others. We heard testimony supporting our changes in the public complaints area and support for our addressing serious incident investigations. Here I would point out that no witnesses came forward to support the NDP proposal to create one body to investigate police. Hence, I am surprised that my colleague would even mention it. I am wondering why he is even bringing it up at this time.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to thank the hon. parliamentary secretary because I believe in the public safety committee. Despite our differences, we have found a way to work co-operatively to make sure things move through in a timely fashion. I do appreciate the hon. member's season's greetings and wish her the same.

The idea of a national civilian investigation body was first put forward by our hon. House leader in a private member's bill and received lots of positive comments and support. The reason it was not addressed directly in committee was that it was ruled out of the scope of the bill because the government did not seem to think it was necessary.

However, only four provinces have independent commissions that can investigate the RCMP, leaving six provinces where, when serious incidents happen, the RCMP will be forced into the conflict of interest of having to investigate itself. This creates a crisis of confidence with the public.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the RCMP as a whole has phenomenal public support. We recognize the value of moving forward on the issue the member referred to, namely public confidence and so forth. Anything we can do to reinforce confidence is a step in the right direction. Therefore, the Liberal Party supports the bill in principle and its ultimate passing.

If the NDP amendments do not pass, does that mean that the NDP members do not see the merit of the bill moving forward to deal with the RCMP at this stage?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my remarks, we had hoped to work co-operatively with the government to put sufficient teeth in the bill to address those challenges facing the RCMP. It is not just an issue of our amendments. They were based on the testimony of independent witnesses who came before committee, and also on the recommendations of Mr. Justice Major in the Maher Arar inquiry, and the government's own commission appointed in 2007, often referred to as the Brown commission, on how to reform the RCMP. It is not like there are no suggestions or support out there for tougher action on these problems.

Given that we only get to do this about once every 25 years, it is our conclusion that we should get this right and help restore the public's confidence and that of the rank and file RCMP members, and have a healthy workplace.

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

Mr. Speaker, in the many incidents that my friend referred to, such as the Robert Dziekanski case and that of Ian Bush, nothing good happened in those moments when something went wrong. I suppose the silver lining might be that we could reform the way the RCMP is investigated, that it not be put in that conflict of interest, which the officers themselves do not want to be in.

We have had all of these reports. The government has this one opportunity to get this right. Hearing from those expert witnesses standing up for the people who serve us so proudly across this country and for the communities they serve, I am absolutely confounded that the government has decided to miss this opportunity that only comes along every so often to help those families who are victims and those communities that need the RCMP to do its job, and the RCMP who need those communities to do their jobs.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the essential things we are talking about are public confidence and the members who serve every day in the RCMP trying to keep us safe. If they do not have a healthy workplace and the assurance that there is a balance in the human relations policy allowing them to do their jobs without being held to some impossible standard, or one not allowing them to respond effectively to accusations made against them, then it is very difficult for them to serve the public.

Once again, I know that those in the protective services will be working through the holidays when the rest of us are celebrating, and what we are trying to do in this bill is to create the best workplace we can for the RCMP rank and file.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his speech. In committee, the official opposition proposed a number of amendments to the bill. Unfortunately, they were all rejected. This bill is a response to numerous cases of sexual harassment, which is sad. That is how the government presented the bill, saying it would target sexual harassment, among other issues.

However, something is bothering me and many of my colleagues: why is there no mention at all of the term “sexual harassment” in the bill? Why is it not mentioned, since this is the issue that the bill seeks to address?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think all of us have heard the allegations of harassment and sexual harassment within the ranks of the RCMP. The purpose is to ensure there is a system in place that effectively and efficiently deals with those types of grievances. Rather than focusing on the form of a statute, we need to look at the substance of the statute. I would say that a careful, thoughtful analysis of the statute ensures that matters of harassment, including sexual harassment, fall within the confines of the jurisdiction that the bill would provide to the relevant decision-maker.