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.

[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.