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.

[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?