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.

Motions in amendment

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I share some of those frustrations but, given my age, I have stopped trying to understand why these things happen. They just do.

What I am particularly concerned about is whether the legislation in fact addresses the central concerns that were raised in respect of the issue of harassment and sexual harassment. If one goes through the legislation, not even very carefully but at least reads it, it is clear that the issue of sexual harassment and harassment is addressed in the context of the legislation and also the broader framework of the commissioner's authority and those who are responsible for making decisions regarding the conduct of RCMP officers.

[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.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Before we proceed to questions and comments, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, Employment Insurance; the hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, small and medium-size businesses.

Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague on the Liberal side for his comments and would like to extend my season's greetings to him. It has been a pleasure to work with him over this last year and I certainly appreciate his very well thought out and articulate comments on the bill.

In committee, we heard witnesses. We certainly heard the positive parts of the bill and we heard some critiques, and we responded to that. I might have missed this in his comments, but could the member comment further on the issue of police investigating police?

We tried to address that in the bill. However, the fact is that there is a mechanism for police who are involved in serious incidents. There is an outside body and several choices whereby they can be investigated, and it would not be the police investigating themselves. I wonder if the member could comment on that. Again, I apologize if I did miss it in his speech.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I did not address it directly, but there are mechanisms. My understanding is that “serious incidents” has not been clearly defined in the legislation and that is something that we should look out for. However, in the case of serious incidents, the new civilian review agency would have the power to look at those situations. Other than that, it could be the review agency of another police force. If one does not exist in a province, it could be another police force that would look into the incident, according to my understanding.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's last remark about who would investigate serious incidents is incorrect in the bill and that is the fact that we were raising. The new civilian complaints body does not have that authority, neither does anyone else for six provinces. Only in four provinces does that responsibility get passed down to the province.

On the question of sexual harassment, my recollection at committee is that the member supported our amendment to add sexual harassment to the bill. We said it should be added to the section on training. Therefore, instead of treating sexual harassment as a disciplinary matter, there would actually be a commitment in the RCMP to take it up as a training matter and improve the workplace at the front end rather than punishing people at the back end on the question of sexual harassment.

I believe the member supported that amendment at committee. If I am wrong, he should correct me at this point. However, if he did support that amendment, it is hard to understand how he is now supporting the bill.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to say how much I respect my hon. colleague's previous experience before being elected in dealing with police forces. He brings a lot of experience and insight to this process.

It is a logical conclusion that training on how to deal with sexual harassment or what constitutes sexual harassment will drop naturally out of this process. I trust that will be the case. If it is not, I am sure that we will have questions for the commissioner the next time he appears before the committee as to what—

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to speak because both of my hon. colleagues are wrong in terms of who will investigate serious incidents.

What our bill does, and we received overwhelming support for this plan, is that there would be investigative bodies within specific provinces. Yes, not every province has an investigative body, but investigative bodies that are established in provinces would take over the investigation of serious incidents within the RCMP. If there is no investigative body, then it would be another investigative body within that province, so maybe a jurisdictional police, a department, again, outside of the RCMP.

The third option would be the RCMP, but we believe that both of these steps would address the issue of police investigating police. I am happy to have the opportunity to inform both of my hon. colleagues of that part of the bill.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my understanding was actually the same as the parliamentary secretary's. Maybe I did not express myself properly.

If there were a civilian review agency in a particular province, that could be used. However, if there were not, a police force in that province could undertake the investigation. What I neglected to say to clarify matters was that the other police force in that province would not be the RCMP, but would be a different force. I apologize if I did not make that clear and I thank the hon. member for bringing that up.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I did not view the committee meetings as unproductive and too short. In fact, my recollection was there was at least one meeting where we all finished asking questions of the witnesses and had a bit of time left. We were given ample opportunity to ask fulsome questions and we received great feedback from the witnesses.

My question, though, for the hon. member is this. We have talked at length about the issue of sexual harassment, how to deal with it and the attempts this bill makes to modernize the RCMP so it can deal with sexual harassment. We also talked at length about how no government had recognized, even my hon. colleague on the Liberal side when his party was in government, that bills do not have this level of detail of using terms like harassment or sexual harassment. It is not the norm.

After hearing that, would the NDP reconsider its position? I understand that maybe the members did not realize that. Why throw the bill out because one word is missing, which is actually will not help with the bill, and instead support it so we can address sexual harassment in the RCMP?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for her comments about the NDP's position on this bill.

The bill does not deal with sexual harassment at all, or very little. The fact that the words are not even mentioned in the bill shows that the government could not care less about addressing the issue.

Regarding sexual harassment in the RCMP, what intrigues me about the Conservatives' approach is its complete lack of consistency.

On November 8, 2012, a motion was put forward in the Senate by a Conservative senator. The motion requested the production of a report on harassment in the RCMP. On the one hand, they present this kind of motion, and on the other, they introduce a bill that pretends to address sexual harassment in the RCMP.

Honestly, why are the Conservatives so inconsistent?

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues, I too am quite shocked that the words "sexual harassment" are nowhere to be found in the bill.

The NDP put forward amendments. What can we do? It really is a problem: there have been very serious cases of sexual harassment in the RCMP. Something must be done.

How would the NDP tackle this very serious problem?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Pontiac for his excellent question.

This is indeed a very serious problem, not just in the RCMP but in any workplace. Sexual harassment in the workplace is not part of the job. It is not something that should happen on the job. We should be opposed to harassment, no matter where it happens. Naming the problem is a very important way to acknowledge that it exists.

I am not saying that there are huge numbers of sexual harassment cases in the RCMP. I am saying that we have to tackle problems as they are and with the right kinds of tools. My colleague asked an excellent question.

Among other things, people in the RCMP need to be educated and should be asked to take training on harassment. A number of issues could have been resolved in this bill, and I would like to come back to what was mentioned earlier. For instance, a completely independent civilian body should be set up to take care of complaints within the RCMP. The police should not be investigating the police, especially in cases of sexual harassment.

Many of the amendments that were presented were designed to solve the problem and ensure progress toward transparency, independence, and a more modern RCMP. Unfortunately, the Conservatives voted against every one of our amendments.