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.

Bill C-42—Time Allocation Motion

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

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

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

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

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

It is shameful to hear that.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the translation was correct, but what I was indicating was that the member said she wants to talk about substantive issues and content, and yet time and time again the NDP brings forward frivolous amendments. The one primary frivolous amendment it is bringing forward is wanting the people of Canada to listen to a debate, not about accountability or how to make a more effective national police force in Canada, but whether we should have a short title for the act that is called enhancing RCMP accountability act. Once we are into that kind of discussion, whatever substantive arguments there might be have all been exhausted.

We are talking about getting down to the issue. Let us vote. The substantive issues have clearly been discussed given the nature of the amendments that the NDP brought forward.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could enlighten the hon. minister. Perhaps he has been off the opposition benches for so long that he has forgotten the very cogent and sensible reason why members of the opposition parties, who have been part of committee processes by the rules of this place, could only put forward deletions at third reading, and in order to get priority for speaking opportunities in third reading debate choose such things as a deletion of the short title in order to get a speaking spot. I can assure anyone watching these proceedings that the official opposition will not waste its time saying why it wants to delete a short title. It will use that speaking opportunity to put forward concerns that are real and legitimate about this legislation.

I happen to know the rules quite well because I have the somewhat unique perspective of being able to bring forth both deletions and substantive amendments at report stage. In this case, it is a disservice to those who might be looking at this debate, or reading Hansard later, to think the official opposition is obsessed about the short title. It is simply looking for a chance for democratic debate.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what that party's or that member's position is. She is not a member of the official opposition.

The official opposition is the New Democrat Party. I see from what they have brought forward that all of those issues have been fully considered and that we are beginning to spin our tires by bringing forward amendments that would delete the short title of the act.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I think the minister has made his point quite clearly.

As members of the Canadian public reflect back on Hansard, they will see clearly that members of opposition have taken an opportunity to engage in this debate. One after another, they are not talking about the substance of this bill. They are talking about process, not content.

The only questions that have involved the content of this bill at all have come from members on this side. On that note, I would like to ask the minister what he has heard. I can share the experience of the Yukon's “Sharing Common Ground” report, and the review of Yukon's police force asks for some very specific things, which are reflected directly in this bill in terms of accountability and in terms of improving the RCMP.

I was wondering if the minister would take an opportunity to comment on what he has heard across all provinces, particularly the Yukon experience, and how this bill is going to help that territory with its relationship with the RCMP?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank that member for his question. I also want to thank that member for the work he has done on this file and, prior to that, for his work as a correctional officer and even a member of the RCMP.

In fact, he was a member of both the correctional and enforcement areas of the law and certainly brings a lot to bear. The people of the Yukon are well served by an individual who puts his territory, his jurisdiction, right to the forefront of the discussion and ensures that people here in Ottawa hear what the people of Yukon are saying.

I have had the occasion to travel to the Yukon. At least once a year, I try to get there to hear what the people of the Yukon are saying. Generally speaking, I find good broad-based support for this legislation, not only from government officials but from people generally who want to see accountability in the RCMP. They want the RCMP to be everything it can be. This bill would do exactly that.

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

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

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

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

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think there are certain very key principles that this act encompasses or encapsulates and brings forward to this House for our consideration.

Each one of those principles in the act have been thoroughly discussed, things like strengthening the RCMP review and complaint body; the new statutory framework for serious incident investigation involving RCMP members; and the modernization of the discipline, grievance and other human resource management processes.

These issues have been brought forward in this legislation. They have been debated for 15 days. That is not even taking into account the broader context of the knowledge that each member brings to a particular file like this.

The issues that have been raised in the past to the RCMP all bear down on this particular experience. We tried to encapsulate them as quickly as possible and ensure that both sides of the argument have been heard. In terms of amendments, both sides of the argument have been canvassed fully in this House.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons we argue for more scrutiny, oversight and due diligence is the fact that the particular party and particular minister have a reputation now of launching bills that are half-baked and that have not been given the oversight and scrutiny they deserve.

I was here when the minister had to stand up and amend his own legislation because, even though he was warned all through the process of the legislation that certain elements offended the charter and were unconstitutional, et cetera, the Conservatives would not allow a single amendment. In fact, they have not allowed a single amendment to a single bill in the entire 41st Parliament. It is as if they have some of kind of monopoly on wisdom in this regard, but in actual fact, they make a lot of mistakes. I have a list here of some of the charter challenges on legislation from the government since 2007; two of them dealing with the RCMP and the Expenditure Restraint Act.

The Conservatives cannot tell me that they are not launching stuff into this House of Commons that may not have been vetted properly by the Department of Justice officials, as according to whistleblower Edgar Schmidt. In actual fact, bills arrive here in a state that should not be passed, that deserve to be analyzed further, criticized and scrutinized and have the merits of their arguments tested by legitimate debate in the House of Commons, the way God wanted it.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I know that member is closer to God than I am, and so I will have to take his word on that.

However, I find the member's arguments a little puzzling. He said we have never allowed any amendments, that we are rigid in our position, but in the next breath he is saying the minister amends his legislation.

I have to say that we have listened to arguments, and where there are valid concerns and arguments, we amend it, as the member himself has indicated.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what is happening here this afternoon seems quite paradoxical. Just when we are being told that debate has gone on long enough, the majority of the remarks coming from the Conservative bench are focusing on arguments or the bill. Yet this short, 30-minute window we have been given should be used to debate the time allocation motion, which, I would like to remind the House, is meant to be used as an exception.

What happened in committee or while this bill was being studied that would justify muzzling the members and shortening the time for debate when we know that enlightenment comes when ideas collide?

They are not debating that. They are debating the amendments we proposed, which were rejected. It makes no sense. I am having a hard time wrapping my head around this whole situation.

I would like the minister to explain how the government can justify a time allocation motion and muzzling members.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, actually, I found the comments from members on the Conservative side to be very instructive to this particular debate on time allocation. What I heard the members from the Conservative side say is that there are some very important principles at stake here in terms of the substance of the bill, and why is it that the NDP would consistently oppose those principles?

That is my concern as well, because I have not heard any substantive arguments in the past 15 days of debate that would in fact indicate there is any problem with this substantive bill that is moving forward. Therefore, time allocation is the appropriate measure in these circumstances.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to participate in the debate on this bill as well as hear my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, make a very strong argument on why this bill is necessary. Not only is the bill necessary, but it is timely.

We have heard members of the opposition stand up on this bill and talk about how these changes will make the RCMP function more effectively. We have heard from stakeholders within the organization, and without, talk about why these amendments and changes to the legislation are so important. The fact remains that amendments were made.

This bill is an important piece of legislation. The opposition has agreed to this principle. Therefore, my question to the minister is: Given this basic fact, why is it so important for us to pass the bill in a timely and efficient manner? Can the minister confirm that in this House there have been hours and hours of debate as well as committee testimony on this bill?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her work on this bill and for the question.

I do want to reiterate that, in fact, there have been many hours of debate—15 days—and that is quite a significant amount of debate. I am a little confused about one issue. I hear the Liberal position and I think it is a responsible position. The Liberals say that even though they disagree with us on some aspects, this would move the process forward in terms of enhancing the accountability of the RCMP.

On the other hand, the New Democrats consistently criticize the RCMP and suggest there is something untoward happening in the entire organization, and yet they are not even willing to agree on the fundamental principles that we need to enshrine in legislation to move that organization forward.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I must contradict the member for Trois-Rivières, who said earlier that time allocation is an exceptional measure. It is no longer an exceptional measure. Members were just saying that it has been invoked 29 or 30 times; I have counted 32 instances.

My first question for the minister is how many times has it been invoked? It would be good to know the exact number of times.

Furthermore, I was listening carefully when he answered the opposition members. He said that there have been 15 days of debate and that that is enough. He then said that is a good bill, that he does not see why it should be amended, that the opposition members have debated it long enough, that the government is sick and tired of listening to them and that it is time to move on to other things.

Is 15 days now the Conservative government's standard even if the opposition does not listen to reason at some point and wants to continue hearing from witnesses? If members of civil society want to express their opinions about a bill, is that the point when MPs are muzzled? Is that the criterion? I would like to know exactly what triggers time allocation, so that we do not get prepared for nothing.

The Conservatives need only introduce bills and immediately invoke time allocation. That would speed things up.