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

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I don't ever recall saying I am sick and tired of listening to the members opposite. In fact, if this were just a friendly debate between friends, as we all are of course, and if there were no consequences and we could go on forever, I could well see us talking the night away, for however much time we have patience. I am never sick of the member or tired of the member. The member brings valid contributions to this House.

However, we have a very specific responsibility. There comes a time, and I think that time has come in the life of this bill, that we move it forward to the vote. It is reflected in the type of amendments that are being made and the type of arguments that are being made. There is nothing new that the opposition members, in particular the NDP, have brought forward in the last 15 days. We have heard these arguments over and over. I invite members of the public to review the transcripts and see if there is anything substantively new, which all of a sudden is going to develop. The positions have been laid out very carefully. Members in all parties and private members now can determine in what direction they want this bill to go. We said it should come to a vote. We think it is time to pass this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, the lack of credibility that the minister presents and the need for shutting down debate comes from a party that moved 471 amendments to the Nisga'a Final Agreement in some attempt to block the efforts and the will, not just of the Nisga'a but of the Canadian people.

The minister also now pretends that he has listened to 15 days of debate and he is going to play judge, jury and executioner as to whether the debate is finished in his view, whether valid points are being raised anymore. This also is coming from a minister in a government that at no time accepts any amendments to any of its legislative pieces, ever. The Conservatives simply sit there and say that what they introduced the first time is good enough.

We now find out that within their own department there used to be a 95% certainty of a Charter challenge for legislation coming from the Government of Canada, and this law and order government is now saying that the threshold for success of a bill to stand a Charter challenge is 5%. So if it even has a whiff of possibility of passing through a Supreme Court challenge, the Conservatives will introduce it. Why? It is for politics, not for policy, not for governing, but for pure politics

The Minister of Public Safety, so-called, does this time and again and then stands up and says he is open to discussion and open to amendments and that he is a very reasonable guy, but his actions are otherwise. The current government's actions are otherwise.

The members of the government do not like the problems of democracy and the inconvenience of debate, but maybe, from time to time, they could have the humility to take the views of the experts and of the members of the opposition and once in a while have the humility to change their legislation to make it better, make it stronger and finally serve Canadians.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if I want to learn lessons in humility, I will go to the NDP. Perhaps I will come there for that lesson. In respect of being concerned about what lawyers are saying about the bill, I want to say one thing. We want to do the right thing for the people of Canada. The people of Canada have asked us to bring forward an agenda, and we are bringing it forward.

We are prepared to go to the courts and explain why this is necessary. Courts do not set policy. This House sets policy. The member is an individual who is prepared to abdicate his responsibility as a policy-maker and let lawyers and judges determine our future. I have more faith in the House of Commons, indeed even in an elected NDP member, than in that kind of claptrap.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

This will bring the period allocated for debate to an end, but before we put the question, 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 Vancouver Kingsway, International Trade; the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, Housing; the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, Citizenship and Immigration.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #623

Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from February 28 consideration of the motion that Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.

Third Reading

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I wish to inform the House that because of the proceedings in the time allocation motion, government orders will be extended by 30 minutes.

The Chair has notice of a question of privilege from the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.