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.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

There are two motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-42. Motions Nos. 1 and 2 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I shall now propose Motions Nos. 1 and 2 to the House.

Motions in amendment

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

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-42 be amended by deleting Clause 1.

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-42 be amended by deleting Clause 22.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to bill C-42 at report stage and to speak to the two amendments that we have just moved.

First, I will begin by paying tribute to the women and men of the RCMP who work everyday to help keep our communities safe. I acknowledge the essential service they provide, often in the face of great danger and ignoring many of the individual challenges which surround their work in order to do their duties.

In particular, I acknowledge the loss of two constables this year, Constables David Brolin and Derek Pineo, who lost their lives in accidents while on the job serving all Canadians. I also take this opportunity, while I am on my feet, to wish all the public safety officials, detective services and emergency services, who will be working when many of us are celebrating, a very happy but also a very safe holiday season.

Bill C-42 is before the House this session and we on this side supported it at second reading because we all must acknowledge that despite its proud history and its ongoing exemplary service, the RCMP faces some very serious challenges. What we are all hearing in our constituencies, and have all heard in testimony before the public safety committee, is that there are at least three major challenges.

Among these challenges facing the RCMP is, first, the loss of public confidence. For many years, the RCMP has been an icon in our society and the trust levels still remain very high, as they should. However, anytime our national police force begins to lose public confidence, we must all be concerned and we must address the causes of that loss of confidence. The causes centre around a number of unfortunate and high-profile incidents involving the RCMP, which have resulted in deaths or serious injuries to the public.

Some of this loss of confidence is to be expected whenever there are these serious incidents and, because the RCMP is charged with the use of force, many times these will inevitably be challenging situations. Some of that loss of confidence is a direct result of public concern about the structures to which we hold the RCMP accountable. In particular, members of the public are concerned about the police investigating themselves in these serious incidents. That loss of confidence in the accountability measures is not only a loss of confidence by the public, it is also a loss of confidence by serving RCMP members who have every bit if not more of an interest in independent investigations which will establish either their responsibility or non-responsibility in these incidents.

We also have serious evidence before us of a second challenge. That is a flaw in the culture of the RCMP. That flaw is that the RCMP has become a workplace with a culture that all too often has tolerated harassment in the workplace and specifically sexual harassment. When we have more than 200 women, who have served or who are serving in the RCMP, who sought to join a class action lawsuit alleging that they had faced sexual harassment on the job, then this is an important issue for the House of Commons to address. The magnitude of the problem cannot be denied.

Finally, it has become clear that there is a problem in the management of human resources and labour relations in the RCMP. This is a flaw that many have acknowledged is responsible for failures to deal with these other challenges in an effective manner. It cannot be denied that procedures are long, complicated, time consuming and fail to bring about changes needed to address problems both with individual behaviour and with more systemic problems. Therefore, again, it is a challenge which we must address in the bill before us.

The Conservatives presented Bill C-42 to the House just before the summer recess and suggested that it was the solution for addressing these challenges. On this side of the House, we responded that we felt the bill did attempt to address the challenges faced by the RCMP, but that it left lots of room for improvement at committee. Therefore, we supported Bill C-42 at the second reading stage in the hope that we could comprehensively address these major challenges. Now that the bill has been returned to the committee, after the Conservatives opposed and rejected every amendment to strengthen the bill, we have little choice but to oppose its moving forward at this time.

We have proposed two amendments at report stage that will allow us to discuss some of the amendments already rejected at the committee stage. The first of those deletes the short title which we believe, as is becoming a tradition here in the House, is one of those overly political titles applied to bills. In this case, it is overly political in our view because it is called the “enhancing the RCMP accountability act” when in fact Bill C-42, in its unamended form, would fail to address that accountability challenge. Therefore, we do not believe the bill would accomplish this goal. I will say a bit more on that in just moment, but that is why we have proposed deleting the title, which would lead the public to believe that this challenge had been met.

Second, we have proposed deleting clause 22 so the RCMP act would retain its original wording in what is section 33 of the actual act. What it does is state clearly that the power to deal with grievances remains exclusively with the commissioner. In fact, what has happened in Bill C-42 is that the government has chosen to enhance the powers of the commissioner at the expense of everyone else working in the RCMP, even in respect to the new review body that is being created. Therefore, further concentration of power in the hands of the commissioner and the Minister of Public Safety is the answer proposed in Bill C-42 when almost every independent witness we heard before the committee said that the problem was exactly the concentration of power in the hands of the commissioner and the minister.

When we asked what consultation had been done on the bill, the answer we received led me to believe that the minister, the RCMP commissioner and a senior RCMP leadership simply put their heads together and came up with a solution that gave them responsibility for resolving the problems. We could not find any of the witnesses who appeared before us who had been consulted about the changes included in the bill. We believe those witnesses provided some very good solutions and good ideas about how to address these challenges.

The approach adopted in the bill, as unamended, relies very much on the model of the Royal Irish Constabulary. It is a 19th century model, dating from 1822, which was designed as a paramilitary model to help police and the Irish population that saw the British as an occupying force. Is this really the model we need for a modern RCMP? It ignores the lesson of the other British model of municipal policing, which was also established in the 19th century for the metropolitan police of London, based at Scotland Yard.

The municipalities throughout our country have taken that model and developed it very effectively into a local community policing model, which has an independent board that keeps policing at arm's-length from a political minister and has very good accountability measures built into that model. Bill C-42, as unamended, sticks with the old paramilitary model instead of learning the many lessons we have learned at the municipal level in Canada about how to improve accountability and responsiveness to communities and how to create a more healthy workplace.

Witnesses at the public safety committee spoke out against these additional powers for the RCMP commissioner and the lack of independent oversight. Mr. Tom Stamatakis, president of the Canadian Police Association, said:

--extraordinary powers in this regard...go beyond what one might find in other police services across Canada.

For example, in Ontario, a police officer who is subject to a disciplinary process retains the right to appeal the decision to the independent Ontario Civilian Police Commission.

As well, we heard from Mr. Robert Creasser, from the Mounted Police Professional Association, who had similar kinds of remarks.

It became obvious to us in the NDP, after hearing the witnesses and experts, that the bill retained its deep flaws and would not meet those challenges referred to. It even fails to look at previous advice offered by Justice O'Connor in the Maher Arar inquiry. It fails to take into account the recommendations from the task force on governance and cultural change in the RCMP from 2007. It fails to take into account the recommendations from the former chairs of the RCMP Public Complaints Commission.

It is clear the bill could have been fixed, that solutions were out there. In order to play a constructive role, the NDP put forward amendments in four areas.

The first of those was in the area of harassment. We proposed a simple amendment to add harassment to the training responsibilities of the commissioner. That was rejected by the Conservatives. Therefore, Bill C-42, which purportedly addresses the problem of sexual harassment, does not even have the word “harassment” in the bill.

Second, we proposed measures to strengthen the independence of the new proposed civilian review and complaints commission. The commission would report to the minister and would make only non-binding recommendations. We need a truly independent commission that can make binding recommendations.

Our third recommendation was to create a national civilian investigative body to ensure that the RCMP would no longer placed in a conflict of interest of investigating itself. The bill addresses this partially by allowing provinces, which have independent commissions, to investigate the RCMP. However, only four provinces have those measures in place.

Finally, we introduced amendments that would have created balanced labour relations within the RCMP, including creating power for the independent review committee to deal with grievances. The concentration of power in the hands of the commissioner is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Given the long time between major revisions of legislation like the RCMP Act, 25 years in this case, there is a great responsibility on us to get it right this time. As Bill C-42 stands unamended, we will be opposing its moving forward in the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I first want to extend season's greetings and merry Christmas to my colleagues whom I have been working with at the public safety committee. We have worked very well together. Although we do not agree on a lot, we found a way to work together very cordially. I just want to extend my appreciation for that and my wishes for the season.

I am disappointed to hear my hon. colleague's comments. He identified some of the main challenges that we as a government identified in working together with our colleagues who have been active police officers. We have 13 of them in our caucus. We have worked together with the commissioner and stakeholders to best address some of the challenges within the RCMP.

The bill is not perfect because, to really address this, we need to see a cultural change within the RCMP. Nonetheless, what we are proposing are fundamental changes supported by others. We heard testimony supporting our changes in the public complaints area and support for our addressing serious incident investigations. Here I would point out that no witnesses came forward to support the NDP proposal to create one body to investigate police. Hence, I am surprised that my colleague would even mention it. I am wondering why he is even bringing it up at this time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to thank the hon. parliamentary secretary because I believe in the public safety committee. Despite our differences, we have found a way to work co-operatively to make sure things move through in a timely fashion. I do appreciate the hon. member's season's greetings and wish her the same.

The idea of a national civilian investigation body was first put forward by our hon. House leader in a private member's bill and received lots of positive comments and support. The reason it was not addressed directly in committee was that it was ruled out of the scope of the bill because the government did not seem to think it was necessary.

However, only four provinces have independent commissions that can investigate the RCMP, leaving six provinces where, when serious incidents happen, the RCMP will be forced into the conflict of interest of having to investigate itself. This creates a crisis of confidence with the public.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the RCMP as a whole has phenomenal public support. We recognize the value of moving forward on the issue the member referred to, namely public confidence and so forth. Anything we can do to reinforce confidence is a step in the right direction. Therefore, the Liberal Party supports the bill in principle and its ultimate passing.

If the NDP amendments do not pass, does that mean that the NDP members do not see the merit of the bill moving forward to deal with the RCMP at this stage?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my remarks, we had hoped to work co-operatively with the government to put sufficient teeth in the bill to address those challenges facing the RCMP. It is not just an issue of our amendments. They were based on the testimony of independent witnesses who came before committee, and also on the recommendations of Mr. Justice Major in the Maher Arar inquiry, and the government's own commission appointed in 2007, often referred to as the Brown commission, on how to reform the RCMP. It is not like there are no suggestions or support out there for tougher action on these problems.

Given that we only get to do this about once every 25 years, it is our conclusion that we should get this right and help restore the public's confidence and that of the rank and file RCMP members, and have a healthy workplace.

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

Mr. Speaker, in the many incidents that my friend referred to, such as the Robert Dziekanski case and that of Ian Bush, nothing good happened in those moments when something went wrong. I suppose the silver lining might be that we could reform the way the RCMP is investigated, that it not be put in that conflict of interest, which the officers themselves do not want to be in.

We have had all of these reports. The government has this one opportunity to get this right. Hearing from those expert witnesses standing up for the people who serve us so proudly across this country and for the communities they serve, I am absolutely confounded that the government has decided to miss this opportunity that only comes along every so often to help those families who are victims and those communities that need the RCMP to do its job, and the RCMP who need those communities to do their jobs.

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

Mr. Speaker, the essential things we are talking about are public confidence and the members who serve every day in the RCMP trying to keep us safe. If they do not have a healthy workplace and the assurance that there is a balance in the human relations policy allowing them to do their jobs without being held to some impossible standard, or one not allowing them to respond effectively to accusations made against them, then it is very difficult for them to serve the public.

Once again, I know that those in the protective services will be working through the holidays when the rest of us are celebrating, and what we are trying to do in this bill is to create the best workplace we can for the RCMP rank and file.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-42, the enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability bill. I will be speaking to the amendments adopted by the committee and reported back to the House of Commons and how they will strengthen the legislation.

Many of our members have already spoken extensively about the other issues raised in my colleague's speech. Needless to say, I do not agree with him. There was quite a bit of liberty taken with the facts in his presentation. I do not intend to rehash those. I think we can go back to Hansard to see what the true statements are in respect to the legislation, and how the legislation actually responds to the concerns of individual provinces. The types of amendments the member is suggesting are in fact exactly the kind the provinces rejected as too centralizing and outside the accountability they want to see brought back into the RCMP at the local level.

Here, I would reflect on why this bill is so important. It is no secret that the RCMP has endured its share of troubles over the last few years, including charges of harassment. To its credit, the RCMP has recognized the need to transform the institution by enhancing governance and modernizing its operations, including its organizational culture.

The next phase of the transformation process must come through legislation. It has been nearly a quarter of a century since Parliament amended the RCMP Act in any significant manner. In the interim much has changed, not just in terms of the globalization of crime but also in public expectations of greater transparency.

All in all, this bill would go a long way toward improving the accountability of the RCMP to Canadians and its own members.

The committee has approved several housekeeping changes, but there were also three substantive additions that I would like to recap briefly. These concerns were raised by witnesses before our committee, and I am proud that the committee worked together to further strengthen Bill C-42 based on the feedback we received.

The first concerns the rules in clause 11 around hiring retired RCMP officers as reservists. As members may recall, the reserve program provides the commanding officer with important staffing options. Reservists, for example, can help fill temporary vacancies, transfer corporate memory and mentor new recruits. Apart from all of that, senior officials have noted that reservists also reduce overtime work by regular members. In addition to making the workplace more efficient, the use of reservists can also improve safety and health. The amendment adopted by the committee permits the hiring of retired RCMP officers as reservists for six months or more without compromising their pension entitlements.

The second major amendment adopted by the committee addresses the issue of immunity for the commission chairperson under clause 35, and was specifically raised by the chairperson during testimony.

As members may recall, the proposed legislation would provide immunity to all those performing the duties, powers and functions of the commission. That policy was meant to include all members, including the chairperson. However, as the committee rightly pointed out, the bill did not explicitly note that the chairperson would also have immunity. The amendment adopted by the committee amounts to a few words, but they are important.

The final change concerns the powers of the RCMP commissioner around complaints initiated by the chairperson of the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission, also in clause 35. This was raised during testimony as a potential improvement. The committee adopted an amendment to clarify that the RCMP commissioner cannot refuse to investigate such complaints, thereby further enhancing the independence of the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission, CRCC.

Taken together, these three substantive amendments have strengthened an already robust new framework to enhance accountability for the RCMP. The committee did enjoy the support of the New Democrats during second reading and for certain amendments during the committee stage, and that is why I was surprised to hear one of the NDP members mentioning that the NDP would not support this important bill.

I am even more disappointed to see two report stage amendments brought forward by the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. I will speak briefly to the two report stage motions.

The first motion would delete the short title of the bill. Our government believes that the short title clearly captures the intent of the legislation and, therefore, we do not support the removal of clause 1, as we view this motion to be more about politics than about substance.

The member also moved that we delete clause 22, which addresses the RCMP Commissioner's authority to make final and binding decisions regarding serious grievances and appeals. Also under this clause, the commissioner is authorized to delegate this power in the event that he or she is not able to make the decision directly. This is consistent with existing authorities under the current RCMP Act. It also makes it clear to RCMP members that the grievance process is the primary source for resolution of labour issues within the RCMP. That is why these clauses are worded in that particular way.

It is important to note that judicial review continues to remain an option for members who are not satisfied with the outcome of their case. There needs to be some finality to a decision and that is what the legislation would do. If there are any concerns about the decision that the commissioner has made, that can always go to a judicial review. That type of judicial review process is familiar to anyone who has done administrative law. This is not anything unusual. In fact, it is a very clear, well-established way of ensuring that the body charged with making the decisions has the final authority, and the judicial review process ensures that the decision-maker stays within the bounds of his or her authority. As such, we do not support its removal from the bill.

It has been almost 25 years since the RCMP Act was substantially revised and it is now time to act. The government has consulted extensively with Canadians to develop legislation that meets the expectations of all Canadians for greater accountability of the RCMP. With the amendments adopted by the committee, I do believe we have achieved our goal. We now have before us an opportunity to inject new flexibility and efficiency into rigid management systems, to rebuild a culture of trust and to reinforce the faith of Canadians in the RCMP.

This party will be voting in favour of this legislation. I call upon the NDP to join with us in supporting the legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his speech. In committee, the official opposition proposed a number of amendments to the bill. Unfortunately, they were all rejected. This bill is a response to numerous cases of sexual harassment, which is sad. That is how the government presented the bill, saying it would target sexual harassment, among other issues.

However, something is bothering me and many of my colleagues: why is there no mention at all of the term “sexual harassment” in the bill? Why is it not mentioned, since this is the issue that the bill seeks to address?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think all of us have heard the allegations of harassment and sexual harassment within the ranks of the RCMP. The purpose is to ensure there is a system in place that effectively and efficiently deals with those types of grievances. Rather than focusing on the form of a statute, we need to look at the substance of the statute. I would say that a careful, thoughtful analysis of the statute ensures that matters of harassment, including sexual harassment, fall within the confines of the jurisdiction that the bill would provide to the relevant decision-maker.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to this particular bill, I will take advantage of this opportunity to ask the minister a question that is important to the province of Manitoba.

We in Manitoba believe that we need an RCMP presence to deal with a wide variety of issues. We have an RCMP office in the city of Winnipeg. Could the minister provide some comment on what he believes is the future of that office? I realize there might be an issue of relevancy here but I know that many residents of Winnipeg are somewhat concerned about the future of that office.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, knowing the member as I do, I believe that any matter that he would bring forward would never be irrelevant. It would always be with the best of intentions to ensure that the questions are timely and focused, not only on the specific statute but the needs of his constituents.

I am not aware of any plans to deal with a particular building in the province of Manitoba. The Government of Manitoba, for years, has been a very strong partner in ensuring there is appropriate policing in the province of Manitoba. Many Canadians may not realize, of course, that the RCMP is not only a national police force but functions as a provincial police force in provinces like Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. As well, it performs the municipal policing function. Therefore, there are actually three levels of policing in the RCMP.

We certainly see a strong relationship with the Manitoba government and we want that relationship to continue. It has evidenced it by signing the agreement it has.

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

Mr. Speaker, does the minister feel the same sense of frustration that I and many of us do on this side of the House when day after day we hear opposition members ask about sexual harassment and harassment within the RCMP? We have before us a good bill and, with the amendments, a better bill that would respond not only to harassment but civilian complaints and serious investigations, but the NDP will not support it. My concern is that, when we come back in the winter, they will keep asking questions about ways to fix these problems that they refuse to support.

[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.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak to Bill C-42 on behalf of my constituents from Surrey North.

Surrey has the largest RCMP detachment in the country. The men and women who work in my city, RCMP members and civilian members who work with them, do a wonderful job. Not only that, my office meets with them on a regular basis to deal with some of the local issues that come up in my constituency. I am very thankful to them for providing that wonderful service to the citizens in Surrey.

First, it should be a priority of the House and the government to restore public confidence in the RCMP. A functioning, effective RCMP that holds the public trust is critical to building safer communities across the country.

On this side of the House, we support the stated intent of the bill and we hoped to make some amendments in committee that would address some of our concerns. I will talk about that a little later on, as to what happened. I have stood in the House, time after time, and called on the government to step up and deal with problems that years of Conservative mismanagement have caused in our national police force.

The goals stated in the preamble of the bill, transparency, improving conduct, strengthening the review and complaints body and dealing with the climate of sexual harassment that exists in the RCMP, are all good goals. We hoped that we could make some amendments at the committee stage to improve the bill and make it more effective, so we could deal with the issues the RCMP had been dealing with for a number of years.

For those reasons, we supported the second reading of the bill, because we thought we would actually get to address some of those real issues plaguing the RCMP. Unfortunately, every amendment the NDP put forward in committee to improve upon the very things I talked about were turned down, without even simple consideration.

We would have thought that maybe one amendment might have made sense to them. We have seen this in many other committees. I sit on the international trade committee, as well as other committees, including the public safety committee. Not one amendment from the opposition, out of the thousands and thousands of amendments that have been brought forward in committees, has been accepted by the Conservative government.

One would think that out of the thousands of ideas we have presented maybe one would fit the Conservative ideology, but that is not the case. It is very unfortunate. This was an opportunity for the Conservatives to right the wrong of the mismanagement of the RCMP over the last six or seven years. This just did not happen.

The reputation and the respect of the RCMP has been built over the years, but let us look at what has happened over the last six or seven years. The Conservatives have totally mismanaged those issues.

One of the amendments that the opposition put forward basically added mandatory harassment training for RCMP members, specifically through the RCMP Act. Another amendment we brought forward was to ensure a fully independent civilian review body to investigate complaints against the RCMP.

In my province of British Columbia, that has been an ongoing issue, where the police investigate themselves. Canadians deserve clarity on this. Conservatives have the opportunity in this bill to bring that in to help Canadians have the RCMP be accountable and transparent. Again, the Conservatives have, and I hate to use these words, missed the bus on this part of the amendment.

We wanted to add provisions to create a national civilian investigation body that would avoid police investigating police. We also wanted to create a more balanced human resources 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 form the force.

What did the Conservatives do? Again, they voted down every single one of those amendments. Those amendments would have provided some form of clarity and transparency to Canadians. Yet the Conservatives chose not to accept any of those recommendations or committee amendments.

The Conservative government is ignoring calls for more balance and standing by its argument that putting more power in the hands of the RCMP commissioner to fire individual officers would curb ongoing issues at the RCMP and that the RCMP commissioner should have the final say on all dismissals. Expert witness after expert witness explained that the legislation alone would not help to foster a more open and respectable workforce for all and that the concentration of power in the hands of the commissioner is part of the problem, not the solution. We need to see an ongoing effort from the RCMP and the government to modernize the RCMP, and the bill would lack the transparency and accountability necessary for that change.

Basically, the bill would not go far enough. My colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca and a number of other NDP members have called upon the government to be more transparent and more accountable. The Conservatives had this opportunity to make the RCMP, our national police force, more accountable and more transparent, yet again they missed the opportunity. My colleagues have also talked about having a safe work environment for the men and women who work in our force. Clearly, the Conservatives have missed that opportunity.

It is clear that sexual harassment is not only a problem, it is a symptom. It is endemic to the internal culture of the RCMP. The Conservatives' approach would not make women in the RCMP a priority, which is necessary if we want to deal substantially with this problem. My primary concern is that, over and over, we see the Conservatives attempting to gloss over the real issues within the RCMP. They implement quick fixes instead of truly taking the steps necessary to fix the force for the sake of those serving in the force, and to restore public confidence in the RCMP ultimately for the safety of our communities.

The scope of the problem of sexual harassment in the RCMP is massive. More than 200 women, both current and former RCMP officers, are seeking a class action suit against the RCMP on the grounds of sexual harassment. That does not include the individual lawsuits that could be filed by them. My NDP colleagues and I pushed for the minister for months to prioritize the issue of sexual harassment in the RCMP. Unfortunately, Bill C-42 would not directly address the systemic issues in the culture of the RCMP. It is clear that the bill by itself would not change the current climate in the RCMP.

I have a lot to speak about on this particular issue, but in summary I will say a few things. The Conservatives had an opportunity to fix the RCMP, to address the issues of sexual harassment and of transparency and accountability. They have clearly not taken advantage of the opportunity to do that. I stress that in my community of Surrey and in communities across the country, crime and violence are a reality. A few weeks ago in the Lower Mainland, a known gang member was shot and killed in broad daylight.

This kind of violence is unacceptable, but instead of investing in measures to prevent crime in our communities by supporting the work of the RCMP, the Conservatives are making it harder for police to do their jobs. We have come to know that 42 RCMP office support staff in B.C. have received notices stating that they could lose their jobs.

We need to be supporting the work of the RCMP, not making its job harder. The government has put forward a bill that seems to finally acknowledge some of these problems, but it simply does not address the major issues that we need to address. An effective RCMP is a matter of public safety and real action is long overdue. The Conservatives have failed Canadians again.

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

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the majority of my colleague's comments.

It is very disappointing to see the NDP once again oppose an important piece of legislation that would give the RCMP the tools that it needs to fight things such as sexual harassment. The NDP is introducing this amendment to change the short title of the bill, which is enhancing RCMP accountability, which is appropriate. It is not called making perfect the RCMP or fixing all problems within the RCMP or there will never be any other issues within the RCMP. Those are not the title. The title is enhancing accountability. The bill is a balanced and practical approach that would give the RCMP the tools that it needs to help change some of the things that need to be changed within the organization.

How can that member in good conscience rise in the House and say that he supports ending harassment and sexual harassment within the RCMP and yet vote against this important tool, which the RCMP has asked us for?

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have talked to many citizens, not only across this country but in particular in the city of Surrey. As I pointed out, we have the largest RCMP detachment anywhere in the country.

It surprises me to hear the member talk about sexual harassment. The words “sexual harassment” are not even in the bill. That tells me that the Conservatives are more concerned about ideology rather than addressing the real issue of harassment in the RCMP.

The member talked about accountability and transparency. Accountability and transparency have to start with the Conservative government, which has not been accountable and transparent at all. We have seen that with the F-35s. If the government really wanted the RCMP to be accountable and transparent, it would respect the will of the people who want an independent body investigating the RCMP.

The Conservatives have clearly failed on this measure.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I notice the member made reference to the size of the RCMP community in Surrey, B.C. Surrey is a beautiful area of our country.

We recognize the valuable role that the RCMP plays in our communities. There is no doubt that the government could have done more. We do not question that. There are issues related to sexual harassment and others that we in the Liberal Party would like to see the government do more about.

The majority of the RCMP members that my colleague is talking about who live in the Surrey area would likely want to see the bill in principle move forward. Would he not agree with that? That is maybe why the NDP should join with the Liberals and support the bill in principle in terms of it going forward, recognizing that a lot more still needs to get done.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the first part of my colleague's question. Surrey is a beautiful city. However, I do not agree with the second part of his comments.

We had members of the RCMP appear at committee who were not supportive of this legislation. I have talked to many citizens in my community who want an accountable and transparent investigation process when members of the RCMP are involved in an incident. The bill does not address that. Unfortunately, again, the Conservatives had an opportunity to right a wrong. Over the last six years they could have taken steps to correct that. They have failed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that we have not learned any lessons from the public commission for complaints against the RCMP. Former head Paul Kennedy put forward a number of significant proposals. While the legislation would improve the situation somewhat, it does not go nearly far enough to provide the tools that such a commission would need.

I wonder if my hon. friend has any comments on his testimony.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right.

The RCMP and the people of British Columbia, because we have the largest RCMP force, have been asking for an independent body to investigate the RCMP when they are involved in incidents. We have had a number of high-profile incidents where the call is loud and clear from the public that we need an independent body to investigate the RCMP.

The government had an opportunity to address these issues, which are of concern in our communities. Again, the Conservatives failed to do that.

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before addressing Bill C-42, now before us, I would like to wish a happy holiday to all hon. members, to our support staff, including the pages, clerks and officers of the House, to our listeners and to you, Mr. Speaker. This is probably my last speech in the House in 2012.

In my previous speech on Bill C-42, I said I was pleased with the introduction of this legislation in the House. The issue of harassment is a public and urgent concern for Canadians. We put a lot of pressure on the Department of Public Safety to make the issue of sexual harassment in the RCMP a priority. That is why we supported this bill at second reading, in the hope of improving it and proposing amendments in committee to make it acceptable and efficient, so as to adequately tackle the issue of sexual harassment.

The first version of the bill did not deal directly with this systemic problem, which is deeply rooted in RCMP corporate culture. The wording of the bill introduced at first reading would not have changed the existing climate within the RCMP.

When the bill was drafted, the Minister of Public Safety did not seem to take into consideration the various recommendations of the Task Force on Governance and Cultural Change in the RCMP. As I mentioned, we still supported the bill at second reading to properly study it and improve it in committee. Unfortunately, the study in committee did not go very well. I am really disappointed by the government's lack of co-operation on this issue.

The Conservatives did not really want to co-operate with us to ensure a balanced representation of the various views and positions. The government presented 12 witnesses to the committee, while we could only have seven. Moreover, in my opinion, the Conservatives' witnesses were not completely independent. All but one of the witnesses, who represented the government or the RCMP, presented the government's position without any real nuances. We feel the witnesses selected by the Conservatives did not come to express a completely independent opinion.

The Conservatives were also in no hurry to call the witnesses that we wanted to appear before the committee. The first witness was called to appear only at the fourth meeting, and most of our witnesses were called only on the last day scheduled to hear evidence. In a way, the Conservatives forced us to present all our amendments on the last day scheduled to hear our witnesses. They also asked us to present our amendments three and a half hours later, on the same day. That did not leave us much time to assess and examine the recommendations made by witnesses.

We also wanted to table amendments, based on the witnesses' recommendations, in order to make the legislation much more effective, so that it would achieve its objective. Such behaviour on the part of the Conservatives is totally unacceptable and impedes the work of Parliament.

We also proposed a number of amendments that were rejected by government members without any discussion. We proposed to include mandatory training on harassment for RCMP members in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, but that was also rejected. The Conservatives simply do not want to hear a dissenting opinion, or even recognize its validity.

The director of the Groupe d'aide et d'information sur le harcèlement sexuel au travail de la province de Québec appeared before the committee and said: “With the 32 years of experience we have, we have found out that when companies do have a clear policy, when employees do know what is acceptable and not acceptable, it makes it much easier for management to deal with the problems.” But the Conservatives preferred to ignore this important testimony.

It is also disappointing that the minister did not ask for a clear policy on sexual harassment in the RCMP, with specific standards of conduct and criteria for assessing the performance of all employees. Such a policy is necessary to provide a basis for a much fairer disciplinary process. The director of the Groupe d'aide et d'information sur le harcèlement sexuel au travail de la province de Québec also spoke eloquently on the importance of such a policy.

They chose to ignore her evidence and stubbornly insisted on a magic solution that will not resolve all the RCMP's problems.

We too put forward an amendment that would guarantee the independence of the body set up to investigate complaints in the RCMP. Once again, the answer was no. We also proposed adding provisions to establish a civilian investigative body, to stop the police from investigating themselves. Once again, this amendment was thrown out. Yet all Canadians are asking for such a provision. Trust in police investigations has to be rebuilt. When a police force investigates another police force, there may well be a conflict of interest or a perceived conflict of interest.

If the Conservatives do not want to listen to Canadians, perhaps they will listen to a former commissioner of the RCMP Public Complaints Commission. He believes that the bill is not in line with the review procedures established by Justice O'Connor and that it will not meet the needs of Canadians or the RCMP.

I would like to remind the House that Justice O'Connor mentioned in the Arar inquiry that it was important for Parliament to set up an oversight agency for the RCMP. It would appear that his recommendations have simply been gathering dust.

The bill would give the RCMP commissioner new authority, the authority to decide on appropriate disciplinary measures. This would include the authority to appoint and dismiss members as he chooses.

During my initial speech, I also said that the approach by the public safety department was a simplistic solution to a much bigger problem: they were just giving the commissioner final authority for dismissing employees. This is why we proposed an amendment to create police forces that were better balanced in terms of human resources, by removing some of the more extreme powers held by the RCMP commissioner and by strengthening those of the external review committee in cases of possible dismissal from the RCMP.

As I said earlier, while Bill C-42 may give the commissioner greater authority to set up a more effective process for resolving harassment complaints, and greater authority over disciplinary matters, it cannot provide the RCMP with the genuine cultural change that it needs to eliminate not only sexual harassment, but also cases relating more generally to the discipline and behaviour of RCMP officers.

Commissioner Paulson himself stated that legislative measures alone would not be enough to retain the public's trust, and that far-reaching reforms would be needed to address the serious underlying issues in the RCMP and foster a work environment that is more open, more co-operative and more respectful for all.

It is obvious to the NDP that the department lacked leadership with regard to dealing with the broader issue the RCMP is facing. Commissioner Paulson told the Standing Committee on the Status of Women that the issue goes well beyond sexual harassment. This situation must change. I believe that the minister should have taken the extensive experience of the RCMP commissioner into account.

In conclusion, if the Conservative government really wanted to modernize the RCMP, it would have agreed to implement the recommendations from the oversight agencies and proceed with an audit of the RCMP by a group of independent auditors that would have reported directly to Parliament. NDP members attempted to amend the bill so that it would deal with issues raised in the evidence heard, but the Conservatives refused to get on board.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported (with amendment).

Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Châteauguay—Saint-Constant on his speech, which is indicative of his expertise on this issue.

We have pointed out many times the extent of the government's lack of openness. It is not at all transparent—even though that is what it expects of others—especially when it comes to amendments presented by our party in committee.

I would like to have a little more information about the amendments, but above all about the loss of job security for whistleblowers who speak out about sexual harassment, something that concerns me a great deal.

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question, which I may not have clearly understood. Was he talking about harassment complaints filed by RCMP employees?

Unfortunately, we found that the harassment of female RCMP officers by male officers is a major problem, and that female officers probably have some difficulty being heard and breaking the silence. Will the proposed legislation improve these people's lives? We doubt it.

Instead of giving this mandate to police forces, it would have been much wiser to create a civilian investigative body to deal with these issues, listen to female officers and investigate sexual harassment complaints. Female officers would probably be much more comfortable with this type of structure.

The establishment of a totally independent civilian investigative body would certainly have been more appropriate for dealing with this type of whistle-blowing and would have helped officers who may find it hard to report a fellow officer to do so confidentially.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his eloquent speech on this topic and for raising the example of the group from Montreal, which deals with harassment training and testified eloquently that the government's focus on discipline would not solve the problem. Firing a few bad apples does not change the culture inside the RCMP. That is why we moved a motion asking for training to be inserted in the law, so that the RCMP commissioner will have a specific legislated responsibility to make sure there is harassment training in the RCMP as the main way to improve the climate.

I would like to hear the member's comments on that, because I think the group from Montreal whose job is to work with employers to create a better workplace was quite eloquent in saying that training is needed.

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question and for his excellent work during the committee review of Bill C-42.

The member himself proposed this change to the bill to provide training to RCMP officers in order to make them more aware of their obligations regarding sexual harassment. During her testimony before the committee, an expert on this issue fully supported this measure to raise police officers' awareness.

The best way to do so is to give them training on their obligations, the rules to follow, the content of the legislation and the aspects that they need to consider. The hon. member is absolutely right: the best way to raise police officers' awareness is to train them in this regard.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Resuming debate. Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The question is on Motion No. 1. 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 nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #590

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare Motion No. 1 lost. I therefore declare Motion No. 2 lost.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I believe you would find agreement to apply the results of the previous motion to the current motion, with the Conservatives voting yes.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we agree to apply the vote and will vote against the motion.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals agree to apply and will be voting in favour.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois will vote no.

[Bruce Hyer, Independent, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Thunder Bay will be voting no.

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

Mr. Speaker, we agree to the application and the Green Party will be voting yes.

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

Vote #591

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried.