Thank you, Mr. Chair, for your invitation to speak about Bill C-42, the Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act. I am pleased to be accompanied by the RCMP commissioner, Mr. Paulson, and the assistant deputy minister, Richard Wex, of the Department of Public Safety.
I would like to also mention that these two individuals had a lot to do with the completion of the 20-year contract signed between the RCMP and the various provinces. They put in a lot of hard work. The fact that all the provinces signed back on to the RCMP, with some changes in the contract, is a good indication of the satisfaction of all provinces with the RCMP. It is also a credit to these two individuals and their staff and the work they did in that respect.
Mr. Chair, it is essential that Canadians have full confidence in the RCMP. However, this confidence has been tested over the past few years, which has highlighted certain challenges in the RCMP. As Canada's national police force, the RCMP must overcome these challenges and regain public trust. In particular, over the past number of months, Canadians have heard some extremely disturbing reports about the conduct of some RCMP officers. That's why our government made it clear that we would work closely with the commissioner to take action to restore pride in Canada's national police force.
Part of the problem is that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act has not evolved to allow the organization to keep pace with changes in modern police management, or, frankly, to meet public expectations. In fact, the RCMP Act has not been significantly amended in almost 25 years. Over the last decade, a number of stakeholders, committees, and inquiries have called for changes to the RCMP's accountability framework. The RCMP has made some changes to address these deficiencies, including implementing an external investigations and review policy, instituting operational response and readiness policies, and enhancing the conducted-energy weapons policy.
While it is clear that a culture change is needed within the RCMP, changes to the RCMP's legislative framework are also required.
The legislative amendments in Bill C-42 focus on three key areas. First, Mr. Chair, the bill creates a modern and independent civilian review and complaints commission for the RCMP, essentially referred to as CRCC, to replace the existing Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, the CPC, and it provides it with enhanced powers.
Second, it imposes statutory obligations on the handling of criminal investigations of serious incidents involving RCMP members, which are designed to improve the transparency and public accountability of these investigations.
Third, the bill modernizes the RCMP's discipline, grievance, and human resource management framework, while also aligning the RCMP commissioner's human resource authorities with those of public sector leaders and other senior police executives.
I'd like to take a few moments to outline each of these three components, beginning with the new RCMP public complaints regime.
As committee members may know, complaints against the RCMP are currently handled by the CPC. However, there have been increasing concerns expressed by the public contract jurisdictions, parliamentary committees, public inquiries, and others that this commission lacks sufficient powers to effectively investigate public complaints about the conduct of RCMP officers. The proposed legislation responds to the key recommendation flowing from all of these groups.
Specifically, it would create a strengthened independent civilian review and complaints body for the RCMP that provides the new body with powers and authorities similar to other modern international, federal, and provincial review bodies. It also grants the new commission broad access to RCMP information, strengthens the commission's investigative powers, and allows the new commission the power to conduct policy reviews into RCMP activities, including those relating to national security.
Consistent with judicial inquiries and all other federal review bodies, such as the Security Intelligence Review Committee, the Auditor General, and the offices of the information and privacy commissioners, the new commission will make non-binding findings and recommendations to the commissioner and the Minister of Public Safety.
Mr. Chair, let me address this point clearly: the RCMP commissioner is held accountable for the operations of the RCMP and must decide whether to act on the findings and recommendations of the commission. The commissioner is accountable and responsible for the operations of the RCMP, and we will not undermine that accountability by making recommendations binding. However, consistent with the existing legislative requirements, it's also clear that whenever the RCMP commissioner decides not to act on commission recommendations, he must explain, in writing, the reasons for doing so to the new commission and to me.
While some have called for binding recommendations, others, such as Justice O'Connor and the RCMP Reform Implementation Council, support the approach of non-binding findings and recommendations.
Separate from the complaints process, Bill C-42 sets out a statutory framework to improve the transparency of serious criminal investigations of incidents involving RCMP members that result in death or serious injury. The RCMP will now be required, by statute, to refer serious criminal cases involving RCMP members to an independent provincial investigative body, where one exists—for example, British Columbia, Alberta, and Nova Scotia. This is in keeping with the provinces' authority for the administration of justice in their jurisdiction. In provinces and territories where such bodies don't exist, these investigations must be referred to another police service. Only in rare instances, and as a last resort, where neither of these options is available, would the RCMP undertake the investigation itself.
This framework is designed to address public concerns about the impartiality of RCMP members investigating other RCMP members who are involved in a serious incident. Some have called for the creation of a national investigative body, but what has been proposed in that sense would create significant redundancy in jurisdictions where a civilian investigative body already exists, while consuming resources and delaying investigations. The most important consideration is that the provinces and the territories, which have the constitutional responsibility for policing and the administration of justice, have not called for this.
We will continue to work with the provinces and territories in this regard.
Mr. Chair, the last component of the bill modernizes the RCMP's discipline, grievance, and human resource management framework. The current processes embodied in the RCMP Act lack flexibility and are disjointed. Discipline and grievance processes carry heavy administrative burdens and can be drawn out for years.
For example, an RCMP member was suspended from duty after being arrested and charged with uttering threats and weapons offences. While the member was not permitted to work, he stayed on the payroll, receiving salary for 18 months. This is clearly a problem. Under Bill C-42, managers will be given the authority to impose remedial measures, like counselling and corrective sanctions, when performance and conduct are not acceptable.
The bottom line is that this legislation would also empower managers, allowing them to deal with issues before they turn into big problems. An example I've used before is this one. In August of 2004, a grievance was filed over a dinner allowance claim of $15. Under the current system, it took seven years to obtain a final decision on the matter. Under this bill, that would be streamlined and dealt with in a matter of weeks. This is a vast improvement over the current system, where all formal sanctions must be handled through a time- and resource-consuming discipline board. Only in those cases where dismissal is being sought would the issue be referred to a conduct board.
Under the current grievance system, a formal, resource-intensive, paper-based process is the norm. With this legislation, front-line managers would have access to a less formal conflict management and resolution system that would allow for matters to be dealt with quickly, fairly, and effectively.
Similarly, we are proposing changes to the current authorities of the RCMP commissioner. Under the current regime, the commissioner, in contrast to other police chiefs, lacks the authority to directly make determinations on certain human resource processes that are necessary to effectively manage the organization.
Bill C-42 would enhance accountability by now permitting the RCMP commissioner to both appoint and promote the majority of the officers of the RCMP below the rank of deputy commissioner. That being said, the federal cabinet process, through orders in council, would be used to appoint the commissioner and all deputy commissioners.
The commissioner would be given the authority to establish a system to create a seamless way to respond to harassment complaints in a timely, transparent, and fair manner that would be specific to the investigation and resolution of complaints where a respondent is an RCMP member. This would help to overcome the current challenges of attempting to simultaneously apply the Treasury Board harassment policy and the RCMP Act to addressing harassment concerns.
Finally, Mr. Chair, we propose changes to the current human resource structure in which the RCMP employees are divided into three categories: regular members, civilian members, and public service employees. This requires three different human resource systems, making it difficult to manage human resources efficiently and effectively across the organization.
To increase human resource efficiencies, the proposed legislation provides a mechanism through which Treasury Board may convert current civilian members to public service employees, thus reducing the number of categories of employees by one.
In conclusion, Mr. Chair, the proposed changes to the RCMP Act are designed to enhance the accountability of the RCMP and to support the implementation of the new 20-year contract agreements entered into with the provinces and territories this year, which I mentioned at the onset of my comments. Accountability and oversight were focal points for the provinces, territories, and municipalities in the announcements of the new police service agreements. In fact, the British Columbia justice minister has stated that she is “very pleased” and thinks it's a very positive first step.
We have listened to our provincial and territorial counterparts and recognize that in order to keep pace with changes in modern policing, reform of the RCMP's legislative framework is required. I have spent the summer consulting RCMP members, community leaders, and Canadians on this bill. The response has been encouraging, and I believe this bill addresses the concerns I have heard.
Mr. Chair, even David Eby of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association has said that—and I quote—“it's good to see these changes coming”.
In closing, thank you for giving me the opportunity to provide you with an overview of this important legislation designed to help bolster confidence and accountability in the RCMP. I look forward to following your deliberations on the bill and possible amendments. Our goal is to ensure we have the best bill possible.
I'm now happy to answer any questions you may have.
