Public Safety Committee on Oct. 31st, 2012

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Good afternoon, everyone.

This is meeting number 56 of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security on Wednesday, October 31, 2012. This afternoon we are going to continue our consideration of Bill C-42, an Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.

We are going to move now from hearing witnesses, as we have over the last number of meetings, into our clause-by-clause examination. We have senior officials from the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness on hand for reference.

Also, I want to remind all members that later on this afternoon, at a quarter after five, we will move to committee business, at which time we will go in camera to discuss future business.

We've gone through the process on clause-by-clause examination before. But a problem has arisen. I want to read from the Minutes of Proceedings.

It was agreed, — That, in regards to the study of Bill C-42, Enhancing RCMP Accountability Act: the Committee hear witnesses beginning with the Minister of Public Safety on [Wednesday] October 3rd, 2012; the Committee begin clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-42 no later than Wednesday, October 31, 2012, and, if the clause-by-clause consideration has not been completed by 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, November 7, 2012, that the Chair put all and every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the Bill forthwith and successively, without further debate, and the Chair then be ordered to report the Bill back to the House at the next available opportunity; and that amendments to Bill C-42 be submitted to the Clerk in both official languages before 9 p.m. on Monday, October 29, 2012, and that these amendments be distributed to members in both official languages before the end of [that] day.

I need to say that one of the most disappointing things that has taken place here is that we basically received no opposition amendments before nine o'clock.

I am instructed by the Table that these amendments then are not even allowed to come before this committee, because they did not comply with the motion that we had moved, passed, and were trying to live under.

If you remember the last meeting we had, I made it abundantly clear that these amendments must be in by nine o'clock, in both official languages.

When one party calls the Table and says “We are going to be late with our amendment” and they are told that then we cannot accept that amendment, and then they do the translation themselves for whatever they did and get the amendments in on time, it becomes very difficult to allow other amendments that were not in on time to even be entertained at this meeting. My intent at this point is based on instruction from the committee.

That being said, amendments did come: 18 amendments came from the NDP, and 16 of them were marginally late—just a little bit late—while one came later and one came the next day. When we go by the Minutes of Proceedings and by the motions that we have agreed to that amendments to Bill C-42 be submitted to the clerk before 9 p.m. on Monday, if they come in the next day, they are not to be entertained.

Mr. Garrison.

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

Your statements I think are in some respects incorrect, but I don't wish to enter into a discussion about technicalities over two minutes. I don't think it is appropriate for us to have a “he said, she said” about staff notices.

We had every intention that these be in on time. The staff discussed the situation with the clerk before the nine o'clock deadline. We believed that we had complied and had agreement, but in the interests of fair consideration of what we heard from witnesses, I'm going to ask for unanimous consent from the committee to consider the amendments, since good-faith efforts were made to have them there by the nine o'clock deadline.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I don't believe unanimous consent is actually needed in this case. I think a simple majority would suffice. But this is fairly extraordinary, to be quite frank. It's up to the committee. We're always masters of our own domain, or of our own destiny, I guess.

Ms. Bergen.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Here are a couple of things. First of all, I think all of us have to recognize the work that the clerk and the staff have to do. Part of it is that when they receive these documents within the deadline, they can deal with them. When they do not, they are put in a very difficult position. It's important that all of us recognize that.

We all had deadlines; we all recognized the deadlines; we all met the deadlines.

I must not fail to mention and to notice that the NDP managed to get out their press release criticizing this bill and saying that it wasn't sufficient, but they got their amendments in late.

Having said that, we have taken a lot of time to study this bill. I think that in the interests of all of us we'd like to hear the amendments, vote on them, and proceed. On this side, we don't know why they were late. As Mr. Garrison said, it's not necessarily a discussion we need to have, but we want to go through all of the amendments.

So we would say, Mr. Chair, that if it is within your discretion, we allow these amendments in. On this side, we would be in agreement with you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

It sounds as though there is consensus to proceed with this, so I'm not going to call a vote on it. I will do that, but I also want to remind all sides....

I thank you for that, by the way, Ms. Bergen. I think it's a very good gesture on your part. Your party was also instructed that amendments that were late would not be accepted.

Anyway, we can proceed this way. But let me say that we will be seeing Bill S-7 very soon. The same deal is going. We will be going through Bill S-7 and we will....

When I looked at the amendments that came in, none of them, at least from what I could see, were from the witness we heard on Monday. I may be wrong on that—I stand to be corrected—but I didn't see the amendments that could have been from the Monday meeting.

That being said, we will proceed, and I thank you. We will move right into clause-by-clause.

There are some newer members here. We will work our way through. If you have your papers, you may want to follow along with them. On clause 2, there are no amendments that have been brought forward. We'll move through these clauses very quickly, but when we come to the amendments, you will have ample opportunity to debate the amendment that has been brought forward.

The first two that you see, the preamble and the short title, we will postpone. We will come back to those at the end.

(Clause 2 agreed to)

(On clause 3)

We have one NDP amendment. Its reference number is 5792296.

Mr. Garrison, do you want to speak to that amendment?

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The package of amendments we prepared has a number of themes. One of those is to protect the independence of the RCMP from political interference. The change we're suggesting here is to delete the phrase that says the Commissioner will be appointed at the pleasure of the government. It reverts to its original wording in the act, which would be for a period of good behaviour.

The difference between those two is important legally. “At pleasure” allows termination without giving reason for cause, whereas the original language, which this section is amending, says it's for a period of “good behaviour”, which means that there must be cause given for the dismissal.

This was from witnesses on Monday.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

So this was one of the ones that came out of the Monday deal?

Ms. Bergen, did I see a hand in the air?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Yes. I will speak just briefly. This may cover a few other of the NDP's proposed amendments.

We would not support this motion. It's true under the current act that section 12 indicates that all officers of the force hold rank during pleasure, including the commissioner. Because that section has been repealed, we believe it's necessary to indicate at subsection 5(1) that the commissioner's appointment is also at the pleasure. We would disagree with that proposed amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Are you ready for the vote?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to)

(On clause 5)

NDP-2, Mr. Garrison

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

This is the same question we raised in regard to the appointment of the commissioner—for deputy commissioners—and to get the language reverted to “for a period of good behaviour” rather than “a period at pleasure.” It's exactly the same principle applied to the other offices.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

That's in regard to what you said. Your talk would cover this one as well. It's the same.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

We would oppose it for the same reason that we would revert back to the original act.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clauses 5 to 10 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 11)

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

There is a government amendment on clause 11. I'll ask Ms. Bergen to speak to her amendment.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

We heard testimony, and I'm going to ask my colleague Mr. Leef to speak on this as well. Further to what was approved in the drafting instructions, the bill was supposed to contain a provision that reservists are not deemed to be employed in the public service, regardless of the length of employment for the purposes of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act. Currently, this provision is not in the bill. We want to correct that. We want to make sure that there is a provision that would allow retired RCMP officers to work as reservists for more than six months and continue to collect their existing public service pension. It's just making sure the bill lines up with the actual intent of it.

Mr. Leef, would you like to speak to it as well? You were here for some of the testimony.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Leef.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Chair, we did hear testimony on the value of being able to have retired members return as reservists for the purpose of mentoring. This is obviously a critical component, not only to implementing some of the provisions in this act, but also to the training and future development of new members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

It's a particularly valuable service that the reservists are able to provide to remote and rural communities where backfill, leave, and medical needs need to be met, particularly given the time period it takes—six months—to train recruits in Canada. By the time you bring new recruits in, you are able to fill some of these positions. A little bit longer term would be helpful, without actually affecting the people who are coming out of retirement by affecting their pension terms or by unnecessarily interrupting that term of service. If it were a one-day break, it might not be too critical, but the two-week break can really change the structure of a detachment, the staffing needs in rural and remote areas, and the mentoring programs. The testimony from all sides was pretty positive to this change.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you both, Ms. Bergen and Mr. Leef.

Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to that? It doesn't look like it.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 11 as amended agreed to)

(Clause 12 agreed to)

(On clause 13)

We have come to clause 13. We have three amendments that have been brought forward. Basically, we will look at each one of these independently. First of all, NDP-3.

Each one has received the amendments, is that correct, Mr. Chaplin?

Mr. Garrison.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

We heard from groups who deal with harassment in Quebec, in response to a question from Mr. Leef, that they thought there should indeed be some specific reference to harassment training in the bill. All this does is insert a specific reference to harassment training.

Given the large problem we have inside the RCMP with the complaints of sexual harassment, we felt that to make this.... It still says the commissioner “may” do this, but to make specific reference to it would be reassuring members of the force and the public that the question would be dealt with.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Did I see Ms. Doré Lefebvre's hand in the air on this one?

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

I just want to say that I will be supporting my colleague's amendement.

What witnesses told us at our last meeting was quite informative. We all know that training and education often help to improve things, and I think that we would be improving the bill if we were to add this reference to section 13.

So I support my colleague's amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Is there anyone else?

Ms. Bergen.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

We will not be supporting this amendment. The commissioner already is and continues to be responsible for this. And we have heard testimony from the commissioner; he takes this responsibility very seriously and will make sure that training is provided. So we will not support this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Is there anyone else?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Next is amendment NDP-4.

Mr. Garrison.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

We heard from some witnesses, including witnesses on Monday, that they were worried about this clause, which simply provides an unrestricted power to the commissioner to dismiss any individual member for reasons of economy and efficiency. So we're proposing deleting that clause.

Obviously the commissioner would still retain the power to prepare a plan for force reduction that might result in the dismissal of individual members, but we're not sure why there's a need to actually specify that the commissioner has the power to dismiss individual members for reasons of economy. Obviously he would still retain his general power over the size of the force and force reduction without this clause, so we see this as being unnecessary and as creating unnecessary insecurity among members of the force.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

All right. So it's the deletion of—