Evidence of meeting #56 for Public Safety and National Security in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was commission.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
We would not agree with this or support it. This is an authority that already exists under the RCMP regulations. If we take it away, it would take away the commissioner's ability to deal with these matters within the context within which he or she needs to be able to work. We think it would be detrimental to remove this.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We're moving this motion to delete lines 14 to 24 on page 11, which would delete the ability of the RCMP commissioner to delegate the authority to dismiss members. When people join the RCMP to make a commitment to a career, they put a lot of time and energy into it, and if for unfortunate reasons they eventually are dismissed, we believe the authority for that should rest with the commissioner alone. Although obviously the existing external review committee is the independent body that might review that decision, it should not be made by people in the hierarchy lower than the commissioner.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
This actually gives the commissioner the authority, under clause 13, that is basically the same as the human resources management and delegation authorities provided to deputy heads in the core public administration pursuant to the Financial Administration Act.
We would not support this motion because we believe it would very negatively impact on the ability of the RCMP and the commissioner to do the work that he or she needs to do.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 13 agreed to)
(Clauses 14 and 15 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 16)
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
On clause 16 there is one amendment. The government has brought forward an amendment to their bill.
Ms. Bergen, would you please tell us a little bit about it?
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
This is actually a grammatical amendment. Probably some of my French-speaking colleagues would have recognized it even sooner than I did. The French version has a grammatical error. The current version has “d'une”, whereas it should read “une”. That's really the only.... We have a number of those, Chair.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Okay. A lot of it will be in the translation, to tighten up the translation a little bit.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 16 as amended agreed to)
(Clauses 17 to 20 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 21)
The official opposition has brought forward NDP amendment number 6.
Mr. Garrison.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
What we're proposing here is to delete a prohibition that has been included in the bill and would prohibit the filing of grievances based on the grounds of equal pay. This was again raised by witnesses on Monday. We don't understand the necessity of prohibiting the filing of grievances based on equal pay. It would be the normal course of workplaces; you don't legislate out certain kinds of grievances from the beginning.
Again, given the climate problems we have seen in the RCMP, it seems to provide a wrong signal to women serving in the RCMP that some grievances would automatically be ruled inadmissible by the law.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Again, we can't support this amendment. We think these types of complaints are best dealt with under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Our concern would be that it would create unnecessary litigation, excessive costs, and the risks of conflicting results.
Again, we think this is best dealt with under the Canadian Human Rights Act, not in this legislation.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
All right. Seeing no other speakers to this, I will call the vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 21 agreed to)
(On clause 22)
Clause 22 has one amendment—NDP-7.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Yes. I imagine all of these are kind of an on division type of thing, but....
We're on NDP-7 in clause 22.
Mr. Garrison.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
There are many other sections in the bill that explicitly protect the right of judicial review of certain things that take place under the bill. We found it unusual that this one section did not; therefore, we suggested this amendment to protect the right, ultimately, of judicial review of grievance settlements.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Again, we disagree with this amendment. The intent is to send a very clear message that the grievance process is to be the primary source for resolution of employment and labour issues within the RCMP.
By indicating that the commissioner's decision is final and binding, we hope the courts will grant a high degree of deference to the decisions of the commissioner that are within the scope of the employment relationship. This was done with that intent in mind. We want to make sure that it's very clear, that these issues are solved, and that the message is sent that it's a very clear and decisive decision.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
I would like you to clarify that.
On the purpose of your amendment, Randall, could you explain it again?
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
There are several places in the bill where it does state that except for judicial review under the Federal Courts Act.... So it reaffirms that right, which is constitutional, of courts to review—
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
—those things. It was omitted from this clause and we're not sure why. In particular, I understand that the government is attempting to send a message about this being final. We felt that this amendment would really reaffirm the existing legal situation.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
So there is a right to judicial review. I'm just wondering, if the right exists—