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.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to speak to the latest Conservative omnibus bill. This bill is a product of a tired, old Conservative government that has lost touch with the challenges and opportunities of Canadians.

Bill C-43 is overflowing with changes that have no place in a budget bill, such as the petty change the Conservatives want to make to deny refugee claimants access to social assistance.

The Conservatives are actually using Bill C-43 in an effort to deny income support to refugee claimants, right after their attempt to limit refugee claimants' access to health care was struck down by the Federal Court. The court called that Conservative policy “cruel and unusual treatment” that “outrages (Canadians') standards of decency.”

A recent editorial in The Globe and Mail called this bill “an abuse of process and shown contempt for Parliament by subverting its role”. The Globe is right. It is anti-democratic for the Conservatives to once again use a massive omnibus budget bill to limit debate and ram through so many unrelated measures in Parliament.

In the last few years, the Conservatives have concocted and implemented a process that prevents MPs from all parties from doing their jobs in properly scrutinizing legislation. This is leading to a lot of sloppy mistakes. The Conservatives' general disdain for Canada's democratic institutions and their outright contempt for Parliament have led to countless errors being cemented into Canadian law.

This bill would try to fix a number of previous Conservative mistakes. I would like to give members a few examples of areas where the Conservatives are trying to use this omnibus bill to fix errors in previous bills.

First, the Conservatives forgot to include a tax credit in the last omnibus budget bill, Bill C-31, for interest paid on Canada apprentice loans. The Conservatives try to fix that in clause 35 of Bill C-43.

The second is that the government forgot to ensure that PRPPs are subject to similar GST treatment as RRSPs. The fix for that is found in part 2 of Bill C-43.

Third, they forgot to include a refund in Bill C-31 for duties paid on destroyed tobacco products. That correction is in Bill C-43, part 3.

Fourth, they forgot to change a legal heading when the Conservatives used Bill C-19 to transfer spending powers from the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. The Conservatives gave all of the powers in that section of the law to the immigration minister, but still named the section “Minister of Foreign Affairs”.

Fifth, they forgot in Bill C-38 to allow the Minister of Industry to publicly disclose certain information regarding the review process.

Sixth, they forgot in Bill C-31 to include foreign money services businesses as foreign entities under the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act.

Seventh, they ignored expert advice and capped the size of the Social Security Tribunal in Bill C-38, leading to massive backlogs in the system.

Eighth, they failed to realize in Bill C-4 that the amalgamation of the Blue Water Bridge Authority might not go as planned.

Ninth, they created confusion in Bill C-4 with various amendments related to public service labour, including a reference to the wrong clause number.

Tenth, they forgot in Bill C-45 to coordinate between RCMP pension rule changes in Bill C-42 and rule changes that raised the age for public service pensions in Bill C-45.

There are 10 examples of the the mistakes the Conservatives made in the previous bill that they are trying to fix in this omnibus bill.

The fact is that the Conservatives' game plan of limiting debate and ramming these bills through Parliaments is responsible for creating these mistakes. Parliament is denied its legitimate role to identify these flaws in the process of real parliamentary debate at committee and in the House and fixing them.

The reason these mistakes are made in the first place is because of the deeply flawed process surrounding omnibus legislation.

I would like to talk a bit today about tax policy, GST, EI, and the income-splitting proposal that the Conservatives had in their last platform.

Bill C-43 actually adds GST to some goods and services that are used by or provided by non-profit organizations operating health care facilities. When we asked officials for an example of what kinds of service might get caught up in this GST hike, the example they provided was of a health care facility that also runs a residential apartment building, such as an old age home. Adding GST to services purchased by or provided by old age homes means one of two things: either it will cut into the bottom line of the health care facility, or the old age home will have no choice but to pass the tax hike on to the people they serve. In the case of an old age home, it means that the government is getting ready to hike the GST and punish Canadian seniors, who are already struggling to get by on a fixed income.

In terms of employment insurance, Bill C-43 also gets it wrong. Bill C-43 offers a small EI tax cut to employers, but only if they agree to stay small. Instead of creating real jobs and growth, Bill C-43 would actually encourage businesses to stay small and would punish them if they grow and become more successful. Due to a design flaw in Bill C-43, the so-called small business job credit creates an incentive for some businesses to fire workers. That is why economist Jack Mintz has called it “a disincentive to growth” and why economist Mike Moffatt said “...the proposed ‘Small Business Job Credit’ has major structural flaws that, in many cases, give firms an incentive to fire workers and cut salaries.”

Even Finance Canada officials last night acknowledged that this tax credit creates a disincentive for some employers to hire.

Last month the PBO looked at this tax credit and found that it will only create 800 jobs over the next two years, at a cost of $550 million. That means it will cost taxpayers almost $700,000 per job.

In response to the need to encourage businesses to hire and to reduce EI premiums for businesses that do that or reward businesses that hire, the Liberals have proposed an EI holiday for new hires. This plan would only reward businesses that actually create jobs. The Liberal plan has been endorsed by Canadian job creators, including the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, which has said that the Liberal plan for an EI exemption for new hires “would create jobs”. The Restaurants Canada organization, representing restaurants across the country, said “This...proposal for an EI exemption for new hires would help restaurants create jobs.” The CFIB said it loves the Liberal plan to exempt small business from EI premiums for new hires, which has lots of job potential.

The same PBO report that looked at the Conservatives' tax credit and identified the flawed program that would cost $700,000 per job also identified that the Conservatives are collecting billions of dollars in excess of taxes in EI over the next two years and that the Conservatives actually have the capacity to cut EI premiums significantly.

The PBO estimates that artificially high EI rates under the Conservatives will cost the Canadian economy 10,000 jobs over the next two years. That is 10,000 more Canadians who will be out of work over the next two years because the Conservatives are using artificially high EI premiums to pad the books to fund pre-election spending. The Conservatives are ignoring the evidence and putting Conservative politics ahead of the Canadian economy and ahead of the interests of Canadian workers and employers.

Speaking of ignoring the evidence, the Conservatives appear ready to go ahead with their flawed income-splitting scheme that was introduced in their last platform. The idea that the Conservatives were putting forth in their last platform has been panned by everyone from the C.D. Howe Institute and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation to the Mowat Centre and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. It was even panned by the late Jim Flaherty himself.

It is being panned because, as articulated in their platform, fewer than 15% of Canadian households would benefit, most of them high-income households, at a cost of $3 billion per year to the federal treasury and another $2 billion per year to provincial governments. Provincial governments, as we know, are facing deficits and huge fiscal challenges.

Under the Conservatives' scheme, the Prime Minister, earning $320,000 a year and with a stay-at-home spouse, would save about $6,500 per year. Meanwhile, a Canadian earning the average industrial wage and with a stay-at-home spouse would save less than $10 per week, and most households would get no benefit whatsoever.

We have a different approach. The Liberal approach is that we need to build a plan for 2015 that would be focused on creating jobs and growth to strengthen the Canadian middle class. The status quo is not working. The current federal government is so preoccupied with day-to-day politics that it has lost track of and is out of touch with the challenges and opportunities facing Canadian families. Those are challenges such as aging demographics and a slow-growth economy, which some refer to as secular stagnation. Baby boomers are rapidly approaching retirement age, and as they exit the workforce, they will leave a shrinking tax base and labour shortages in their wake. They will also place a greater strain on health care systems as they age. We will end up with more Canadians using the social safety net and fewer Canadians paying into it. These demographic pressures are leading economists to predict that slow economic growth could become the new normal.

The Canadian economy, frankly, is already sputtering under the Conservatives. Job growth over the last two years has been extremely weak, consumer debt is high, infrastructure is in disrepair, and housing prices in our cities are inflated. Last year the Canadian economy created a paltry 5,300 net new full-time jobs across the country. The percentage of Canadians working today is still two full points lower than before the downturn. There are 200,000 more jobless Canadians today than before the downturn, and the number of Canadians who are considered long-term unemployed is twice that of 2008. More than 150,000 Canadians are unemployed and have been searching for work for a year or longer. As we all know, the longer they are out of the workforce, the harder it is for them to get back in.

On the other end of the spectrum, we have young Canadians who simply cannot get their foot in the door of the Canadian labour market. Recent grads are facing huge challenges. There are 200,000 fewer jobs for young Canadians today than before the downturn, before 2008. Persistently high youth unemployment and under-employment is robbing a generation of people of opportunities they need to succeed. TD economist Craig Alexander and CIBC economist Benjamin Tal describe a scenario of a lost generation of Canadian youth and a lost generation of potential for all Canadians.

This is despite the fact that this generation is the most technologically adept, most educated generation in our nation's history, and therein lies the challenge we face. There is a gap between the education they have and the job market. We have people without jobs and jobs without people.

Too many Canadians in their twenties are left saddled with big student loans and are unable to make ends meet. All too often, it is their middle-class parents and grandparents who are footing the bill. Among the hardest hit are Canadians who are actually squeezed between helping their adult children pay the bills and taking care of their aging parents at the same time, the sandwich generation. In many cases these parents in their forties, fifties, and sixties are taking on additional debt or dipping into their retirement savings. In fact, this is one of the things that is driving record levels of personal debt, which is about $1.65 for every dollar of annual income. According to the Canadian Financial Monitor, Canadians who are 55 years of age or older are two and a half times more likely to refinance their mortgage if they have children than if they do not have children. Their average household debt is twice that of their childless peers.

Meanwhile, many younger families do not actually have a mortgage to refinance. Instead, they are being priced out of the housing market altogether.

On this front, the Conservative government must share at least part of the blame for the high housing prices in Canada and commensurate personal debt. It was the Conservative government, in budget 2006, that brought in 40-year mortgages with no down payment. It introduced them for the first time in Canada. It had an effect, because in the first half of 2008, more than half of all new mortgages in Canada were 40-year mortgages, and 10% of those had zero down payment.

The Conservatives shifted Canada's borrowing culture and lending culture, and that shift has helped fuel record levels of housing prices commensurate with that household debt. They have since reversed course and returned to the norm that was the case under Liberal governments in the past, meaning 25-year mortgages with at least 5% down. However, it is important to recognize the Conservatives' culpability in bringing 40-year mortgages with no down payments into Canada and helping fuel record levels of personal debt related to skyrocketing housing prices.

From the OECD and the IMF to the Bank of Canada, one thing on which Canadian and international economists agree is that elevated housing prices and household debt pose a big domestic threat to our economy. These elevated housing prices have helped widen the generational divide between those on the one hand who have watched the value of their house appreciate and in some cases have tapped into that equity to help fund consumption, and those on the other hand who cannot afford to even enter the housing market.

We are seeing greater income inequality in Canada, and fewer Canadians now think of themselves as being middle class. In fact, the number of Canadians who self-identify as middle class has dropped from 64% in 2009 to 47% in 2014. Even more troubling is that for the first time in recent history, more Canadians now believe that the next generation, their children and grandchildren, will be worse off, not better off, than they are today. That is the first time this has happened in Canada.

What we need is a federal government that will rise to meet these big challenges facing our country: aging demographics, slow growth, soft job market, and high levels of youth unemployment and underemployment. These are all challenges, but they also represent opportunities. I will give one specific challenge to our country that is a big social and economic challenge but that also represents an opportunity if we can get it right.

Over the next 10 years, there will be about 400,000 young aboriginal and first nation Canadians who will be of workforce age. If they have the skills they need for the jobs of today, that would be really good for our economy. If they do not, it represents a demographic, economic, and social time bomb for our country.

The reality is that we have failed collectively as governments at all levels to address this challenge. If we take it seriously, young aboriginal workers can be part of a Canadian growth and economic success story. We have to get it right. We have to take these issues seriously.

Liberals believe that sustainable growth and a focus on creating jobs, growth, and opportunities is the best way to benefit Canadian middle-class families and to restore hope to them. We believe we need to invest in infrastructure, training, innovation, and trade, and we believe that we need to keep our competitive tax rates.

Bill C-43 does nothing to grow the Canadian economy, and it ignores the very real challenges of the middle class and of young Canadians.

In a very short period of time, potentially within days, we will be seeing a fall economic statement. We hope the government chooses to invest in the future by investing in infrastructure, in training, and in young Canadians. We need the government to do so, and if this government does not, a future Liberal government will.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House did attend His Excellency the Governor General in the Senate chamber, His Excellency was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to certain bills:

C-321, An Act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act (library materials)—Chapter 10, 2013.

C-37, An Act to amend the Criminal Code—Chapter 11, 2013.

C-383, An Act to amend the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act and the International River Improvements Act—Chapter 12, 2013.

S-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code—Chapter 13, 2013.

C-47, An Act to enact the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act and the Northwest Territories Surface Rights Board Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts—Chapter 14, 2013.

C-309, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (concealment of identity)—Chapter 15, 2013.

C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act—Chapter 16, 2013.

S-213, An Act respecting a national day of remembrance to honour Canadian veterans of the Korean War—Chapter 17, 2013.

C-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts—Chapter 18, 2013.

S-209, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (prize fights)—Chapter 19, 2013.

S-2, An Act respecting family homes situated on First Nation reserves and matrimonial interests or rights in or to structures and lands situated on those reserves—Chapter 20, 2013.

S-8, An Act respecting the safety of drinking water on First Nation lands—Chapter 21, 2013.

C-63, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2014—Chapter 22, 2013.

C-64, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2014—Chapter 23, 2013.

C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts—Chapter 24, 2013.

C-62, An Act to give effect to the Yale First Nation Final Agreement and to make consequential amendments to other Acts—Chapter 25, 2013.

S-14, An Act to amend the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act—Chapter 26, 2013.

S-17, An Act to implement conventions, protocols, agreements and a supplementary convention, concluded between Canada and Namibia, Serbia, Poland, Hong Kong, Luxembourg and Switzerland, for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes—Chapter 27, 2013.

S-15, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to the Canada Shipping Act, 2001—Chapter 28, 2013.

It being 4:24 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, September 16, 2013, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 4:24 p.m.)

The first session of the 41st Parliament was prorogued by royal proclamation on September 13, 2013.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister is once again showing that he is living beyond his means, intellectually speaking.

He knows full well that Bill C-42 does not go far enough. The RCMP needs a change in culture, from the bottom straight up to the top. The band-aid solutions proposed by the minister are not enough to restore the public trust.

Why are the Conservatives opposing the idea that the commissioner no longer be accountable to the minister? Why categorically oppose the principle of civil governance at the RCMP?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we heard from witness after witness that Bill C-42 is not enough to put an end to sexual harassment in the RCMP and the government knows that. The RCMP members will not feel comfortable coming forward, especially when other complaints are being questioned publicly and in the media.

Public confidence in the RCMP must be restored, but Canadians need to see change. Will the minister show leadership and establish an out-of-court process to resolve these very serious harassment complaints?

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

Mr. Speaker, we take the issue of harassment within the RCMP, and specifically sexual harassment, very seriously. That is why our government introduced Bill C-42, the enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police accountability act, to, among other things, modernize and speed up the process whereby complaints like this can be handled.

Sadly, the NDP opposed this important piece of legislation, which was supported by police organizations, by civil liberties within B.C. and by justice ministers across the country. The New Democrats speak about accountability. They speak about stopping sexual harassment, but do nothing.

Safer Witnesses Act

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can say one thing. Bill C-42, an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, added approximately $10 million to the RCMP. There are additional funds flowing to the RCMP on a global scale. We will certainly have to take a look at how the program operates in the future to make sure there are proper resources. The important thing about the legislation is the efficacy of it and what it would do to protect witnesses. I am pleased to have the support of the NDP on this particular piece of legislation.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, ensuring that all Canadians have safe communities in which to live has been a priority for our government since taking office. Our government has undertaken numerous initiatives to ensure the safety of Canadians. For example, our government is following through on its commitment to give the RCMP the tools it needs to enhance public confidence and increase accountability to its members and Canadians. This is apparent through our support for Bill C-42, the enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police accountability act. This legislation would enable the RCMP to continue its ongoing transformation toward a strong and vibrant national police force that Canadians will continue to believe in and value.

The enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police accountability act would help the RCMP remain accountable and relevant now and in the future. First, this act would create a modern, independent civilian review and complaints commission for the RCMP which would strengthen civilian oversight. Second, investigations of serious incidents, such as death or serious injury involving RCMP members, would be more transparent and accountable to the public through the implementation of a new framework. Third, the act would modernize processes with respect to discipline, grievance and human resources management for RCMP members, because it would put in place mechanisms to prevent, address and correct performance and conduct issues fairly and in a timely manner. These changes would help address concerns that have been raised by both the Canadian public and RCMP members themselves.

Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act, is another important legislative change that would support the work of our police and ensure that we meet our commitments to Canadians. Witness protection programs offer protection, sometimes including new identities for certain individuals whose testimony or co-operation is vital to the success of law enforcement operations. In Canada, the RCMP administers the federal witness protection program, which was officially established in 1996 with the passage of the Witness Protection Program Act. Through the federal witness protection program, the RCMP can provide emergency protection in the form of permanent relocation and secure identity changes for witnesses under threat.

The legislation governing the federal witness protection program, however, has not been substantially changed since 1996, when it first came into force. This has posed challenges for the RCMP, who must contend with the constantly changing nature of organized crime. The safer witnesses act would help strengthen the current federal witness protection program and thus support the RCMP in effectively combating crime, particularly organized crime. Bill C-51 would also help protect individuals, including RCMP members and other law enforcement officers and civilians involved in administering and delivering witness protection.

Disclosing information about individuals in the federal witness protection program is prohibited by the Witness Protection Program Act. Bill C-51 would expands on this by also prohibiting the disclosure of information about individuals who provide or assist in providing protection for witnesses as well as how the program operates. Under Bill C-51, this prohibition would extend to both the federal and designated provincial programs. Bill C-51 would also positively impact the provision of protection by promoting greater integration between federal and provincial witness protection programs.

Under the current legislation, if an individual in a provincial witness protection program requires a secure identity change, he or she must be temporarily transferred into a federal witness protection program so that the RCMP can obtain the appropriate documents. This may introduce delays in the process. The changes proposed by Bill C-51 would allow provincial and territorial governments to request that their programs be designated under the federal witness protection program act. This one-time designation would mean that the witness in the witness protection program could receive a secure identity change without needing to be admitted into the federal one. These reforms would support the provision of protection at all levels by streamlining the process to obtain secure federal documents for these purposes.

Another change proposed by Bill C-51 responds in part to a recommendation made in the final report of the Air India inquiry. The legislation proposes to expand the categories of witnesses who may be admitted to the witness protection program to include persons who assist federal departments, agencies or services that have a national security, national defence or public safety mandate and who may require protection as a result.

More organizations would also be able to refer candidates. Examples of such organizations are the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the Department of National Defence. Currently, referrals are only accepted from law enforcement and international courts or tribunals.

The RCMP has administered the witness protection program for the last 15 years, during which time it has gained significant experience and insight into factors that make for a successful witness protection program. Bill C-51 would build on this experience and address a number of operational issues that the RCMP has experienced.

For example, Bill C-51 would clarify the process for voluntary termination from the federal program. It would also extend the amount of time emergency protection might be provided to candidates being considered for admission into the federal program. Emergency protection would be increased from the current 90 days to a maximum of 180 days.

In addition to these changes proposed by Bill C-51, the RCMP is currently taking measures to enhance the federal witness protection program, including incorporating psychological assessments of candidates and counselling for protectees and their families, incorporating risk-management principles into the admission process, enhancing training for witness handlers and administrators, creating a database that would better inform program design and, lastly, offering the services of legal counsel to all candidates being considered for admission into the federal program.

The RCMP would also continue to use the existing seven criteria outlined in the act to assess whether to admit an individual into the program, including the risk to the witness, the danger to the community if the person were to be admitted into the program, the nature of the inquiry and the importance of the witness in the matter, the value of information and evidence to be given by a witness, the likelihood that the witness can adjust to the program, the cost of maintaining a witness in the program, alternate methods of protection and other factors deemed by the commissioner to be relevant.

Our government has been quite clear that one of our top priorities is to keep our streets and communities safe and to support families, as outlined by the Prime Minister. Our plan involves tackling crime, supporting victims' rights and promoting a fair and efficient justice system.

Today, our government builds on the success of the last seven years and would provide the RCMP with the tools it needs to do its job more effectively.

This and other legislation would ensure that we have a fully accountable national police force that will continue to fulfill its role to protect Canadians here at home and abroad.

For that reason, I urge all members to support this legislation and work toward ensuring it is passed in an expeditious manner.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure this evening to speak to the safer witnesses act. As members may know by now, it is a product of extensive input from knowledgeable parties across the country. Indeed, I am pleased to note that the proposed legislation has earned plaudits from several provinces and law enforcement agencies. This positive reaction speaks volumes about the thoroughness and timeliness of Bill C-51.

Members may recall that in March 2008, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security produced a review of the witness protection program. The government responded in July of that year. The review was certainly a key reference document for the policymakers who developed Bill C-51.

For my part in today's debate, I would like to identify how the proposed legislation responds to the review's nine recommendations.

The committee heard from many witnesses who stated unequivocally that the federal witness protection program was an essential tool in the fight against serious crime, organized crime and terrorism. Nevertheless, witnesses had some concerns, including four recommendations to promote greater fairness and efficiency in the management of the program.

First, the committee recommended moving the witness protection program out of the RCMP's hands and into an independent office within the Department of Justice. Through its own consultations, this government confirmed that the RCMP should continue to manage the witness protection program. For one, the justice department simply does not have the expertise to protect witnesses or deliver the programs; it is not what it does. Moreover, simply the physical moving of the administration of the program to justice could create potential security risks.

This government is embracing the intent of this recommendation, which is to ensure objectivity of witness protection matters. The RCMP is developing a reporting structure that separates its investigative and protective functions.

Second, to ensure a good fit between participants and the program, the committee recommended automatic psychological assessments of candidates over the age of 18, including family members. The government concurs that not everyone is a good candidate for the witness protection program. The RCMP now has psychologists who assess candidates and offer counselling to both candidates and protectees. I would stress the word “offer” because the decision to accept counselling belongs to candidates and protectees and is not imposed upon them.

The third recommendation is of a similar nature. The committee proposed to automatically offer legal counsel for candidates during negotiations for entry into the witness protection program. The RCMP continues to offer legal counsel to both candidates and protectees. Again, however, legal counsel is offered rather than imposed.

In its fourth recommendation, to improve fairness and efficiency in the witness protection program, the committee called upon the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, or CPC, to handle complaints from candidates and protectees as required. The government agrees with the intent of this recommendation and, as all hon. members know, we are currently working to pass Bill C-42, the enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police accountability act.

Under that legislation, the CPC would be replaced by a new civilian review and complaints commission. Amendments to the RCMP Act under Bill C-42, would give this new civilian oversight body limited and secure access to information about protectees.

The committee's fifth and sixth recommendations fall under the theme of facilitating access to the witness protection program. The committee called for federal, provincial and territorial ministers for justice and public safety to develop a funding agreement for participation in the witness protection program. It is believed that this recommendation was predicated on a national witness protection program with minimum national standards. Following consultations again, the government did not accept this recommendation. There is no funding in the fiscal framework to support such an agreement.

The sixth recommendation also touches on relationships between and among jurisdictions. It is recommended that the body responsible for the witness protection program enter into agreements with provincial and territorial governments. The goal would be to accelerate the processing of witness protection files.

The government recognizes that in some instances, it can take too long to process secure identity changes for provincial witnesses. That is why it has introduced amendments through Bill C-51 to improve the process, and as such, those proposed agreements are no longer necessary.

The committee's seventh recommendation revolved around establishing minimum standards for the witness protection program. The government considered this idea, but as I indicated earlier, the provinces objected, because the administration of justice falls within their jurisdiction, and national standards were reviewed as an encroachment. Consequently, the government did not accept this recommendation.

The final two recommendations related to promoting transparency within the witness protection program. The committee suggested that independent research into witness protection be permitted and encouraged. I am pleased to say that Public Safety Canada has already undertaken some comparative research. RCMP psychologists may also pursue limited secure research.

While the government agrees on the value of research, it sounds a note of warning. Researchers and risk management experts must take the necessary precautions to maintain the privacy and security of protectees and the program. They must not let their quest for knowledge trump concerns about the release of information.

Finally, the committee recommended more and better information in the annual report of the witness protection program. Since the release of the committee's review, the annual report has, in fact, been enhanced to account more thoroughly for expenses. The Minister of Public Safety reserves the right to request more information at any time, of course.

In summary, the government appreciates the hard work of the standing committee in preparing its review of the witness protection program.

The government consulted stakeholders about nine recommendations and gave them serious consideration in the preparation of Bill C-51. Indeed, most recommendations have found direct or indirect expression in the bill in changes to the RCMP Act or administratively within the federal program.

Through its own extensive consultations, the government believes that it has developed a solid and coherent approach to improving the witness protection program. Given the positive response so far from key stakeholders, I am convinced that Bill C-51 and administrative changes would continue to achieve the intent of the committee's recommendations in the areas of fairness and efficiency, greater access and transparency.

I thus invite all hon. members to join me in supporting Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the opportunity to ask a question.

My colleague certainly has raised a lot of points that I was unaware of, particularly the 2008 review, the four recommendations and how much of what is in both this bill but also in Bill C-42, another fine piece of legislation, addresses many of those concerns.

We have heard about working along with the provinces to see further integration between their programs and the national program. As a government, we are respecting the provinces' jurisdiction, and that is a positive benefit.

There are a lot of positive aspects to the bill. What other areas does the member feel are important in the government's approach to this, as well as to other legislation, to help keep Canadians safe?

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to hear the strong support for Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act, from all sides of the House.

As we continue our discussion today of the safer witnesses act, it is important to take a step back and look at where these proposed changes stem from. As hon. members have heard, there have been two major reports in the last four years containing recommendations to enhance the federal witness protection program. The first of these reports was the result of a study conducted by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security in 2008. That committee put forward nine recommendations on how to enhance the federal program.

Since that time, and through our extensive consultations with our federal partners and provincial stakeholders, our government has committed to moving ahead with legislative amendments, administrative changes within the RCMP and the implementation of measures that would enhance the protection of witnesses in the federal program. The 2008 report included a number of good recommendations that have provided momentum for change and, in the case of one recommendation, is directly addressed in our current legislation, Bill C-51.

Today I would like to take a look at those recommendations as I think they add valuable perspective on how we have arrived at today's legislation. The committee's recommendations fell under four thematic areas, the first of which was to promote fair and efficient management of the federal program. Within this theme, our government has supported three of the four recommendations.

First let us look at the one we did not support, the first recommendation. This recommendation called for the creation of an independent office within the Department of Justice that would be entrusted to administer the federal witness protection program. This issue has been raised again recently in committee and it is important to address it again.

In our consultations with the provinces and federal partners, we found that in fact the best option was for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to continue to manage the federal program. As the Minister of Public Safety has commented, the fact is that the Department of Justice does not have the expertise to run a program to protect witnesses and the actual transfer of the program for the department would create potential security risks.

We agreed, however, with the intent of this recommendation, namely that there should be a clear distinction between the investigative and protective functions to ensure the objectivity of witness protection measures. These concerns are being addressed through changes in their reporting structures within the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

I mentioned that our government supported three of the four recommendations under this theme of fair and efficient management. We agreed that psychological assessments and counselling of candidates over the age of 18, as well as their family members, was a critical step in the witness protection process. As such, the RCMP has begun to engage psychologists to conduct assessments and to offer counselling to candidates for the federal program. Once they are admitted into the program, it is the intent that these services will be offered to both protectees and their families.

We support in principle the recommendation that the federal program should offer potential candidates the aid of legal counsel with an appropriate security clearance during the negotiation of the candidate's admission to the program. Indeed, all the candidates considered for the federal program, as well as the protectees under the federal program, are offered the services of legal counsel.

I say our government agreed in principle because we did not support the suggestion that the federal government should cover all legal fees as a regular course of business. Rather, these are made on a case-by-case basis. This is because there are some cases where providing legal counsel could be seen as a conflict of interest as the government itself may become the subject of legal action on the part of candidates or protectees. We believe our approach is an appropriate use of public funds.

Finally, our government also agreed with the recommendation that candidates and protectees of the federal program must have a proper independent body to which they could submit formal complaints about RCMP conduct, as needed. This calls for an enhanced complaints review body is addressed in Bill C-42, legislation our government recently introduced to modernize the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Bill C-42 would create a new civilian review and complaints commission that would have access to all the necessary documents required to effectively review complaints by federal protectees regarding RCMP conduct.

Under a second theme, that of facilitating access to the federal witness protection program, the committee made two recommendations in 2008. The first was to develop a shared funding agreement among the federal, provincial and municipal governments for witness protection. The second was to allow provinces and territories to work directly with federal departments for processing secure identity changes.

For reasons of fiscal restraint and the need to keep the process secure, our government could not support a permanent funding arrangement for provincial programs.

Bill C-51 would improve integration between the provincial and federal witness protection programs, as well as allow designated provincial programs to obtain secure identity changes for their protectees without having to admit them into the federal program.

The third thematic area of recommendation was to establish minimum standards across the board for all Canadian witness protection programs. The federal government has no plans to overstep its jurisdictional boundaries by imposing national standards upon provincial witness protection programs. Furthermore, the provinces themselves have made it clear that they would object to such federal encroachment on their authority. Therefore, we could not support that recommendation.

Finally, the committee's report included two recommendations under the theme of promoting transparency, as much as could be done, considering the confidential nature of the witness protection program. Namely, it recommended that more independent research should be conducted on the effectiveness of the federal witness protection program and that the federal program's annual report should be enhanced to give a clearer picture of how the program works.

Research has already been conducted on the federal program and the RCMP is looking into creating a database that would enhance the federal program.

As to the final recommendation, the annual report was modified and enhanced in 2008 to provide Canadians with a more precise picture of the program.

The safer witnesses act is a strong and effective legislation that addresses many of the recommendations made by the standing committee, as well as issues raised by stakeholders. Strong witness protection programs are invaluable to investigations and court proceedings.

Particularly when we are dealing with gang activity, it is critical that witnesses feel safe coming forward with information. It is also important to consider the safety of our front-line law enforcement personnel. Mr. Stamatakis, president of the Canadian Police Association, said:

The Canadian Police Association strongly believes that this proposed legislation will enhance the safety and security of front-line law enforcement personnel who are engaged in protective duties. Unfortunately, the disclosure of identifying details can present a real danger to police personnel themselves as well as their families, and we appreciate the steps being taken today by the government of Canada to address those concerns. On behalf of the over 50,000 law enforcement personnel that we represent across Canada, we ask that Parliament quickly move to adopt this Bill.

Too often, we forget the fact that our men and women who put themselves in harm's way are the ones who are really bearing the brunt of a lot of the things that we ask them to do. It is important that we have these measures in place to protect them.

In speaking about his city's experience, Toronto police chief William Blair said:

—the fear caused by intimidation and the threat of retaliation in gang investigations. Witnesses with valuable information are deterred from coming forward.

As such, Mr. Blair has joined other key stakeholders in supporting this bill as a valuable step in protecting public safety. I ask all hon. members to do the same.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for acknowledging that he was indeed laughing. When we were talking about something this serious, laughter is not what is needed. Real work and real focus is what is required.

I am very proud of the fact that our government has increased funding to police officers. We have the police officer recruitment fund. We invested $400 million across the country. As well, we are just seeing Bill C-42 passed, getting through the Senate, no thanks to the opposition that voted against it, which will help provide, among other important things, more funding to the RCMP.

In terms of the witness protection program, it is funny how the NDP do not like the answer. When the NDP members asked witnesses directly if they needed more money, the witnesses said no, but they do not want to believe it. They would rather take taxpayer dollars and spend them frivolously instead of spending them where they are required.

If we are told by the RCMP and by the witness protection program organization that they do not need funding, I for one believe them. It is really disappointing that the member, who was at those committee meetings, is saying that those witnesses were not telling the truth.

I believed those witnesses when they told us that this is good legislation. In fact, I will read what Tom Stamatakis, president of Canadian Police Association had to say. He said:

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, [this]...legislation...will help better coordinate...[it will] promote at least some efficiencies in a system that is badly in need of reform....the Canadian Police Association supports the adoption of the bill.

We heard from the RCMP that it will not be an additional cost.

Let us get this passed. Those members said they supported it. They introduced no amendments. They support the spirit. They support the legislation. Let us quit playing games and get this passed.

Points of Order

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

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for interrupting my colleague just at the beginning of his speech on the justification for the motion that he has just presented to the House, but we have a point of order that we need to raise because I think it establishes a couple of important things for you, as Speaker, to determine before we get into the context and the particulars of this motion.

Specifically, I will be citing Standing Order 13, which says:

Whenever the Speaker is of the opinion that a motion offered to the House is contrary to the rules and privileges of Parliament, the Speaker shall apprise the House thereof immediately, before putting the question thereon, and quote the Standing Order or authority applicable to the case.

This is the standing order that we cite, because we have looked at the motion the government has presented here today with some notice given last week.

This motion goes against the Standing Orders and certainly the spirit of Parliament. The government is not allowed to break the rules of Parliament that protect the rights of the minority, the opposition and all members of the House of Commons who have to do their jobs for the people they represent. This motion is very clearly contrary to the existing Standing Orders.

I have some good examples to illustrate this. In my opinion, there is no urgency that would justify the government's heavy-handed tactics to prevent members from holding a reasonable debate on its agenda. I say “agenda”, but for a long time now it has been difficult to pin down what this government's agenda is exactly. This is nothing new.

The motion comes to us today at a difficult time, but just because the government held a brief caucus meeting and is facing numerous problems and a few scandals, it is not justified in violating the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. No one would accept those excuses. There is no historical basis for the government to use the Standing Orders in this way. That does not work.

There are a few important things we need to point out. One is that it behooves us to have some explanation of what this motion actually does. For those of us who do not intimately follow the rules and history of Parliament, it can be quite confusing not in terms of the intention of what the government has read but certainly in the implications. It needs some translation, not French to English or English to French, but translation as to what it actually means for the House of Commons. That is why we believe a point of order exists for this motion.

The motion essentially would immediately begin something that would ordinarily begin in a couple of weeks, which is for the House to sit until midnight to review legislation. This is somewhat ironic from a government that has a bad history with respect to moving legislation correctly through the process and allowing us to do our work, which is what we are here to do on behalf of Canadians.

I am not alone in seeing that the government has shown the intention of having some urgency with respect to 23 bills, 14 of which have not even been introduced since the last election. Suddenly there is great urgency, when in fact it is the government that has set the agenda. The urgency is so great that it has to fundamentally change the rules of how we conduct ourselves in this place in response to an urgency that did not exist until this moment.

One has to question the need. Why the panic? Why now, and why over these pieces of legislation? Are they crucial to Canada's economic well-being? Is it to restore the social safety net that the government has brutalized over the last number of years? What is the panic and what is the urgency?

Context sets everything in politics, and the context that the government exists under right now is quite telling. Every time I have had to stand in this place raising points of order and countering the closure and time allocation motions that the government uses, I am often stating and citing that this is a new low standard for Parliament. I have thought at times that there was not much more it could do to this place to further erode the confidence of Canadians or further erode the opportunity for members of Parliament to speak, yet it has again invented something new, and here we are today debating that motion.

That is why we believe that Standing Order 13 needs to be called. It is because it is very clear that when a motion is moved that is contrary to the rules and privileges of Parliament—which is what I would underline, as it is the important part—the Speaker must involve himself or herself in the debate and ask that the debate no longer proceed.

The privileges of members of Parliament are not the privileges that are being talked about by our friends down the hall to falsely claim money that did not exist or privileges of limo rides and trips around the world. The privileges of Parliament that speak constitutionally to the need for Parliament are that members of Parliament have the opportunity to scrutinized and debate government bills.

Just before the riding week, we saw the government introduce another time allocation on a bill that had received exactly 60 minutes of debate. Somehow the Conservatives felt that had exhausted the conversation on a bill they had sat on for years, and suddenly the panic was on. We are seeing this pattern again and again with a government that is facing more scandal.

I was looking through the news today. Every morning I start my day with the news and we consider what we should ask the government in question period. There are some days when the focus can be difficult and one may not be sure what the most important issue of the day is. However, the challenge for us today as the official opposition is that, as there are so many scandals on so many fronts, how do we address them all within the short time we have during question period or in debate on bills.

I listened to my friend for Langley, who has been somewhat in the news of late on his attempt to speak on issues he felt were important to his constituents. We saw him move a new private member's bill today. He withdrew the former bill, and now he is moving one again. The New Democrats will support the bill going to committee for study because we think there are some options and availability for us to look at the legislation and do our job.

Whether it is muzzling of their own MPs and the Conservatives' attempt to muzzle all MPs in the House of Commons, or using private members' bills to avoid the scrutiny that is applied to government legislation, and one important piece of that scrutiny is the charter defence of the legislation and so, in a sense, the Conservatives are using the back door to get government legislation through and move their agenda in another way, or the omnibus legislation, which has received so much controversy in Canada as the government has increasingly abused the use of omnibus legislation, or the F-35 fiasco, or the recent Auditor General's report, or the former parliamentary budget officer who was under much abuse and the new Parliamentary Budget Officer who has asked for the same things he did, or infamously, prorogation, time and time again the pattern is the same. The government has complete disdain for the House.

Whether it be the scandals in the Senate, or the China FIPA accord, or the recent problems with the Prime Minister's former chief of staff, or the employment insurance scandals, or the $3 billion missing, or the 300,000 jobs that have not been replaced, the government keeps trying to avoid proper scrutiny out of embarrassment. However, the House of Commons exists for one thing and one thing alone, which is to hold the government to account.

The government will make some claims that the urgency right now is because there has not been enough progress on legislation. Therefore, the Conservatives have to hit the panic button and would have the House sit until midnight, which has consequences beyond just being a late night, and I will get into those consequences in a moment because they support our notion that it infringes upon the entitlements of members of Parliament to debate legislation properly.

The Conservatives' record shows, and this is not speculation or conspiracy, that when they ram legislation through, they more often than not get it wrong. That is not just expensive for the process of law making, but it is expensive for Canadians. These things often end up in court costing millions and millions of dollars and with victims of their own making. The scandal that exists in the Senate is absolutely one of their own making. The Prime Minister can point the finger where he likes, but he appointed those senators.

Specific to the point of order I am raising, this motion would lower the amount of scrutiny paid to legislation. It would allow the government extended sittings, which are coming in the second week of June anyway, as the Standing Orders currently exist, to allow the government to do that, but the Conservatives want to move the clock up and have more legislation rammed through the House.

Also, as you would know, Mr. Speaker, the order of our day includes concurrence reports from committee, which allow the House to debate something that happened in committee which can sometimes be very critical, and many are moved from all sides. However, they would not get started until midnight under the Conservatives' new rules. Therefore, we would study and give scrutiny on what happened at committee from midnight until two or three o'clock in the morning.

As well, emergency debates would not start until midnight. Just recently we had a debate, Mr. Speaker, that your office agreed to allow happen, which was quite important to those implicated. We were talking about peace and war and Canada's role in the world. It was a critical emergency debate that certainly went into the night. However, the idea is that we would take emergency debates that the Speaker's office and members of Parliament felt were important and start them at midnight and somehow they would be of the same quality as those started at seven o'clock in the evening.

The scrutiny of legislation has become much less important than the government moving its agenda through, which is an infringement on our privilege as members of Parliament. The Conservatives' so-called urgency, their panic, is not a justification for overriding the privileges that members of Parliament hold dear.

As for progress, just recently we moved the nuclear terrorism bill through, Bill S-9.

We also had much debate but an improvement on Bill C-15, the military justice bill, to better serve our men and women in the forces. The original drafting was bad. The Conservatives wanted to force it forward and we resisted. My friend from St. John's worked hard and got an amendment through that would help those in the military who found themselves in front of a tribunal.

We have the divorce in civil marriages act, which has been sitting and sitting. It would allow people in same-sex marriages to file for and seek divorce. All we have offered to the government is one vote and one speaker each. The government refuses to bring the bill forward and I suspect it is because it would require a vote. It is a shame when a government resists the idea that a vote would be a good thing for members of Parliament to declare their intentions on, certainly something as important as civil liberties and rights for gay men and women.

I mentioned earlier why, in the infringement of this privilege, it causes great harm and distress not just to Parliament but to the country.

I asked my team to pull up the list of bills that were so badly written that they had to be either withdrawn or completely rewritten at committee and even in the Senate which, God knows, is a terrible strategy for any legislation.

There was the infamous or famous Bill C-30, the Internet snooping bill, which the Minister of Public Safety said something to the effect that either people were with the government or they were with child pornographers, which may be an example of the worst framing in Canadian political history. There has probably been worse, but that was pretty bad. The Conservatives had to kill the bill.

We have also seen Bill C-10, Bill C-31, Bill C-38 and Bill C-42, all of these bills were so badly written that oftentimes the government had to amend them after having voted for them. After saying they were perfect and ramming them through, invoking closure and shutting down debate, the Conservatives got to committee and heard from people who actually understood the issue and realized the law they had written would be illegal and would not work or fix the problem that was identified, and so they had to rewrite it. That is the point of Parliament. That is the point of the work we do.

We have also seen bills that have been challenged at great expense before the courts. Former Bill C-2, the tackling violent crime act, with huge sections of the government's main anti-crime agenda, was challenged and defeated in court.

Bill C-38, arbitrarily eliminating backlog for skilled workers, was challenged and defeated.

Bill C-7, Senate term limits, was after years just now deferred to the Supreme Court. It is called “kicking it down the road”.

Also, there are Bill C-6, Bill C-33 and others, and there are those that are being crafted and debated right now that are going to have serious problems.

The essential thrust of our intention is in identifying the rules that govern us, and specifically Standing Order 13. The government has time and again talked about accountability before the Canadian people and talked about doing things better than its predecessors in the Liberal Party, the government that became so arrogant and so unaccountable to Canadians that the Conservatives threw it out of office. History repeats itself if one does not learn true lessons from history.

As I mentioned, Standing Order 27(1) already exists, and it allows the government to do exactly what we are talking about, but not starting until the last 10 sitting days. The Conservatives have said that there is so much on their so-called agenda that they have to do this early, allowing for less scrutiny, allowing for emergency debates to start at midnight, allowing for concurrence debates that come from committees to start at midnight and go until two, three or four o'clock in the morning.

This is contrary to the work of parliamentarians. If the Conservatives are in such a rush, why do they not negotiate? Why do they not actually come to the table and do what parliamentarians have done throughout time, which is offer the to and fro of any proper negotiation between reasonable people?

We have moved legislation forward. My friend across the way was moving an important motion commemorating war heroes. We worked with that member and other members to ensure the bill, which came from the Senate, made it through speedy passage.

Parliament can work if the Conservatives let it work, but it cannot work if they keep abusing it. Canadians continue to lose faith and trust in the vigour of our work and the ability to hold government to account. We see it time and again, and I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you have as well, in talking to constituents who say that they are not sure what goes on here anymore, that it just seems like government will not answer questions, that everyday they ask sincere and thoughtful questions and the Conservatives do not answer. Bills get shut down with motions of closure.

Let us look at the current government's record.

Thirty-three times, the Conservatives have moved time allocation on legislation, an all-time high for any government in Canadian history. Through war and peace, through good and bad, no government has shut down debate in Parliaments more than the current one.

Ninety-nine point three per cent of all amendments moved by the opposition have been rejected by the government. Let us take a look at that stat for a moment. That suggests that virtually 100% of the time, the government has been perfectly right on the legislation it moves. All the testimony from witnesses and experts, comments from average Canadians, when moving amendments to the legislation before us, 99.3% of the time the government rejects it out of hand. It ends up in court. It ends up not doing what it was meant to do.

Ten Conservative MPs have never spoken to legislation at all. I will note one in particular. The Minister of Finance, who has not bothered to speak to his own bills, including the omnibus legislation, Bill C-38 and Bill C-45, which caused so much controversy. He did not bother to stand and justify his actions. I find it deplorable and it is not just me, Canadians as well, increasingly so.

This is my final argument. We cannot allow this abuse to continue. This pattern has consequences, not just for what happens here today or tomorrow, but in the days, weeks, months and years to come and the Parliaments to come. If we keep allowing for and not standing up in opposition to bad ideas and draconian measures, we in a sense condone them.

We say that Parliament should become less irrelevant. We think that is wrong. We think what the government is doing is fundamentally wrong. It is not right and left; it is right and wrong. When the government is wrong in its treatment and abuse of Canada's Parliament, that affects all Canadians, whatever their political persuasion. We built this place out of bricks and mortar to do one thing: to allow the voice of Canadians to be represented, to speak on behalf of those who did not have a voice and to hold the government of the day to account. Lord knows the government needs that more than anything. It needs a little adult supervision from time to time to take some of those suggestions and put a little, as we say, water in its wine.

It has the majority. This is the irony of what the government is doing. In moving more time allocation than any government in history and shutting down debate more than any government in history and using what it is today, it speaks to weakness not strength. The Conservatives have the numbers to move legislation through if they saw fit, but they do not. They move legislation, they say it is an agenda and they hold up a raft of bills.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister must be afraid someone will contradict him. Why else would he prevent the RCMP from speaking freely to parliamentarians?

The officer in question was to testify before the Senate about Bill C-42, which, in the opinion of a number of officers and the NDP, should have been rewritten. In addition to rejecting our amendments, the Conservatives are rejecting the evidence of witnesses who might support them. So much for freedom of expression.

Need I remind the minister that it is his responsibility to listen to criticism in order to implement the best public policies and not to muzzle those who might contradict him?

Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to get up and to follow my colleague today in raising some of the concerns we have with Bill C-15.

It seems the longer we are here in the House, the more we see a variety of things happening. My colleague from Malpeque mentioned that now, in order to speak to members of the RCMP, MPs must have permission from the minister. I have had many conversations with the RCMP on the issue of sexual assault and harassment in the RCMP in the last year or so. That announcement just helps to bring forward more of these issues about a balance of justice and fairness in the system for everybody, whether they are in the military or a private citizen. We all need to be very much concerned when the politics get too far into the issues of policing or justice. Hence, the reason that I am on my feet and commenting on Bill C-15, which is an act to amend the National Defence Act.

I will read a bit of the information, so that we and anybody who is watching will know why we are raising some issues on something that we are not 100% against and at one point we may have even supported. It will put this in the context of so many other things that seem to be heading in a direction where we are going to politicize the police force the same way that everything that the Government of Canada puts its hands on is politicized. We need to flag these issues, so that we all are thinking them through very carefully. Therefore, I offer a bit of a summary on Bill C-15 and what it is about.

Bill C-15 would “(a) provide for security of tenure for military judges until [they reach the age of 60];...”, which is the retirement age for military judges, contrary to all other Canadian citizens who would have to wait until they are 67 to get their pensions. They could be removed for cause on the recommendations of an inquiry committee, or through resignation. It would also “(b) [allow for] the appointment of part-time military judges;” and outlining sentencing “...objectives and principles;”.... The bill would “(d) provide for [new] sentencing options, including absolute discharges, intermittent sentences and restitution [orders];...”.

As my colleague across the hall mentioned, there are some things in here that are supportable. Unfortunately, the question is whether there would be a true balance of justice in all aspects of it. Like many things that are introduced into this House, it does not necessarily qualify on many avenues. There are some parts of it that would be good, but there are always so many other parts in legislation brought forward by the government that are not good. We do not just adapt something because, while it has three good parts in it, the rest of it is no good. Because of that we have to support it? No. If it is not good in the overall 10 points that need to be examined, then we should not be supporting it.

Bill C-15 would look “...at amending composition of a court martial panel [selections] according to the rank of the accused...”, and it would change “...the name of the Canadian Forces Grievance Board to the Military Grievances External Review Committee”.

That raises another issue. In the RCMP or the military, when the members have a serious grievance, where do they go? In the RCMP, from what we have heard in the sexual harassment hearings, they have to go to their own supervisors. Many times that is the person causing the problem. Or they go to another person above that person, but it is always within the same confines of that same family. For the RCMP in particular, there needs to be an external review board that is 100 yards away from anything to do with the RCMP, that is truly independent and can hear a grievance from anyone who is working for the RCMP. Similarly for the military, there needs to be an arm's-length grievance committee, or a place where members can go and truly get a hearing on their issue. Complaining to their supervisor's friend who is going to keep everything within the same confines, and is not going to want to see anybody pay too big a price for a grievance, really jeopardizes justice in this country. Certainly, from what I have heard from the hearings, there is a need for a union to represent many of the officers.

If they want to do things right, then there has to be an arm's-length committee, as many of the police services across Canada have. It is an external body, where people can go with a serious complaint and get a true hearing. It is not just “passing the buck” from one to another; then people end up not getting true justice. One of the things that we hear a lot about in the Liberal Party, as I think all elected members of Parliament do, is justice. Justice does not only need to be done, it needs to be seen to be done. The perception out there is that is not way it is necessarily happening.

As Liberals, we understand the need to reform the Canadian court martial system to ensure that it remains effective, fair and transparent. Canada has been the leader in so many areas when it comes to human rights, when it comes to the charter, and when it comes to issues of fairness, of ensuring that what we do in Canada is balanced and fair and respectful of everybody's rights. More and more we are having to question whether that is exactly what is happening or not. We believe, as Canadian citizens and as Liberals, that people who decide to join the Canadian Forces should not thereby lose part of their rights before the courts.

Again, we are back into that system. We want to attract more and more young people to a career in the military. We see the men and women who are out there fighting for us and representing us, and we are grateful that they have the courage and the commitment to do this. We want to make sure that they are treated fairly.

Bill C-15 does not answer all those questions. It leaves a lot of questions unanswered. Before we pass Bill C-15, we should make sure we have perfected the bill so that those in the military are not losing their opportunities for a fair and just trial.

The Liberal Party also understands that rights and equality are universal. We talk a lot about that. That really means that it is for everybody. It does not matter who a person is, where they come from or what job they are doing, we would like to think that everybody in Canada is treated fairly and equitably. Without an effective means for an appeal and no recorded proceedings, the current summary trial system is unbalanced and does not represent the basic rights of a Canadian Forces member.

We also do not believe that introducing a criminal record for Canadian Forces members for certain offences is fair and just as a means for pardoning offences, which has recently been removed by the Conservatives. Again, we go back to trying to be fair and balanced, and treating people with respect, making sure that everybody has their role and that they do not violate that.

We also find it problematic that the VCDS can intervene and give direction in military police investigations. The VCDS is also subject to the code of service discipline.

Bill C-15 is in keeping with a lot of Bill C-42 and a lot of other things that continually try to give other people more power rather than making sure that we really have an equitable system that is going to be there to represent everyone, that we are not going to discourage people from joining the service, that we are not going to have people join the military and then leave, speaking very negatively about their experience.

Shifting the power around to different people rather than having an independent body do the review makes us question where we are going with this issue. I met yesterday with a group of people from Venezuela who were upset about the recent election. They were talking about how the government of the day controls everything. These things keep being raised.

I am really concerned that little by little we are losing the things that we value the most here in our own country, that there is an eroding of the power of parliamentarians, and that a real miscarriage of justice is happening.

Combating Terrorism Act

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

Mr. Speaker, that is pretty remarkable coming from a member on that side of the House, when every time we try to bring forward legislation that supports law enforcement, as is evident today, members vote against it and do not support it.

The fact is that we have increased front-line officers at the border by 26%. However, it is no surprise that when the NDP members do not have a valid argument for their shallow dismissiveness of a very serious threat, they spew inaccurate talking points. It is this government that has time and time again given more resources to law enforcement, whether it is at the border or it is the RCMP, with Bill C-42. There have been legislative changes, whether we are talking about legislative changes to support victims, or in this case, where we are bringing forward legislation that has been asked for by law enforcement across the country who know terrorism is a real threat. They have asked for this legislation, and the members opposite have voted against it.

If NDP members want to argue against the legislation, go ahead. I would be happy to debate any one of them head-to-head on this legislation. Instead, what are we hearing from them? We are hearing that we do not need to do it right now.

Last October, the NDP member for Brome—Missisquoi expressed his reservations for this legislation by saying, “since 2007, nothing has happened in Canada. The country has not been subject to terrorist attacks”. Frankly, that kind of irresponsible head-in-the-sand attitude is not only disappointing, but it is very troubling. I think Canadians will look at the NDP members and look at their reaction.

When they have a chance to support important legislation, they could do one of two things. They could support the legislation or they could stand up and give an informed and intelligent response. However, what we are hearing so far today is pretty shallow, and I would say intellectually bankrupt.

Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Timmins—James Bay for his struggle on behalf of Canadians and their interest in their privacy rights, in particular with respect to the bills he mentioned, Bill C-12 and Bill C-30.

I cannot speculate on why the government has such callous and obvious disregard for the privacy rights of Canadians. I cannot account for the zealotry of the minister himself and, perhaps as my colleague suggested, the PMO, nor the disregard for the charter, the Canadian Bill of Rights and the other legislation that, frankly, obligates the government to bring forward legislation to the House only after it has been vetted for conformity with the charter.

There is obviously a trend here. I reflect on past speeches I have given and all of these issues ultimately go to accountability. Bill C-42 had the opportunity to provide the House with oversight of the RCMP, and the Conservatives ignored that. They go to Senate omnibus bills and so on and so forth.

Bill C-42—Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to ask the minister a question about shortening the debate on Bill C-42. I found it interesting that the committee spent only a few meetings discussing this bill. The last time the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act was amended, which was several years ago, it took months and months of serious study. I find the seriousness to be lacking this time.

In addition, the minister said at the outset that he was open to amendments because he felt that the bill was worth studying properly and that it might be lacking in some way. The only amendments the Conservatives accepted were their own, and they mainly had to do with correcting spelling mistakes.

Does the minister not feel that we did not have enough time and that we still need more time to debate this extremely important bill? Does he not think it arrogant not to listen to what the opposition has to say on the matter?

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is the 29th time debate in the House has been interrupted and our members' right to speak has been taken away. Democracy is under attack.

The Conservative Party is mastering the art of downplaying the issues we are working on. The minister uses rhetoric about a title, as if our work was about titles, when we work on content.

We have the right to be heard as members. We have the right to go into detail, and we have the right to use all our time. Not all the members of the House have been heard on Bill C-42.

The minister said that this was a waste of time. I am quoting him word for word, if the translation is correct, obviously. He said that it is a waste of time to listen to members.

It is shameful to hear that.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate.

I want to point out that today is the 15th day that Bill C-42 is being debated. That is 15 days. The member is concerned that something is being hidden. If something is being hidden, I do not know what it is. We have certainly been very clear in our position as to what the people of Canada should know and the steps we are taking in respect of the RCMP.

What is the response of the NDP members? Their amendments include deleting the short title of the act, which is enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police accountability act.

Why do we spend time debating that kind of title? What is it about enhancing accountability that the opposition does not want the RCMP to follow?

Bill C-42--Notice of time allocation motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I regret to advise that, with regard to Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts respecting RCMP accountability, no agreement was reached pursuant to Standing Orders 78(1) and 78(2).

As a result, pursuant to Standing Order 78(3), at the next sitting of the House a Minister of the Crown will move to set a specific number of hours or days for consideration of this matter.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue debating third reading of Bill C-42, the enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police accountability act, a bill that would give the RCMP the tools it needs to strengthen accountability and enhance public trust. I am puzzled why the NDP is putting up member after member to delay and block bringing accountability to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The New Democrats should let the bill come to a final vote so that these much-needed reforms can be put in place. In fact, the RCMP commissioner, Robert Paulson, was in front of the committee yesterday, and he called for swift passage of the bill.

If the New Democrats heed the commissioner's advice and allow the debate to conclude, we will be able to start third reading of Bill S-7, the combatting terrorism act, and help keep Canadians safe that way.

Tomorrow, we will start the second reading debate on Bill C-54, the Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act. This bill proposes to put public safety as the first and paramount consideration in the process of dealing with accused persons found to be not criminally responsible. It accomplishes this change without affecting the treatment these individuals receive.

The debate on Bill C-54 will continue next Thursday and—if necessary—on Friday. Monday, we will consider Bill C-47, the Northern Jobs and Growth Act, at report stage and third reading. We will continue that debate on Wednesday.

Tuesday, March 5, shall be the sixth allotted day, which will go to the New Democrats.

Finally, I hope that the opposition will support our hard-working approach to business so that we could also consider second reading of Bill C-48, the technical tax amendments act, 2012; the second reading of Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act; and report stage and third reading of Bill S-9, the nuclear terrorism act.

In addition, in response to what I will take to be an invitation from the oppostion House leader, I would like unanimous consent to propose the following motion. I hope the opposition will not block it.

I move that, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-7, an act respecting the selection of senators and amending the Constitution Act, 1867 in respect of Senate term limits, be deemed to have been read the second time and referred to a committee of the whole, deemed considered in committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage and deemed read the third time and passed.

Unanimous consent for this would show that they really do care about Senate reform.

Airport Security

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

Mr. Speaker, the deployment of RCMP assets is an operational decision and certainly we do not involve ourselves politically in the day-to-day operations of the RCMP.

I do appreciate the question, though, because it gives me the opportunity to talk about the tools that we are giving front-line officers, including the RCMP, to do their jobs.

I would ask the member to support our initiatives, especially the one currently before the House, Bill C-42, which would enhance accountability, again, and give the RCMP and front-line officers the tools that they need.

Public Safety

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

Mr. Speaker, that hon. member is incorrect. We are all very concerned with what happened to Ashley Smith. It is despicable that she would have just made that comment. We never want to see that happen again.

In regard to the report the member mentioned, the report came out yesterday from the Commission for Public Complaints, the independent commission. We appreciate that report. It is good to note that this report shows there are not systemic harassment issues within the RCMP, but any kind of harassment or bullying would never be tolerated and should not be tolerated within the RCMP.

That is why we call on the opposition to support Bill C-42, which brings greater accountability and a process whereby the RCMP can deal with these kinds of issues.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the implicit offer of assistance from the House Leader of the Official Opposition.

I look forward to discussions with him later on the possibility of moving forward both Senate reform and Bill C-12 on a unanimous consent basis straight to committee. I would be happy to do that with him.

This afternoon we will continue debating the Liberal opposition day motion. Tomorrow we will hopefully finish second reading of Bill C-48, the Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, a measure supported by all three parties. After that we will turn to third reading of Bill C-42, the Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act; third reading of Bill S-7, the Combating Terrorism Act; and second reading of Bill S-12, the Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act.

When we return from our constituency week on Monday, February 25, we will start second reading of Bill C-55, the Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act. This bill needs to be passed by mid-April before the Supreme Court ruling takes effect, which would render the important powers available to police ineffective.

After Bill C-55, we will consider Friday's unfinished business.

Tuesday, February 26, shall be the fifth allotted day, which will go to the Official Opposition, and it will therefore choose the subject of debate.

On Wednesday and Thursday, we will continue debating the bills I have already listed.

Additionally, Bill C-47, Northern Jobs and Growth Act, was reported back from committee yesterday, and I anticipate Bill S-9, Nuclear Terrorism Act, will be reported back soon. So we could also call these bills at report stage and third reading, if we have extra time next week.

Finally, on Friday, March 1, the House will start the second reading debate on Bill C-54, Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act. The Prime Minister announced this bill last week as part of our efforts to ensure we have a justice system that puts the rights of victims first.

Opposition Motion—Missing Aboriginal Women

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a government's first duty is to defend its citizens.

For 30 years now, nothing has been done. These women's murderers have not been brought to justice. That is a major problem.

It is all well and good for the government to say that it is going to restructure or give new names to old structures under Bill C-42, but that does not bring these murderers to justice.

When will this government finally recognize that there are 800 unsolved cases out there? When will it order police forces to conduct serious investigations to find those who are guilty of crimes against these people?

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

Mr. Speaker, in response to my hon. colleague's question, I did not say that the NDP members were not supporting the cause of ending the incidence of murdered and missing aboriginal women. However, they are clearly not supporting Bill C-42, which would give the RCMP the much-needed tools it needs to be more accountable and transparent. As well, it would stop harassment within its workplace. Therefore, they need to take ownership of that.

I am very proud of what our government has done with respect to funding. It has allocated $25 million over five years to give new tools to law enforcement, as well as $2.3 million to the Native Women's Association and to the work that Sisters in Spirit is doing. Therefore, we are putting action behind our words.

I do want to ask the NDP and the Liberals this. When we are talking about murdered and missing aboriginal women, one of the greatest detriments is that aboriginal women do not have access to the real matrimonial property they have acquired, which puts them in poverty. If the opposition members are concerned about murdered and missing aboriginal women, which I know they are, why will they not support our initiative to give aboriginal women real matrimonial property rights on reserve? That is an answer they have to give.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, apparently my Conservative colleague does not think that the NDP has done enough to support the cause of missing and murdered aboriginal women. I would like to ask her the same question.

The Conservative government funded Sisters in Spirit, an initiative to compile a list of missing and murdered aboriginal women across Canada. One Conservative member even said that it was federal money well spent. But then the government stopped funding the initiative, as though the problem had been solved, as though all of the women had been counted and the problem of missing and murdered women could be swept under the rug.

I am glad that my Conservative colleague brought this issue to the forefront because I do not think that the Conservative government has done enough. It is all well and good to talk about Bill C-42, which is a bit too broad, but this is about a serious problem facing aboriginal women.

Will the Conservative government reinstate funding for the Sisters in Spirit initiative, which was playing a crucial role in Canadian history?

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much this opportunity to rise in support of the motion before us today.

Canadians know that our government is committed to making sure that our streets and communities are safer places for everyone, and we have taken a number of specific steps to help protect aboriginal women from violence in particular. The murder and abduction of women in this country is completely unacceptable. We will continue to move forward with a vigorous criminal justice agenda to address these issues. These initiatives are numerous and multifaceted. I would like to speak briefly about some of them related to public safety, as well as some of the steps we have taken to enhance and strengthen the tools that law enforcement officials have to respond to cases of missing and murdered women.

Budget 2010 allocated significant funding to address the high number of missing and murdered aboriginal women. This will improve law enforcement and justice system responses to cases of missing and murdered women and also support victims. This commitment was in addition to significant investments we have made in a number of areas to address the root cause of violence among aboriginal girls and women in particular.

Budget 2010 allocated $5 million for aboriginal community safety action plans alone. Our government is certainly taking strong action in this area. Our government is also working with first nation, Métis, Inuit and urban aboriginal communities to enhance their capacity to utilize existing resources and to develop safety plans that respond to the unique situations in each one of the communities.

We have also allocated significant resources to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to ensure that concrete steps are in place to address the issue of missing aboriginal women. The RCMP has established the National Centre for Missing Persons and Unidentified Remains, including a dedicated officer linked to the National Aboriginal Policing Services branch. This centre is designed to assist all Canadian police agencies in dealing with missing persons cases.

Funding from our government has allowed the force to enhance the Canadian Police Information Centre in order to capture additional missing persons data, such as biological and cultural affinity. The RCMP is also now developing the very first national missing children, persons and unidentified remains database in order to provide law enforcement, medical examiners and chief coroners with enhanced analysis across jurisdictions. The RCMP National Centre for Missing Persons and Unidentified Remains website at Canadasmissing.ca will allow members of the public to report tips for ongoing cases so that some level of closure may be found for families of victims.

These initiatives are on top of RCMP training that specifically advances an understanding of aboriginal issues within the force. Such training helps law enforcement personnel provide more culturally appropriate policing services, thereby contributing to safer and healthier aboriginal communities. In fact, just moments ago the RCMP released “Gender and Respect—The RCMP Action”, which includes specific measures to recruit more aboriginal members.

The RCMP investigates all cases of missing and murdered people in its jurisdiction, regardless of sex, ethnicity, background or lifestyle. Resources and investigational tools are assigned by the circumstances of each case and not by the victim's background, heritage or lifestyle. Missing persons complaints are given investigative priority by the RCMP and national policy and investigative procedures exist to ensure that every measure is taken to locate people who are missing and reported missing.

The RCMP works in collaboration with a number of partners to address the health and safety of aboriginal women, including other law enforcement agencies, provincial and territorial governments, as well as aboriginal and non-aboriginal agencies within the public. The RCMP is also leading task forces across the country dedicated to actively reviewing files of missing and murdered women, including aboriginal women. These task forces will spread across the country and work collaboratively to address this important issue by focusing on, among other things, information sharing, file management, file coordination and disclosure that can be shared with other investigative units. Additionally, RCMP criminal operations officers from each province and territory regularly meet face to face to discuss operational issues of national significance, including missing and murdered aboriginal women.

Over the past number of months, Canadians have heard some extremely disturbing reports about the conduct of just some RCMP officers. That is why our government has made it clear that we will work closely with the Commissioner of the RCMP to take action to restore pride and confidence in Canada's national police force. That is why we introduced the enhancing RCMP accountability act to strengthen the review and complaints body for the RCMP, establish a process for handling serious criminal issues involving RCMP officers, as well as streamline the management of RCMP human resources.

Disciplinary matters, even for relatively minor breaches of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, have become extremely drawn out and ineffective because all formal sanctions must currently go through a time- and resource-consuming three-person adjudication board, rather than being dealt with, in many cases, by front-line managers like other workplaces.

The legislation our government has introduced would also address these issues by providing front-line managers with the authority to impose a broad range of sanctions, ranging from remedial measures, such as training, to corrective actions, such as forfeited pay, without having to resort to a formal board process.

The discipline board process would also be much speedier and less adversarial. In addition, the new grievance scheme would result in a single grievance and appeal process to replace the host of different ones that exist today, and again, it would provide front-line managers with the opportunity to be involved in the resolution of a grievance early on and directly.

The end result would be that trained professionals would manage and assist in resolving cases, with the focus on early resolution, before a matter is brought before a decision-maker. Front-line managers would have the opportunity to focus on the early resolution of issues, with much-needed support.

The commissioner would be able to designate any person employed by the RCMP as a decision-maker, providing an opportunity to address workplace disputes in a timely fashion, and to draw on the expertise offered by all categories of employees in the RCMP.

Our government has made it a point of pride to always give police the tools they need to do their job. On that front, the new legislation proposed in Bill C-42 would provide the Commissioner of the RCMP with the authority that he currently lacks to make certain fundamental human resource decisions to effectively manage the organization. At the present time, the commissioner lacks the authority to establish and maintain processes for the demotion or discharge of members for administrative reasons, such as loss of security clearance or performance issues. Under the changes proposed by Bill C-42, the commissioner would be given new authority, including the power to demote and discharge members for reason other than conduct. He or she would also have the authority to establish a process for the investigation and resolution of disputes related to harassment in the workplace where the respondent is a member.

We certainly appreciate the report that was issued today by the chair of the commission, and the RCMP is looking forward to Bill C-42 being implemented so that it can also move forward with its constructive plan to end harassment within the workplace. As part of that, it is very important that members of Parliament pass Bill C-42 quickly so that the RCMP can move ahead and put processes in place to deal with some of these very disturbing matters.

Bill C-42 would empower the commissioner for the full exercise of these authorities. That is why it is so vital and why we call upon the NDP specifically to support Bill C-42.

The commissioner would also be given the authority to appoint most commissioned officers, thereby improving the timelines of succession planning.

All of these changes would help to further strengthen and modernize the RCMP, while increasing accountability and improving public perception and confidence in the force.

Another very important set of amendments in Bill C-42 would establish a new independent civilian review and complaints commission. The new commission would have significantly enhanced investigative powers compared to those of the existing body, and the authority to work hand in hand with other review bodies. The new commission would bring civilian review of the RCMP in line with other modern review bodies.

The existing civilian review body can and does investigate complaints about RCMP conduct, but it has no authority to compel witnesses to appear or to testify under oath when it does so, unless it holds a public hearing or inquiry. That needs to change. We need to give it more powers, and that is what we would do under Bill C-42.

At this time it does not have broad access to RCMP information, and that is a problem. It cannot share information or conduct joint investigations with other review bodies, and that is a problem. Bill C-42 would move to change that.

The changes our government is proposing in this bill would provide the new complaints body with broad access to relevant and necessary information that is relevant to an investigation. It would give the complaints body the authority to summon and enforce the appearance of persons and compel them to give evidence for all complaint investigations and policy reviews.

It would give the chair of the new body the authority to initiate police review of RCMP activities; and it would allow the complaints body to share information with other review bodies, as well as conduct joint complaint investigations where the complaint arises from integrated policy operations.

The changes our government is proposing would make it easier for the public to access the complaints process by allowing them to file a complaint either with the RCMP, a provincial police force review body, as well as the new civilian review and complaints body. Very importantly, the legislation would increase the transparency of investigation into serious incidents involving a member of the RCMP.

In cases where there is death or serious injury, the RCMP must refer the investigation to an existing provincial body responsible for investigating incidents involving police. Where no such body exists, the RCMP would be required to refer the investigation to another police force.

Only where neither of these options is available would the RCMP conduct the investigation. In these cases it would need to inform the new commission of the measures it has taken to ensure the impartiality of the investigation. These new rules also permit the appointment of an independent observer to assess the impartiality of these investigations when they are led by the RCMP or another police force.

All of these things would help to further transform the RCMP into a modern, efficient, transparent and accountable police force, a very important aspect of looking into the issue of murdered and missing aboriginal women. I certainly urge the NDP to stop disagreeing and to work with us to reform the RCMP.

In addition to the other comprehensive steps our government has taken, a modern transparent and fully accountable national police force would go a long way to enhancing the safety of all Canadians. Again, I urge all members to support that bill because it goes a long way to helping find and rectify the issue of murdered and missing aboriginal women and girls.

There is no question that the friends, families and loved ones of these women have experienced and continue to experience great pain and great sorrow. They need and they deserve justice, as do all victims of violence.

Our government has always been committed to standing up for victims and to ensuring that all offenders are held to account for their actions. In fact, as the Prime Minister recently announced, we will be bringing forward a victims' bill of rights. This would enshrine in law the principle that we can no longer go down the failed Liberal road of putting the rights of convicted criminals ahead of victims'. That is why we have taken the steps we have.

Ours is a government of action. Action can and will achieve the results all of us want for aboriginal people, as well as for all Canadians. Our government is committed to moving forward together.

Safer Witnesses Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to say honestly that I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-51 at second reading, not so much personally, as I was already up speaking this morning, to Bill C-42, as was the parliamentary secretary, but because, like many members, we have had challenges even getting to the House today.

As the NDP public safety critic, I have the honour of speaking in the House quite often. Unfortunately, too often, it is on bills motivated by the Conservatives' tough on crime attitude. The parliamentary secretary asked why we do not support all of their bills. I would like to take just a moment to talk about this tough on crime attitude, because this is an attitude that too often results in policies that are ripped from headlines.

At best, it is based on a faulty concept of deterrence and the idea that harsh sentences somehow deter crime. There is actually no imperial evidence to show that. The only way deterrence functions is when the investment is made at the front end of law enforcement. It is the certainty of being caught and the swiftness of prosecution that puts people off committing crimes.

Most criminals do not sit at home thumbing through the Criminal Code to see which offence to commit based on the length of the sentence. Obviously they are motivated by other social, economic and personal factors. If resources are put at the front end, we get better results. That is one reason this legislation looks a lot better to us than most of the bills that come forward from the Conservatives.

At worst, the tough on crime agenda appears to be based on little more than retribution, and retribution is not an effective approach to crime. Although it may make some people feel better for a short period of time, it results in policies that are expensive and that rarely show any positive results. In contrast, we in the NDP believe in evidence-based measures, which will help us build safer communities.

I am honestly pleased to stand in the House today to support Bill C-51 at second reading. We have seen a couple of hopeful signs from the Conservatives with this legislation, and also with Bill C-54, which deals with measures for those not criminally responsible. We have seen more consultation from the government on these two bills. We have seen more attention to evidence on these two bills than we have seen before. In this case, action is long overdue. We are glad that the government finally listened to stakeholders, as we have been asking it to do this since 2007.

In November 2012, the NDP member for Trinity—Spadina repeated our call for action to expand eligibility for those going into the witness protection program. This is particularly important in the struggle against street gangs. The previous narrow definitions excluded them from the witness protection program. We and government members have heard from many community representatives, and from many law enforcement agencies, that to get co-operation to help break street gangs, inclusion of possible witnesses in this program would be very important.

Since 2007, the NDP has also specifically called for better coordination of federal and provincial programs and better provision of services to those provincial programs, which is another positive measure we see in the bill.

We have always called for better overall funding for the program. I will come back to that question.

While we support what the bill attempts to do, which is improve the witness protection program, we are concerned that the Conservative government will refuse to commit any new funding. In fact, the minister said during the introduction of the bill that this would have to be funded from existing funds.

While there is no legislative flaw we can see at this point in the bill, which ensures that we will support it at second reading, we are concerned, because as I often like to say, the proof is in the funding. If we make these improvements, but law enforcement agencies do not have the funding they need to operate the program, we have not moved very far forward.

Whatever the improvements here, the demand that the RCMP and local police departments work within their existing budgets will likely hinder the implementation of the proposed amendments and the improvements in the bill.

The RCMP's own website states that there are instances when the cost of witness protection may impede investigations, particularly for smaller law enforcement agencies. When municipal departments, which are extensive across this country, try to make use of the program, they must reimburse the RCMP fully for the costs, which can be very high. This is an ongoing cost for them. Most of them have no provision in their budgets for making use of this program. It means, oftentimes, that front-line law enforcement officers have to make difficult choices, because they cannot get those who need protection into the program, because the funding is not available to support those individuals once they are in the program.

Again, the witness protection program is often crucial to getting the co-operation the front-line police need so that they can get convictions that will take key organized crime figures out of the community. If there were adequate funding, the same would be true for getting key witnesses to testify against street gang members to help break up those street gangs.

The federal witness protection program has long been criticized for its narrow eligibility criteria, for its poor coordination with provincial programs, and for the low number of witnesses actually admitted to the program. In 2012, 108 applications were considered for admission to the program, and, largely due to funding constraints, only 30 people were accepted.

What does that mean? It means 78 cases for which we might have been able to get a conviction and might have been able to make progress on organized crime, because that has been the focus of the program to this point. We did not get that because of inadequate resources.

There are some important improvements, as we acknowledge, in the bill. Bill C-51 proposes a better process to support provincial witness protection programs. This would be especially important for expediting getting new identity documents for those in provincial programs. Before, as the parliamentary secretary mentioned, this required transferring them to the federal program and transferring them back, with an enormous amount of bureaucratic time-wasting and cost. We are pleased to see that.

The expanded definition is important. In addition to including witnesses in street gang cases as possible entrants to the program, it would also expand the program to include agencies with national security responsibilities.

It would also extend the period for emergency protection. That is one of the key issues local law enforcement figures have raised. Sometimes people need to go into this program very quickly, and sometimes it takes a while before they can get into a more permanent situation. Extending that emergency protection is important.

Provinces such as Ontario and Alberta have been pushing for a national revamp of this program, including recognition of their existing programs. Again, the designation of programs and recognition of those programs is a positive feature of the bill.

For federal departments and agencies with a mandate related to national security, both those that function under national defence and those that function under public safety would now be able to refer witnesses to the program. I will say in a minute why that has been a gap of very great concern in the past.

Because there is no direct reference to eligibility for the program for witnesses in street gang cases, many stakeholders have been concerned that street gang witnesses may not fit these new criteria. We are assured by the government that they will. We look forward to talking about this question in committee to make sure that this critical area is indeed covered by these changes to the witness protection program.

At committee I will be asking those questions to make sure that the federal government is truly committed to the inclusion of street gang, youth gang and national security witnesses in this program. This will be an important step toward building safer communities in Canada.

We believe that the bill addresses the key problems. There are still a few things it does not do. Again, we would like to talk about those in committee.

Bill C-51 does not include provisions for an independent agency to operate the program, as was recommended in the Air India inquiry report.

There is kind of a conflict of interest when the RCMP manages the program and also manages the investigations. It is able to use the incentive, I guess one would say, of the witness protection program to get co-operation, and then, later, it makes the decision about who is actually eligible to be in the witness protection program. The Air India inquiry report suggested that there should be an independent agency to make those decisions that involve the RCMP as both the investigating authority and the decision-making authority on who gets protection from the program.

When we look at national security, the inability to protect witnesses was a major obstacle to prosecutions in the Air India bombing case. That is why, in the report, there was a lot of attention given to the witness protection program. One witness, Tara Singh Hayer, publisher of the B.C.-based Indo-Canadian Times, was assassinated in 1998. This made the affidavit he had given the RCMP in 1995 inadmissible as evidence in the case.

I would say that Mr. Hayer was not a likely candidate to go into the witness protection program because he was a very brave individual. However, two additional witnesses, seeing what had happened to him and not being eligible to go into the witness protection program, refused to provide evidence to the RCMP or the Air India inquiry because of what they had seen happen to another witness who had provided information, and the fact that he was assassinated.

Justice Major, in his report, acknowledged that he felt unable, because of the restrictions in the witness protection program, to provide the protection that would be necessary for prosecution in the case of Air India.

The RCMP has also called for intensive psychological examination of potential protectees, a national support centre for the program, and has also supported the call for an external advisory board in their case to serve as a watchdog on the decisions being made.

We recognize that these are all potentially outside the scope of this bill, but I still think it is worth having a discussion in committee about some of the other things that the RCMP has said are necessary for the efficient operation of the witness protection program.

New Democrats believe that strengthening the program will improve co-operation with local police and the RCMP in the fight against gang violence, and in doing so will help make our communities safer. It has a proven record of success in the fight against organized crime.

While the Conservatives have been slow to respond to this issue, and we on our part have been calling for these changes since 2007, we are pleased to see that the government has listened to the stakeholders in this case and brought in this new legislation to expand the program.

Bill C-51 does address key legislative concerns with regard to the witness protection program and therefore warrants our support. Despite our ongoing concerns about funding, the NDP recognizes that Bill C-51 still falls short on some key changes to the program, such as having a more transparent and accountable process for admissions into the program. Again, the Conservative government has ignored the important recommendations of the Air India inquiry with regard to this independent review of who is admissible into the program.

We do feel that Bill C-51 provides the basic legislative fix that we need. We will wait to see if the Conservatives are going to provide the resources to make it really count for local communities. As I often say and will say again, the proof is in the funding. Local police wish to make use of this program. They welcome these changes. They are waiting to get to work on some of the street and youth gang problems they have when this tool becomes available to them. However, it will not work if they do not have the funding at the local level.

At the public safety committee, we are doing a large study on the economics of policing. I think it has made all members of Parliament aware of the constant downloading of costs and responsibility onto police forces.

When we asked witnesses at committee what percentage of their calls for service were actually what people regard as crime, they responded that it was around 20%, saying that 80% of the time the police spend working on other issues. What that really means is that they are working on things like mental health, addictions, and all those other social problems of exclusion and marginalization. In our society we have made what I would call an unconscious decision that we will leave all those responsibilities to the police. One good sign of that, which we often see, is the difficulty of finding emergency social services, even in urban areas, after five o'clock. Who will one call after five o'clock when most people have their mental health and addiction crises? Those offices are closed.

The police become the agency called to deal with those problems. This is one of the huge, and probably the most important, cost drivers in policing. I know that the Minister of Public Safety suggested that police salaries were in fact a cost driver and that they took away resources from other things they needed. We on this side believe that the police who serve our communities as highly trained professionals need to be paid a fair, professional wage. We recognize that most of the time wages—and certainly in municipal and provincial departments—have been set through a process of free collective bargaining. Therefore, it not the police salaries that prevent resources being available for things like the witness protection program, but government budgets and all those other demands that we place on the police every day of the week.

As I said at the beginning, we know that the police are out in snowstorms doing all kinds of things that are not strictly fighting crime but providing emergency assistance to the public. I am looking forward to the work in committee not just on this bill but also on the study on the economics of policing to help find some ways to get the cost of policing under control by getting the focus back on building safer communities.

We in the NDP are committed to this concept. We need measures based on real evidence that will lead us toward solutions that make our communities safer. One way of doing this is through an improved witness protection program that helps keep our streets safe by giving police additional tools to fight street gangs.

The parliamentary secretary talked about an expedited process. I want to again reassure her, as I did in the questions asked at the beginning, that on this side we are committed to getting this bill to committee as soon as we can, and giving it a high priority in committee and bringing in the witnesses we need to talk to as quickly as possible. We will not prolong the process beyond what is needed, because we know that local police forces are in fact waiting for this tool to be made available to them in order to do some very important work in community safety.

At this point, I am happy to conclude my remarks by saying that this is one case where the New Democrats believe that the government has listened to stakeholders and has consulted. It might be a little late, but we are pleased to see that it brought in this legislation, and we will be looking at the next budget to make sure that the resources that police forces need, particularly the RCMP, are there to ensure that this new and improved witness protection program can actually be used by those on the front line.

Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish my constituents of Vietnamese origin a happy Vietnamese New Year.

[Member spoke in Vietnamese]

On Bill C-42, I would like to add my comments to this lively debate and explain, in part, why the NDP is forced to object to it and will be voting against the bill.

We proposed reasoned, positive, progressive amendments to the bill, but they have all been rejected. They included adding mandatory harassment training for RCMP members specifically within the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, ensuring a fully independent civilian review body to investigate complaints against the RCMP, adding a provision to create a national civilian investigative body that would avoid police investigating police, and creating a more balanced human resources policy by removing some of the more draconian powers of the RCMP commissioner and by strengthening the external review committee in cases involving possible dismissal from the force.

One of the reasons the bill is here is that the RCMP itself has been subject to a lot of criticism, which has generally been levelled at the top echelons of the RCMP. More recently, the criticism has come from the realization that there is a huge and potentially much bigger than reported problem with systemic sexual harassment in the RCMP. None of us on this side of the House have any intention of allowing this to continue. One of the proposals we made was to ensure that the culture of the RCMP would in fact change.

Change does not happen through legislation. It does not happen by someone telling the boss to fix it. Change happens from the ground. Change happens from the individual RCMP members being taught and given anti-harassment training in the workplace and being made to understand that it is no longer culturally acceptable. It is no longer acceptable in this country that women should feel threatened when they are members of the RCMP or that they should feel they cannot complain about the practices they feel harassed by. That is a key element of the NDP's position on the bill. The sexual harassment that has come to the fore in the last few months must be rooted out quickly. However, that is not going to happen with the bill that is before us.

While we recognize that some improvements are being made by giving a little more power to the commissioner and by the other tinkering the bill undertakes, it goes nowhere near far enough. The bill does not deal with the systemic problems in the RCMP that have caused a litany of complaints about the RCMP to be made public over the past 15 years or so. In one case, the allegations of sexual harassment appear to go back 23 years. That is a long time and a lot of culture that needs to be corrected. It is not going to be corrected overnight and it is not going to be corrected without direct action on the part of the Conservative government to introduce and force mandatory anti-harassment training on the RCMP.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, some of the member's comments are worth consideration, but clearly Bill C-42 is going forward.

We are supporting it because it is a small step forward. If we had to wait for three or four years to get something much more comprehensive in detail, which would deal with some of the issues we all care about when it comes to the sexual harassment issue in the RCMP, I think that would take a long time.

Bill C-42 very much responds to what the commissioner said was his own frustration with his inability to take swift action. Does the hon. member think Bill C-42, if adopted, would give Commissioner Paulson the tools he needs to deal with these issues swiftly?

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-42 deals with a very important subject. First of all, I must admit that my participation in today's debate is not without some bitterness and disappointment. I really feel as though this legislation represents yet another missed opportunity. We have become accustomed to this government's half-measures, hollow phrases, empty shells and smoke and mirrors that all add up to nothing more than grandstanding.

When it comes to an issue as important as the one addressed in Bill C-42, it seems to me that a step in the right direction is not nearly enough. For a team of parliamentarians, regardless of our party affiliation, taking a step in the right direction is not enough. We need to solve problems as they arise, which Bill C-42 definitely does not do.

My speech could have included many lines of attack and many subjects, but I will try to focus on two things: I will first address the issue of the discrepancy between substance and form, followed by issues related specifically to sexual harassment.

On the question of form, more and more people I have spoken with—in my riding and across Quebec—have a huge problem with what they describe as democracy denied. I have to admit that, despite the work we do here in the House and in committee, I agree with those people, and to be frank, the whole process surrounding Bill C-42 illustrates this very clearly.

I would like to share a few thoughts with the House. Of course, everything was done according to the rules, but that is not enough. For instance, one might wonder whether Bill C-42 was the subject of any time allocation motions or other such procedures aimed at reducing the amount of time parliamentarians would have to debate the issue and further explore their proposals regarding this bill. The answer is yes. Speaking of time allocation motions, this government has moved nearly 30 of them since it won a majority about two years ago.

After I was elected, I remember that when I came to the Hill, during my training, I was told that the work in the House was quite partisan, but that work in committee was less so. Bills moved forward and were improved, which gave meaning to the work we do here to represent our constituents. However, of the 18 amendments that the NDP proposed to Bill C-42, guess how many were approved? None. It has almost become tradition. If it does not come from the governing party, it is no good. We are light years away from the adage that enlightenment comes when ideas collide. Now, if we come up with an idea that is like a Conservative one, it must be a good idea; otherwise, we can keep it to ourselves.

And, yes, amendments were approved in committee, but they came from government members. For the most part, the amendments had to do with grammatical errors in the French. Far be it from me to say that those amendments are not important; I have too much respect for my language to overlook those errors, but really, we could have done better.

One could also question the independence of the witnesses who came to testify and to provide expertise that would allow the committee to go further in its proposals. It seems that the majority of the witnesses called by the government were from either the government or the RCMP, which means that they were completely impartial, of course. From what I gather—because I did not sit on this committee—the witnesses called by the official opposition were treated with somewhat questionable fairness. They were called at the very last minute and their testimony was crammed into the last day. There are many questions—concerning the format alone—that merit better responses than the ones we received.

Let us talk about the substance of the bill. Earlier I said that, today, I would speak out against how sexual harassment issues are dealt with, because the topics addressed in this bill are very important.

When it comes to an issue as important as gender equality, taking a step in the right direction is not enough. We had the opportunity to solve the problem. However, once again, the government has proposed a way to sidestep the issue, while giving the impression that it has dealt with it.

I would like to quote Yvonne Séguin, the executive director of Groupe d'aide et d'information sur le harcèlement sexuel au travail de la province de Québec:

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.

Bill C-42 therefore needs to have clear tools that would help both managers and employees to know what is going on.

Bill C-42 is the government's response to the longstanding complaints of sexual harassment within the RCMP and to a series of recent events related to this issue.

As hard as it may be to believe, the term harassment is not used anywhere at all in this bill.

In a bill that is supposed to address the issue of harassment, no one even has the courage to say the word. That is a problem.

When children ask questions, we are supposed to give straightforward answers and use the correct terminology. In this case, a first step should have been taken at the very least.

The NDP has been applying pressure from the beginning, from the very day that Bill C-42 was assigned a different number in another legislature. The NDP wants the minister to make the fight against harassment a priority and to provide a solution to the problem. All employees in all workplaces, not just those who work for the RCMP, have the right to an open and safe workplace, but obviously, that is not quite the case.

We are not claiming that a unionized organization provides the best protection of workers' rights. However, it is revealing that the RCMP is the only police service in Canada without a collective agreement. Staff relations representatives who are elected to manage employment issues use a process that is more like consultation than collective bargaining.

Nevertheless, the NDP proposed amendments that were completely straightforward, because we strongly believe in gender equality and fairness and respect between men and women.

All of our amendments were rejected. However, for those who follow our debates, I think that it is important to talk about the three or four amendments proposed by the NDP, so that people can judge the common sense and relevance of our amendments for themselves.

Although this was not the first amendment proposed, the first amendment I would like to mention recommended that all RCMP members receive mandatory training on sexual harassment.

Education and information have always formed the very foundation of any regulations and of any progress. However, even just talking about the issue was already too much for this government.

The second amendment had to do with creating a completely independent civilian body to examine complaints against the RCMP so that the police would not be investigating the police. A broad consensus is developing in civil society regarding this recommendation.

Lastly, how could the Conservatives refuse to create a police force that is better equipped in terms of human resources by taking powers away from the RCMP commissioner and strengthening those of the external review committee? Bill C-42 goes completely in the opposite direction. Once again, the Conservatives are giving the commissioner even more power, just as they gave certain ministers more power to control information in several other bills.

In closing, I wish to reaffirm the NDP's position. Our party will continue to work with women to ensure that gender equality becomes an undeniable reality once and for all. We will do a lot more than just one step forward.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by informing you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Trois-Rivières.

I read Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, when it was introduced in the House before the summer break.

I was really disappointed when I read the bill, which is yet another example of the Conservatives' lack of judgment and inaction on matters that concern the equality of women.

The government seems to think that this bill is the answer to the problem of harassment within the RCMP. Unfortunately, that is not the case. This bill is a far cry from a comprehensive solution.

In a serious situation such as this, we really have to get to the root of the problem. A bill that is so vague and weak will do nothing to change the work atmosphere and occupational culture.

Even in unionized work places, which the RCMP is not, and with good policies against harassment, which the RCMP does not have, harassment persists.

You have to delve very deeply to change the culture of our workplaces and to eradicate that type of behaviour.

Giving the RCMP commissioner the power to directly fire officers will not solve the problems with the RCMP culture. An arbitrary power, especially when we are talking about the Conservative model, does not solve the problem.

What we need is awareness, monitoring and concerted action to change behaviours. But this bill has none of that.

The Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security examined the bill. One after another, the witnesses pointed out that the bill could not fix the situation on its own, and that arbitrary powers unfortunately lead only to more abuse. The problem is complex and systematic.

The RCMP commissioner, Bob Paulson, confirmed this himself when he appeared before the Standing Committee on the Status of Women in the spring. He said:

...I think what's happened is that the RCMP hasn't kept pace with society in general and how society has moved to provide systems and processes that insist upon equality...It's the culture of the organization that has not kept pace...We haven't been able to change our practices and our policies, or provide systems that would permit women to thrive in the organization and contribute to policing, which they must do.

For the RCMP to be a successful policing organization, we must have women contributing in a significant way. I think how the organization manages authority and power.... I've said it publicly, and I'll say it again. I think the problem is bigger than simply the sexual harassment. It is the idea of harassment. The idea that we have a hierarchical organization overseeing men and women who have extraordinary powers in relation to their fellow citizens, which requires a fair degree of discipline.

In committee, I specifically asked the commissioner about the culture of the organization. His answer enlightened us on the fundamental issue that will not be fixed by a bill:

...when we change the RCMP culture so that people, no matter what their rank, are making principle-based decisions on the merits of the situation and not defending their pips and crowns and their rank by demonstrating to others that they are more powerful or more influential, then we will have changed the culture.

I want to point out that in response to the highly publicized incidents reported last year by some very brave women in the RCMP, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women decided to examine the issue of harassment in public service workplaces.

On December 6, 2012, Vicky Smallman, from the Canadian Labour Congress, appeared before the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. I will quote what she had to say about workplaces and culture.

One of the best tools for preventing harassment of any kind is a healthy, inclusive workplace with a commitment to gender equality. Job security, reasonable workloads, and good labour relations all offer a sense of stability and comfort in the workplace. But while it does not completely prevent individuals from harassing others, it might create a climate that allows women to feel safe about coming forward with a complaint.

Workplace culture is important. As you conduct this study, I hope you will consider looking at the culture of federal workplaces and any factors that may create an environment conducive to harassment or that may impede its prevention—that is, that may encourage women to keep silent.

Unfortunately, a large number women in the RCMP kept silent for many years, and in a lot of workplaces that is the case.

The bill was introduced without the benefit of the findings of the internal gender audit of the RCMP, ordered by the commissioner, that is currently under way and not yet completed. The Conservatives' approach does not seem to make women in the RCMP a priority as it ignores any kind of gender-based internal audit or findings. That is very unfortunate. It is also unfortunate that other studies being done that are looking at the issue of sexual harassment and other gender-based discrimination in the RCMP as well as other federally regulated workplaces, such as the one being done at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, are not being considered.

The NDP thinks we can go further on these issues as there needs to be a clear anti-harassment policy in the RCMP, one which contains specific standards for behaviour and specific criteria for evaluating the performance of all employees. Such a policy is needed to serve as a basis for a fair, disciplined process. This is absolutely necessary to have a better environment in the workplace for the RCMP, as well as other workplaces that have a culture of dominance, for instance, brought from the fact that there is a culture of authority, which is obviously necessary in something like the RCMP. However, that does not necessarily mean there needs to be harassment and we need to be dealing with that more concretely.

Unfortunately, this bill fails because it continues to allow the RCMP to investigate itself in certain situations, it creates a piecemeal system that puts the burden of monitoring on the provinces, it creates a complaints commission that is not fully independent and that reports to the minister with non-binding recommendations, and it limits access to sensitive information to the commission.

In order to fix the shortcomings in this bill, in order to truly attack the problem, the NDP voted at second reading to send Bill C-42 to committee. There, we proposed a number of amendments that required mandatory harassment training. That is something that would absolutely be necessary in all jobs if we truly want to consider men and women to be equal. Our amendments called for a more independent civilian organization to be responsible for complaints against the RCMP. They also called for the creation of human resources policies that were more harmonious, by withdrawing the draconian powers proposed for the commissioner.

The Conservatives rejected all amendments to this bill, as has been pointed out today in this House. We are used to this kind of thing, but that does not mean we must stop fighting for what we think is right. These amendments would have improved the bill, and they were developed based on recommendations made by witnesses in committee.

In closing, it is obvious that we cannot support this bill. It really does not go far enough. I do not believe that we should tell Canadian women that it is all right to take half measures to solve a problem. We have to get to the root of the problem and stand up for equality in this country.

It is unfortunate because this bill addresses an urgent matter. Women, the RCMP and Canadians want effective action from their government, rather than bills doomed to failure right from the outset.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg is speaking to a broader issuer than this piece of legislation, Bill C-42. I mentioned that in my remarks. Increasingly I am concerned with how committees function, or rather how they are not allowed to function, in that amendments are hardly ever carried, even though they make a lot of sense.

At one point in time the Senate would take issues seriously. It would fix mistakes that we might have overlooked in this place. In my view, that is not happening now. The big whip comes down and we get it through. If this kind of process continues, such as passing legislation that is not the best it can be, the courts will start to rule on some of the flaws we have made. Therefore, I think my colleague is speaking to the broader issue of how this place works, which I have laid out in my remarks.

I am very concerned. I believe that Bill C-42 is an example. Some amendments had been proposed and not accepted because of where they came from, not because of what they contain. That is a concern that Canadians should increasingly be worried about.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, being a retired member of the RCMP, I am very proud to wear the red serge whenever I can.

I have watched with interest as Bill C-42 has moved forward. This bill needs to get passed. For well over 100 years, the RCMP has been handcuffed by the fact that it has been unable to remove members from the RCMP when it was needed. Again, as the hon. member across the way said, it is not all the members; it is a select few. However, those select few tarnish the RCMP.

Does the member opposite believe the bill has gone far enough for his party to move it forward and, if so, is he confident that in committee there would be opportunities to discuss the opportunities that they see as being fit?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

I want to state for the record what the summary of the two key points indicates this is all about. The summary of the bill states:

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.

That sounds great in theory, but I have to remark that wonderful ideas do not always work in theory. I recall the government bringing in the Federal Accountability Act. This is much along the same lines. Indeed, I heard the parliamentary secretary talk about accountability and transparency. I remember the Federal Accountability Act well and the government talking about transparency and accountability. Anything we have seen from the current government is the absolute direct opposite: We are seeing the least transparency we have ever seen of any government in Canadian history. Access to information requests are taking longer and longer. We cannot get answers from the government. Committees are shoved in camera on simple motions that should be debated in public but are taking place in secret.

I wanted to outline that at the beginning because when the government talks about accountability and transparency in its own business, we have seen anything but that. I hope that with the changes to the RCMP we will see some transparency and accountability. However, the record of the government is the direct opposite.

Although we are debating the RCMP Act, I am concerned about this place because we are not seeing things happening at committee in the open and transparent way that we should. The way the government is operating is a blight on the Parliament of Canada. As a former solicitor general, I do not want to see that same blight apply to the RCMP, because it is our national police force and a recognized icon around the world. I want to see it improved. The best intentions laid out in this bill may sound great, but they need to come to fruition in the way they were intended to.

The Liberal critic agrees with the central premise of the bill, that the commissioner's capacity to deal with disciplinary issues should be strengthened and the process for dealing with them streamlined. In my earlier questioning, I outlined some of my concerns in that regard and I will get to those in a moment. That said, the bill certainly is a step forward. As with all legislation, it may need to be improved as we go down the road a piece.

The critic for the Liberal Party also says that some minor improvements could be brought to the powers and scope of the new civilian complaints body and notes that this body has been strengthened in keeping with previous Liberal positions. From the perspective of my party, we Liberals welcome the new legislation and the attempts by the government to address the current challenges facing the RCMP.

As has been expressed in this debate and will be in future debates in the House, there is no doubt that the RCMP is facing many challenges. We see the issue of sexual harassment in the press all too often. As I said a moment ago, the RCMP is a symbol of Canada around the world, something we are proud of, and we do not want to see this image tarnished due to the odd individual in the force who tarnishes not only the image of the RCMP but also the image of Canada. The corrective measures have to be put in place to allow the national police force to deal with these problems in an effective manner.

Bill C-42 aims to tackle these harassment and discipline issues by reworking the force's bureaucratic grievance system and by giving increased powers to the commissioner. The bill would also give senior managers a wider range of options to sanction members immediately, such as by suspending pay.

I raised some concerns about this point earlier, not so much with the additional authority of the senior managers as a management team, but the power of the commissioner and the power surrounding him. As one member I talked to this morning said, it gives the commissioner the power to “hire, fire or boot and all the rest”. That is a pretty substantive statement, and there is no question that on disciplinary issues, the commissioner does need the power. However, having been there as a solicitor general, I think there is a dilemma.

The commissioner is in charge of all things RCMP. The Minister of Public Safety is responsible for the RCMP and for policy. It is so different from many of the other ministries. If another ministry has a staffing problem, the minister can step in. That cannot be done with the RCMP because there is a space there that the minister cannot influence. Therefore, the rank and file of the RCMP do not really have the ability to go to the government or the minister if they are having problems with the commissioner. Much in the RCMP therefore depends on the individual, the man or woman who may be the commissioner of the RCMP, and how much power he or she has and how they use that power. They can use it to either good or bad advantage.

Whether we like it or not, there is politics in all organizations, including the RCMP. It is a command system where people eventually move to the top and are appointed by the Minister of Public Safety and/or the Prime Minister to the position of commissioner. There is always that internal political dilemma. My colleague from the NDP spoke to this earlier, noting the legitimate concerns there.

In fairness to the government and to my own party, I believe we need to move ahead. I wish the government had accepted the reasoned amendments by opposition parties, although it tends not to do so, because these could have been made it a better bill. That is why I brought up accountability and transparency earlier in the context of the accountability act. This place is not working because the government just does not accept amendments from others, no matter how well reasoned they are. That could be a problem in this case.

We have to move forward with the bill, but it could have been improved. I admit that openly. Part of the reason for this legislation not moving forward is that this place and its committees are not working as they ought to work any more, because it is the government's way or no way. It is that simple, and that is a sad commentary on how our Parliament is working.

With respect to the power of the commissioner, yes there needs to be power to discipline. Having a rank and file member just go to the other review agency to protect himself or herself may or may not work, in my view. The RCMP is a command structure. Intimidation from the leader can be a strong and powerful thing. What tends to happen is that people who disagree may just step aside and go into another occupation, such as security, a local police force, or whatever. I am being quite open here. There is some reason for concern. It is too bad that aspect could not have been improved.

Given the incidents that have happened in the RCMP and the force's image and uniqueness in this country, we have to move ahead with Bill C-42, but we have to be wary of the problems that could appear. The minister, the government, and all of us as parliamentarians need to be watchful of that and not be afraid of bringing in corrective measures in the future if it seems necessary to do so. I would suggest that the government be wary of that point and be watchful.

It is true that we need to find ways to exercise discipline and to deal with some of the unique internal problems within the RCMP. We need to deal with those problems. We need to be absolutely confident that if we create some other problems along the way for the rank and file in terms of their interests and their maybe even challenging a commissioner for legitimate reasons, that their ability to do so would not be undermined by the additional power to be given to the commissioner in this legislation. I would therefore suggest that we all be watchful of that fact. If it becomes a problem at some future point, we should be willing to act quickly to address it.

Bill C-42 would replace the existing watchdog agency, the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, with the new civilian review and complaints commission.

Paul Kennedy was a witness before the committee. He was chair of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP. He did a very remarkable job. He was not afraid to challenge the RCMP, or indeed the government. He is one of the ones who lost his job, as did Adrian Measner and others over the last six years, for being brutally honest and challenging the Government of Canada. That should not have happened.

It is one of the reasons that the new body has been brought into place. We need these independent officers. He was not as independent as he had hoped. He was not reappointed, and the reason he was not reappointed was because he had done his job and challenged the system.

In terms of what is now going to be called the civilian review and complaints commission, I will only say, will it be independent enough? Will it have the authority? Will it have the backbone to challenge the system, as Paul Kennedy did when he was chair?

There are a lot of complaints. We do not hear many of them. However, I expect members on the committee have, though I am not a member of the committee. There are all kinds of complaints that come in against the RCMP, for many reasons. There are the complaints in the rank and file, sexual harassment and other things. There are complaints from the public in terms of how their particular case was handled, whether it was fast enough or they were elbowed during an arrest, or whatever it may be. The Arar issue went to the commission for public complaints at one point. There is a range that is all over the map.

In my view, that review body has to have the ability to deal effectively with those complaints, to be willing to listen, to receive complaints from the rank and file. I believe that is under this new proposal as well. They have to have the ability to challenge the system and to work in the interest of the public in terms of their answers to these complaints. It is a very important body. It needs to be there. We absolutely need a way for the public to be heard on issues, whether it is a small or big complaint, and to challenge the RCMP on how an issue was handled.

My key point is that given the experience with the government and its removal or not making an appointment—we are going to see the same thing with the Parliamentary Budget Officer, no doubt—an individual and a body who have the backbone to challenge the government are critical. They absolutely must have that independence and they must be made of the character to challenge them.

I have raised some issues. There is no question that we are going to support this bill moving forward because I believe decisions have to be made. I believe the bill could have been improved. It was not because the government does not allow anybody else's thoughts to enter its jurisdictions. Unless it is its own, it thinks it has no merit.

Let me close by saying there does need to be some changes within the RCMP. It is our national police force. It is unique around the world. People look to it as a symbol of Canada. This bill is a step forward in terms of regaining that reputation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-42 at third reading today.

First, I want to begin by paying tribute to the women and men of the RCMP who work every day to help keep our communities safe. Often we talk about the wondrous blessings of this very large and diverse country, but I would also add that sometimes it can be a large and cold country, which can be a curse as well as a blessing. With the conditions we faced in most of the country over the last week, I think we need to remember that the emergency services people, the RCMP and all those other front-line people, are still out there working in the cold, keeping us safe despite the harsh weather conditions that keep many of the rest of us at home.

I think that the opening of the third reading debate is a good time to remember why the bill is before the House. The government likes to emphasize the word “modernization” and say that it is time to review the act, that this is the first major revision over 25 years and, therefore, that we can bring things up to date since we last debated this in the House in 1988.

I would like to argue that it is before the House not just because time has elapsed and it is time to look at it again; it is before the House because we have very serious concerns to address regarding the RCMP.

I do take exception to the position that has been stated this morning, that somehow the NDP has an interest in this. What we are talking about is what we heard from witnesses and from stakeholders about some things that needed to be in this bill and were not there. We did propose amendments at the committee stage, and again at report stage, to address the serious concerns. I want to just remind the House what those are.

First, there is a declining confidence in the RCMP, despite the fine work done by women and men on the front lines every day. Overall, we have seen the public losing some of the confidence it has had over the years, which confidence has made the RCMP a national symbol in many ways.

Yes, the public still has confidence in the RCMP, but that decline in confidence, no matter how small, has to be a concern for members in this House.

Second, we have a clear problem with sexual harassment within the RCMP. We also heard in committee that we have problems with other kinds of harassment. Therefore we have to address that problem directly. It is not just updating the bill; it is dealing with something that has happened inside the RCMP over time that has led to 200 women bringing a lawsuit against the RCMP for the damage to their careers that happened as a result of sexual harassment in the RCMP.

Third—which the government focuses on almost exclusively, and I would agree—there is a need to deal with serious concerns about management of human resources and labour relations inside the RCMP.

Let me talk about each of those in a bit more detail and start with the declining confidence.

Obviously, we have had a number of unfortunate high-profile incidents over the last few years involving the RCMP, which resulted in deaths and serious injuries to the public. Some of this loss of confidence is to be expected whenever there are serious incidents of this kind.

However, in large part, I think the loss of confidence is attributable to the police investigating themselves. In these cases that involve, as I said, serious bodily harm and/or death, the public worries that somehow when police investigate police there will be a tendency to take care of one's own and to perhaps not pursue the investigation to its full length.

I believe that the police, generally, do a good job investigating themselves. However, if the public does not have confidence in that investigation, then we need to proceed in a different way.

Some of that loss of confidence is a direct result of public concern about the structures we use to hold the RCMP accountable.

Yes, the hon. member who is the parliamentary secretary talks about a very confusing set of overlapping jurisdictions, and we would agree with her. That is why we proposed, in committee, that there be one clear independent body that is able to investigate in these kinds of incidents; not adding that as another layer on top of existing bodies, but having one national civilian investigative agency in which both the public and the police could have confidence in the investigations that take place in these very serious cases.

Second, I talked about the problem we obviously have with sexual harassment within the RCMP. We cannot just brush this aside, saying the RCMP will deal with it, because obviously it has failed to do so. Anytime, as I mentioned, 200 members of the RCMP, for any reason, go outside the normal RCMP processes and ask the courts to intervene because of what they see as very damaging policies and practices within the RCMP, then we have a serious problem—and it is not a problem of just a few bad apples, but it is a systemic problem within the RCMP.

We on this side have a serious concern that there is a flaw in the culture of the RCMP, which is now deeply ingrained. It is a culture that all too often tolerates harassment in the workplace, specifically sexual harassment. Therefore, we put forward an amendment to the section that lists the responsibilities of the commissioner of the RCMP. This section outlines certain things that the RCMP commissioner must do, but does not list everything the commissioner does, as the hon. member on the other side implied. It establishes some clear responsibilities.

In committee, we heard from representatives of women who are bringing forward law suits. We also heard from experts on sexual harassment that, instead of trying to deal with the problem at the back end using discipline, there is a necessity to change the culture of the RCMP through training at the front end and make people aware of what they sometimes do not even perceive as harassment.

I know this from serving on a municipal police board. Some 10 years ago, we required all employees on the police board to go through harassment training. At the end of that training, some officers whom I respected said they had done some things over time that they had not realized had an impact on others within the police force.

That is the importance of stressing that putting harassment training into the responsibilities of the commissioner would help change the culture that results in the limitation of careers of women within the RCMP. We spend a lot of money training these officers, they gain a lot of experience, and they find their careers blocked or frustrated by a practice that is unacceptable, which is sexual harassment.

As I have said, when we have so many instances come forward, we have a systemic problem. This not an NDP proposal that would benefit the NDP, but most organizations have dealt with sexual harassment at the front end through training. Therefore, it is beyond me why the Conservatives fail to accept at least this one amendment, which is a very simple amendment, to add harassment training to the specific responsibilities of the commissioner.

Also, adding this specific responsibility for training would create accountability. When the commissioner comes before the House at the public safety committee, if there is a specific responsibility listed in the act, then it makes it possible for members of Parliament to ask questions on how that responsibility is being carried out, what the commissioner has done in this area, and how he or she has met the statutory responsibilities, instead of leaving the act silent on the question of sexual harassment.

As my hon. colleague said in his question, the words “sexual harassment” do not even appear in the bill that is put forward as a solution to the problem of sexual harassment. I will accept the parliamentary secretary's argument that harassment is not just sexual in nature and that there is a larger problem in the culture of the RCMP. However, that is why we put forward the amendment, which was rejected by the Conservatives, to make the bill something that would be part of the up-front efforts to change the culture of the RCMP. I believe this is a measure that would go a long way, along with independent oversight, to help restore confidence in the RCMP.

Our third concern, the management of labour resources, I think really comes down to what the parliamentary secretary raised. It is a discipline process that seems convoluted, sometimes arbitrary and often ineffective. We have had some egregious examples, especially in dealing with discipline regarding sexual harassment.

For example, a senior officer in one of the provinces was found guilty through the internal process of numerous incidents of sexual harassment of his female colleagues. The punishment that came out of this disciplinary process was to transfer him, near the end of his career, from a posting in a very cold part of the country to a posting in what I, of course, regard as one of the best parts of the country when it comes to climate. It did not seem like much punishment. It did not seem like very effective punishment to simply transfer the person, with no training required, and without any remedial work being done with the person. It was to simply transfer the person to another jurisdiction, and those problems may in fact have been transferred with the individual.

Therefore, we agree that the discipline process is sometimes convoluted, slow, arbitrary and ineffective. Of course, if the discipline process is not effective, it does make it difficult to deal effectively with all of those other challenges the RCMP faces.

Bill C-42 is before the House this session, and we on this side supported it at second reading because we acknowledge the seriousness of these challenges currently facing the RCMP, and we hoped to have a dialogue at committee that would result in a stronger bill. We heard from many witnesses and, as I said in my question to the parliamentary secretary, we heard from no one who was an independent witness, who was not an official of the RCMP, that he or she actually supported this bill.

I have talked at great length with the president of the Canadian Police Association, and he does have reservations about this bill despite the comments of the parliamentary secretary.

The Conservatives presented this bill to the House last summer, just before the break, and on this side we responded with the serious set of hearings of witnesses in the fall. I would argue we had a good set of hearings. We dealt with the issues substantively.

However, what it demonstrated was there was lots of room for improvement in this bill. Again, we put forward a package of amendments that we believed would serve to strengthen the bill and address those serious problems. All of those amendments were rejected. We also put forward amendments at report stage, and once again they were rejected.

It should come as no surprise to the government that on this side of the House we have found that we cannot support the bill at third reading. It leaves those major issues unaddressed.

It really exacerbates the problems that result from the paramilitary model that the RCMP initially adopted. When the RCMP was set up, the Government of Canada looked to the Royal Irish Constabulary, which had been established in Ireland in 1822. This was a paramilitary model that was designed to help police an Irish population that was hostile to what it saw as the British occupation.

There is another model from Britain, a model that I believe would better serve the Canadian context. That model is nearly as old. It was set up in 1829 for the Metropolitan Police of London based at Scotland Yard. Instead of being a paramilitary organization, the Metropolitan Police was set up on a community policing model and a model of shared governance, where there was more consultation with the cop on the beat about how to do policing and less of a top-down structure.

The solution in terms of administration and labour relations that the government has adopted here is to give the commissioner more power. To me, a lot of the problems we are facing result from that concentration of power in the hands of one person. What we suggested were some amendments that would help spread out that power, increase the authority of the external review committee, increase the confidence that rank and file members would have in the internal discipline process in the RCMP and, therefore, also increase public confidence in the RCMP.

We are opposing this bill because we believe that in the House of Commons we have a duty to do the best we can in terms of reforming an act, especially when these kinds of issues only come before the House once every 25 years.

To repeat, sexual harassment is still not in the bill. Our solution to tackle sexual harassment at the front end through training and a change in the culture rather than simply the disciplinary end was rejected by the Conservatives.

In terms of oversight, what we suggested in our amendments was a fully independent complaints commission reporting to the House of Commons. What do we have in the bill? We have a complaints commission that continues to report to the minister, and a commission that cannot make binding recommendations; it only can make non-binding recommendations to the minister and the commissioner.

To have a more fully independent commission, we thought some changes were needed: to report to the House of Commons, to allow binding recommendations. Those suggestions were rejected by the Conservatives.

Even the parliamentary secretary mentioned that there are four provinces, and of course the three territories, where there is no provision for independent investigation of the police. In those serious incidents involving serious bodily harm or involving death, in four provinces, even after this bill passes, we will still have police investigating police. This remains a serious confidence problem for the public.

The minister and the parliamentary secretary have both mischaracterized our proposal as one of adding to bureaucracy. Instead, what we were suggesting is an independent, civilian, national investigation organization that could replace some of those other organizations, replace some of the duplication, but most importantly would establish public confidence that when there are unfortunate incidents, they have been thoroughly investigated and will result in an outcome that has the appropriate consequences.

I want to take a couple of minutes to talk about two statements made by witnesses at the public safety committee. They both spoke about the solution of giving additional powers to the commissioner. One of those was Mr. Tom Stamatakis, president of the Canadian Police Association. In committee, on October 29, this is what he said:

Bill C-42 provides the commissioner with extraordinary powers in this regard, powers that 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, a quasi-judicial body that provides an impartial review of the process and ultimately a decision. Without any additional, and most importantly, independent avenue for appeal, I would suggest there is a possibility that RCMP members could lose faith in the impartiality of a process against them, particularly in situations in which the commissioner has delegated his authority for discipline.

In short, what Mr. Stamatakis was saying was in line with the amendment we proposed. We have an external review committee that looks at disciplinary decisions within the RCMP, but it only makes recommendations to the commissioner. If a rank and file member appeals his or her discipline, it goes to the independent external review committee, but the commissioner does not have to pay any attention to its decisions. Our amendment suggested that we could have greater independence for the external review committee, and that was supported by the Canadian Police Association.

Other witnesses at the public safety committee also spoke out against the power imbalance, in terms of labour relations, within Bill C-42. Most recently, we heard from Rob Creasser, media liaison in British Columbia for the Mounted Police Professional Association. It is sometimes called the non-union union, since the RCMP is prevented from unionization. What he said in committee was:

One major problem that exists in the RCMP is the tremendous power imbalances within the organization. Bill C-42, rather than mitigating these issues, will only make them exponentially worse.

If Bill C-42 is passed in its current form with the charter violations and avenues for continued abuse of power by managers, rather than correcting the issues that have plagued the RCMP, our Parliament would be promoting the bad behaviour and cronyism by legitimizing this type of behaviour.

That is a somewhat stronger statement than I might make on this issue, but it points to the direction of our amendment, which is that we need a more collaborative management structure, not a strengthening of the powers of one person and not a concentration of those powers in the hands of the commissioner alone.

It became apparent to us, after hearing witnesses and experts at committee, that the bill has deep flaws that will not fix the concerns the public and the rank and file members of the RCMP have.

Since Bill C-42 was passed in committee, 2,000 members of the RCMP have signed a petition stating that they were not properly consulted on the changes in the bill and that they do not believe the government is representing their best interests in this bill. Two thousand serving RCMP members signed the petition opposing this bill.

Bill C-42 still allows, in four provinces, for police to investigate police. Really, the solution adopted by the Conservatives is to dump responsibilities onto provincial investigating agencies rather than to guarantee that there is one high-quality civilian agency at the national level.

The NDP has put forward its package of amendments reflecting what independent witnesses said in the committee and reflecting the things we believe are necessary to address the three main concerns I talked about earlier in my speech.

Measures to address harassment training at the front end are critical to changing the culture in the RCMP. Measures to strengthen the independence of review bodies are critical to restoring public confidence in the RCMP.

The Conservatives are standing by their argument that putting more power in the hands of the commissioner to fire individual officers will curb all the ongoing issues in the RCMP. Giving the commissioner this concentration of power, we believe, would contribute to ongoing problems and not solutions.

I would conclude by saying that the NDP wish we could have supported the bill at third reading, but the government was not able to see its way clear to accepting any of the amendments that would have addressed these serious concerns.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when 200 women decide to take action and file a class action lawsuit, I think that speaks volumes about the problem of sexual harassment in the RCMP.

The term “sexual harassment” does not even appear in Bill C-42, and the Conservatives rejected an amendment as simple as providing all RCMP members with training in that regard.

Can someone explain this for me?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite pleased that my colleague spoke to the bill today because it is very important. I am very proud of the work that she has done on this file and in moving the bill forward.

In preparation for the debate today I was looking at some of the feedback that we have had from stakeholders across the country on the bill who would see a direct impact because of its proposed passage. For example, Catherine Ebbs, the chair of the Canadian Mounted Police External Review Committee stated:

Bill C-42 creates the opportunity for the force to renew and modernize their internal processes, and one focus in that development will be streamlining processes.

I think that's a very worthwhile exercise.

There are all sorts of people who would see a direct influence or impact with respect to the bill who have supported it because it is necessary. I was hoping my colleague could speak to some of the feedback that she has heard across the country on this important piece of legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today to speak in favour of Bill C-42, the enhancing RCMP accountability act.

With a history extending back to the very formation of our country, few national institutions are more symbolic of Canada than the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. For many Canadians and people in other countries, the Mounties have come to represent certain values associated with Canada, the values of integrity, honesty, courage and determination. When those values are questioned or tarnished, it not only undermines the functioning of the RCMP but also affects the very heart of how others see us and how we see ourselves.

For that reason, the government has taken a key interest in modernizing the RCMP to meet the challenges of the 21st century. I remind everyone that the RCMP Act was last substantially amended in 1988, some 25 years ago. The world has changed very much in the last 25 years. Canadians are rightly demanding greater accountability from the RCMP, alongside heightened transparency. The cumbersome RCMP human resources management framework, which is so heavily reliant on paperwork, only makes the situation worse, and the well-publicized charges of sexual harassment are further evidence that far-reaching changes are required within the RCMP. Yes, the institution has made valiant efforts to correct its problems through its transformation agenda, but these internal changes can only go so far. What is needed now is an overhaul of the legislation affecting the RCMP's oversight and operations.

The RCMP and Canadians understand the need for legislative changes. It is very unfortunate that the NDP cannot understand this and, sadly, will not be supporting this important bill. It was made clear throughout the committee hearings that there are structural deficiencies that must be fixed within the RCMP. There are management challenges that must be faced. There are issues of trust and confidence that must be resolved. The government is determined to deal with these questions head on.

As members will recall, the government came to office on a platform of clear priorities. These included enhancing public safety and security and strengthening accountability and transparency. Bill C-42 contains many of the provisions included in legislation introduced in the last Parliament to address accountability issues within the RCMP.

I would now like to review the key components of the bill along with amendments that were introduced at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

Canadians recognize the limitations of the current system of RCMP oversight. They want to know that public complaints against RCMP officers are handled expeditiously with thoroughness and impartiality. They want greater transparency so that justice is not only done but also seen to be done. The government has listened carefully and recognized the need to strengthen external oversight of the RCMP.

I do not want to suggest for one moment that this move denigrates the valuable work that has been accomplished by the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, the CPC, since its inception in 1988. It has done excellent work. Yet we must also acknowledge the concerns raised in many quarters that the current legislation hampers the CPC from doing its job thoroughly. For that reason, Bill C-42 proposes replacing the CPC with an arm's-length body to be known as the civilian review and complaints commission for the RCMP.

Bill C-42 enhances the powers of the CPC. For example, the new entity would continue to focus on reviewing public complaints through enhanced access to information. It could also summon witnesses to testify at a hearing. In addition, the new body would be able to more broadly review RCMP activities in a particular area of interest and report on its findings. What is more, the new commission would also be empowered to share information or conduct joint complaints investigations with counterparts in other jurisdictions, and it would produce customized reports on public complaints for each jurisdiction holding contracts with the RCMP. These reports would analyze the number and nature of complaints in a given period. They would also identify any trends within the complaints. In this way, the new commission would deliver a tailor-made report that would meet the needs and expectations of contract jurisdictions. These new measures have become the standard tools for modern review bodies.

One of the most sensitive areas of RCMP conduct involves what is known as “serious incidents”. These are cases where RCMP contact with the Canadian public results in serious injury or death. In these high-profile events, it is vital that investigations of these cases is carried out independently, transparently and impartially. As I indicated earlier, it is important to the integrity of these investigations and the reputation of the RCMP that this impartiality be apparent from the very start of the investigation of these serious incidents. That is why the proposed bill would require the RCMP to refer all cases of serious incidents to a civilian investigative body within the relevant province. This body would ensure that the investigation is conducted in an impartial, transparent manner.

Of course, not every province has a civilian investigative body that can handle cases of this nature. If a provincial civilian agency does not exist, the case would then be referred to another police force. However, there are situations where there is no civilian body or other police agency available to conduct the investigation. For instance, at some remote RCMP locations the legislation would provide for this third possibility. In the absence of an external body, the RCMP would investigate the incident itself. Since this would justifiably raise all of the old concerns about independence, transparency and conflict of interest, the proposed legislation would go even further. If the RCMP or another police force were in charge of investigating these serious incidents, the jurisdiction in question or the new commission could appoint an independent observer to assess the impartiality of these investigations.

The government has worked hard to promote the accountability and transparency demanded by serious incidents. I know we have succeeded with the provisions that are outlined in Bill C-42.

Until now, I have concentrated my remarks on how the bill would enhance the accountability of the RCMP to all Canadians. However, accountability is also a concern within the RCMP itself. Over the past year, incidents related to alleged misconduct and sexual harassment in the RCMP have been well documented by the media. The current human resources management framework clearly does not allow for the commissioner to deal with these internal issues expeditiously. That is why a large portion of Bill C-42 is devoted to revamping and modernizing the RCMP discipline, grievance and human resources management practice. The chief concern with disciplinary action is the requirement to turn over serious cases to an adjudication board. The current policy embedded in existing legislation accomplishes and, in some cases, results in two things. First, it sets in motion a bureaucratic nightmare, a process full of delays that can stretch on for years and can create animosities that poison workplaces. Second, by taking away power from front-line managers, the latter lose the ability to correct behaviours and return the members to work quickly and put the incident behind them, or to demonstrate to others in the workplace that inappropriate behaviour is not acceptable. Currently, front-line managers do not have the ability to do this within the RCMP. It is time they have the ability to manage the people they work with in a modern, efficient way.

Bill C-42 would modify this process substantially. Most significantly, it would empower front-line managers within the RCMP. Under the bill's provisions, these managers could impose consequences or measures for most contraventions of the code of conduct. For example, managers could impose remedial training or corrective action or, in some cases, dock the officer's pay. Managers would only hand over the case to a conduct board if the review could lead to the firing of an officer.

The grievance process is just as troubling as the process for discipline, perhaps even more so, if that is possible. There seem to be as many processes as there are issues. A member who has a problem with his or her terms and conditions of employment goes one route. A member appealing a discharge goes yet another. Another member appealing a disciplinary sanction takes yet a third route. There are so many different administrators and processes for each one of these incidents that through it all, front-line managers are kept in the dark many times. It is time to shine the light of accountability on it and to find solutions.

Under Bill C-42, a single process would be instated for both grievances and appeals by members. The same set of administrators would deal with them. The same decision-makers would review the results. In this way the system would be much simpler, more consistent and operate with greater efficiency. Complementing this formal approach, front-line managers would be encouraged to deal with minor problems informally and at the first occurrence, as human resource managers across the country in other police forces are able to do before these occurrences become official grievances and before they undermine a positive workplace culture.

Our improvements to RCMP management would not be complete without also considering the important role of the commissioner. In short, the commissioner currently lacks authority for decisions that would be part of any senior manager's tool kit, including those provided to other police chiefs. To rectify these shortcomings the proposed legislation would give the commissioner new authorities. These include, for example, the power to demote and discharge members, to appoint commissioned officers and to investigate disputes involving workplace harassment.

I have highlighted the major provisions of Bill C-42 for consideration by the House. I would now like to take note and explain the changes that were adopted by the House of Commons at report stage. The committee accepted three substantive amendments. These were issues that were raised by witnesses throughout the hearings. We were pleased to further strengthen the legislation by these amendments.

As amended, the bill now supports the establishment of a strengthened reserve program, relying heavily on retired RCMP and other police officers. Currently, reservists are limited to how long they can serve consecutively. This change is important for a number of reasons, one being that it gives managers much needed staffing flexibility and helps ensure a healthy and strong workplace by reducing the amount of overtime worked by regular members. I am pleased that the committee agreed to enhance the RCMP's ability to benefit from the reserve program without interruptions in service time.

The second amendment provides clarity for the chairperson regarding immunity. The original provision provided immunity to every member, officer or employee performing the duties, powers and functions of the new commission. This was always intended to include the chairperson. As such, the committee saw fit to formally spell out in the legislation that the chairperson also has immunity. The final amendment clarifies that the RCMP commissioner cannot refuse to investigate a complaint initiated by the chairperson.

The proposed legislation, together with the three substantive amendments, would bring the laws governing the RCMP into the 21st century. It is puzzling that the NDP would work with us at committee to further strengthen the legislation and then sadly play these games at report stage and now not support this important piece of legislation. I sincerely call on the NDP to support the legislation and to work with our government to help stop harassment within the RCMP.

We heard repeatedly at committee stage that the proposed legislation would give the RCMP the flexibility it needs. At the same time, by addressing structural problems it would enhance accountability and transparency. In doing so it will bolster trust and confidence in the RCMP by both Canadians and Mounties.

While sadly it seems that the NDP will not put aside its ideological opposition to our common sense reforms, I can assure Canadians that our Conservative government will be supporting the bill at third reading.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

moved that Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Yes, I have a plan, Mr. Speaker.

This afternoon, we will continue today's NDP opposition day.

Tomorrow, we should finish the second reading debate on Bill C-52, Fair Rail Freight Service Act. Then, we will resume the second reading debate on Bill C-48, Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012.

Before question period on Monday and Tuesday, the House will debate third reading of Bill C-42, Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act. After question period those days, we will turn to second reading of Bill C-51, Safer Witnesses Act.

On Wednesday, we will debate second reading of Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act. I do not expect that this bill, which responds to views of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, would need a lot of House time. I hope we can deal with it quickly. We could then turn to report stage and possible third reading of Bill S-7, the combating terrorism act.

Next Thursday shall be the fourth allotted day, which I understand will see the Liberals choosing our topic of debate.

On Friday, we will resume any unfinished debates on the bills we just mentioned, or we could also consider dealing with any of the many bills dealing with aboriginal issues. That being raised as a concern, we have Bill S-2 dealing with matrimonial property; we have another bill dealing with safe water for first nations; and we have another bill dealing with fair elections for first nations. On all of these bills we would welcome the support of the official opposition. We have not had that to date, but if we do, we can deal with them very quickly on that day. I would be delighted to do that. I will await with interest the response from the NDP.

Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment about my colleague's speech and about the questions he was asked in this House.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North told us that it is completely ridiculous not to support this bill at second reading, when the Liberals did exactly the same thing with Bill C-42, the Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act. They said that the Conservatives would never agree to any amendments and it was foolish—that may not have been the exact term they used—to believe that they would. Yet, now, they are saying the complete opposite.

I am shocked to see that the Conservatives are not respecting the work that was done by parliamentarians during consideration of Bill C-41 in the last Parliament. Does the hon. member really believe that any work could be accomplished in committee?

If amendments are going to be accepted, why are the amendments that were agreed to in the previous Parliament not already included in this bill?

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking everyone involved in supporting us as members of Parliament in Tuesday’s voting. Despite all of the amendments at committee and in the House, the balance of the government’s 2012 economic action plan will become law shortly.

This afternoon, the House will resume consideration of second reading of Bill C-15, the Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act. Once that has concluded, we will turn to report stage of Bill C-37, the Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act, Bill C-42, the Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, and Bill C-43, the Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act.

We will continue working on these bills tomorrow.

Monday shall be the seventh allotted day, which goes to the New Democrats. This gives the official opposition one last opportunity before the new year to lay out its plans and schemes for a $21.5 billion job-killing carbon tax that will raise the price of everything.

For the rest of the week, I hope to advance a lot of legislation that continues to sit on the order paper. In addition to the bills I mentioned already, we will also consider Bill C-48, the technical tax amendments act, 2012; Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act; Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act; Bill S-6, the first nations elections act; Bill S-10, the prohibiting cluster munitions act; Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act; Bill C-17, the Air Canada and its associates act; and Bill S-7, the combating terrorism act, once that bill has been reported back from committee next week, which I anticipate.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is completely incorrect. We have not cut funding at all to front-line officers. In fact, what the RCMP and the commissioner have asked for is that they have the ability to update and modernize the human resources management processes to give the complaints commissioner more ability, among other things. That is what Bill C-42 would do.

We are giving the RCMP what it has asked for, but the NDP continues to vote against common sense, reasonable measures to help the RCMP restore pride. New Democrats talk a lot about it, but when it comes to action, they do nothing.

Public Safety and National Security

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security in relation to Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

Combating Terrorism Act

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in this House about Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Security of Information Act.

The official opposition is opposed to this bill because it will not solve any of the problems related to terrorism and it rides roughshod over civil liberties and values that are very dear to Canadians. Once again, the Criminal Code would be amended by the government, when there are already provisions that make it possible to protect society by investigating and detaining persons who commit offences. I am referring here to part II.1 and sections 83.01 to 83.33 of the Criminal Code. Moreover—and this is what is most worrisome, in my opinion—this bill creates an imbalance between security and the most fundamental rights that exist in society.

I will remind members of the four objectives of Bill S-7. First, it would amend the Criminal Code in order to include investigative hearings and recognizance with conditions. Second, it would make changes to the Canada Evidence Act. A judge could order the public disclosure of potentially sensitive information concerning a trial or an accused person once the appeal period is over. Third, new offences would be created in the Criminal Code concerning individuals who have left or attempted to leave Canada for the purpose of committing a terrorist act. Finally, the Security of Information Act would also be amended. The maximum penalty for harbouring an individual who committed or is liable to commit a terrorist act would be longer.

To begin with, one wonders why this bill was introduced in the Senate at first reading. That is always a legitimate question, and I hope that later in this debate, the government will give us an answer. Moreover, I would point out that my hon. colleague, the member for Gatineau and the justice critic for the official opposition, asked the same question in the House on October 15.

Secondly, I am confused about what motivated the government to introduce Bill S-7. I am going to read the remarks made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice in the speech she gave on October 15, 2012.

Since the horrific events of 9/11, the absence of terrorist violence on Canadian territory does not preclude the possibility of a terrorist attack. Canada's solidarity with the international community of nations in the fight against terrorism has rendered Canada a potential target.

I am troubled by such statements because, since 2007, nothing has happened in Canada. The country has not been subject to terrorist attacks. Leading Canadians to believe that our country could be a target for terrorist acts and then using that argument to put in place a legal arsenal that is very questionable in terms of our civil liberties and legal rights—we will talk about this later—is not the right approach. The NDP believes that terrorism will not be fought on the legislative field but, rather, by improving intelligence gathering and the sharing of information among the various intelligence agencies.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice went on to say the following:

It is our responsibility to lay down the rules by which terrorism is fought. We are responsible for tracing the difficult line between combatting terrorism and preserving liberties in a way that is effective and gives clear guidance to those charged with combatting terrorism on the ground.

Once again, I would like to express my disagreement with the hon. member. I repeat: this bill creates an imbalance between fundamental rights and security.

I would like to draw the House's attention to some provisions of this bill that could infringe on the rights of children. I would also like to talk about those that would be a welcome improvement in terms of intelligence gathering and the sharing of information among the various intelligence agencies in Canada, which are found in clauses 4 to 8 of this bill.

First, I am going to read the words of the hon. member for Gatineau with regard to Bill S-7 and the youth criminal justice system. These questions should be of great interest to all members of the House.

What will we do about minors living in these kinds of situations? Who will have precedence? Will it be the youth courts, which usually have exclusive jurisdiction over children under the age of 18? Will those provisions take precedence? There is a great deal of concern here. What rights are there? What do we do about the right not to incriminate oneself? What need is there for us to impose this kind of direction on a system in which we have no evidence of this kind of need?

A distinction must be made between a habitual criminal and a young person whose parents have forced him or her to commit a crime. That is not at all the same thing. I have the same questions for the government again today.

Based on Senate committee evidence, the bill clearly violates Canada's international obligations regarding the protection of children's rights.

Kathy Vandergrift, chair of the board of directors of the Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children, has expressed some reservations about detaining minors, especially considering the Convention on the Rights of the Child and other international agreements signed by Canada. She suggested amending the bill to ensure that it complies with international laws that apply to people under the age of 18. She said, and I quote:

The Paris Principles emphasize using detention only as a last resort, not as the primary response to evidence of unlawful recruitment activities. Recent research in Australia documents the negative impacts of even short times in detention for the healthy development of young people.

I would now like to focus on one particular aspect of clauses 4 to 8 of the bill. Those clauses create a new Criminal Code offence: leaving Canada or attempting to leave Canada for the purpose of committing certain terrorism offences.

My hon. colleague from Toronto—Danforth very clearly explained the problems associated with those provisions. I would like to quote something he said in this House on October 15, 2012, regarding border security and controls. This issue is of particular concern to me, since my riding of Brome—Missisquoi has an airport and border crossings.

At the moment, we all know there are no exit controls at all the borders, notably at airports, other than no-fly lists for those deemed to be a threat to aviation. Testimony before the Senate made it clear that co-operation protocols or memorandums of understanding would be needed among CSIS, the RCMP and the CBSA.

Mr. Fadden, the director of CSIS, went further and noted that would have to extend likely to CATSA, the agency of the Department of Transport that regulates security. How these protocols will be developed and what kind of accountability there will be for their operation remains a concern especially because the RCMP, a key link in the inter-agency collaboration that will be needed here, has been shown by both the Arar and the Air India inquiries to be an agency that suffers from lack of accountability and inappropriate oversight mechanisms. Yet, with the government's Bill C-42, we see that it has no intention of acting on the Arar commission's carefully thought through recommendations for RCMP accountability and oversight.

Perhaps the government could provide some answers today to this important question raised by my honourable colleague.

I want to list the risks and flaws associated with this bill. This bill would allow individuals who have not been charged with any crime to be imprisoned for up to 12 months or subjected to strict recognizance conditions. The NDP believes that this is contrary to the core values of our justice system. The provisions of this bill could be used for purposes other than to combat terrorism, such as to target individuals engaged in protest activities.

In closing, this bill to combat terrorism raises too many key questions with regard to protecting our fundamental rights and our civil liberties. The presumption of innocence, the right not to incriminate oneself, the right to be told quickly what we are accused of and the right to defend ourselves against those charges are essential concepts in a society where the rule of law prevails.

Accordingly, the NDP firmly believes that neither combating terrorism nor preventing terrorism should jeopardize these fundamental rights and civil liberties. For all these reasons, the NDP is opposed to this bill.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my remarks today will be on a series of clauses in Bill S-7, clauses 4 through 8, which would add a number of sections dealing with the question of leaving or attempting to leave the country for purposes related to terrorism.

These proposed provisions that will make it a crime to leave or attempt to leave Canada to join a terrorist group or participate in a terrorist activity respond to very real concerns. Assuming the accuracy of testimony before the Senate, there are worries about a non-trivial number, even if a proportionately small number, of citizens or permanent residents contemplating leaving Canada for this reason or having already done so. There is reason to believe that male youth under age 18 or young men over age 18 in some diasporic communities are targeted, especially for recruitment to join in terrorist activities abroad. There is very much reason to be concerned.

All that noted, we are led, as we must always be when youth are highly likely to be the main subject of criminal law measures, to wonder if criminalization will be as productive a measure as its proponents hope. Let us assume that we all believe in preventive measures of a social, educational, mentoring sort alongside addressing root causes of alienation that lead to the kind of radicalization we are concerned about in this context. The question then becomes what the value would be of criminal charges against youth arrested at airports or other borders seeking to leave Canada.

At least for those under age 18, it is true that the Youth Criminal Justice Act will apply and that the act allows for holistic education-centred sentences, for example. That is a good thing, although everyone needs to be reminded of two caveats: one, that youth still receive criminal records; and two, that the Crown can always seek to apply for adult sentences. However, once one reaches that magic number of 18, we are left with the full-blown application of the criminal law. At minimum, we need to know that the approach of government is more multifaceted than reliance on these new Criminal Code provisions alone.

In this respect, there is one thing proponents have in common with those of us who are concerned about promoting non-criminal measures to divert people, especially youth, from radicalization of the sort that embraces violence, and that is prevention. If prevention could be achieved in ways short of the cumbersome and often clumsy invocation of the criminal law, I suspect that some productive consensus could be arrived at. The problem, however, is that it is very hard to design coercive measures to prevent a person's departure shy of using the criminal law while still remaining faithful to principles related to liberty and the rule of law that we cherish.

It might be thought that one way to use the criminal law in a way that falls short of full-scale criminalization would be for these new provisions to be used as the basis for detention by the Canada Border Services Agency and then arrest and charge by the RCMP, but then have the Crown decide not to prosecute. Keep in mind that when I say the Crown, I mean the Attorney General because these new provisions are among those in the Criminal Code that require the Attorney General's consent to prosecute.

When one reads the Senate committee records for Bill S-7, one gets the impression that there may be in part some who may mean, by the new provisions, this kind of idea in terms of the preventive purpose. If these new provisions allowed the state to prevent people, for example, youth, from joining terrorist enterprises while not resulting in criminal convictions and sentences, would this not be a defensible result? The answer seems clear. Criminal law will not be able to function within acceptable limits if it becomes a tool for disruption, whereby arrest is the end goal, but not prosecution. The more a system can be used with no real intention of prosecuting, the more it will over time be used in exactly that way.

For the Criminal Code to maintain its integrity, its implication must only ever be on the basis of good faith that each stage of decision-making is relevant, good faith that there is adequate evidence to sustain a prosecution. All this leads to the question of whether we actually do have a prosecution system in Canada that is willing and able to prosecute, considering that much of the evidence for the new offences will be produced from intelligence that CSIS and perhaps other agencies may well not be prepared to allow to go to court for fear of revealing sources and methods.

We know from the Air India inquiry how such considerations can inhibit effective prosecution. We have no reason to believe that the prosecution capacity has changed since the 2010 Air India report. Therefore, we may end up with a system that theoretically allows for proof of intention to leave the country for these purposes. We can all imagine the kinds of proof, ranging from emails, parents or community members, provision of information, information from foreign intelligence and so on. Therefore, a system that theoretically allows for proof of intention is possible but in practice may lead to charges being dropped because intelligence agencies will not want evidence made public. If so, we may inadvertently end up with the criminal law being used, in the way I talked about earlier, as a means to disrupt behaviour with limited prospect for use for its prescribed purpose of criminal prosecution. Therefore, in committee this may be an issue worth probing. Will the sort of evidence available actually usable before the courts?

Let us now look at another challenge, which is the interface of acquiring evidence of intent to leave the country for this purpose and logistics. This is the issue of how all of this will work at the point of exit from Canada.

At the moment, we all know there are no exit controls at all the borders, notably at airports, other than no-fly lists for those deemed to be a threat to aviation. Testimony before the Senate made it clear that co-operation protocols or memorandums of understanding would be needed among CSIS, the RCMP and the CBSA.

Mr. Fadden, the director of CSIS, went further and noted that would have to extend likely to CATSA, the agency of the Department of Transport that regulates security. How these protocols will be developed and what kind of accountability there will be for their operation remains a concern especially because the RCMP, a key link in the inter-agency collaboration that will be needed here, has been shown by both the Arar and the Air India inquiries to be an agency that suffers from lack of accountability and inappropriate oversight mechanisms. Yet, with the government's Bill C-42, we see that it has no intention of acting on the Arar commission's carefully thought through recommendations for RCMP accountability and oversight.

However, there are two comments by Director Fadden that most definitely will need to be followed up in the House of Commons committee after second reading.

I will turn to the first one. He said:

—I emphasize that we have not developed the protocols yet. What we will need to do is work closely with the Mounties and make sure [that] we are communicating at all times with border services.

The other complicating factor...is that Canada has no system for controlling exits. We do not even have a system to be aware when people are leaving. This will involve more than the CBSA; it may well involve CATSA, the agency of the Department of Transport that regulates security.

I should not say much more because I will get myself into a situation I will not be able to get myself out of.

We will need to better understand what is being considered, what is being referred to here by the director of CSIS. Is some form of cross the border surveillance system to clock everyone's exits being contemplated? That seems to be hinted at within the statement, especially the sentence, “We do not even have a system to be aware when people are leaving”. The suggestion is that such a system of awareness is some sort of requirement, a sine qua non for the protocols to be implemented to give effect to these new Criminal Code provisions.

One way to be aware of someone exiting the country is to already have identified them as having the intention that this criminal provision talks about and then to track them to the airport. However, that kind of specificity may not be what Mr. Fadden is actually alluding to.

To return to the question I have already asked once, are we looking at a more general surveillance system that CATSA, for example, would operate? We need clear answers on this in committee.

It might also be that a revision of the no-fly list is part of what is being contemplated as a general surveillance mechanism.

At another point in his testimony before the Senate, Mr. Fadden discussed why no-fly lists would not currently provide the mechanism: (a) for being aware of when someone is seeking to leave; and (b) for preventing that person from boarding the aircraft. Here is his observation:

The current structure of the no-fly list program is such that you have to be a threat to aviation....My understanding is that officials are preparing a series of proposals for ministers to try to make this list a little more subtle, but I do not know where they are on it.

Is it possible that the government is considering a mechanism to put people on a no-fly list based on evidence, at whatever standard of proof, that the person intends to leave Canada in a way that would violate one of these new leaving the country provisions? If so, we need to know much more about how this would work in relation to enforcement of these new provisions in the code, how people would be put on this list and how they could get off.

Would this be an alternative to arrest and possible prosecution under the criminal law provisions? If so, is this possibly preferable to direct intervention of the RCMP to arrest, followed by possible prosecution? I think in particular of how this would avoid criminalization of youth where the primary concern with respect to the kind of radicalization that leads them to want to leave Canada to get involved with terrorism.

At the same time, however, what we know about how no-fly lists currently operate in a zone of non-accountability leaves me deeply doubtful that this approach would provide a preferable preventive mechanism.

Just for example, the experience of Maher Arar and other Canadians like Mr. Almalki, Mr. Elmaati and Mr. Nureddin create real worries about what could happen to a Canadian who ends up on a no-fly list for reasons related to CSIS or RCMP speculation about intentions to engage in terrorism.

The Canadian government's purpose might be to stop the person from leaving Canada. Perhaps the purpose is to get youth to think twice before trying to leave Canada by another means. However, foreign intelligence agencies that might get access to our no-fly list might act very differently on that very same information if the person in question ever did leave Canada and then showed up on the radar screen of some country when seeking to use that country's airport.

The reason this is of such concern is that the connection between a person and terrorism within this new leaving the country criminal law provision can be very attenuated. Intentionally attempting to leave becomes itself a terrorism offence and the evidentiary basis for being put on a no-fly list as opposed to being brought forward for prosecution may be far below the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt within our criminal law system. Yet on such a possible thin basis, someone's name could enter into the interconnected global system of surveillance that could lead to preventive arrest or worse in other countries on that basis alone.

I emphasize that those are concerns prompted by an admittedly very brief reference from Mr. Fadden, but in the context it is potentially a very telling reference. We must be aware how collaboration and information-sharing works between intelligence agencies between countries. This is something I have had the chance to study in some depth several years ago when preparing a report for the settlement process in Mr. Arar's lawsuit against Canada.

Unless we have confidence in how people would get on this new, more subtle, to use Mr. Fadden's language, no-fly list and confidence in whether, how and with whom the names on that list and the reasons for being on that list are shared, there is much to be worried about with respect to Mr. Fadden's revelation about a more subtle no-fly list.

In any event, I think the point is clear that, based upon the testimony of the director of CSIS before the Senate, this needs to have detailed testimony and scrutiny in committee after second reading in this House.

I will now turn to a few comments, one, in particular, made by Minister of Justice when he was testifying before the Senate. He talked about how investigative hearings could produce the evidence to discern the intent of a person to leave the country for purposes of terrorism. However, we know that investigative hearing provisions, which are being proposed to be restored in the Criminal Code by this bill, state that testimony cannot be used as evidence in court against the person giving that testimony.

This leaves us with one of two possibilities with respect to what the minister was referring to.

The first is that he is actually thinking about using this mechanism as a mode of detention and arrest but not necessarily going to prosecution. We return, therefore, to the problem of use of the criminal law system to allow for disruption with no real prospect for prosecution.

More likely, however, the minister could not have meant that. He must have meant that investigative hearings will be used to question people about other people's intentions and, thereby, use that as evidence for the attempt to leave provisions of the Criminal Code. If so, this would have profound implications with respect to how often and to which people these investigative hearings would be used as evidence-gathering tools. We need to discuss this in committee.

The minister also suggests evidence of intention to leave the country could come out of the hearings that deal with preventive recognizance with conditions. Presumably, again he means someone else is brought to such a hearing about some impending terrorist act and information is then revealed about another person and that evidence is then used to prove that person intends to leave the country for purposes of terrorism.

We need to ask the minister and his officials what he meant by reference to those two sunsetted provisions, if they come back into law, as being mechanisms to gather evidence of intention to leave the country.

That raises another question. Would the proposed new clause 83.3, resurrected from the 2001 Anti-terrorism Act, allow for recognizance with conditions if someone can be shown to be on the point of leaving? Because this would be a terrorist act, when people attempt to leave, they are now engaging in a terrorist act according to the new provisions. They can then be required to stay and their passport taken away for up to 12 months. Is this scenario possible? Is this in fact a planned sequence? Does the government have this in mind?

Keeping in mind how the United Kingdom actually uses control orders to prevent departures from the country, the question has to be asked whether or not this is something the government contemplates. This is a question to pursue, again in committee.

I will conclude with the overall comment that there is much to look at in committee if we are to fully appreciate and make judgments about the utility of these new attempting to leave or leaving the country Criminal Code provisions.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a very big bill. With all due respect, it is a bit of a simplistic argument that the term 'sexual harassment' should be literally in this legislation. We are talking about all kinds of issues that may arise in serious incidents. It is very simplistic to name every type and form of whether it is harassment or a serious incident.

The bill would give the RCMP the ability to deal with all harassment, and that is what we want. When we start segregating it, that is where the problem is. Let us deal with all harassment. When we do that, the RCMP will be able to deal with sexual harassment and other forms of harassment.

That is what Bill C-42 would do. It would also help deal with a serious incident. If we want to start listing what a serious incident is for the RCMP, again, it is not a good way to deal with issues that might arise within the force, which we respect immensely. Ninety-nine per cent of the members of the RCMP are doing a fantastic job and we respect them. However, we will deal with it under Bill C-42.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the answers from the parliamentary secretary.

I find it sad is that there is absolutely no mention of sexual harassment in Bill C-42. It is extremely unfortunate because this bill is supposed to deal with sexual harassment.

Also, with respect to the consultations, during his presentation on Bill C-42, the minister confirmed in committee yesterday that he had not formally consulted members of the RCMP prior to introducing Bill C-42. It is unfortunate that members were not formally consulted before this legislation on the RCMP is imposed.

I am sure that everyone here, all the parties, recognize that we must deal with the problem of sexual harassment, especially when it concerns our federal police force. However, we need something more. We need an anti-harassment policy, we need wide-ranging, real action.

I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary why is more not being done, why is an anti-harassment policy not included in Bill C-42?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the question put forward to the House by the member for Alfred-Pellan regarding the issue of sexual harassment in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, RCMP.

All of us are very concerned with this issue. We are all definitely concerned with the issue of sexual harassment within the RCMP and in any workplace. We are also concerned with the issue of general harassment within the RCMP.

As my hon. colleague will recall, yesterday we heard testimony from Commissioner Paulson. He talked about the fact that men and women both felt harassment. About 33% of women and 26% of men feel they have been harassed. In terms of sexual harassment, about 3% of women feel they have been sexually harassed. All members certainly were certainly concerned with that.

I disagree with the member's premise that our government is not taking action on this. In fact, we are taking very firm action and have made strong statements on these issues. We took immediate action by asking the Commissioner for Public Complaints Against the RCMP to take an in-depth look at how harassment complaints were managed in the workplace. We also have a commissioner who, from the time he was appointed, has taken a strong stance on this issue, and we congratulate him on that.

In addition to that, our government, which has been a majority for just over a year, has brought forward a lot of initiatives. One of those initiatives is the introduction of Bill C-42, which would update the RCMP Accountability Act.

As my hon. colleague heard testimony from the commissioner yesterday, and we will hear more testimony, changing the RCMP Accountability Act and legislation by which it is governed is the fundamental foundation to change the culture in the RCMP. This would address the harassment and certainly help bring an end to sexual harassment. It would change the complaints process and modernized it, among a host of other things that are being done under Bill C-42.

I do not know whether the member heard the testimony yesterday, but the commissioner was very clear in wanting the legislation to pass. He was very technical in the way he spoke about how accusations of any kind of harassment had to be dealt with and how draconian it could be right now. That is why he asked that we get the legislation passed.

We have consulted with the provinces and other stakeholders and introduced the proposed legislation. It is good legislation that addresses a number of factors within the RCMP: how public complaints are made; how to deal with serious incidents by the RCMP, ensuring that police are not investigating police; and it lays the foundation to deal with issues like sexual harassment.

We would encourage the opposition to reread the bill and look, in a foundational way, at what can be done. When a human resource department is able to deal with issues like this, it is usually the best to help change the culture, but it needs the tools. The RCMP, under the current legislation, does not have the tools.

The commissioner was clear yesterday when he said that the RCMP did not need more money, that it just needed these rules changed so it could do the work it needed to do. He wanted his human resource managers and supervisors to be able to deal with issues at the level they appeared. Sometimes it is education, working together, mitigation and discipline. These are all things that the RCMP need tools to do and they are in Bill C-42.

We encourage the opposition to get the bill through committee and into law so the RCMP can work at these sexual harassment and other harassment cases.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today in the House to talk about an issue that is of great concern to me. Unfortunately, this matter has been in the media several times in recent years and especially in recent months.

As the deputy critic for public safety for the official opposition, I recognize the excellent work of the police officers who protect Canadians by risking their lives every day. In the past few years, many Canadians have said that they are concerned by the allegations about the RCMP. For some time, the RCMP has been plagued by scandals involving sexual harassment, among other things, and several female officers have said that they were victims.

On July 30, in Vancouver, 200 women made headlines when they came forward to join a class action suit to bring to light the sexual harassment they allegedly suffered as members of the federal police force. Women such as Officer Janet Merlo, Corporal Catherine Galliford and Constable Karen Katz had the courage to take a stand and denounce the sexual harassment they suffered for years in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

For these women, every day was a challenge. Today, I congratulate them for having the courage to report this unacceptable situation. Last November, Corporal Catherine Galliford was the first to report that she has been the victim of sexual harassment. Officer Merlo filed her complaint in March. The lawyers for these women expected a dozen other women to follow suit. Instead, more than 200 women contacted their law firm to join the proposed class action lawsuit.

It has been confirmed that the allegations in question range from sexism in how promotions were awarded to accusations of sexual assault, and that these allegations have been made across the country. On May 10, 2012, I asked this government to take action and give the RCMP the resources it needs to combat sexual harassment. Last week I participated in the debate on Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts. Although this bill gives more disciplinary powers to the commissioner and the ability to establish a more effective process to resolve disputes relating to harassment, the bill itself cannot bring about a change in corporate culture, which is absolutely necessary to specifically address the allegations of sexual harassment.

In fact, this bill does not go far enough to address the concerns of women working in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. These women are calling for immediate action to create a safer and more open work environment. Unfortunately, the government failed to take initiative and leadership on this issue. It has been in power since 2006, and despite several reports and recommendations, such as Justice O'Connor's 2006 report and David Brown's 2007 report, which proposed major changes to the RCMP, it took six years to decide to address the situation.

Why did the government wait so long to address this situation? Why did it not take the situation of these women seriously and take action to put an end to these crimes as quickly as possible?

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, last week on the Thursday question we asked the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons to respond to a sincere offer by the opposition to make Parliament work for Canadians by listing a number of bills on which the opposition was willing to work with the government. In response to that question, the government House leader spent a great deal of his time fabricating New Democratic Party policy rather than doing the job of House leaders, which is to formulate a strategy to make this place function for Canadians.

If the government spent at least 50% of its energy working with the opposition on such bills, it might acknowledge the progress on such bills as Bill C-42, Bill C-21, Bill C-44, Bill C-37, and Bill C-32. They are proof of the opposition's willingness to make this place function for Canadians. They also disprove the myth that the government had to use closure out of necessity rather than its own ideology and perspective of how a democracy ought to run.

The clear question in front of the government is twofold. When will we see the opposition days in the coming calendar for the official opposition? Also, a question which is on the minds of many Canadians with respect to a second budget implementation bill is, will we see a repeat of the one we saw in the spring? Many people called it a Trojan horse bill because it contained many measures that had absolutely nothing to do with the budget.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, first, let me formally welcome back all hon. members to the House of Commons from their productive summers in their ridings, which I trust they had, working with and listening to constituents.

On the government side of the House, we heard loud and clear that the priority of Canadians remains the economy. It is our priority too. Not one person raised with me a desire to see a $21 billion carbon tax implemented to raise the price of gas, groceries and winter heat. I do not expect the member will see that in our agenda.

I also want to extend a warm welcome, on behalf of Conservatives, to this year's class of pages. I am certain that their time with us, here in our hard-working, productive and, I hope, orderly House of Commons, will lead to lifelong memories.

Yesterday, we were able to pass Bill C-42, Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, at second reading. I want to thank hon. members for their co-operation on that.

I am optimistic that we will see similar co-operation to allow us to finish second reading debate tomorrow on Bill C-37, Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act, which the hon. Leader of the Opposition talked about.

This afternoon, of course, is the conclusion of the New Democrats' opposition day. As announced earlier this week, Tuesday will be a Liberal opposition day.

On Monday, the House will start debate on Bill C-43, the faster removal of foreign criminals act. This legislation would put a stop to foreign criminals relying on endless appeals in order to delay their removal from Canada and it sends a strong signal to foreign criminals that Canada is not a safe haven. I hope we will have support from the opposition parties for rapid passage of the bill designed to make our communities safer.

Starting on Wednesday, the House will debate Bill C-44, the helping families in need act. Once the opposition caucuses have met to discuss this important bill, I am confident they would want to support the early passage of this legislation as well. It would enhance the income support provided to families whose children have been victims of crime or are critically ill.

If we have additional time tomorrow or next week, the House will consider Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the Defence of Canada Act; Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act; and Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act.

We are interested in Bill C-21, which deals with accountability for political loans and making that consistent with the other political contribution provisions. If we have a consensus among parties to bring that forward, we will certainly do that.

Similarly, if we can see a consensus among parties on passing Bill C-32 as it has been presented to the House, we would be pleased to do that on unanimous consent.

Enhancing RCMP Accountability Act

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that last night Bill C-42, the enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police accountability act, passed second reading. This bill would give the RCMP the tools it needs to enhance trust and restore accountability in its ranks.

The positive response to our government's proposed reforms has been heard loud and clear. This legislation is urgently needed. I was also pleased to hear that the NDP has stated it supports this legislation. However, it seems it cannot keep from playing some parliamentary games, even on bills it supports. The member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River read word for word the same speech that the NDP public safety critic had read on the previous day.

The NDP needs to get serious and work with our government to pass these very vital reforms.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the concern that the hon. member brings forward to this discussion.

Our government is trying to lay a strong foundation within the RCMP so that things like sexual harassment can be addressed. Under the current act that the RCMP works under it can be very difficult to address these issues. Sometimes it is at the initial level, whether it is education or people working together.

We are trying to get Bill C-42 through committee and passed into law so that there can be a stronger foundation for the RCMP, for direct supervisors, the commission and members themselves to deal with these specific issues. I believe we are on the right path.

Again, there is always more work to be done, whether for the government or the people working together and being respectful to each other.

We want to lay the foundation with Bill C-42 to enhance and change the RCMP Accountability Act so that it can move forward, change the culture and have an even better police force.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as the member will have heard, I also referred to Bill C-42 and the important debate that took place in this House, including looking at the various aspects that are indeed raised by this bill. I certainly know that our critic on public safety has spoken to that as well.

However, the reality is that there is only one court case where about 200 women have come forward with serious allegations of sexual harassment, based on the fact they are women working in this workplace. There is no other workplace for which there is such a court case presently. There is no other allegation of abuse within the RCMP where 200 people have come together to put forward such a court case.

The specificity of sexual harassment remains the question at stake. Men can also be sexually harassed, although we know that the greatest number tends to be women in our society, and certainly in the case of the RCMP the allegations have been made by women. That specificity must be considered and financial and political priority must be placed on it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you on your recent appointment.

I am very pleased today to rise and to be able to address the question by the hon. member for Churchill. All of us, men and women alike, civilians, politicians, the RCMP, and Canadians generally are very troubled by the idea of and recent reports about harassment and, certainly, sexual harassment within the RCMP. I agree with the hon. members that the RCMP should be free to face the daily challenges of protecting our streets and our communities without harassment, which makes their workplace that much more difficult.

That is why the Minister of Public Safety, in consultation with Commissioner Paulson, referred this matter to the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP. On the specific allegations, nonetheless, it would obviously be inappropriate for us to comment because they are before the courts.

What I think is so important for my hon. colleague to realize is that harassment of any kind needs to be addressed, and to segregate the various types of harassment actually lends less credibility to the issue. What we have done is to have introduced Bill C-42, the Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act. I am very pleased to see that the House agreed to send our recent bill to committee.

Many of us participated in the debate, and tonight we are sending it to committee. I look forward to all of us working together. The member for Churchill is not on the public safety committee but serves on another committee. The public safety committee is working to see this bill pass, getting it through committee and working together.

We have heard calls for better civilian oversight, more accountability and a stronger framework to handle investigations of serious incidents involving RCMP members. We have also heard the calls for a more modern, and I think that is a very important word, disciplined grievance and human resource management framework, one that would bring about a cultural shift within the RCMP.

We have responded, working together with our stakeholders. Our government believes that the time has now come to put this legislation onto the books and set out a pathway for the future. This legislation is vital to the future of Canada's national police force and indeed vital to the future of our community safety initiatives over the short and long terms.

Bill C-42 addresses the call for increased oversight and accountability of the RCMP, and builds on the progress that is already being made by the management and the workforce. It is a comprehensive bill. It will allow us to move forward with certainty in our transformation exercise. I think all of us agree that we have an excellent RCMP force but there is a change that needs to be made, not only with sexual harassment but also with harassment of any kind, in the complaints process, and in the way civilian oversight is addressed.

Bill C-42 addresses these issues, and I think that as we work together to see it pass, we can see a new culture shift happen in the RCMP. We can see both men and women working and enjoying their jobs, contributing not only as protectors of Canadian society but also in the individual jobs they do.

We look forward to the NDP working together with us in the public safety committee. Let us get Bill C-42 through committee quickly. Let us work through the different parts of it. Let us bring more accountability to the RCMP. Let us help stop sexual harassment in any workplace and harassment of any kind.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to congratulate you on your appointment as Deputy Speaker. We are excited to have you in the chair, even at this late hour.

I am also pleased to have the opportunity to raise what is a critical issue for so many Canadians.

One of the paramount needs that we all have is to feel safe and to live in a safe community. In that context there are many factors that come into play, but one of the most important is policing.

While we recognize that critical work is done in this area, many Canadians, particularly many women in Canada, have raised real concerns around the allegations of sexual harassment in our national police force, the RCMP.

As the status of women critic for the NDP, I have the opportunity to work through Parliament's status of women committee, which is looking at this issue. Within the next couple of weeks we will embark on a broader study, looking at sexual harassment in the federal workplace, including, we hope, a special focus on the RCMP.

All of this connects to my question to the government in late spring. At that time, I asked what specific commitment it was making in terms of funding and financial support as well as political support and political direction to ensure that the issue of sexual harassment in the RCMP became a priority going forward.

The government has repeatedly referred to the ongoing court case by the women who have brought forward these serious allegations, women who have talked about verbal abuse, sexual assault, post-traumatic disorder, depression, having to leave their work as a result and not being able to go on with their lives and, in some cases, not finding gainful employment as a result.

Every Canadian would agree that it is unacceptable that the people who are charged with keeping us safe would also have an environment in which some among them would feel not just unsafe, but also abused. While we all acknowledge the severity of the problem, the Conservative government has been unwilling to draw specific attention to it.

Earlier this week I was in the House taking part in the debate on Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, something that we voted on today. It was clear in the deliberations in the House that the focus of the legislation was not on sexual harassment. That is where I want the question to be once again.

When will the government commit to funding and giving political priority to the need to find out what is going on in terms of sexual harassment in the RCMP and ultimately put an end to it now and for all?