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.

Bill C-42. Third reading

Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act

[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.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would use the word “astonished”. The member knows we worked quite closely together on the bill. We took it quite seriously in committee but the government rejected each and every one of the amendments that we proposed to the bill. It is surprising to me how the member could be surprised at this point that we are not supporting the bill. Obviously both sides of the House accept the seriousness of the issues we are dealing with, but we were disappointed that the government rejected all the amendments that we proposed at committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would challenge my hon. colleague that his amendments were not productive amendments, although we appreciated them being brought forward.

However, right now we all agree on the bill before us. It is a good bill. It seems to me as if the NDP is throwing the baby out with the bath water. Those members did not get exactly what they wanted. They have a bill before them that we and witnesses at committee see as a good bill, which will address many of the issues within the RCMP. Instead of NDP members taking a principled stand and doing the right thing for the RCMP and the people of Canada, they are saying no. Because they did not get the amendments they wanted they will not support the bill. I call on the NDP to put aside what I would call a selfish outlook and be leaders, represent their constituencies, stand up for the RCMP, do the right thing and support this important piece of legislation.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, we will be supporting the bill, but I do have a very serious question for the parliamentary secretary.

I have been solicitor general and really understand the reasoning behind giving the commissioner more power to demote individuals and discharge members in certain instances. However, one of the huge problems in the RCMP relates to the person who may become commissioner and whether he or she uses that power in the way in which it was intended. Power can be a good thing or a bad thing when in the wrong hands.

Therefore, are there safeguards within the legislation to protect the rank and file from a commissioner who may have a vendetta against a certain member or any other reason?

That balance is extremely important. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could give us some advice on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, certainly my hon. colleague does raise an important issue. There are measures currently in place whereby the commissioner is held accountable. However, in specific cases where RCMP members are concerned, there is still a very thorough complaints process whereby RCMP members can go to the board, bring their complaints forward and have them ruled on.

Therefore, as is the case with other police forces, there are ways that members can disagree with their police chiefs or come forward and lodge complaints, because there is a very practical human resources process in place, especially under this new enhanced and modernized RCMP accountability act. There are ways for RCMP members to do that. We have a great commissioner and are so happy with the work that he has done, but certainly every leader and every commissioner needs ways to be held accountable.

[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, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we certainly have had a lot of positive feedback. This has been requested for so long by not only the RCMP but also the Canadian public. Therefore, the feedback has been tremendous.

My colleague from the opposition, the critic for public safety, was upset that some of their amendments were not adopted. One of the measures they wanted to introduce was yet another big bureaucratic investigative body in place of what we already have, regionally and within jurisdictions.

Mr. Tom Stamatakis, the chair of the Canadian Police Association, commented on that just recently. He said that it would add layers of infrastructure and duplication of offices and that police were capable of investigating these serious incidents. “You need to have the right kind of independent oversight of it so you can ensure that the investigation is conducted...but I think there are models that are more efficient than just adding more and more layers of bureaucracy to these kinds of incidents.” That was his response to a question that I posed to him about one of the NDP-proposed changes to the bill.

The police do not want more bureaucracy or to add costs. This is a good bill that will have a very good three-pronged process for investigating serious incidents. The support is there. We support it. It is great to hear that the Liberals will support it. Will the NDP do the right thing and vote in support of the bill to end harassment within the RCMP?

[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?

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

Mr. Speaker, with respect to my hon. colleague, we give the tools to an organization such as the RCMP to put processes in place to stop not only sexual harassment but harassment, bullying and any kind of negative, wrong behaviour to any one of its members. To put that kind of terminology in legislation actually limits the legislation and limits what the RCMP are able to do under practical, best practices within human resources management.

I would ask the NDP to do a little research, to look at other companies and organizations, private or public, and how they address forms of harassment. They have good policies and processes in place. The bill gives the RCMP the ability to do that. When we start embedding very specific terminology in the legislation, it can limit it. We want to give the RCMP the ability to address every form of harassment, and that is what the legislation would do.

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

Mr. Speaker, could the hon. member tell us which independent witnesses, in other words those who were not government officials, RCMP officials or otherwise holding public office, appeared at committee in support of the government's bill? My recollection is that absolutely no independent witnesses supported the government's position at committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I already mentioned, Tom Stamatakis, the head of the Canadian Police Association, whom I would suggest my hon. colleague would not want to discredit, supports the legislation. There were a number of them.

The opposition members somehow suggest that the bill has not been asked for by the RCMP and that it is not supported. It might not be exactly the way the NDP wanted it worded, maybe they did not get their amendments passed, but they supported these changes. They need to do the right thing. Maybe they did not win everything they wanted, but it is not about the NDP. It is about the RCMP. It is about doing the right thing for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It is not about NDP members being able to say they scored a political point. They should stand up, do the right thing and support the bill.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for and appreciate my hon. colleague's comments, although we are agreeing to disagree, which is too bad on such an important issue that needs to be moved forward.

We talked about people who are supporting the bill who are independent of, as the member said, the government and the RCMP themselves.

David Eby, former executive director of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, said:

They're changes that are long overdue. Certainly we have shared the frustration of senior management within the RCMP that they have not been able to remove problem officers in the way that we would expect...so it's good to see these changes coming.

Shirley Bond, B.C. Minister of Justice, said that she was very pleased to see a response and that the Minister of Public Safety had assured her that this was the kind of step needed to give the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner of the RCMP the tools they need. She said that it was a positive first step.

There are a number of others, including Ian McPhail, who I do not think my hon. colleague would say is not impartial. He is completely impartial, as Catherine Ebbs, one of my former colleagues, talked about.

My colleague said he wishes that the NDP could support it. Do not just wish for it; actually do it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not think we should engage, on either side, in partial quotations from various people to try to win our argument. We should go back to the general argument we have advanced, which is that we believe there are some serious deficiencies related to three main concerns we see with the RCMP.

I would like to say that at committee, the government allowed us to call witnesses who presented opposing points of view. There has been a lot of debate in the public about the relevance of Parliament. Anyone who looks at the debate we had on this bill will conclude that we addressed real issues. We had people before the committee who were experts we could listen to.

As the parliamentary secretary says, at this point, the government and the NDP will have to agree to disagree on the bill.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, my question relates to the point the member made on the imbalance of power. I raised that question with the parliamentary secretary earlier. I am very concerned about that, although we take a different approach and we will support the bill.

Maybe the member can answer this, because all of us do not have the opportunity to attend committee. I am puzzled. If the member had an amendment at committee to try to balance the balance of power, what was the reasoning for it not being accepted? One of the concerns we have with the government is that if an amendment does not come from the government, the Conservatives reject it out of hand. Dealing with this serious issue of the balance of power, with a commissioner with all the power in the world, could be a problem down the road.

I wonder if the member could explain to the House the reasoning behind the loss of that amendment. It sounds, from what I have heard here, as if it was a good one.

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

Mr. Speaker, my confusion is about how the Liberal Party has decided to support this legislation, despite its professed concern about the lack of a balance of power. We put forward an amendment such that the recommendations of the external review committee, when it reviews decisions on the dismissal of members, would be binding on the Commissioner of the RCMP.

The government gave us no clear reason for rejecting that other than to say that it felt that the solution was to give complete power to the commissioner to allow him or her to move expeditiously. Yes, perhaps in a few cases, we know that the commissioner was not able to remove people quickly enough, but it ignores the other side of that question. What about all those other members who are worried about their careers and may have been accused of something falsely? They have to be able to accept that it would not just be the commissioner's view but would be the evidence that would support discipline against them. That is what making the independent recommendations of the external review committee binding would do for the whole RCMP. It would give confidence that decisions are based on evidence, not on just, perhaps, the commissioner's opinion.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety spoke about the New Democrats wanting their way. If it is not their way, they vote against it.

Is it the first time the members have heard from the government, in a democratic institution like this one, where we are here to debate and study a bill and have amendments, that it seems unable to accept any amendments coming from the NDP? They seem to have formed a government that wants it their way or the highway. If it is not their way, and we are not on their side, it is as if we are not on the side of the right thing. Is a bill not there to be studied and to receive amendments to make a better bill? Is that not what this building, this Parliament, is all about? I would like to hear the member on this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Acadie—Bathurst for his question, because it goes to the heart of what we sometimes see as the problem in this House under a Conservative majority government. It is that the Conservatives call on us to work co-operatively with them, and when we try to do that and bring forward genuine improvements to bills, we find that there is very little possibility that those ideas will be accepted.

I point to one amusing example in public safety. On a different bill, we had an idea for an amendment. Lo and behold, later it came back as a government amendment. The very fact that we had proposed the amendment made it unacceptable. However, when a virtually identically worded amendment came forward from the government, we were happy to support it.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, listening to the hon. member's speech, I was perplexed by his suggestion that the solution to the problems at the RCMP could be solved with front-end training. I do not mean to diminish the value of front-end training or harassment training, but I am concerned that the effects of that would takes years, if not decades, to have any palpable effect, as new recruits were trained and ultimately found their way into management positions.

Does the member not agree with the commissioner, who believes that this bill would help build a culture of management that is effective at the RCMP and that would be a more effective and certainly a more expeditious solution to some of the problems at the RCMP?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member raises a good point. However, to me, the point about training is that obviously, it is not just rank and file RCMP members who would be trained on the issue of harassment. It would obviously be management within the RCMP who have failed to deal effectively over the years with sexual harassment within the force, which has led to this deep-rooted problem in the culture of the RCMP now. Yes, it will take a while.

We do not believe that harassment training is the silver bullet that will immediately make this better. However, over time, it will change the culture of the RCMP and will provide a workplace where women can serve in full equality with men and not worry about having limitations placed on their careers because of unacceptable behaviour by their colleagues.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the comments I keep hearing from the Conservatives in many of these discussions is that the New Democrats do not propose any amendments they can accept. I do not know how many bills have come through here since we started this session. It is probably about 50. We have proposed amendments every chance we have had, and I do not think very many have been accepted.

What troubles me is that the thrust of this bill, and one of the complaints we have about a lot of bills, is to have immense power left in the hands of an individual. That has happened in the immigration file. It has happened in the public safety file, and it is happening again. Immense power would be left in the hands of a single individual. That appears to be a theme from across the aisle. The Conservatives believe that the person at the time should be empowered to make all these decisions. We fear those kinds of powers. Would the member comment further on that?

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

Mr. Speaker, it reflects something we see all too often on the other side of the House. The other day, in question period, we saw the Prime Minister answer almost all of the questions. It is a model of one person taking the leadership role and making himself accountable without sharing the responsibility and drawing on the expertise of others within the organization. I agree with the member that it is an unfortunate tendency we see, starting right at the top, on the other side, with the Prime Minister.

[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.

[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, as I said, we have recognized that improvements are needed. I agree with the member's remarks. He has been in the RCMP.

As Commissioner Paulson said, he needs the authority to get rid of some bad apples. That is true. It only takes one person to create a terrible image of the whole organization. The bill would give that authority.

In my remarks, I also weighed in on some concerns. We have to recognize that power can be taken too far, from the commissioner to the rank and file, in terms of somebody who has perhaps not been a bad apple. We have to recognize that as well.

I believe, and our party believes, it is a step forward. It is a move in the right direction. However, we have be to vigilant in terms of the implementation of the bill and how this bill would work with respect to the RCMP.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am perplexed about the support for the bill by the Liberal Party. In committee, the Liberal Party proposed no amendments. It did not even support all of our amendments. If the Liberal Party had these concerns, its members did not act upon them at the committee level.

I have total respect for the member as a former solicitor general, and I do not doubt the sincerity of his remarks. However, it seems peculiar that now the Liberal Party is prepared to support a bill that would not create a fully independent complaints commission, would not address the issue of sexual harassment, and would further concentrate power in the hands of the commissioner.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I think I made it very clear. That is what this place is all about. It is a place of debate. It is a place of different positions. It is a place to make decisions. When we go back to the remarks that were made at previous times in this House, the Liberal Party has made it very clear where we stand. We see the bill as an improvement upon the current situation. However, we recognize the bill could always be improved.

As the member would be aware, we did support some amendments that the official opposition made. We did not support all of them because in our view not all of its amendments were good ones. That is our opinion, and that differs from the member who just spoke.

However, on balance, we looked at this and asked whether it would move us a step forward, and we, as a party, believe it would .

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps we could pick up on the point to which my colleague just made reference, which is that it is very rare to see legislation of this nature going forward. There is absolutely no doubt that there could be amendments to the legislation that would further enhance it and make it a better quality legislation. Unfortunately, as my colleague has illustrated, the government has not seen fit to accept, in any real or tangible fashion, the amendments coming from opposition parties.

At the end of the day, I would ask the member to reaffirm that even though the Liberal Party is supporting the legislation going forward, it does not mean we believe there is no need for improvements. We anticipate there will be a need to make more changes in the legislation. The government was negligent in not respecting the committee process in allowing some of the amendments the New Democrats might have passed, or even the dialogue that was taking place in the committee.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his presentation.

At least two or three times during his presentation, I was left with the impression that he considers this bill a step forward. Even if someone repeats two or three times that we are taking a step forward, that does not mean that we are taking three steps forward; we are still taking only one. But more than one step is needed to move forward. What we are really dealing with is a bill that, while not exactly a step backwards, is more like running in place, which is a far cry from the ideal.

How many times did I also hear that this bill needs improvements—without, however, any indication of what exactly those improvements would be? It also appears that no amendments were made in committee in that regard.

Could the member give us a specific example of how the Liberal Party would like to move forward, an example of something that would really work this time?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my opening remarks, the bill does give the commissioner the ability to deal with disciplinary issues. That is a big issue facing the force at the moment, especially as it relates to some of the incidents of individual rank and file members who are impacting the image of the force and how we think the RCMP should effectively operate. Therefore, the fact that the ability is there is a step in the right direction.

I did state in my remarks that we have to be watchful of that and ensure the new powers given to the Commissioner of the RCMP are used in the way they are intended. It is our job to do that.

[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.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is talk about having anti-harassment guidelines in this law, which are not there. Would the member agree that there needs to be something that goes a step further?

In any change in an institution, the integration of the armed forces in the U.S., for example, in 1942, or women entering the armed forces or policing throughout the years, there is resistance. Not only does there need to be anti-harassment, but there also needs to be an understanding of the contribution that women can make and why harassment is not acceptable. There needs to be a sensitization of the change in those institutional organizations.

I wonder if my colleague would like to comment on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to say right off the bat that the bill does not even include the word “harassment”, so that is a number one big disappointment. It is cowardly of the government to not address the issues we are trying to address. It is a question of equality for women in all workplaces. We should be protected. We should have mechanisms to prevent these kinds of situations where we are demeaned and treated as inferior and less important, and therefore, not as able to contribute.

There are many strong women who can speak out about these kinds of things and who managed to make their way up the ranks anyway. However, it is not equality if we are living in a society when in places such as the RCMP and other federally regulated workplaces, where we could actually be making a difference, we are looking at bills that do not include the word “harassment”.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. Women's issues are really important to her, and she does an outstanding job in committee.

I would like to go back to the quote about how the problem is not harassment, but the idea of harassment. In committee, we proposed mandatory anti-harassment training for RCMP employees, for example.

I would like my colleague to comment a little more on that. How could including anti-harassment training in this bill have made a difference at the RCMP?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am no longer on the Status of Women committee, although I did enjoy my year there. One thing that we heard over and over again is that there is a lack of resources for preventing sexual harassment in many workplaces and a lack of resources when it comes to essentially promoting gender equity across this country.

Training that will help prevent harassment and provide information about how to manage such situations when they arise is absolutely necessary if we are to make progress in this area. Unfortunately, the bill is really disappointing because it does not go in that direction at all. It does not try to establish how to prevent these kinds of situations for Canadian women.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I took note of the member's comments when he said we should increase the powers of the commissioner and decrease the powers of the civilian authority.

Could the member answer this simple question: By giving the civilian authority more power, how does he think the commissioner would be able to act from within?

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

Mr. Speaker, “Working together”, a simple phrase from 2011, has become the NDP's mantra. It corresponds perfectly with our way of thinking, and we are not willing to let it go.

[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, I would like to thank the member for her comments.

I would also like to thank her for her vision of the future, because she acknowledged that we will fix the problem just two years from now, when we replace this tired government that focuses on half measures.

I think our biggest disagreement has to do with whether or not a step in the right direction is enough. It is high time that we in Canada made it clear that half measures are no longer good enough. Canadians deserve better than proposals that simply help us catch up but do not help us advance. We do not want that. We want to solve the problem.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague would like to reflect a bit more. The Liberals seem to suggest that requiring harassment training would take years for us to agree upon. I find that a strange comment, since many large organizations have already introduced harassment training.

I wonder if the member sees any obstacles to the RCMP doing that, and I wonder why we could not just simply put that in the legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for the relevant question.

I believe that this is a clear illustration of the corporate culture at the RCMP. The fact that they did not instantly agree on the benefits of sexual harassment training clearly shows that their corporate culture is still hierarchical and quasi-militaristic.

It is 2013, and we need to get on with it.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked about the fact that the Conservatives have refused all of our amendments. Is this an unusual step for the Conservatives to refuse amendments, or is this the way they do business generally?

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Trois-Rivières has time for a brief response.

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

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that it is the norm now.

[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.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The time for government orders has expired. The hon. member for York South—Weston will have 16 minutes remaining the next time this matter returns before the House.

Statements by members, the hon. member for Guelph.

The House resumed from February 11 consideration of the motion 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.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.

I rise here today to speak to Bill C-42, a piece of legislation that, unfortunately, does not meet the expectations of Canadians, because it does not live up to the hopes fuelled by the Conservatives' announcement about their desire to modernize the RCMP.

Like all of my NDP colleagues, I was delighted to learn that the House would finally be tackling some of the problems that have been undermining the RCMP's ability to function. And now I rise here today with no choice but to oppose Bill C-42. I oppose this piece of legislation not because I do not believe that reform is needed; on the contrary, I think it is crucial that we address the dysfunction that exists within the RCMP.

Nor is my opposition to this bill part of any systematic, blind opposition agenda, as the Conservatives like to suggest. Proof of this is the fact that the NDP supported this bill at second reading, so that it would be studied in committee. The fact is that, unfortunately, the Conservatives would not listen to any of the constructive proposals that could have strengthened this bill. They chose to reject every one of the amendments proposed and to ignore the recommendations made by the witnesses in committee.

What it comes down to is that I am deeply disappointed in the bill before us today. It is merely a half-baked reform that does not adequately respond to the challenges that the RCMP is currently facing. This is particularly true with regard to two rather crucial aspects, namely, the issue of the transparency and independence of investigations and the issue of problems related to harassment within the RCMP.

When they began working on a bill to improve and modernize the RCMP, the Conservatives said that they wanted to create the conditions necessary for truly independent investigations to be conducted, which would have made it possible to prevent situations of police investigating police. It is just common sense. We all want a measure that would eliminate the risk of collusion and do away with the lack of transparency.

Today, we are extremely disappointed. Under Bill C-42, the commission that will be responsible for investigating complaints against the RCMP will not have the means necessary to conduct effective investigations and restore Canadians' confidence in the RCMP.

Rather than following the recommendations that were made and creating a completely independent commission that could conduct in-depth investigations whose results would be binding on authorities, the Conservatives simply introduced a bill that has all the same weaknesses that were criticized before. In so doing, the Conservative government has completely missed the mark and failed in its mission to improve transparency.

The second point to which I would like draw the House's attention pertains to the challenges related to eliminating harassment within the RCMP, challenges that the Conservatives have basically ignored, despite the amendments we proposed.

Over 200 women have come forward in a class action lawsuit regarding sexual harassment within the RCMP. That is not a small number. That is how many women have made the courageous choice to speak out. This number, which is certainly large enough to get our attention, does not even begin to give us an exact idea of the magnitude of this phenomenon. These 200 women were brave enough to speak out about the harassment they experienced, but presumably there are many others who have still not come forward.

An internal RCMP report suggests that, quite often, employees who are victims of sexual harassment prefer to remain silent. They are worried that their career will suffer, or they do not have faith in the current complaints processing system and, what is more, they do not believe that the accused officers will ever be punished.

And it is because of the silence surrounding these incidents that they are so common. If no one talks about the issue, people may turn a blind eye or trivialize the unacceptable comments, attitudes and actions that no woman should have to endure.

And so, we would have expected a bill meant to respond to the numerous complaints about this type of behaviour to identify, condemn and specifically denounce sexual harassment as a real problem, as a practice that must be systematically denounced and dealt with. That would have given victims a clear document that could be used as an effective legal tool. But, unfortunately, that is not the case. The term “sexual harassment” is not even in the bill, and that gives the impression that this issue is not serious enough to be targeted specifically.

But the exact opposite is true. We cannot talk about modernizing the Royal Canadian Mounted Police without considering what women in the organization are facing. We cannot ignore the fact that there is still prejudice and chauvinistic behaviour in our federal police force. Nor can we overlook the fact that this supposedly manly culture creates fertile ground for harassment to be perpetrated and trivialized. And these acts can have serious consequences for the victims, as many witnesses testified in committee.

The NDP proposed a clear, simple measure that would have provided an effective tool to combat harassment. The NDP's suggestion to require harassment training for RCMP members was simply a common-sense amendment. This training for all staff would no doubt help break the silence surrounding the harassment problem and would also show people the line between what is acceptable and what is unacceptable. In addition, time set aside for education and communication would have given women, who may be victims of this type of harassment, information on their rights and potential recourse.

But the Conservatives decided to vote against this amendment yet again. This simple, clear provision could have decreased the incidence of sexual harassment within the RCMP, and the Conservatives are preventing it from being added. It is most unfortunate that we are seeing a disconnect between the Conservatives' claims of wanting change and the reality of a bill that only glosses over some crucial issues.

The Conservatives proposed improving the oversight mechanisms for the RCMP, but the organization responsible for conducting investigations is not fully independent and is not authorized to conduct thorough investigations. Furthermore, they claimed to want to combat internal operational problems at the RCMP, but they have introduced a bill that does not even mention sexual harassment and does not offer any new measures to combat the problem.

In conclusion, I am disappointed in Bill C-42 in its current state.

The Conservatives said they wanted to make changes for the better. They even said they wanted to work together on a bill that was perfectly suited to collaboration by both sides of the House. But at the end of the day, they ignored and even disdained our comments and suggestions and ended up introducing a botched, incomplete bill.

For these reasons, I will vote against this bill, and I condemn the fact that the Conservatives missed an opportunity to make fundamental reforms that would have been in the best interests of Canadians and members of the RCMP.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech. I have a question for him.

He mentioned the recommendations that the NDP made with regard to Bill C-42. I would like him to say a few words about these recommendations, which, on closer inspection, could help us address the problems at the RCMP over the past few years regarding sexual harassment and other practices.

Could he elaborate on one of these NDP recommendations?

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent question.

Obviously the problem is serious when 200 women file sexual harassment complaints against the RCMP. This has to be dealt with.

What we proposed was reasonable. We simply wanted information sessions to be held in order to open a dialogue on this issue because silence is a problem when it comes to sexual harassment and violence within the RCMP. It has to be okay to talk about this. People who bottle up things like this become stressed out and that is not good for anyone. There is a lack of communication.

We proposed something very simple and that was to hold information sessions for all members of the RCMP so that they could at least discuss the problem. The problem cannot be fixed if no one talks about it.

I do not understand why the members opposite rejected this amendment. I am very disappointed today to see that there is still no solution to such a serious problem.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank my colleague for his speech.

I agree with all the points he raised. We really do need more transparency in the RCMP, especially in light of what Mr. Kennedy, the former RCMP public complaints commissioner, had to say.

Can my colleague tell us why the Conservatives oppose these very important and wise amendments, which were even supported by experts?

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands raises an excellent point.

We proposed reasonable amendments. We were elected to the House in 2011 to work together. That is what we promised Canadians.

When the committee heard the evidence of experts on a number of incidents involving the RCMP, such as the Robert Dziekanski case and sexual harassment incidents, it was clear that the RCMP should have dealt with the problem internally because there was the opportunity to do so.

In response to my colleague's question, I would say that the Conservatives did not listen to our reasonable suggestions, which were supported by the experts. They did not want to improve their own bill simply because they are afraid of being weak and being seen as weak if they accept our suggestions.

Canadians want all MPs to work together to come up with bills that make sense, solve problems and move our country forward, rather than playing politics at committees and not accepting suggested amendments.

I do not know why the Conservatives are so opposed to the opposition's reasonable suggestions.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague, I rise today to speak to Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts. This bill is the Conservatives' response to the many complaints of sexual harassment in the RCMP and to recent scandals, following disciplinary measures that were too lenient for officers accused of serious misconduct.

Unfortunately, as my colleague for Vaudreuil-Soulanges clearly explained, the government has come up with a very weak response to serious issues and problems for RCMP members and Canadians.

Bill C-42 is almost identical to Bill C-38, which was presented during the 40th Parliament. It proposes three major changes to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act. If the bill is passed in its present form, it will give increased powers to the RCMP commissioner in the area of labour relations. Among other things, it will allow him to appoint or fire members at his discretion, which is a rather major discretionary power. The bill also seeks to change the process governing disciplinary measures, complaints and human resources management for RCMP members. It provides for the establishment of a new civilian complaints commission to replace the RCMP Public Complaints Commission.

From the outset, the NDP has supported the intent of Bill C-42. We felt that this legislation would modernize the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and bring solutions to issues such as sexual harassment in the organization. However, it is now obvious that this good intention—the intention perceived behind the bill—did not translate into a true legislative measure that would provide concrete results for women in the RCMP, and for other members of that police force.

As it stands now, the bill has some major flaws. It does not go far enough and it does not really improve oversight of the RCMP. Worse yet, it does not even deal directly with sexual harassment in the RCMP, which is a central concern for women across the country—whether they are members of that police force or not—and for all Canadians. Every day, Canadians learn about new cases in the media. They hear about this problem, they see what is going on in that police force and, in the process, their trust in the RCMP erodes. Yet, the men and women of that police force are very invested and they make sacrifices to protect the public. Some action should be taken immediately to restore this trust. However, that is not what Bill C-42 proposes.

The Conservatives only looked at the issues relating to discipline and sexual harassment in the RCMP, after being questioned on many occasions in the House and in committee. They never adopted a leadership role when it came to proposing solutions to the problems identified in the RCMP.

Now they are bringing in a bill, when they are on the defensive. This did not come about because of the Conservative Party's concerns, but rather because of the pressure of public opinion and NDP colleagues who have done an impressive amount of work to try to make the government aware of the major problems that exist in the RCMP.

For all of these reasons, the NDP will not support Bill C-42 at third reading. We moved a number of amendments at committee stage in order to ensure that Bill C-42 was truly a response to the challenges facing the RCMP. Among other things, we wanted to make it mandatory for all RCMP members to take harassment training. We also wanted to set up an independent civilian body to investigate complaints against the RCMP. In addition, we proposed adding a provision to set up an independent national civilian investigative body to make sure that the police are not investigating themselves, something that seems very logical to me. Finally, we also proposed removing some of the new draconian powers that the government was planning to grant to the RCMP commissioner, with a view to establishing more balanced human resources policies for the RCMP.

All of these amendments were based on recommendations from numerous witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

These witnesses came straight from the policing community. They are therefore knowledgeable about the context and the constraints, and they know what they are talking about. The recommendations they made to us were based on their experiences and on what they had seen, and they deserved to be taken a little more seriously than the Conservative government has done.

All of these witnesses share the NDP's concerns that Bill C-42 will never be enough to change the climate and the culture in the RCMP workplace, the two elements that allow the abuses that are routinely alleged to occur. Sexual harassment in word and deed continues to occur, but in many cases, the perpetrators are never punished.

This bill is likely to create more problems than it solves, especially since new powers are being granted to the commissioner. Unfortunately, the Conservatives turned down every one of the amendments that we put forward in committee without even wanting to discuss them. This is unfortunately not surprising. It seems to be typical of this government's attitude in committee. If the experience of my opposition colleagues on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security is anything like what I experience regularly on the Standing Committee on Official Languages, the process was probably very arduous and quite frustrating for anyone who tried to work co-operatively.

This is what the NDP has been proposing from the outset. We have always been prepared to co-operate with our colleagues from all parties in order to make proposals that are beneficial to all Canadians. In this case, our proposals would have been beneficial to the women and men of the RCMP, as well as the Canadian public, but they were rejected out of hand. Unfortunately, the Conservatives on this committee were just as inflexible and closed-minded as those on many other parliamentary committees. They refused to co-operate to make Bill C-42 a piece of legislation that genuinely responds to the needs of the RCMP.

As members of Parliament, we are responsible for acting in a way that strengthens public trust in the RCMP, but the Conservatives refuse to take the steps needed to modernize the organization. For months now, the NDP has been urging the Minister of Public Safety to make sexual harassment in the RCMP a priority, but the issue is barely mentioned in Bill C-42. In fact, the word “harassment” appears once, and it is not even in a context that aims at resolving the issue of sexual harassment.

Although the bill gives the RCMP commissioner room to create a more effective process for responding to sexual harassment complaints, it contains no proactive measure to try to combat this systemic problem, and there is no provision on adopting a clear policy to prevent sexual harassment within the RCMP.

Bill C-42 does not go far enough in addressing the very real concerns of female members of this organization, who have been waiting far too long for the government to do something tangible to ensure that they have a safer, more open work environment. Another problem we must address is the fact that these same women do not have access to the same positions and promotions as quickly and in the same way as the men do.

Currently more than 200 women who work or have worked for the RCMP have launched a class action suit against the organization for allegations of sexual harassment. There are other individual suits under way, and there are undoubtedly incidents that will never be reported, because these are difficult situations. When wrongdoers get off the hook rather easily and no real disciplinary measures are taken, there is no real incentive for anyone to report these problems.

The women in the RCMP make the same sacrifices for their country as the men, but the women are abandoned by the system every day. They deserve better than this and, as elected representatives, we have a responsibility to act swiftly. That is why the NDP will oppose Bill C-42 at third reading. We proposed solutions and the Conservatives did not want to implement them. These solutions did not come just from the opposition, but also from people who are directly involved, who know what they are talking about and who care about the well-being of RCMP members.

This is very disappointing. I think it is a real shame to have to vote against this bill.

I would also like to see a substantive reform of this organization, but that is not going to happen with Bill C-42.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for articulating so well the problems we have with the bill. As she pointed out, the NDP tried to move a number of amendments at committee that were very constructive in improving the bill and providing good support for members of the RCMP. One of them was adding mandatory harassment training for RCMP officers, specifically in the RCMP act. Surprisingly, this was one of the amendments that was turned down.

I think all of us know it is the employer's responsibility to do harassment training. I wonder if she could comment, because it seems to me this gets to the heart of the matter, that we are yet again failing in terms of a public responsibility to ensure workplaces are free of discrimination and harassment, and that mandatory harassment training is something that is very important within the RCMP.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her excellent question.

I completely agree with her. We are not fulfilling our responsibility as elected members if we do not take direct measures to address the issue of sexual harassment in the RCMP. The suggested training is a proactive and effective way of reducing the incidence of sexual harassment.

We also need to realize that we can use this information to help people become more conscious of the fact that certain actions or words that they believe to be innocent can be perceived in a negative way. This awareness needs to be honed because it does not always come naturally, depending on a person's education or work environment. These kinds of situations arise for many reasons.

We can inform people and describe in detail the types of situations that can be perceived as sexual harassment and the solutions and measures that can be put in place to keep it from happening. The fact that the government does not want to take those steps is truly disappointing and almost incomprehensible, because it is so easy to do.

All members would take this training when they join the RCMP or at some point. This type of training happens all the time in the Canadian Forces and it even exists in the RCMP. So why not now?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, it was talked about a fair bit yesterday, the increasing of the power and authority of the commissioner of the RCMP. That has to be done with some balance, certainly. Yes, the commissioner needs more authority to deal with the bad apples, as some have said. However, that power could be abused in the office of the commissioner as well.

I am not a member of the committee, and quite a number of us here are not, but I was told yesterday there were a number of amendments to try to redress that imbalance. I do not mind admitting that I have a concern when opposition parties propose amendments and the government rejects them out of hand even though they make sense.

Is this what happened in this committee? Are we to the point that anything the representatives of the people on this side of the House propose, which would improve legislation, is opposed by the government because it is almighty and all powerful? That is not the way this place is supposed to work. My question for the member is: Were there amendments put forward to try to balance the power of the commissioner of the RCMP in a positive way, and what happened to them if there were?

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

Some people may point out that I do not sit on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. Nevertheless, I should be able the answer the question.

Yes, my NDP colleagues proposed amendments, which the government flatly rejected, as it always does.

As a new MP, I am very disappointed. I was a parliamentary guide for a while before starting my career as an MP. I used to take great pleasure in telling visitors that the work needed to advance Canadian issues really happened in committee, where all the parties worked in collaboration.

Now that I have become a member of the House, my speech would be totally different, were I to give another parliamentary tour. Openness is non-existent, and meetings are very often held in camera. In that context, keeping our constituents informed of what is happening is a major challenge. On top of that, we have to deal with this government's amazing arrogance and intransigence.

I touched briefly on my experience on the Standing Committee on Official Languages. Being part of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security must have been extremely similar, as the orders all come from the same source: the Prime Minister's Office. People can imagine for themselves how this government deals with opposition members in committee. The government keeps Parliament from doing the real work it should be doing.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to inform you that I will share my speaking time with the member for Sudbury.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-42, which would strengthen discipline in the RCMP following numerous cases of harassment, intimidation and serious misconduct.

The NDP supports the principle of this bill. That is why we supported it at second reading.

During the parliamentary committee's proceedings, however, we heard from witnesses and experts who confirmed our first impression that Bill C-42 has some serious deficiencies and would not improve oversight of the RCMP.

The Canadian public's trust in the RCMP has been put to the test in recent decades, given the many scandals in which the force has been involved.

Consider, for example, the Maher Arar affair. That Canadian citizen was deported to the United States and then tortured by the Syrian government based on false information conveyed by the RCMP.

Consider as well the RCMP's bungling of the Air India affair, a pathetic case of incompetence and negligence. In addition to failing to co-operate with CSIS, the RCMP was unable to prevent the incident, even though it was warned of a direct attack on flight 182 three weeks before it occurred.

I would be remiss if I did not mention the Airbus affair. The RCMP's incompetence in that matter forced taxpayers to pay Brian Mulroney $2 million in damages.

There are also the many criminal and political cases in which charges were never laid. Consider the sponsorship scandal, for example, and the disappearance of hundreds of thousands of dollars from the transitional jobs fund.

There was also the major fraud involving the RCMP pension and insurance plans. The Auditor General of Canada uncovered numerous cases of cronyism and reported that RCMP operating expenses had been charged to the employee pension and insurance plans.

Many cases of psychological and sexual harassment have been made public over the years, but authorities have not taken steps to address them. For example, Victoria Cliffe and three other female RCMP officers in Alberta accused Sgt. Robert Blundell of sexually assaulting them during undercover operations.

Ms. Cliffe stated that the RCMP commissioner was the person responsible for making the final decision on all internal investigations, every investigation conducted within the police force and every disciplinary problem. She added that all matters were referred to the top, to the big boss.

Remember that, following that disclosure, Victoria Cliffe lost her position as a negotiator and Sgt. Blundell lost only one day's leave.

We could also talk about all the police blunders that might suggest there were shortcomings in RCMP officers' training and supervision. Much of the problem stems from the fact that the RCMP enjoys special status, untouchable status, within the government.

For example, the RCMP is not subject to the Access to Information Act or covered by the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act.

Members will recall that when the Conservatives introduced the government accountability bill in 2006, they maintained most of the exemptions for the RCMP. Furthermore, unlike officers in other police forces, RCMP officers still have no right to unionize, which would put them in a better bargaining position that would facilitate the disclosure of wrongdoing.

In short, the RCMP is out of control. In 2007, the president of the Canadian Police Association even said he thought all parliamentarians should be concerned about the fact that an organization of the RCMP's size and power had little or no accountability.

Shirley Heafey, the former chair of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, spoke out on several occasions about the organization's cover-ups and lack of transparency:

[The commissioner of the RCMP] does not understand the accountability system, he does not understand the complaints system. It was very difficult for him to accept that he was accountable to a civilian agency.

She added that there was no way to make the RCMP accountable.

She also said that she believed it was going to explode at some point. She said that they could not continue covering up and downplaying the problems forever. Every time something serious happened, it was often impossible to obtain the documentation. Finally, she mentioned that she found it difficult because she was constantly spending a lot of energy trying to do her job.

Despite these shocking comments, the Conservative government continues to drag its feet. Bill C-42 will not really make much of a difference to the RCMP because the proposed measures do not go far enough. Nevertheless, the NDP has worked hard to improve the bill. We proposed a series of amendments to make Bill C-42 respond to the challenges that the RCMP currently faces.

The NDP amendments include requiring all members of the RCMP to receive harassment training in accordance with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, establishing an independent body to examine complaints against the RCMP, adding a provision to create an independent national civilian investigative body in order to prevent police from investigating police, creating more balanced human resources policies by eliminating some of the new draconian powers of the RCMP commissioner, and strengthening the RCMP external review committee in cases where dismissal is being considered.

As is often the case, the Conservatives rejected all the NDP amendments. However, most of them met with the approval of many of the witnesses who appeared before the committee.

I would now like to deal more specifically with two major problems with the bill. As my colleagues have already mentioned, there is no proactive measure against sexual harassment. For a long time, the NDP has been asking the government to make dealing with harassment at the RCMP a priority. Bill C-42 does not directly attack this scourge, which has become a systemic problem.

Although the bill gives the RCMP commissioner the ability to create a more effective process for dealing with sexual harassment complaints, we believe that a more proactive training course should be included in order to address the issue of harassment, particularly sexual harassment, within the RCMP. The Conservatives refused to take this approach.

I read Bill C-42, and I noticed that the word “harassment” does not even appear in it.

We had also hoped that a clear policy on harassment within the RCMP would be adopted that would contain specific standards of conduct and criteria for assessing the performance of all employees. Such a policy would serve as a basis for a fair disciplinary process.

In short, the bill does not go far enough and does not address the concerns of the women working for the RCMP, who are calling for immediate action in order to create a safer and more open work environment.

What is more, the bill was introduced before the findings of the internal audit on gender equality within the RCMP were submitted.

In our opinion, it is essential that the RCMP be subject to civilian oversight. However, the new civilian complaints commission introduced in Bill C-42 has the same problem as the RCMP Public Complaints Commission because it would report to the Minister of Public Safety, rather than to the Canadian public through Parliament.

Furthermore, it is important to note that the new commission would not be completely free to undertake investigations and would not have any binding authority. The new commission will not have the power to investigate accidents resulting in serious bodily harm or death. These investigations will mainly be assigned to municipal or provincial police forces or will continue to be carried out by the RCMP itself.

In conclusion, the Conservative government will not subject the RCMP to an independent investigative body that would report directly to Parliament. Until the Conservatives implement a strong mechanism for eliminating harassment, I cannot believe that the government is committed to modernizing the RCMP.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the speech given by my hon. colleague.

She talked about the fact that the Conservatives systematically ignore the recommendations made in committee. This is true not only within the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, but also within all other committees. That is what my NDP colleagues have said.

Consider the example of some shocking testimony heard during committee study of Bill C-42. Mr. Creasser, a member of the Mounted Police Professional Association of Canada, had this to say:

Bill C-42, rather than mitigating these issues, will only make them exponentially worse.

...

If Bill C-42 is passed in its current form,...our Parliament would be promoting the bad behaviour....

Does my colleague have any explanation for the Conservative Party's failure to take action, even after hearing such compelling testimony from witnesses?

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague pointed out, this is a problem within all parliamentary committees.

Under this majority government, virtually no amendments are ever accepted at committee, which seriously undermines our democracy, of course, as well as civil society's ability to influence the legislative process.

Regarding Bill C-42, the NDP proposed 18 amendments, the Liberals proposed none and the Conservatives proposed 23. If I am not mistaken, no amendments were adopted at committee stage. The Conservatives opposed every amendment proposed by the NDP without any debate. These amendments were often initiated by witnesses from civil society or experts who appeared before the parliamentary committee.

We see this as a very serious problem and believe that it undermines the democratic process.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles for her very enlightening presentation.

One of the amendments our party suggested dealt specifically with the independence of the complaints process in an organization such as the RCMP. The public should never have to doubt such an organization's credibility. That recommendation came not only from our party, but also from a few witnesses who appeared before the committee.

Could our colleague elaborate further on this?

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP believes that we need to address the problem of harassment in the RCMP.

That is why we suggested integrating mandatory harassment training for all RCMP members into the RCMP Act. We know that there are serious problems in the organization, and that women working in the RCMP have made many sacrifices. As parliamentarians, we must work together to create a safe and healthy workplace, where they can work safely.

Sadly, the Conservative government rejected our amendments with no explanations. The government needs to explain why it does not want to find solutions to the harassment issue.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-42, an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.

To begin, I think it is important to note that New Democrats supported the intentions of Bill C-42 to modernize the RCMP and address issues such as sexual harassment and post-traumatic stress disorder in the force, and we voted for the bill to be sent to committee at second reading. However, at the committee stage, it became apparent, after hearing expert witness testimony, that in its current state Bill C-42 remains deeply flawed and will not meet the laudable objectives that New Democrats support in principle, namely to resolve the long-standing issues related to the oversight of the RCMP.

Canadians' confidence in the RCMP has been tested over the past few years as the RCMP has struggled with numerous public scandals. Whether it is the multiple cases of sexual harassment, which have become part of the public discourse surrounding Canada's Mounties, or other issues related to the lack of disciplinary oversight that the force has over its members, Canadians are universal in their support for the need to modernize the oversight provisions that the Commissioner of the RCMP has at his or her disposal.

Bill C-42 purports to streamline the current burdensome process of dealing with conduct and workplace problems, including abuse of authority, intimidation and harassment, by giving the commissioner final authority in deciding what sanctions to impose.

Currently RCMP managers faced with harassment issues have two different processes they must follow. One under Treasury Board policy and one under the RCMP Act. These processes do not always align, which often leads to confusion about rights, responsibilities and available approaches. Under Bill C-42, the commissioner would be granted the authority to establish a single comprehensive system for investigating and resolving harassment concerns.

While Bill C-42 does give more power to the commissioner over discipline and the power to establish a more effective process for dealing with harassment complaints, it remains unclear whether legislation alone can provide the RCMP with the overall culture change that is needed to respond specifically to allegations of widespread sexual harassment. In fact, Commissioner Paulson has publicly stated as much, noting that legislation alone is not enough to keep public trust in the RCMP.

To emphasize the point that legislation alone will not lead to the transformative changes that are truly required to reform the ongoing systemic sexual harassment at the RCMP, I would point to a recent study on sexual harassment within the RCMP in British Columbia, which indicates that problems are significantly under-reported because members are too afraid of reprisal to come forward.

From my perspective, Bill C-42 will not lead to the necessary culture change needed to destigmatize the issue of sexual harassment and ensure that victims of such harassment feel comfortable bringing their issues forward. Simply, the bill does not go far enough in directly addressing the concerns of women serving in the RCMP, who are calling for urgent action to foster a more inclusive and safe environment for women in the force. The word “harassment” still does not appear in Bill C-42 despite NDP attempts to do so.

While the bill has been introduced without the benefit of the findings of the internal general audit of the RCMP ordered by the commissioner, which is currently under way but sadly not yet completed, and while failing to specifically address these obvious concerns, the Conservatives are undertaking an approach that does not make women in the RCMP a priority. That is just wrong, particularly given the ongoing systemic instances of sexual harassment, which are being actively observed on an ongoing basis.

Even more worrisome than neglecting to reference and define harassment in the legislation is the failure to create an oversight body with any teeth, since primary investigations into incidents of death or serious bodily harm would largely be contracted out to provincial or municipal police forces, even though some have no civilian investigation body, or they would still conducted by the RCMP.

Surely if the government was serious about modernizing the RCMP, it would take the next steps and allow binding recommendations from oversight bodies and a full civilian investigation of the RCMP through a truly independent watchdog agency that would report directly to Parliament.

The NDP tried to amend the bill, based on witness testimony, to address these issues, but the Conservatives refused to directly address the issue of sexual harassment and did little to actually modernize the RCMP as it is still hierarchical in nature with no independent civilian oversight. Although this is an approach that the Conservatives have favoured for other areas of public policy, ensuring that complaints are addressed by an impartial third party should be at the heart of any attempt to modernize the complaint procedures for Canada's national police service.

The NDP believes that we can go further to ensure that there is a clear anti-harassment policy in the RCMP, one which would contain specific standards for behaviour and specific criteria for evaluating the performance of all such employees. Such a policy is needed to serve as a basis for a fair discipline process.

I conclude by highlighting the fact that New Democrats made a genuine effort to improve the legislation before us during the committee stage. However, these attempts were rebuffed at every step of the process. New Democrats introduced 18 amendments at committee all designed to ensure heightened transparency to address the specific issues I have mentioned, namely the issue of sexual harassment and the lack of an effective oversight mechanism.

Specifically, NDP members on the public safety committee proposed the following: adding mandatory harassment training for RCMP members specifically to the RCMP 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, which was ruled inadmissible for some reason; and creating a more balanced human resource policy by removing some of the more stringent powers proposed for the RCMP commissioner and by strengthening the external review committee in cases involving possible dismissal from the force.

However, as has become standard operating procedure, the government side once again took an unreasonable approach to the NDP's proposals, rejecting all 18 amendments, even though they were supported by witness testimony and were a genuine attempt to improve the legislation before us.

New Democrats recognize the deficiency in the approach taken by the Conservative government and its outright rejection of our practical proposals to improve the legislation. We will therefore be unable to support the legislation at this time in the way that it is being presented.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Sudbury for his great comments and his overview of the bill and why those of us in the NDP have so many problems and concerns about it. We did work very hard at committee, as the member outlined, to bring improvements to the bill and to be very constructive. Unfortunately, they were turned down.

One of the issues that concerns me is that we brought forward amendments to ensure that there would be a fully independent civilian review body to investigate complaints. To me, this is a core issue for the public interest. We do know of very serious situations where people have had complaints about the RCMP but there was no independent civilian review body.

I wonder if the member would comment in terms of the importance of having an independent civilian review body to investigate complaints.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for Vancouver East for the question because it truly is something that is very important and that we wanted to see addressed in the bill.

Ending the practice of police investigating police needs to be a priority. If we think about what we have seen in other instances, in other legislation, the Conservatives have allowed for independent civilian investigative bodies. However, for some reason, they are not allowing that to move forward in this legislation.

There are many things on which we would ask why the Conservatives are doing this. Why are they not allowing a civilian body to be the oversight of the RCMP, when it is done in many other instances?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I asked questions on this earlier, and as I said in my own remarks yesterday, I have concerns about the balance of power given to the Commissioner of the RCMP. I have been there as solicitor general, so I am well aware of that position.

I am even more concerned about what I have heard in this discussion about amendments proposed at committee, and I am not a member of the committee, all being rejected out of hand by the government. This is happening in committee after committee. I really think we need a serious discussion, not just on this legislation but on all of it, about the way this place is working.

Today, in the Winnipeg Free Press, there is a story that states that the Auditor General's information was actually edited out of the final version of a parliamentary investigation on the F-35s. That is a serious issue. Evidence is evidence. Just because government members do not like the evidence, they should not be able to edit it out. That did not happen in this place years ago. I think it is becoming the custom around here for the department and the PMO to be running what Conservative members are allowed to do in committee.

The rules are that parliamentary reports, committee reports, are not supposed to be seen by a minister. They are not supposed to be seen by the PMO. Those are the rules.

Conservative members have been run by ministries and the PMO. That is affecting how this place is working. It is affecting why amendments are not even really being discussed. They are being rejected out of hand. That is a damper on our democracy.

I wonder if the member has anything to say.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, of course, we have seen, in committee after committee, amendments proposed to try to make the legislation better for all Canadians.

We all understand when there is a “what”. We know what the issue is. We all know that the “how” is what we do differently in the House.

We are coming up with some good amendments. Let me tell members some of the amendments that were rejected at this committee: adding mandatory harassment training for RCMP members, specifically, to the RCMP 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. This was deemed inadmissible.

I could go on, Mr. Speaker, about the importance of these, but I know that I do not have much time.

More than 200 women have come forward on the class action lawsuit on sexual harassment in the RCMP. How would the bill address that? It would not. Those amendments would have.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise again to speak to the bill. By way of preamble, I would like to concur with both the NDP member and my hon. colleague from Malpeque. It is important that the government begin to change its attitude in committees, because we are seeing this more and more. We are seeing it at the public safety committee. A bill comes to the committee for study, and all members approach it with good will. Some members propose amendments, yet the government seems not to be open to any kind of amendment. It is true that some are ruled out of order, and that is really a technical issue, but on other issues, the government members of the committee are united in closing down the possibility of amendment.

I would like to turn to the broader issue of the RCMP, the RCMP culture, and the demands on the RCMP.

Presently, at the public safety committee, we are doing a study of policing in Canada. We have had members of the RCMP appear before us on a couple of occasions. What is becoming abundantly clear is that policing in Canada, including within the RCMP, is becoming increasingly complex. That means having complex organizations, and I am sure that in some cases, it may mean increased bureaucratization. Within this context, it is very important that organizations do not become so complex that they are unmanageable and that the person responsible for leading the organization finds his or her hands tied at every turn.

The purpose of the bill is to provide some leeway to the commissioner to exercise some leadership. I would like to refer to the committee's current study on policing costs and policing in general. I would like to share with the House the fact that in England, some major reforms of policing have been undertaken. To counter the inevitable inertia that takes hold in any kind of organization over time, police crime commissioners in different regions have been appointed and have been given new powers to make appointments and so on to appoint the local police commissioner and so on.

There seems to be a shared understanding across the Atlantic that there is a need to make policing structures more efficient. In that regard, I would like to quote Dr. Alok Mukherjee, president of the Canadian Association of Police Boards. When he came to the committee, he said the following about a Federation of Canadian Municipalities 2009 report on RCMP municipal contract policing: “A number of characteristics are generally accepted as essential to good governance; these include being accountable”, of course, and that is what this bill is hoping to achieve, “transparent, responsive, effective and efficient”—I would like to emphasize the word “efficient”—“equitable and inclusive”.

Efficiency is a concern, and that concern was echoed by Dr. Alok Mukherjee, President of the Canadian Association of Police Boards. Again, to quote Dr. Mukherjee when he appeared before the committee: “We”, meaning the Canadian Association of Police Boards, “believe that Bill C-42 is a good step forward in enhancing accountability, modernizing the force's human resources practices, and strengthening civilian oversight”.

It is not me saying that the bill strengthens civilian oversight. It is Dr. Alok Mukherjee, who is an extremely well-respected individual. He mentions further in his testimony: “The current oversight mechanism, the CPC”, which stands for the Commission for Public Complaints, “as has been noted by several witnesses appearing before you, is woefully inadequate. I believe that the provisions in Bill-C-42 will go a long way in filling this gap”.

He continues that “We are heartened by the fact that the proposed CRCC”, which stands for the civilian review and complaints commission that is being instituted by Bill C-42, “will have the power to undertake reviews of the RCMP's policies and procedures, have access to more documents than is the case at present, be able to compel evidence”, which is an important improvement to the current process, “and deal more expeditiously with public complaints”.

The bill does bring some improvements. I do not think it is correct to say that nothing good will come of the bill. Maybe it is not perfect. As I say, maybe the government should have been more open with respect to the amendments presented at committee. However, respected individuals, such as Dr. Alok Mukherjee, have admitted that the bill is an important improvement.

The new commission, the CRCC, which is replacing the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, would be given the power to summon witnesses, to compel them to produce documents or exhibits, in the same manner and to the same extent as a superior court of record, to examine any records and to make inquiries it considers necessary. These are important new powers.

Elsewhere I have read that if there is a disagreement between the commission and the commissioner about what kinds of documents should be released, essentially it is the commission that would rule. This is an important principle.

What is also important is that if the new bill is to be effective, resources will have to be provided to the new civilian review and complaints commission. The problem of resources has been an endemic one for many years. In fact, in 1997, the Auditor General did a review of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP and found that the process was quite slow. The report states at paragraph 34.3:

The Commission's handling of complaint reviews and public hearings is slow. It needs to improve the way it works by streamlining the review process and providing appropriate training to Commission members who are responsible for conducting public hearings.

That takes resources.

Paragraph 34.4 of the Auditor General's report from 1997 states, “The Commission also needs to improve its performance measures”.

Bill C-42 attempts to bring in standards of service. In other words, it really wants to introduce some accountability and set some time limits on the review process. It is very important that the commissioner be able to exercise some leadership, because at the end of the day, it is leadership that creates cultural change within an organization. To confirm that we just have to look at Canadian Pacific, which has brought in a new president, Hunter Harrison, who is changing the corporate culture. He is obviously a strong-willed individual with vision who is bringing about change. It is not committees that bring about that kind of change at that point.

On behalf of our caucus, I feel that the bill is worth supporting. It is not perfect, and there are some concerns, some of which were raised at committee. Again, I concur with my colleagues and the NDP that the government should be much more open to accepting amendments and perhaps to even amending amendments. It should exhibit a spirit of openness toward the opposition and understand that no one in the House has a monopoly on good ideas or insight. It is by listening to each other that we will have better legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments as well as his contribution at committee. We really do work very well, and although we disagree many times, we get a lot accomplished.

The member was talking about the NDP amendments, but as I recall, one of the challenges with them was that they came in very late. We had to work to get them in, which can sometimes be a problem to do at committee. If we have an idea beforehand what the amendments are, it gives us greater ability to see what we have in common and where we can work together. Without that, practically speaking, it can become a problem. Furthermore, some of the New Democrats' amendments were ruled out of order. Again, that just goes to experience on the part of their committee members, who do an excellent job on behalf of their party. However, amendments need to be brought forward in a timely way and be deemed in order. It really is not the Conservatives' fault when the New Democrats do not have the organization in place to do that.

I noticed that the Liberals did not put any amendments forward at committee stage and have clearly indicated that they will be supporting this legislation. Would my hon. colleague encourage the NDP in that same spirit to support the legislation because of the good work it will do? It may not be perfect, but it goes much further than doing nothing at all.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yes, I would encourage the NDP to support this legislation. Indeed, the legislation is not perfect, but as some eminent individuals have said, including Dr. Mukherjee, it is a major step forward. If we do not move on this issue, it is only going to fester and get worse and it is only going to slow the pace of cultural change within the organization. Therefore, it is important to get moving on this.

No doubt there will be issues in the future and we know that the RCMP commissioner in particular operates in a media fishbowl. It is not a secretive organization; if things are not going well, the press and the House will be right on his heels. He or she, whoever the next commissioner will be, will have some explaining to do and might have to give in to some suggestions for more change.

That said, we have to get going on this; we have to get started.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is something I do not understand.

The Conservatives acknowledge that this bill is not perfect. The Liberals just acknowledged that this bill is not perfect.

The problems within the RCMP came up five or ten years ago.

Why do we not take a few more weeks to come up with a better bill? Everyone agrees that this bill could be improved, so why do we not do it?

That is why the NDP cannot support this bill. As it stands, it misses the mark. Let us fix it once and for all. Let us create a better bill that at least meets the expectations of the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member for Pierrefonds—Dollard that we do not live in a perfect world; there are some problems to be fixed.

I cannot explain why the government voted against every one of the NDP's amendments that was in order, but the fact is that we must take a step forward if we want to change the culture within the RCMP. We cannot drag our feet on this, and that is very important. Cases of sexual harassment are making headlines. We must take action and make this bill a priority.

We can always come back to it in due time to make amendments, perhaps with a private member's bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, to pick up on that very point, we do recognize that this is a positive bill in principle and that there will be a great deal of benefit from passing it. We recognize that it is not perfect and that some amendments could be brought forward, but it is important that we move forward and pass the bill.

Does the member believe that the principle of the bill, even if it passes without amendment, is worthy of support? That said, we would be discouraged if the government did not respond to any sensible suggestions, whether an NDP or Liberal amendment. Maybe some things could have been done at committee to strengthen the bill.

The bill will pass with our support of it in principle, but it could have been a better bill had the government been more sensitive to the need for changes.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that improvements could always be made, but we want to show support for the men and women of the RCMP. We want to show support for the commissioner, who has a difficult job to do. He is a new commissioner, and we would like to give him the benefit of the doubt at this point and show him that he not only has the government on his side in fulfilling his mandate but also some members of the opposition. One way of doing that would be to support the main principle of the bill.

While it is not perfect, some eminent individuals, like Dr. Mukherjee, have said that it is a very important bill and achieves some very important things.

We will see how it works out. If a good sexual harassment policy does not come forward quickly, I am sure there will be pressure to bring the commissioner back to the public safety committee to tell us why he has not acted faster.

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

Mr. Speaker, I tried to put forward amendments at report stage, hoping that we could improve the bill. It needs improvement.

As much as I accept and have great respect for my colleague, I am skeptical of the idea that the media glare on the RCMP is adequate to deal with transgressions. We never got an answer from former Commissioner Zaccardelli about the outrageous intervention in the election campaign of 2005-2006. He refused the request of the commissioner at the time, Paul Kennedy, to give evidence, and the commissioner had no ability to compel him to give evidence.

We have seen far too many individual episodes, including Ian Bell being shot while in RCMP custody in British Columbia. We do not have adequate measures, and while the vast majority of RCMP officers are superb and dedicated men and women of great integrity, when one or two people behave as they have done, particularly when it is the commissioner himself in the case of Zaccardelli, this country needs adequate abilities to review and call to account RCMP behaviour when it falls below the standards of a free and democratic society with respect for human rights and individual liberties.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the question of Commissioner Zaccardelli and the way he acted during that election campaign is obviously a sore point with our caucus.

However, the powers of the commission have been enhanced. It will have the power to examine RCMP policies and pretty much anything it would want, beyond just a simple case of one complaint. It will be able to ask for information and to compel witnesses.

If there is a commissioner down the road who just does not want to co-operate, at the end of the day, that commissioner will not be re-appointed. Unfortunately, that is the ultimate sanction available regarding any officer or employee of any organization, including any officer of Parliament or head of an agency.

Yes, I concur that the Zaccardelli incident was not a pleasant one.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to further clarify the official opposition’s position 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 the House to know that we will be voting against this bill. I have discussed the proposed legislation with various stakeholders on a number of occasions, and I have even studied it as a member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. I was very disappointed to realize in committee that even though the Minister of Public Safety had said that he would be open to amendments, regardless of which party proposed them, the Conservatives did an about-face and limited debate in committee to seven meetings, rejecting every single amendment put forward by the opposition.

The aim of these amendments was to ensure that Bill C-42 addressed the challenges that are currently facing the RCMP. Among other things, they called for adding mandatory harassment training for all RCMP members specifically in the RCMP Act; establishing a fully independent civilian review body to investigate complaints against the RCMP; adding a provision to create an independent national civilian investigative body to avoid having police investigating police, an amendment that unfortunately was deemed out of order by the committee; and creating more balanced human resource policies by removing some of the new draconian powers proposed for the RCMP commissioner and strengthening the RCMP external review committee in cases involving possible dismissal from the force.

Had these amendments been accepted, this bill could have truly remedied the situation, but instead of enhancing the bill, the government merely introduced some minor amendments, primarily to address translation and grammar problems, not to improve the content. Quite frankly I was very disappointed in the government.

The reality is that this bill represents the Conservative government’s response to long-standing complaints of sexual harassment within the RCMP and the recent scandals that made the headlines involving the overly lenient disciplinary action taken against officers charged with serious misconduct. The reality is that it also fails to deal directly with the problem of harassment within the RCMP and several other issues that were the focus of the NDP amendments I alluded to earlier.

The bill itself cannot bring about the change in the RCMP corporate culture that is necessary to specifically address the allegations of rampant sexual harassment. It does not directly deal with the systemic problems entrenched in the RCMP culture. Frankly, this bill leaves the impression that the Conservative government is afraid to tackle the serious harassment problems in the RCMP. That is why we proposed an amendment requiring all RCMP members to receive harassment training. That amendment was proposed following the testimony of a witness before the committee, Yvonne Séguin, who is the founder and executive director of the Groupe d'aide et d'information sur le harcèlement sexuel au travail. This support group has been in existence for 32 years. Its main objective is to break down the isolation and the wall of silence to which are subjected those who suffer or have suffered from sexual or psychological harassment in the workplace, and to raise awareness about this issue.

This support group pursues several objectives, as stated in its charter. They include: educating the public regarding this issue; advising women on the measures to be taken; helping women overcome the problems they have faced or still face; writing, publishing and releasing documents and manuals, and specifically documents on harassment in the workplace; and raising money through donations and organizing cultural activities for its members.

I had the opportunity to meet with Ms. Séguin while preparing for the discussion that we were going to have in committee on Bill C-42. I wanted to get more details to better understand what her organization stands for. I was deeply touched by everything she told me about sexual harassment in the workplace, about situations which I have been lucky not to experience. I was shocked and this influenced my approach to Bill C-42.

I was particularly moved by one of their campaigns. Unfortunately, I am not currently wearing the lapel pin that she gave me. It says, “It's not part of the job”. I am 100% behind that idea. It really is not part of the job, and it must be condemned. I believe that Ms. Séguin's message says it all.

She also mentioned a training session that her organization had given to a group of firefighters who needed to change their workplace culture, as is the case with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I quote:

We had to raise awareness and educate people a lot about the fact that workplace culture can change. It has to change. The change is difficult for everyone, but once it's done, it's crystal clear. In the 1980s, CN made changes to discrimination and sexual harassment policies. This institution was the first to say it feared being flooded with complaints after the decision. However, on the contrary, it received fewer, because things were straightforward.

It is clear that she worked hard with groups that needed to change their workplace culture when it came to harassment. And the changes were positive. This real-life example proves that training and educating a group can have a tangible impact on a workplace.

The minister has not used this bill, or any other method, to mandate a clear policy on sexual harassment in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, with specific standards of conduct and criteria for assessing the performance of all employees. Such a policy is necessary to provide a basis for a fair disciplinary process.

It was an important step in the changing role of women in the Canadian workplace when, in 1974, the RCMP began hiring female officers. I should point out that in the 1970s, there were even fewer women than there are today in occupations traditionally open only to men. And yes, that is still the case in many situations today, and that mentality still exists.

The RCMP finally changed its policies in response to recommendations that came out of the Bird commission in 1970. This commission wanted to see changes in the role of women in federal government workplaces.

On September 16, 1974, our federal police force hired 32 women from across the country. One week later, these women started their training at the RCMP School in Regina. In March of the following year, 30 women graduated. They were the first female cohort in the history of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It was a big step forward in terms of the rights of women and their place in the labour force and our federal institutions. Today, it is very important to take the time to commemorate this.

It is sad, however, to note that only few years later, the RCMP is facing numerous scandals concerning, among other things, harassment of many female police officers.

On July 30, in Vancouver, 200 women made headlines by expressing their interest in being part of a class action to expose the harassment they have been subject to in our federal police force. Women such as Officer Janet Merlo, Corporal Catherine Galliford and Constable Karen Katz were courageous enough to report the sexual harassment they endured for years in their workplace. For these women, every day at work was a challenge.

Today, as the deputy critic for public safety, I want to salute their determination. Reporting harassment takes a lot of courage, and these women have my full admiration. Women who work at the RCMP dedicate themselves body and soul to making sure that Canadians are safe. Sexual harassment cases are always distressing, no matter the workplace. These women risk their lives every day in an effort to protect us, and they deserve a lot better.

On September 19, it was reported in the media that, according to a document obtained under the Access to Information Act, a poll was taken of 426 female police officers in British Columbia following media reports of sexual harassment and the RCMP.

This internal RCMP report suggested that a number of employees were reluctant to blow the whistle on acts of sexual harassment because they do not trust the current complaints process, and they believe that the accused officers will, ultimately, go unpunished.

The report states that there was a pervasive perception within the RCMP that harassment was uncommon. Female police officers are reluctant to report cases of sexual harassment because they have observed that there are no consequences for the harasser other than having to transfer or be promoted.

I would like to digress for a moment. It is quite something to see in this day and age—and there have been number of instances in recent years—that in a case concerning a sexual harassment charge within the RCMP, the person at fault was not dealt with directly and punished; he was transferred elsewhere and given a promotion. In a world in which we tell ourselves that men and women have equal rights, I cannot get over it. It is completely inconceivable for someone who has sexually harassed a colleague to be given a promotion. It is completely beyond me.

I will return now to the report, which says that because women have the impression that there will be no real consequences, they do not believe that it is worth filing a complaint. The women who participated mainly reported that they felt the consequences of filing a harassment complaint outweighed the complaint itself.

They mentioned many problems, including aggressive supervisors, the assignment of women to lowly tasks, the little attention paid to them at meetings, the use of sexual innuendo, as well as touching and exhibitionism. No one should have to deal with this kind of behaviour at work, and these women should feel at ease in condemning this sort of completely unacceptable attitude.

The participants also reported that when they tried to complain, they were often punished. They were also afraid that their career would suffer, that they would be assigned new duties or that they would be posted to another detachment.

One participant even said that she would never make a harassment complaint because she had seen what had happened to those who had done so. Senior employees had made their lives a living hell and used their position of authority to intimidate them.

Clearly, it is urgent that we do something to deal with these obviously indefensible and intolerable situations within our federal police force. And it is not just within the RCMP that these things are happening; they are happening at workplaces across Canada. We have before us a striking example that gives us the opportunity to condemn the unthinkable. We need to stand up and do something about it.

Unfortunately, we New Democrats do not believe that Bill C-42 will be able to deal appropriately with this problem. There is nothing tangible in Bill C-42 that directly addresses sexual harassment, even though the Conservative government promised to address it in this bill. Absolutely nothing. I challenge my colleagues to try and find something in this bill that directly addresses sexual harassment, as the Minister of Public Safety promised. There is nothing in there.

The minister says that he wants more women in the RCMP, and I fully agree with him. The more women there are in environments that have been traditionally dominated by men, the better. However, it will be essential to ensure that they feel at ease in their working environment. Yes, more women are needed, but not under conditions like that.

Last November, we learned that RCMP Commissioner Paulson had given the Minister of Public Safety a document showing that the number of women at the RCMP training centres had dropped by 52% since 2008-09, despite the great need for female personnel.

Among other things, the letter called for action to reduce the number of harassment and workplace bullying complaints at the RCMP. We believe that our amendment providing for mandatory harassment training under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act would have been a step in the right direction. I do hope the government will follow up on this and look for real ways to change the internal culture at the RCMP.

I agree with the Minister of Public Safety when he says Canadians' trust in the RCMP has been shaken. In light of the allegations that have been made and the information that has surfaced on the inner workings of the organization, Canadians find it difficult to trust their own national police force. We must restore confidence by changing the culture within the RCMP. That will take a great deal of work. We must work together with all parties involved so that our national police force will have the tools it needs to deal with the problem.

Clearly the bill does not go far enough. It does not address the concerns of the organization's female employees. These women want immediate action to foster a more open and safe work environment for themselves and their colleagues. This bill does not achieve that goal.

Frankly, the government has failed to show initiative on this file. It has been in power since 2006, and despite several reports and recommendations—particularly Justice O'Connor's and David Brown's reports from 2006 and 2007 on possible changes to the RCMP—it waited six years to deal with the issue and even now refuses to take it seriously.

With respect to the cases that came up this summer in the RCMP, Ms. Séguin said, when you find that people have been sexually harassed for two decades, then you know there is a problem. When you hear that 150 female Mounties have gone through the process of pressing charges in a civil suit, it is screaming out loud that the system does not work. She also said she was aware that for a long time it was popular to try to group all the harassment charges together and call it maybe “violence at work”. But she believes that as long as there is sexual harassment in the workplace, as long as there is not the necessary education in place, we should be very specific.

Aside from the fact that this bill does not address the real problem of sexual harassment, we think that, if the Conservative government really wanted to modernize the RCMP, it would agree to move on to the next phase, applying the recommendations made by the oversight organizations and proceeding with an audit of the RCMP by an independent group of investigators who would report directly to Parliament. We believe that something must be done to strengthen the body that reviews and deals with complaints in the RCMP. The Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP has been very useful, but we have concerns about its independence and its ability to supervise independent inquiries.

Paul Kennedy, the former chair of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, made recommendations, first, in 2009, concerning investigations into serious incidents, and later, when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice. At that time, Mr. Kennedy proposed some solutions to improve the independence of the position he occupied. He appeared during the committee's study of Bill C-42 and stated that the bill did not meet the standards of review set out by Justice O'Connor and did not meet the needs of the RCMP or the Canadian public.

The New Democratic Party tried to amend this bill so that it would take the problems that witnesses have raised into account, but the Conservatives refuse to take direct action against harassment. That is not unlike the hierarchical nature of the RCMP and the force's complete lack of independent oversight. It is obvious that, in short, the Conservatives have not done enough to modernize the RCMP.

I would like to thank all the former and current members of the RCMP who made the effort to help us try to amend this bill. The amendments were not dreamed up out in the middle of nowhere. We sat around a table with the people who really worked in the RCMP and the people who were working to end sexual harassment.

We worked with every possible player we could imagine, and I sincerely thank them all. It is for all those men and women that I will be voting against Bill C-42 today. We absolutely must establish a fair, clear and transparent system that will help restore the trust of the general public and the women who work for the RCMP in the national police force.

We on this side of the House will continue to advocate bringing in policies and legislation to protect the right of RCMP members to carry on their honourable work in a climate of trust and respect.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague. I appreciate her comments regarding sexual harassment, as well as articulating what many women go through and how difficult it is for them.

We have a bill before us that would provide a very strong framework to address a multitude of negative behaviours that sometimes have been and could be displayed within the RCMP. These have poisoned the culture, certainly harassment and sexual harassment being two of them, as well as bullying, intimidation and racism. Unfortunately, I could go on and on about a number of behaviours that we want changed within the RCMP. Some are more prevalent than others.

Is the member and her party so narrow-minded and small-minded, and I do not believe she is, that they would not support the bill because it is not actually naming the negative behaviour of harassment within the bill? The bill would provide a strong framework to modernize the RCMP and would give management the ability to not only deal with harassment, but bullying, intimidation, violence, racism, sexism, a multitude of negative behaviours that she has, unfortunately, put under the heading of harassment, choosing not to support very important legislation. Is she that small-minded? I do not believe she is.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for her question. It will give me an opportunity to discuss this matter in greater detail.

The answer is no, not at all. This important bill is supposed to address a lot of problems. Many people who work at the RCMP or in workplaces where there is harassment—and I am talking about all forms of harassment—came to the committee to tell us that this bill does not address this problem at all but rather a different matter altogether.

What did the Conservative government do? It did not listen to them. We had seven meetings to examine a bill hundreds of pages in length that quite simply transforms the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.

Let me give an example: the last time the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act was amended, the committee conducted a very important and very long study. It thoroughly examined the matter. It took 10 years or so to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, and the changes were much more minor than these ones.

I believe the Conservatives are not taking the problem seriously. They did not listen to the witnesses in committee. They did not conduct consultations before introducing this bill. The people concerned saw it after the fact. No one was consulted in the preparation of this legislation, and they are trying to tell us they are doing the right thing.

I rather doubt that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, to be very clear, when we look at the bill before us, it is of such a nature that, ultimately, it is a step forward. Do we want some changes? Could there have been more done to improve issues such as harassment in the workforce and so forth? Absolutely, let there be no doubt about that.

It appears as if the New Democrats' feelings are a little hurt. They are upset because their amendments did not pass. There have been many amendments before the committee and it is unfortunate the government does not recognize the importance of accepting those. One can be very critical of the government for that.

The issue before us today is the principle of the bill and whether the bill should be allowed to proceed. My question to the member is very specific. Forgetting about the NDP amendments for a moment, what specific clauses of the bill do the New Democrats oppose, to the degree to which they would vote against the bill passing third reading?

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

It would have been a good idea for my colleague from Winnipeg North to come and see the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security and the study that was made of this bill. I do not even know whether he would have had the time to go through the whole bill as it stands.

It is also sad to see that the Liberals did not introduce any amendments to it either. They say this is an imperfect bill. Why did they not try to correct it? I have a bit of a problem when they try to attack on that point.

No, this is not a step forward, not at all. If my colleague had taken the time to look at Bill C-42 in detail, he would have seen that most of the measures it contains absolutely do not address or resolve the issue of harassment in the workplace or give powers to the right people, or anything. No, Bill C-42 is a direct attack on the fundamental rights of workers.

Members may know this perhaps, but the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is one of the only police forces that is not unionized. It is therefore extremely difficult for workers to assert their rights if they have a problem with their employer. And Bill C-42 really contains a lot of clauses that directly attack workers' rights.

We could go through the bill. Perhaps my colleague and I could go for coffee and I could point out all the clauses that show why this bill makes no sense and does not address the right issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, in the past, we have been told that victims of sexual assault are being encouraged more and more to report the abuse they suffer. We have also noted the many cases of missing women in aboriginal communities. These women are never found.

So, how can a police force that refuses to deal with the issue of sexual harassment within its own organization possibly deal with those kinds of problems in the future?

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

I thank my hon. colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin. He raised some very important points in relation to sexual harassment. Here, it is obvious. The problem with sexual harassment is that many women are too afraid to report incidents.

My partner and I are expecting a baby girl in April. She will grow up and of course I hope nothing bad ever happens to her. If anything ever does happen to her, frankly, you can be sure that I will be the first one screaming very loudly. However, if something does happen, I hope she will have the tools she needs. I do not want this little person to come into the world without being properly equipped to deal with any of the problems that can happen to anyone.

My colleague mentioned the first nations women who have disappeared from reserves. Here we have a serious problem of sexual harassment in the workplace, and that organization does not have the tools needed to tackle the issue. Why not give these women the tools they need to tackle these problems? That is my question here today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I get quite frustrated when I listen to the opposition talk about narrowing it down to harassment. Being a retired member of the RCMP, I was trained by a female. I have trained female members. They have all turned out to be excellent members.

We are talking about a few select members in the RCMP who do some bad things and who should be kicked out. What Bill C-42 would do is give the power to the commissioner to kick them out.

What the member is insinuating is that if we do not have that, this is exactly what would happen. They would be transferred because that is what we would do. We transfer them out of an area so they are not a problem.

Does the member agree that Bill C-42 would give the power to the commissioner to fire someone if he or she were found guilty of a criminal offence similar to harassment or any other charge? Does she think that would be the right response?

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Alfred-Pellan has 40 seconds to respond.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by thanking my colleague for his question.

He is right when he says that there are only a few people responsible for workplace harassment within the RCMP. However, this is not the right way to deal with the problem.

Concentrating all the power at the top, in the hands of the commissioner or the deputy commissioners, does not really solve the problem. Had my colleague been at the committee meetings, he would have heard that much of the harassment occurs at senior levels. People in more senior positions harass those below them. This is not the right way to go about dealing with the problem. We must deal with it. My colleague is quite right to make that point. However, we are not going about it the right way.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my speaking time with the member for Scarborough Southwest.

Historically, the tradition was that the Mounties always get their man. Is that still true? We might wonder about that. We in the NDP want a police force that is the best in the world. We want its reputation for excellence to be restored.

As New Democrats, we want a modern state protected by a modern police force. We therefore do not want to diminish the effectiveness of our police; on the contrary, we want to enhance it. That calls for some serious thought at present. On the question of harassment, we are told we are making too specific a point of it, as compared to other kinds of police misconduct. Allow me to quote Justice Bertha Wilson of the Supreme Court of Canada, who stated in a self-defence case that a man will never find himself in the situation of a battered woman.

That is a fact. A man will never go through the sexual harassment experienced by a woman. That is very important. It is why we are making a specific point of it. That does not mean we are denying there are other problem; we are not, but that is one that stands out. We cannot solve that problem the same way as all the others.

At the outset, the NDP wanted to tackle the problem of the RCMP and various dysfunctions. We supported Bill C-42 at second reading. We said it was important to take remedial action so that our police force would be more effective, and we voted for the bill, which was in fact sent to committee.

Unfortunately, during consideration of Bill C-42, the representatives made it plain that they were going to shuffle the cards and change people's titles, but fundamentally, the corporate culture that had led to major errors would not be rectified. That is problematic.

In this regard, when we look at the past, we learn that other societies have had the same problems. In France in the early 1900s, the French police were facing organized crime and anarchist movements like the Bonnot gang. The then minister of the interior, Georges Clemenceau, said that a modern police force called for modern solutions. He created flying squads, nicknamed the “Tiger Brigades”. That was an effective response to a modern problem.

Later, France had to think about who was going to investigate its police. To police the police, it created the IGS, the Inspection générale des services, which is not accountable to a police chain of command that it is investigating. It is a totally independent police force that investigates certain kinds of wrongdoing by police and recommends remedial action and sometimes, when it is necessary, punishment.

We hoped that our amendments would be taken seriously in committee and would be discussed and accepted.

Requiring members of the RCMP to take harassment training under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act is not a luxury, it is a necessity. I do not understand why the Conservative caucus, so many of whom have been members of the police, would not consider the wisdom of this motion in amendment. It was necessary and they did not do it.

It is sad to say, but the Conservatives claim to have all the answers, like Louis XIV, who said, “l'État, c'est moi”. He was never wrong.

In short, there is nothing more to be said. We even wonder whether there might not have been some further evolution. Now, the Conservative government is God. God is always right. We should simply shut up. But I will not. There is a major problem here.

The police hierarchy has been given the power once again to fire members for a variety of administrative, non-disciplinary reasons. Examples include illness, too much parental leave or post-traumatic shock, which is not taken seriously. There is even talk of punishing investigators who conduct investigations that displease the political masters.

It amounts to quasi-discretionary power over which we would not have any authority. And God knows that this police force needs help and that we are prepared to give it. That is why the establishment of a completely independent investigative body was requested. By giving a commissioner the ultimate power to decide on what disciplinary action to take, Bill C-42 would give him the power to establish a single comprehensive framework for investigating and dealing with harassment problems.

This was precisely what we did not want. Worse still, it creates the same problems that arose in the case of an individual involved in an investigation into terrorism that directly affected national security. They fingered a completely innocent person. They deported him to Syria and he was tortured. But the problem does not end with the Arar case. Not only was a special commission of inquiry required to determine what had happened, but it took a parliamentary committee to eventually discover the truth. The truth was very simple: elements within the RCMP fabricated a terrorist threat simply to impress a foreign police force. It was unacceptable. These are the kinds of blunders that must not be repeated in the future.

There is also the risk that if the problem is not solved and there is no internal framework to deal with issues of this kind, people are going to find other ways of dealing with them and there are going to be leaks to the press. Rather than going through the usual chain of command, people will leak information to journalists. The best example of this was "Deep Throat", who was a senior FBI officer in the 1970s. When, during the Watergate scandal, he realized that presidential power was so influential that no investigation would be possible, he decided on his own, for the protection of the United States of America and in the interests of justice, to leak the relevant information to the Washington Post. Is this what is going to happen in the RCMP in the future? Will people be forced to leak information to the media?

The broad range of groups and experts who appeared and reported on the extent of the problems faced by the RCMP shows that serious action is required. It would seem impossible to refuse to listen to these many groups, with all their expertise, from so many different backgrounds. Unfortunately, however, the government is still not listening.

Some serious soul-searching is required to determine whether we really want an effective police force in a democratic state. The Minister of Public Safety said that Canadians' trust in the RCMP had been shaken. How could this bill possibly restore this trust? Clearly, it cannot. Perhaps the comments of the Minister of Justice could best be described by Madame de Pompadour’s most famous words: "Après moi le déluge". In whatever he does, provided that he pleases his Prime Minister, nothing else is of any importance with respect to future consequences.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, who always shares thoughtful remarks.

We all agree on the need to modernize the RCMP as an institution. We also agree we need to address the problem of sexual harassment in the RCMP, which has been going on for quite some time. This is a key part of this debate. Our party also proposed establishing an independent civilian body that would examine complaints against the RCMP. As my colleague pointed out, with the RCMP being one our country's fundamental institutions, it must remain credible in the eyes of the public. I would like him to comment further on this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Yes, credibility is at stake. When someone acts as judge and jury in a case where his own brother is the accused, one may wonder whether justice can be served. There needs to be an authority that is totally independent of the offender. The current legislation does not provide for such a change. Everything happens in a vacuum. This is the darker side of esprit de corps. That is why other countries mandate independent organizations to handle these investigations. In France, the work is done by an agency tasked with doing general service inspections. In England, they use the Special Branch. There are major differences. In Canada, it was decided that only the police commissioner would have the authority to impose sanctions. Sadly, in the past, sanctions imposed for serious misconduct have not reflected the seriousness of the crimes.

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

Mr. Speaker, as usual, my colleague made quite a heartfelt speech. Could he give us a general idea of the suggestions that were made in committee?

Members spoke of adding mandatory training, ensuring an independent body and creating a civilian investigative body in order to avoid situations where the police investigate the police. There was also talk of creating a more balanced police force, from a human resources perspective.

I would like my colleague to comment on these amendments brought forward in committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, the NDP did not come up with all the amendments that it brought forward. We listened to the most compelling witnesses, such as former senior RCMP officers, criminologists with a spotless past and generally people with a great deal of knowledge in the area. We got them together. We listened to them and brought forward amendments reflecting their suggestions on ways to improve our police force and restore its credibility. The NDP was able to bring forward amendments because it listened to the witnesses.

We listened to them; they had many things to say. Not all of them criticized the RCMP. Many witnesses appeared. For the most part, they were supportive of the RCMP. They were former officers, former members, former victims, people who have seen crime evolve. Those are the people we listened to and respected. They had our full attention. That is why we are very proud of our amendments.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his comment. We truly listened to the witnesses; it really needs to be said. As parliamentarians, when we are in committee, one of our most crucial jobs is to welcome witnesses and hear what they have to say, in order to make our legislation better.

My grandfather, George Harris, was a member of the RCMP and had the privilege of being a member of the musical ride. I mention this just to bring into context my personal association.

I begin my remarks today by paying tribute to the women and men of the RCMP who work every day to help our communities stay safe. The essential service they provide, often in the face of great danger and ignoring many of the individual challenges that surround their work in order to fulfill their duties, deserves to be acknowledged and they deserve the best-quality legislation possible.

That is where our problems with Bill C-42 begin. I have been listening to today's debate and am moved by how passionately Conservatives have defended this bill today and by the fact that no government members have risen to explain why they refused reasoned amendments and recommendations by witnesses. Members of both the Liberal and Conservative parties admit that this bill is not perfect, but neither party is willing to take the time to get it right. New Democrats prefer to get it right the first time. That is what Canadians send us here to do: to pass the best evidence-based laws we can.

The New Democrats supported the intention of Bill C-42, to modernize the RCMP and address issues such as sexual harassment in the force, and voted in favour at second reading so that the bill would move to committee and hopefully be improved. However, after witnesses and experts testified at committee, it became clear that this bill has some deep and serious flaws that would not fix oversight at the RCMP without further amendment. It also needs to be pointed out that Bill C-42 would fail to act on any of the recommendations set out by Justice O'Connor in the Maher Arar inquiry that aim to improve standards of review of the RCMP to meet the needs of Canadians. This is very disappointing.

The Conservatives presented Bill C-42 as the solution to a dysfunctional RCMP, but clearly we are not there yet. The bill would not only fall short on addressing sexual harassment within the force, but it would also fall short in a number of other areas. The New Democrats, as mentioned, tried to address these shortcomings in committee by putting forward a package of amendments meant to ensure Bill C-42 would effectively meet the challenges the RCMP faces.

Those amendments included adding mandatory harassment training for RCMP members. I cannot imagine why the government side would oppose this. It makes no sense. We have clear problems in the RCMP with respect to harassment, and why we would not seek to have our officers receive the best quality training possible to prevent these issues from happening in the future is beyond me.

Ensuring a fully independent civilian review body to investigate complaints against the RCMP was another recommendation. This is something that Canadians, with municipal, provincial and federal police forces, have called for at all levels where such a body does not exist. We have had these kinds of bodies in the past and why we are still not moving toward that at the federal level is a shock.

We called for adding a provision to create a national civilian investigative body that would avoid having police investigating police. All across in the legislation we have numerous instances where self-regulation oftentimes does not work or creates new problems. Recently, with the biggest recall of meat in Canadian history, we have seen where self-regulation has gone with the inspection of foods. There are currently issues before the courts with respect to airline safety and self-regulation. Only 30% of Canada's fleet of airplanes has been inspected by Transport Canada in the last two years. Self-regulation causes more problems than it fixes. So we wanted to see a national civilian investigative body put forward.

We would like to see the creation of more-balanced human resource policies by removing some of the more draconian powers proposed for the RCMP commissioner and by strengthening the RCMP external review committee in cases involving possible dismissal from the force. On the other side, members want to put all the power in the minister's and the commissioner's hands. That is not how we would achieve a transparent and accountable government or national police force.

The Conservatives voted down every single NDP amendment at committee. They even ignored many very good recommendations made by expert witnesses at the committee. The Conservative government is standing by its argument that putting more power in the hands of the RCMP commissioner to fire individual officers will curb the issue of harassment in the RCMP, and that the RCMP commissioner should have final say on all dismissals, ignoring calls for more independence. Witness after witness explained that legislation alone will not help foster a more open and respectful workplace. We need to see an ongoing effort from the RCMP and the government to modernize the RCMP. This bill lacks the transparency and accountability necessary to bring about those changes.

We on this side supported the bill at second reading because we all acknowledge that despite its proud history and its ongoing exemplary service, the RCMP faces some serious challenges. What we are all hearing in our constituencies and have heard in testimony before the public safety committee is that there are at least three major challenges facing the force.

First, and one of the biggest challenges facing the RCMP, is the potential loss of public confidence. For many years the RCMP has been an icon in our society, and trust levels remain high still to this day, as they should. However, any time our national police force begins to lose public confidence we must be concerned as parliamentarians and we must address the causes of that loss of confidence.

The causes centre around a number of unfortunate and high-profile incidents involving the force, which have resulted in death or serious injury to the public. Whenever there are these serious incidents, some of this loss of confidence is to be expected because the RCMP is charged with the use of force. RCMP members are bound to face challenging situations. Some of that loss of confidence is as a direct result of public concern about the structures by which we hold the RCMP accountable. In particular, members of the public are concerned about the police investigating themselves. It is interesting to note that it is not only the public that has lost confidence in these accountability measures, but there is also a loss of confidence among serving RCMP members, who have every bit if not more of an interest in independent investigations.

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

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

The NDP has pushed the minister for months to prioritize the issue of sexual harassment in the RCMP. Bill C-42 does not directly address systemic issues in the culture of the RCMP. We want to be clear that the bill, by itself, will not change the current climate in the RCMP. The bill does indirectly give the RCMP commissioner the ability to create a more effective process for dealing with sexual harassment complaints, however, the word “harassment” only appears in the bill once, in a disciplinary context to deal with harassment after it has occurred. We want to see it prevented, to not happen in the first place.

This is opposed to what the NDP proposed, which was to put language in the bill that was more proactive in curbing the systemic issue of harassment and particularly sexual harassment among RCMP members, which the Conservatives sadly refused to do. We agree with Commissioner Paulson in saying that legislation alone is not enough to keep the public trust and that profound reforms to change deep underlying culture problems within the RCMP are needed to foster a more open, co-operative and respectful workplace for all.

I see that my time is rapidly expiring, so I will wrap up my remarks by saying, once again, how sad we are with the state of the committees in the House of Commons, as we see them go, time and time again, behind closed doors and prevent reasoned arguments and amendments from being put into bills before the House.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, many RCMP members are concerned about Bill C-42. They are afraid that in the provisions for whistleblowers they will not be protected under the auspices of the bill and they are worried about their job security.

Could the member address the concern that the bill does not address these concerns?

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this touches on the fact that all the power is going to be put into the hands of the minister and the commissioner. How are people going to feel comfortable bringing issues forward when it is their direct bosses who are going to be responsible for hearing them? This is why we need to have independent civilian oversight for the RCMP in order to make sure that people feel comfortable bringing these issues forward.

We definitely need stronger whistleblower legislation for the RCMP and in other areas of the federal government to ensure that when problems occur public servants and police officers can come forward and not risk losing their jobs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his very convincing presentation.

I would like him to tell us, in his own words, why we need both an independent complaints commission and increased accountability from RCMP senior officials if we want to ensure that the police force does not end up investigating itself.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in my speech I mentioned other places where self-regulation is taking place and it is not working very well. In Ontario in the 1990s, we had another government, the Mike Harris government, which sought to remove civilian oversight from police forces in Ontario. I would note that three of the primary cabinet members of the current Conservative government were also in that government, so we see perhaps where some of those directions are coming from.

In that instance there was a tremendous loss of public confidence in the police forces because they were regulating themselves. There were no transparent processes put in place and there was no accountability. Above all else, we have to ensure through civilian oversight that we have accountability within our police forces when bad things happen.

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Saint-Jean.

A report from the International Labour Office contains data based on a 1996 survey of 15 European Union countries that included 15,800 interviews. It listed 6 million cases of physical violence, which means 4% of workers; 3 million cases of sexual harassment, or 2% of workers, and 12 million cases of intimidation, or 8% of workers. In 2009 here in Canada, over 20,000 cases of harassment have been reported, and the phenomenon is on the rise.

Violence and the workplace have always gone hand in hand, but although work was once a source of physical violence that could go as far as legal power over the life and death of a slave, today it is increasingly associated with psychological violence. This finds its origin largely in the new forms of work organization, and in management methods that emerged some thirty years ago and have led to deteriorating social relations, job insecurity and unemployment.

When referring to cases of violence, we must be sure to call them by their rightful name, so that everyone understands what we are talking about. According to the social and professional communities, one difficulty has to be taken into account: levels of tolerance for violence vary. Some forms of work organization and some situations are conducive to manifestations of violence.

The Conservatives introduced this bill in the House for first reading on June 21, 2012, and second reading on September 17, 18 and 19, 2012. Moreover, at second reading it was referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, which held seven meetings in October 2012, and a further sitting in November, so that a report could be adopted in mid-December. Today we are at third reading, and there really does not seem to have been any development in this bill.

The purpose of the bill was to restore public trust in the RCMP, and provide for clear and transparent accountability. Distancing itself from Canadian values with respect to law and order, however, the government seems to be forgetting that the best way of restoring public trust is to ensure transparency and remove any appearance of a conflict of interest.

Yet how is the public to be rid completely of its cynicism if the RCMP can investigate its own members, or in other words, if the police oversee investigations of their own actions?

I wonder about the fact that of the 14,000 words or so in the bill, the word “harassment” appears but once. As my colleague from Churchill pointed out, “harassment” is not even defined in the bill.

How is it that the committee considering these issues did not meet with a single representative of the RCMP who had filed a complaint of sexual harassment? Were these people not invited to attend the committee’s meetings? We would like to know why the victims were not heard from.

This is probably why Robin Kers, the union’s national representative, pointed out recently in an article in the February 4 issue of the Hill Times that the changes proposed by the government with respect to harassment within the police force were worthless, that they would not change so much as a comma in the RCMP code of conduct, and that the government had missed an opportunity to send a clear signal about accountability for harassment within the police.

Is this really surprising?

A clear and measurable policy to achieve parity between men and women in the forces would be the most constructive, structural approach to the problem of harassment. Representation of women in the forces currently stands at 20%.

On November 20, the assistant commissioner and human resources director, Sharon Woodburn, said that no concrete plan had been put forward to achieve the ratio of 30% to 35%, mentioned last April before a parliamentary committee by RCMP commissioner Bob Paulson.

I am concerned by the constant stream of harassment complaints received by the RCMP. My concern seems confirmed not by the constant number of complaints over the past decade, but by the reaction of the Minister of Public Safety last November, when he reprimanded the RCMP commissioner for discussing the gender analysis, in the interests of transparency. This did not reflect the will expressed in the bill's preamble about transparency.

On another note, the government seems to be acting in a contradictory way. On the one hand, it proposes to protect victims, something with which we agree, and it introduces a bill to increase the safety of witnesses. We talked about it yesterday. On the other hand—and after the NDP proposed amendments to deal with the concerns over human resources policies, in an attempt to rebalance them and, ultimately, reduce violence within organizations—the Conservative rejected all proposals to protect job security for members, particularly when harassment is reported. In addition to being harassed, members will be afraid to lose their job if they report someone. We seem to have here a government with a double standard.

Finally, I would like to quote Paul Kennedy, who held the job of RCMP public complaints commissioner for four years. He feels that the RCMP requires closer government oversight than what is provided under Bill C-42. The extended and repetitive situation that exists in the RCMP confirms the existence of a structural problem. Therefore, more radical solutions targeting the structure itself are required.

This is a worrisome problem that seems to exist everywhere and to be growing rapidly. The legislative approaches vary, as I am going to show.

The 2004 report entitled “L'État social de la France” and prepared by the ODIS proposes an analytical grid to evaluate the reality of moral harassment and specify its nature.

In Quebec, the Commission des normes du travail defines harassment as follows:

Harassment...at work is vexatious behaviour in the form of repeated conduct, verbal comments, actions or gestures: that are hostile or unwanted; that affect the employee's dignity or psychological or physical integrity; that make the work environment harmful.

The definition of harassment in the Act respecting Labour Standards in Quebec includes sexual harassment in the workplace and harassment based on one of the grounds mentioned in the Canadian Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.

To establish that a case actually involves psychological harassment, it is necessary to prove the presence of all the elements of the definition: vexatious behaviour; repetitive in nature; verbal comments, gestures or behaviours that are hostile or unwanted, that affect the person's dignity or integrity, and that make the environment harmful.

While we agree that the police does not have a monopoly on violence in society, it is critical that the RCMP become a place exempt from harassment. The integrity of our police is at stake. That is why the state, as employer, must ensure that RCMP members work in a healthy workplace and are protected from the situations that I described.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Honoré-Mercier, in eastern Montreal, for her speech.

Her speech raised an important point. The parliamentary committee heard from witnesses from all walks of life: expert witnesses, former RCMP officers, former RCMP complaints auditors, judges, lawyers and harassment experts. These people have all kinds of different backgrounds. They are not opposed to having a modern police force. On the contrary, these people want Canada's police force to be one of the best in the world. Why is it that all of these witnesses were heard, but they were all ignored? They were not respected. Their suggestions were not taken into consideration.

Could my distinguished colleague explain why?

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague just touched on a very sensitive point, namely the value of democracy. In a democracy, we must listen to one another, set aside our differences and work together.

When the Conservatives boss us around, they undermine democracy. They do that instead of improving a bill that would benefit everyone. The government's position is dangerous. We are here to represent people and provide them with a better quality of life. We are not the boss of anything and we do not have a monopoly on the truth.

By listening to professionals in the field, we could improve our legislation and truly make life easier for our constituents. In my opinion, our democracy is starting to suffer. The members opposite seem to be going deaf. They are not listening.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the questions and the debate today. As a police officer who is on a leave of absence, I am ashamed to hear such rhetoric coming from one side of the House. We, in fact, have 13 police officers on the government side and we take this matter very seriously.

When the member hears members of her caucus talk about listening to the experts, has she read the transcripts that show the majority of the people who appeared in committee supported the government's position and decried the position put forth by her party? I would also like to know the cost that has been put forward by the NDP's proposal because, surely, it would not put a proposal forward to create a new bureaucracy without having costed it.

These are very clear questions. Has she read the transcripts? Why is she denouncing the experts? What is the cost for the bureaucracy the NDP wants to create?

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

On the contrary, experts have said that those who investigate cases involving the RCMP truly have to be independent parties who do not come from within the organization. If there is a problem within a family, it will not be resolved within the family. Help needs to come from elsewhere for it to be objective and transparent. Victims need to feel like they are being listened to. That is how to get results when it comes to whistle-blowing. The Conservatives did not listen to everyone in committee. That is clear in the transcript.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the member for Saint Boniface just said, witness after witness agreed with our amendments, except of course for the Conservative members.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Name them.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, will the member for Saint Boniface let me speak?

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. I would ask all hon. members to cede to whoever has the floor. I would also ask the member for Nickel Belt to move to his question quickly.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would gladly move to the question, if the Conservatives would only listen.

Expert after expert said that our amendments were good amendments, except for the Conservatives. Could the member tell me why the Conservatives are against the good amendments supported by witnesses?

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately for my colleague, it is up to the Conservatives to answer that question and to explain why they did not accept these recommendations when they claim to be working for the well-being of people, when they say they want to improve working conditions and to prevent harassment. I cannot answer for them.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin my speech by responding to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. She has asked for examples of witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security and contradicted her remarks.

One of those witnesses was Mr. Rob Creasser, from the Professional Association of the Canadian Mounted Police, who spoke to us about the imbalance of power in the organization: “Bill C-42, rather than mitigating these issues, will only make them exponentially worse”.

I do not know what made the parliamentary secretary say that no witnesses contradicted the government. Even though Mr. Creasser does not have a doctorate in mathematics, I think that he knows what “exponentially” means. He went on to say:

If Bill C-42 is passed in its current form...our Parliament would be promoting the bad behaviour and cronyism by legitimizing this type of behaviour.

I hope that addresses the concerns of the member for Saint-Boniface regarding the witnesses who appeared. I did not attend the testimony, but I read the transcription and I came to the conclusion that the parliamentary secretary is mistaken when she says that no witness contradicted the government.

One of the things that initially shocked me about Bill C-42, An Act to Increase Accountability of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, was the huge discrepancy between the number of complaints made against police and the inadequacy of the Conservative government’s response. Having said that, I was especially shocked by the lack of any practical solution to adequately address the problem of sexual harassment, which is serious and ongoing, within the venerable institution that is the RCMP.

One explanation for this discrepancy is probably the fact that the government members did not consult all stakeholders on this issue before drafting this legislation. Bill C-42 has been held up by the government as a solution to the problem of sexual harassment in the RCMP, yet clearly, the bill does not meet that objective because it does not even refer explicitly to sexual harassment. To attack the problem, the bill must name it and come up with specific solutions for sexual harassment.

More generally speaking, the bill does not make an attempt to modernize an institution such as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, as other countries have done. My colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin put it well earlier when he said that in other countries, particularly in Europe, this very problem has been tackled directly by creating institutions that are independent from the police and whose investigations cannot be hampered by the police force under investigation.

We have to consider whether Canadians’ gradual loss of trust in their police forces, in general, and in the RCMP, specifically, is warranted. Part of the answer can probably be found in the 2010-11 annual report on the management of the RCMP disciplinary process, which is the most recent report available. The list of offences speaks volumes and is instructive. It was developed by police officers who are supposed to police their own conduct.

Here are some things on that list: excessive force; use of computer to play video games; use of computer to access pornographic websites; improper use of government credit card; impaired driving; altercation in public place; sexual assault; reporting for duty while under the influence of alcohol—that is the same person as the sexual assault, so we wonder if it was the same day or not, but we do not have the details; use of controlled substances—that means drugs; theft; false claims of overtime hours; domestic assault; possession of firearm without proper licensing; unauthorized use of satellite television signals—perhaps we need to raise our Mounties' salaries if they are reduced to pirating TV signals; refusing to provide breath sample; and here is an interesting one—allowing a prostitute actively soliciting sexual activity to enter personal vehicle for sexual activity; and falsification of medical certificates.

That is the list of the offences that police forces, especially the RCMP, are expected to detect, investigate and punish.

Thus, we can understand the public's growing lack of confidence in police forces, particularly the RCMP. Instead of building confidence, it just undermines public confidence in the police.

In Quebec, this reminds us of the sad case of "Officer 728", which has been widely discussed. Although there is no direct link with the RCMP, it is one more element that undermines the confidence of Quebeckers and all Canadians in all police forces. That is cause for concern.

The point of third reading of a bill is to make good use of the testimony by witnesses at the committee stage.

I will give as an example the testimony by the president of the Canadian Association of Police Boards. He expressed his concerns about the ability of the chairperson of the civilian review and complaints commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police—they could have found a shorter name for it, but that is its name—to refuse to investigate a complaint, even when the chairperson believes that would be in the public interest. Once again, that is something for the hon. member for Saint-Boniface to consider. This testimony confirms that a number of witnesses expressed serious concerns about the usefulness and the weak intent of Bill C-42.

Let us say more about this civilian review and complaints commission that is going to replace the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP. The first obvious flaw is that the results of these investigations will simply be recommendations and not orders. The recommendations will not be binding on the commissioner or on the Minister of Public Safety.

The second major flaw in this commission is, I think, even more important. That is the fact that it will not be any more independent than the previous one, since it will not report to Parliament, but to the Minister of Public Safety.

This makes me think of a strong trend that we are also seeing within the Standing Committee on National Defence. I am a member of that committee. Just yesterday, we were debating the possibility of adding a link between the Vice Chief of Defence Staff and the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal. This is a typical example of an independent body losing its independence through the addition of a clause to a bill. This means that, once again—and I am using the example of national defence—the Conservatives are limiting the independence of those who should have all the independence they need to investigate any deviations from normal operations that occur within a government department or agency.

For all of the reasons I have outlined, I will not support Bill C-42 at third reading. The main reason for which the bill was drafted is not properly articulated and the bill is not an adequate response to the problem that it is supposed to solve.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it extremely frustrating, as someone who has attended every single committee meeting on the bill and has read and knows it, to hear people speak on the bill who clearly have no idea what it is about, what the testimony reflected nor the amendments to the bill. Therefore, I will just clear up a couple of things and ask my hon. colleague if he has actually read the transcript from the committee and read the bill.

First, on the issue of a complaint initiated by the chair, we made an amendment. The commissioner cannot refuse to study that. It has been dealt with.

As far as the police investigating police is concerned, that is exactly one of the reasons we brought the bill forward. There is absolutely a strong mechanism in place whereby non-RCMP investigative bodies will be investigating serious policing incidents, whether the death of civilians or within the RCMP. That has been addressed. Clearly, the opposition members have not read about that.

Third, we made amendments regarding immunity for the chair as well as reservists. I wonder if my hon. colleague could tell the House truthfully, has he read the bill and the witness testimony at committee?

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will answer the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety by saying that I have read the comments and testimony.

I would like to quote another stakeholder. Mr. Stamatakis, president of the Canadian Police Association, is concerned about the risks associated with the commissioner's ability to delegate disciplinary authority. He said:

Without any additional...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.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety is claiming that I am not familiar with what was said in committee when I have just read four quotes. The Conservatives are truly acting in bad faith.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, we do support the bill and we will be voting in favour of its passing at third reading.

Having said that, to be very clear, there are definitely issues that we are concerned about as a political party and on which we would like to see progress. Whether it is harassment or cultural awareness, there is no doubt the bill could have been improved.

The member is a little sensitive about whether or not we proposed amendments. I can assure the member that on many bills, the NDP does not propose amendments. No doubt the NDP members are a little sensitive on that issue because of the number of amendments rejected. However, this is not about the feelings of the New Democrats but whether or not the bill, even with its shortcomings, should proceed at third reading. The Liberal Party does recognize the value in having the bill pass. The bill does take a step forward.

What parts of the bill do the New Democrats oppose and make them vote against the bill? Is there a clause in the bill that says, in principle, this will take the RCMP backward?

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North for being so concise. That is usually the case when he speaks in the House.

The main reason is that the NDP proposed amendments after hearing the testimony. The amendments are based on what we heard from the witnesses.

The reason why I will not support this bill is that it does not respond to the specific and serious problem of the growing number of cases of sexual harassment within the RCMP. What is more, this causes all police forces to lose credibility. This problem serves only to undermine the public's confidence in Canada's law enforcement agencies. And that is serious.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for LaSalle—Émard.

I am pleased to be taking part in the debate at third reading of Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts. This bill amends the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act. It deals with modernizing discipline within the RCMP, gives RCMP commissioners greater powers and discretion, and changes the procedures for complaints and human resources management. The bill also replaces the civilian complaints commission with the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP.

This bill incorporates numerous provisions of Bill C-38, which was introduced in the 40th parliament and which the NDP strongly criticized at the time. Although we supported the spirit of the bill, which aimed to modernize discipline-related items within an institution that is dear to the hearts of Canadians, we were critical of what it failed to do, since the content of the bill did not adequately reflect the goal.

While the bill that is before the House today incorporates a majority of the provisions of Bill C-38, it does not include the provisions relating to unionization of the RCMP. The RCMP is the only police service in Canada that does not have a collective agreement, which is an essential bargaining tool between employees and employer. Members of the RCMP have to be content with a consultation process, and this is regrettable.

The current government introduced Bill C-42 on June 20, 2012. Canadians’ perception of the RCMP, the key police force in our system, has changed in the last few years.

Statistics from the Management of the RCMP Disciplinary Process 2010-2011 Annual Report unfortunately highlight the fact that this institution has a problem when it comes to discipline.

The statistics on formal discipline hearings held from 1994 to 2011 show that 750 formal discipline hearings were held across Canada. In this same period, 206 regular and civilian members resigned from the RCMP and 20 of those members resigned in reporting period 2005-06. From 2008 through to 2011, there were 145 formal discipline hearings held. In this same time span, a combination of 40 regular and civilian members resigned from the organization.

On the annual number of formal discipline hearings, from 2000 to 2011 there were 915 new formal discipline cases, which averaged out to 83.18 new cases a year. The anticipated number of new formal discipline cases for 2011-2012 was 83. There were 123 cases carried over on April 1, 2011, from the previous reporting period. The estimated number of formal discipline cases to be dealt with in 2011-12 was 206 cases.

On the sexual harassment complaints, over 200 women who work or have worked in the RCMP have joined Const. Janet Merlo to launch a class action against the RCMP on the ground of sexual harassment. The first court hearing took place on August 2, 2012, but the class action application has not yet been approved. Other individual actions against the RCMP are under way, including the actions by Cpl. Catherine Galliford and Const. Karen Katz.

When we read these figures and consider the various testimony heard by the committee, it is apparent that changing the organizational culture should be central to any comprehensive examination undertaken by the Minister of Public Safety.

Of course, legislation means that outdated procedures that were seen as too much of an administrative burden will now have a framework and will be updated. From the legislative point of view, there must be an in-depth analysis of the RCMP's corporate culture, so that changes can be made.

According to Robert Paulson, the RCMP commissioner, it is a central issue. He came to testify at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women on April 23, 2012, when the committee was studying the role of female employees in the RCMP and the challenges they face. He said, and I quote:

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.... 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.

The term “harassment” appears in the bill's summary and in paragraph 20.2(1)(i), which states that the RCMP commissioner may “establish procedures to investigate and resolve disputes relating to alleged harassment by a member”.

Even though harassment, and more specifically sexual harassment, is at the heart of the debates on the culture within this police force, the legislator failed to address this issue in the bill. The official opposition, which voted to send this bill to committee to be examined thoroughly and amended, is opposed to the bill at third reading.

The 18 amendments proposed in committee were either rejected or deemed out of order. The NDP's amendments had to do with substantive changes to the text of the bill, unlike the Conservatives' amendments, which had to do with grammar-related corrections in French. This shows once again that a government bill was botched before it was even introduced in the House.

One of the amendments had to do with amending the Canadian Mounted Police Act to add mandatory harassment training for all RCMP members. This is a simple, concrete measure that meets the expectations of many witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. This measure would have helped provoke the necessary corporate culture changes in order to change the perception certain RCMP members have of the concept of harassment.

In closing, the Conservatives have yet again shown their lack of openness and co-operation with other parties by rejecting the official opposition's amendments and not considering expert advice in order to restore the RCMP's increasingly tarnished image in Canada.

If, as the Minister of Public Safety claims, this institution is synonymous with “professionalism, honesty, integrity and compassion”, this bill is misguided and the RCMP may no longer live up to those adjectives in the long-run.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my hon. colleague for his speech. As I said earlier, it is extremely important that we address this subject in the House. My colleague dedicated a great deal of time to evaluating the contents of the bill. I also heard him mention that the opposition's amendments were unfortunately not accepted and were rejected in committee.

Bill C-42 focuses a lot more on workers' rights than it does on the fundamental problem of harassment within the RCMP. The bill does not solve the problem or address the right issues. This seems to happen frequently with this government.

Does my colleague think it is right that this Conservative government bill focuses so much on workers' rights and so little on women's right to work in a safe environment? What are my colleague's thoughts on this?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

We can say that this bill does not do enough as far as women are concerned. In fact, female employees of the RCMP want real action as well as a more open, safer work environment. They are tired of being harassed.

Unfortunately, and as is usually the case, the Conservative approach does not make the needs of female RCMP employees a priority.

Bringing in a union could lessen members' job security. A number of witnesses expressed this concern to the committee, focusing specifically on workers who file harassment complaints.

Members must have a clear anti-harassment policy that defines specific standards of conduct and establishes evaluation and performance criteria for all employees.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, I hear a lot of numbers from the NDP, but I do not hear a lot of solutions.

In my 20 years in the RCMP, I knew that 99% of the members were good members, with 1% being the problem.

However, my issue is with the member saying that he is against giving the powers to the commissioner of the RCMP to fire people who should not be in the job. Presently, the commissioner has no authority to fire anyone. Is the member against the commissioner of the RCMP having the authority to fire members who should be fired?

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

Mr. Speaker, the NDP wants problems to be solved, especially those that affect women and involve harassment. We want the issue to be dealt with fairly.

We also want people to feel at ease when they file a complaint, and we do not want job security to be compromised because someone reports a case of harassment. We want a clear policy that includes specific standards of conduct and evaluation and performance criteria for all employees.

Above all, we do not want police investigating police. We want independence.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate today 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 already spoke to this bill at second reading and will not hide the fact that I supported it at that stage. I wanted to make sure the subject matter of Bill C-42 was debated. The issue is close to my heart. I may have voted in favour of the bill at second reading but I regretfully will not be able to do so at third reading.

I would first like to echo the comments made by my colleague. I will not go over every specific issue or speak of the flaws of a handful of agents or the mistakes they made. I think every member will agree that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is an institution we wish to keep. As my colleague has stated, 99% of agents, perhaps more, are exceptional people who serve their country and their community. I want that to be crystal clear. I am not here to put down the people who work at the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

That said, every member will also agree that the organization currently faces many challenges. People are looking to us, to Parliament, to give the institution the tools it needs to meet those challenges. Obviously, Parliament cannot solve every problem, but there are things that we can do. These challenges were mentioned a little earlier. One of them is sexual harassment.

Before my colleague accuses me of not sitting on the committee that studied the bill, I would like to say that is true: I did not sit on that committee. However, I do not want to echo my colleague's highly demagogic arguments. I want to point out to Canadians, who may not be experts in parliamentary procedure, that, while we may not sit on a particular committee, we have outstanding colleagues, such as the member for Alfred-Pellan, who do. They tell us what goes on there, the measures that are taken and their opinions on these bills.

As my Conservative colleague is of course entirely aware, it is possible to read the bills and to consult the discussions and testimony of the people who have appeared before the committee. In short, it is not because we do not sit on the committee that we are not aware of what goes on there and do not have an opinion to offer, whether it be that of our fellow citizens, our colleagues, people in our families, people whom we know or experts on the subject who want us to express certain concerns.

The NDP therefore introduced several amendments and proposed some changes to Bill C-42. From what I was told, those proposals unfortunately did not fall on sympathetic ears. In fact, we can see that none of those amendments is before us in this debate today.

Some of those amendments sought to add mandatory harassment training to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to establish a completely independent civilian organization responsible for examining complaints filed against the RCMP. Our amendments also sought to add a provision to create an independent national civilian investigation body to prevent the police from investigating the police. Lastly, we wanted to introduce more balanced human resource policies by withdrawing some of the new draconian powers proposed for the RCMP commissioner and by reinforcing the RCMP external review committee.

These proposed amendments introduced by the NDP did not spring out of thin air. They come from various sources, including testimony heard before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

I would like to name some of the experts and witnesses who were invited to appear before the committee and who expressed their concerns.

Since the beginning of the debate, we have been accused left and right of making up the fact that people supported the NDP's position, and we are told that practically everyone was in favour of what the Conservatives were proposing. I would like to set a few things straight and provide some names in order to show that is not some fabrication by a handful of NDP members.

The problems we are dealing with today are not new. In 2006, Justice O'Connor's report on the inquiry into the Maher Arar affair, entitled, “A New Review Mechanism for the RCMP's National Security Activities”, urged Parliament to create an RCMP oversight body that would be entitled to audit all the RCMP'S files and activities and could demand to see related documents and subpoena witnesses from every federal, provincial or municipal body, or from the private sector. I would like to read an excerpt from the report:

I agree that the CPC is deficient in this regard and does not have review powers to ensure systematically that the RCMP's national security activities are conducted in accordance with the law and with respect for rights and freedoms.

In 2007, another report, that of David Brown, entitled, “Task Force on Governance and Cultural Change in the RCMP”, recommended that the paramilitary hierarchy of the organization be replaced by a more modern system of oversight and transparency including a board of directors.

I have other quotes from former chairs of the RCMP Public Complaints Commission. According to Shirley Heafey, the RCMP Public Complaints Commission should report directly to Parliament instead of the minister or the commissioner of the RCMP.

As for RCMP Commissioner Paulson, he expressed concerns about the cultural change needed at the RCMP. In his April 23, 2012, testimony given at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, he said:

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.

A number of witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security spoke out against the fact that the RCMP commissioner would be granted more powers and criticized the lack of independent oversight of the RCMP. I would like to quote a few of them. Mr. Creasser, British Columbia media liaison for the Mounted Police Professional Association of Canada, testified on October 29, 2012. He said:

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.

Here is another quote, this one from Tom Stamatakis, president of the Canadian Police Association, who also testified before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security on October 29, 2012. 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.... 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.

Other witnesses also gave similar testimony, but I will not quote them all. However, I would like to express my disappointment. The Conservatives deny hearing this testimony and refuse to listen to it.

Why have the Conservative members not risen today in the House to explain the main reasons why they did not support the amendments proposed by the NDP?

Why did the Conservatives not rise during the debate today in the House to say why they were not responding to concerns raised by the witnesses who appeared before the committee?

Instead, the Conservatives rose to present unfounded demagogic arguments and to make accusations against the opposition. What we want to hear are arguments that would raise the level of debate.

Why were these amendments not accepted? Why should specific concerns formulated by experts have been set aside?

That is how people work in committee and how serious work is done on important issues.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have a bill before us that will do a lot to modernize the RCMP. It will address the concerns about police investigating police and will address concerns about civilian and accountable investigation regarding complaints from the public. It is a solid piece of legislation. It has the support of the Liberals. It will, among other things, help stop harassment and sexual harassment within the RCMP.

Why will the NDP not support it? Would the member personally support it? Why is it that so many on the NDP side have groupthink going on. The members do not seem to think for themselves. They never vote against their party line. They never speak out against anything. Do they actually have some independent thought? This is a good bill that would help stop sexual harassment and other forms of negative behaviour in the RCMP.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is highly amusing to see my colleague stand up and say, “If you do not support the Conservatives’ bills, then you surely do not have the ability to think for yourselves”. This is very typical of Conservative demagoguery.

However, I would like to point out something that my colleague herself said a short while ago. She said that the bill was not perfect. The Liberals said the same thing when their public safety critic said that the bill was not perfect. This is a typical tactic by the Liberals and the Conservatives. They claim to be not as bad as the others and ask people to vote for them. The NDP does not do that sort of thing. This is not a new problem. What are they waiting for before they are willing sit down and do some serious work on the matter?

We will not get involved in half measures. We can do more. We can do better. Claiming to be imperfect but not as bad as the others does not work for the NDP.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to many of the comments from New Democrats at third reading. I want to add to them.

Yes, we are very much concerned about sexual harassment, but it goes beyond that, from our perspective, in terms of the importance of cultural awareness of, as an example, bullying in the workplace.

The member makes reference to this being an imperfect bill. We too believe that the bill is imperfect. Whether it is New Democratic governments in provincial jurisdictions, such as the province I currently represent, many imperfect bills pass. It can be very frustrating when the government does not support amendments when members are trying to make amendments to make legislation better.

What makes us different from the NDP is that we believe that the principle of the bill, even though it is not perfect, does take us a small step forward. Yes, it would be nice to have more amendments.

What specific aspect of the bill does the member oppose, in principle, that would prevent her from voting in favour of the bill at third reading?

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague said that it was frustrating to him to see this imperfect bill that does not deal adequately with the problem. It is frustrating to have Liberal colleagues who agree that the bill is imperfect but who do nothing to improve it. That is frustrating for me.

This is not the first time we have seen this. There was the pooled registered pension plans bill. That bill will not accomplish much, but because it was innocuous, they allowed it to pass. I have said it before and I will keep saying it for as long as I have to. This is not the way the NDP works and this is not the NDP vision.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her great responses in the House today.

The bill contains the word “harassment” only once. One of our big concerns is that there is nothing in the bill that deals with the systemic issue of harassment. That is a core underlying issue in what has been facing the RCMP in all of the harassment cases we have seen. I wonder if the member would respond to that.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will give a very brief response. Notice to all Canadians listening to us today: the titles of the Conservative bills are frequently misleading about their content. Here, we want to address a problem. And yet, upon reading Bill C-42, the problem is not mentioned and it is not even clear that the government has understood it.

There are many other bills like this. For example, the bill to combat elder abuse does not provide any preventive or intervention measures to deal with the abuse. I could give all kinds of examples of misleading titles of Conservative bills.

I will stop now, but I hope that things will change in 2013.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in the House to lend my voice to 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. I would especially like to focus my comments on one of the issues raised in conjunction with the debate on this bill, namely women’s place in Canadian society in 2013.

A few years ago, several commissions were struck and some reports were released here in Canada and elsewhere around the world. The goal was to give women a bigger role in society. Four principles were embraced: providing equal opportunities, removing the barriers preventing women from entering the labour force, ensuring that the costs associated with having a family are shared by society as a whole, and taking concrete steps to facilitate and achieve the goal of equality.

It is interesting to note that in Canadian society in 2013, we are still talking about equality for women. It is a shame. In point of fact, over the last decade or so, women have actually lost ground in terms of achieving equality with men. We take this equality for granted today. We tell ourselves that there is no problem, that everyone is equal.

Yet, statistics show that today, women still earn on average less than half of what men earn. Furthermore, they are losing ground in various parts of Canada, especially if we look at the jobs in certain industries that are not easily accessible to women, the reason being that barriers to equal access to employment are still in place. Conditions in the workforce are such that women are penalized or forced into uncomfortable or unhealthy situations that are distressing.

In many industries, very few women have access to the jobs that are available, whether it be the natural resources sector or some other industry. Jobs in these sectors are well-paid, but conditions are such that women do not feel safe and able to thrive and be a productive member of society and, above all, to earn a wage comparable to that of men who work alongside them.

For years now, there have been serious problems within the RCMP, one of Canada’s most important symbols. Women who opt to work for the force cannot thrive and feel safe there and, if problems do arise, they do not have access to mechanisms that would help make their workplace acceptable.

We can all agree that this is not just for women, and that this bill addresses other forms of abuse that occur in the workplace.

There have recently been serious cases of sexual harassment. Women in the RCMP have spoken out. Standing up and reporting sexual harassment takes tremendous courage. The individuals who come forward and report the situation become the voices of other co-workers who did not feel they were able to do it.

The situation is quite serious. But there are ways to remedy the situation. There have been studies of this done for a very long time. Bill C-38 was introduced in the 40th parliament, but it died on the order paper, as we know. And now we have Bill C-42.

When a bill is introduced in the House, we have an opportunity to debate it, when a time limit is not imposed, obviously. We have an opportunity to exchange ideas and see how we could improve it and how we would go about doing that.

We have another truly excellent tool that the Canadian public is not very familiar with: committees. In a committee, we can again explore bills and improve them even more.

When I arrived in the House of Commons, I found committee work very interesting. It also takes us outside the House of Commons and gives us a chance to work together to improve bills.

What is even more valuable is the fact that we have a chance to invite witnesses from outside the House. These people are non-partisan and are simply there for the cause, to improve a bill, to explore a question that has been raised, to participate in a study, and so on.

After hearing testimony, the various members of the committee will put forward amendments, recommendations and ways of improving the bill.

In the case of Bill C-42, it is unfortunate that in spite of the work done by my colleague, the critic and member for Alfred-Pellan, who is the deputy critic, none of the amendments were accepted, even though they were supported by witnesses and experts. That is troubling.

In Parliament, we have mechanisms that enable us to fine-tune bills. They are not based solely on ideology. We have a chance to debate bills and make improvements to them.

When we heard the testimony of experts and witnesses in committee, it was obvious that the bill was flawed.

This can happen when people are in a hurry to do the right thing. Nevertheless, there was Bill C-38 and there was C-42. One would have thought that the government could have corrected these shortcomings. There was a realization, however, that there were shortcomings, and that the bill would not achieve the stated purpose: better machinery within the RCMP, so that a healthy work environment could be established whereby all members of the force, regardless of rank or responsibility, could express their grievances and obtain a hearing.

For example, some amendments targeted prevention. There was a desire to inform people about sexual harassment, and the ways in which it manifests itself, in order to create an environment in which respect would inform the values of RCMP members and their behaviour towards each other, with no issues arising between women and men, or among colleagues. In that sense, training seemed to me to make perfect sense.

In any workplace, it is always important to have access to an independent mechanism outside the organization, particularly when serious problems arise. It was proposed to put in place such a mechanism so that people from outside could hear the grievances of individual members, and make recommendations accordingly.

It is rather like what I was saying just now about committee work. Members are deeply involved in their work. Here on Parliament Hill, we often feel like we are in a bubble. I have to say that in committee work, what is always very interesting is to hear people from outside testify and let us have their point of view on a given situation. This independent committee will have to include people who have experience in this type of assessment.

Other recommendations and amendments were designed to produce more balanced human resources policies by withdrawing some of the draconian new powers proposed for the RCMP commissioner, and strengthening the RCMP External Review Committee in cases in which discharge from the force is possible. It is always important to have a division of powers. If too many powers are placed in the hands of one person, there is a risk of abuse.

The situation within the RCMP concerns me, but I am also concerned to see that in other workplaces, women do not have an opportunity to contribute fully to society, particularly in some areas of activity.

I would like to offer a thought as we discuss Bill C-42. As a society, we will have to remember these commitments to equality between men and women. We must think again about better ways of doing things, specifically in order finally to eliminate barriers so that all women have an opportunity for full access to the workplace, whatever the area of activity may be.

We, as a society, must also recognize our responsibility with respect to the important role women play in building a family, and help them perform the tasks that come with that role. I want to remind the House that there has been a real step backward on this matter over the past decade. In some parts of Canada, women cannot participate fully in the economy, because they do not have access to certain types of employment that would provide them with better economic conditions. They cannot get beyond the barriers that prevent them from getting those jobs.

In the matter before us, I repeat that we must create good working environments, especially in traditional workplaces. I said the RCMP is a symbol of Canada and that it is over 125 years old. Traditionally, the RCMP was almost exclusively a male preserve. I believe women have a considerable contribution to make within the RCMP and in other spheres of activity. In order for them to make this contribution, it is very important for us to rethink the way the RCMP operates and, together, come up with some sustainable solutions.

I am also basing my remarks in this House on the many recommendations and reports that have been presented since 2006. Hon. members will remember that we have been under Conservative rule for quite some time now. Recommendations were made by Justice O'Connor in 2006 and David Brown in 2007. It is now 2013 and the bill before us is not yet perfect, as we have heard. The Liberals admit it, and the government has said so, too. This has been going on too long.

We must make sure we have something that will last and will ensure that RCMP members and employees have access to a fair and equitable process. Even some members of the RCMP are worried that the bill may decrease members' job security, especially in jobs related to the exposure of harassment complaints.

In conclusion, I will say that the NDP believes we can do more to find answers to these questions. We believe that the RCMP needs a clear anti-harassment policy, one that sets out precise standards of conduct and precise criteria for all employee performance assessments. Such a policy is a necessary foundation for a fair disciplinary process.

I would like to add that bills have an important effect on Canadian society, because they demonstrate the government's orientation and commitment toward certain situations that Canadians think are unacceptable.

That is why I am disappointed that the government members did not accept the NDP's offer of co-operation through its amendments, and that they do not want to talk about the status or situation of women in certain workplaces.

I will stop there. I await the House's questions with impatience and some trepidation.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the opposition has brought up a few points in terms of wanting to stop sexual harassment but it is not going to vote for a tool that would allow the commissioner to do just that. The opposition has selected a few key phrases that were critical to highlight in the testimony, but then did not articulate the remainder of the follow-up questions that came from our committee.

Each and every witness who testified before committee acknowledged clearly that the legislation was a good starting point. I will acknowledge that they did raise some concerns. However, it is written right here in the bill. The act is “to establish the responsibilities of members;...to provide for the establishment of a Code of Conduct that emphasizes the importance of maintaining the public trust and reinforces the high standard of conduct expected of members”. Each and every witness said the proof will come in the administration, the policy development and the regulatory development, not in prescriptive measures within the act. They are very supportive of the bill. They are looking forward to the administrative, operational, policy development and regulatory development. All of them are hopeful for that.

Why would the NDP vote against a positive framework that each and every witness supported?

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to hear the hon. member call this a starting point. I believe the starting point was in 2006, if not earlier. We should now be at the finish line. This legislation should already be in place.

I wonder why the starting point is only happening now, in 2013, when these issues were raised in 2006.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my question expands on sexual harassment, something the NDP has been talking a lot about. We in the Liberal Party share many of the same concerns in regard to sexual harassment in the workforce. The government needs to do what it can in order to minimize that.

With regard to things such as cultural sensitivities and bullying that takes place in the workplace, does my colleague see these as issues that should have been brought forward in the form of amendments?

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for his question.

In fact, I wanted to emphasize the fact that we are still discussing sexual harassment and the barriers that keep women from fully accessing a safe and healthy workplace.

Obviously, the other issues the hon. member raised also have a negative impact on a workplace. I think that putting more powers in the hands of a single individual will not solve the key issues, the substantive issues. We want lasting solutions to key issues.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Conservative members have been making many comments and criticizing the NDP for not wanting to grant the commissioner increased powers. They say that the bill will solve all the problems and it directly addresses harassment.

Could my colleague elaborate on how a clear anti-harassment policy could help the commissioner do his work, more than giving him full discretion as to whether to dismiss a member or keep a member on the force?

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her question.

Indeed, a clear policy creates a clear framework for everyone. It also creates a state of mind. It is important to share information about these very difficult issues. When nothing is clear, when people feel there is no safe and comfortable method they can use to report abuse, the situation just stays the same.

We are still at the starting point in 2013, and we will still be there in 2023.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point to a proposed section of the act because I have heard it asked many times in the House today why anyone would vote against Bill C-42. I point to the concern of police that they will no longer be able to file a grievance if they are forced to do something under a security order.

Proposed section 31 of the act has been pointed to by RCMP members and by members of the Lawyers' Rights Watch group as potentially forcing RCMP officers to be involved in torture without the ability to grieve that involvement or to question the sources of information that lead to such activities. I think that is enough of a reason to vote against Bill C-42.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for that clarification.

As she mentioned, it is troubling to see such a clause in the bill. I thank her for bringing it to the attention of the House.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear my colleague's opinion.

I am like every other member of the public. I do hope some of them watch the debates on CPAC. After hearing arguments from both sides one quickly realizes that, while some wish to act, others prefer things to stay the same.

Not wanting to change a situation implies that everything is fine. I wonder how many members opposite believe that sexual harassment means cracking jokes between colleagues and that the women who complain have no sense of humour. To my mind, the problem is deeply rooted, which raises many questions.

If they do not wish to change the situation, could it be because they are okay with the way things are?

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I have already stated, the RCMP is indeed a very important symbol for Canada. The men and women who work there provide an essential service to the nation. In my opinion, the issues that have arisen in the last few weeks and months are worrisome; it is our duty to carefully analyze this situation in order to rectify it.

Let us not forget that this is the 21st century. The RCMP must stay in touch with the Canadian reality and represent all aspects of society, including women. To that end, it must foster a work environment where everyone treats everyone else with respect and implement mechanisms to ensure that.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

We have four minutes remaining in the time for government orders.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Hamilton Centre.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to enter the debate. Four minutes is not a lot of time. I will pick one area and see if I can get into a second one.

One particular area I would address is an issue that runs as a thread through the whole bill. We are talking about the RCMP in our communities, but we are also talking about the RCMP as a workplace where ordinary Canadians are workers in that workplace. One of the biggest issues facing us is workplace sexual harassment allegations. This is huge. The bill is dealing with both aspects of a police officer's life, that of being an officer in the workplace of policing and also being out in our communities, in the uniform, protecting our citizens on a day-to-day basis.

I want to address one of the things the Conservatives absolutely refuse to do. Even though they always say that they are the ones who will stand the straightest and salute the most to anyone in uniform, the true reality is that one of the things the RCMP would like is the option to decide for themselves whether or not they would like to unionize. I know the reaction that gets from the government, so we will set that aside. However, it is also fair to say there are a lot of ordinary people who would say that we have a quasi-military structure where command and control is a key component, so unionization could not work.

That is why I want to address this. During my time as the Ontario solicitor general, I was the civilian head of the OPP, but the OPP is unionized. That is why I am raising this, because I worked with that union on a day-to-day basis. As in most complicated, complex workplaces, having a union was a help. It ensured that the officers had the ability to be protected in terms of their rights as workers, and that includes sexual harassment allegations. Contrary to what the government says, the labour movement in Canada is one of the most democratic institutions in the entire world. If the officers do not like the representation they have in the union, those officers have the option of changing their leadership.

One of the things that would make a big difference in terms of respecting policing, respecting police officers and, in this case, RCMP officers, is to give them the right to choose. They may decide not to. That is their right, but give them the option so that like every other worker, if they want to come together and bargain collectively under the laws of Canada, they would have that right. We have always supported that and when we form government, we will give the RCMP that option to exercise their rights under the constitution.

The last thing, if I can very quickly, is that the government has refused to have a truly independent “no police investigating police” as we do in Ontario with the SIU, the Special Investigations Unit. I had a lot of involvement with the SIU, and it is far from being perfect. However, as a protection for not just the public but also police officers, it has been a very useful, positive, progressive entrance into policing in Ontario. We would certainly encourage the government—and if it will not, we will do it when we get there—to make sure that kind of independent evaluation and investigation is done. Therefore, when someone is cleared, they are truly cleared and there are no clouds. However, if action needs to be taken, that can be taken.

That is the kind of policing we believe in here in Canada. That is the kind of RCMP we will have under an NDP government.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The time for government orders has expired. The hon. member for Hamilton Centre will have 16 minutes remaining when this matter is again before the House.

The House resumed from February 12 consideration of the motion 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak about Bill C-42. The issue of enhanced accountability for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is one of great interest to Canadians and one I am glad to have a chance to speak about today.

Canadians have high expectations of the RCMP. They expect the men and women of the RCMP to serve them with honour and integrity. We need them to serve us and protect us and protect public safety. We ask them to put their lives on the line to protect us.

The RCMP officer in the red uniform, the Mountie, is an iconic symbol of Canada. The force's service to Canadians is, on the whole, exemplary. It is an institution in which we take great pride. It is a symbol of Canada around the world, known to citizens of different countries all over the world.

However, recent high-profile incidents, including complaints of sexual harassment lodged by current and former female RCMP officers and, importantly, the failure to discipline officers who step outside the bounds of the law, show that there are deep underlying issues with respect to the culture of the RCMP. It is being called, in some circles, dysfunctional. It is unanimously recognized that it is a culture that needs to be changed dramatically.

Speaking to the CBC in November, RCMP Commissioner Paulson referred to the institution as “...the culture of harassment, it's the culture of misuse of authority”. So much so is this the case that, regrettably, public confidence in the RCMP has been shaken. A change in the accountability framework for the RCMP is long overdue.

We witnessed on television, and in the news, the concerns and complaints of many former and current RCMP employees, mainly women, talking about their concerns with the culture and the lack of response to their concerns and complaints. These are clearly difficult issues that have had profound effects on the careers and lives of these RCMP officers and former officers.

Speaking of Bill C-42, the Minister of Public Safety has stated:

...Canadians' confidence in the RCMP has been tested over the past few years and this legislation will ensure that the RCMP is fully accountable for its actions and is open and transparent in its service to Canadians.

However, Bill C-42 does not lead to more independent and transparent oversight of the RCMP. It is simply the same body that reports non-binding recommendations to the minister, but with a new name.

Bill C-42 is the Conservative government's take on what accountability should look like, but on this side of the House, we have an entirely different perspective. We actually understand accountability, what it means and how valuable it is, and we believe in it. We find Bill C-42 wanting because of its lack of accountability.

Although we agree with the principle of the bill, what we find is that the bill is deeply flawed in its execution. We have a piece of legislation here that fails to recognize either the needs of RCMP officers who have experienced harassment in the workplace or the very reasonable and appropriate expectation of Canadians of civilian oversight of a police body. This is the key to improving accountability in this institution; that is, civilian oversight and transparency.

We voted in favour of the bill at second reading, hoping that the bill's flaws would be addressed in committee. Unfortunately, true to form, the Conservatives voted down every amendment the NDP proposed. The result is that we have missed an opportunity to fix the glaring holes in the bill that we identified at second reading, glaring holes that many witnesses at committee were able to identify and expound upon.

Some of the amendments we proposed at committee included these few things that I think members of the House should find critically important to a bill that purports to bring accountability and transparency to a policing institution. They included adding mandatory harassment training for RCMP members and specifically to lodge that requirement in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act; ensuring a full independent civilian review body to investigate complaints against the RCMP; adding a provision to create a national civilian investigative body, which would avoid police investigating police; and creating more balanced human resource policies by removing some of the more draconian and despotic powers proposed for the RCMP commissioner, and by strengthening the external review committee in cases involving possible dismissal from the force.

The Conservatives turned down all of those very reasonable proposals to amend Bill C-42. As a result, the bill fails to create a strong independent civilian oversight body for the RCMP such as—and this is important to note—the one proposed in the 2006 O'Connor inquiry or the 2007 recommendations of the Task Force on Governance and Cultural Change in the RCMP.

The proposed new civilian review and complaints commission would replace the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP and would have greater authority to conduct investigations, gather evidence and materials and compel testimony. Admittedly, that is a step in the right direction.

However, the new body would not report to Parliament, not to us, but to the commissioner and to the minister, so this is most emphatically not an independent organization. It most emphatically does not bring about the purported goals of the bill, which are to bring transparency and accountability to this institution.

As well, the commission's findings would be non-binding. Indeed, this represents a missed opportunity to have a fully independent complaints commission that would be accountable to all Canadians and not just the Minister of Public Safety.

The word “accountability” is one the government loves to use. It throws it about all the time. However, I do not think it has quite grasped the concept. In fact, it has cheapened and undermined it and simply does not value it.

The bill purports to bring accountability to a police institution. That is, I think, sufficient evidence that the government fundamentally does not believe in accountability and does not act in accordance with the principles of accountability. We simply do not see it in the bill.

This new body would have observer status only in investigations of serious incidents involving the RCMP. This is evidence of not grasping the concept of accountability.

The new investigative framework for these incidents proposed in Bill C-42 is really just a patchwork system. It would differ from province to province. A province would choose to appoint an investigative body or a police force or would leave the RCMP to either refer the investigation to another police force or to even conduct the investigation itself. These provisions simply allow a continuation of the current practice of police investigating police. It is clearly a problematic practice and clearly is a practice that got this institution into the issues it is in now. That, fundamentally, is one of the key things that needs to be changed under the bill, but it is not. Unfortunately, a fully independent national watchdog agency is not part of this legislation. Although independent civilian oversight is needed, the bill fails to deliver that independent civilian oversight.

Bill C-42 not only fails to deliver that oversight, it concentrates considerable power in the hands of the commissioner, who would be granted the authority to appoint and dismiss officers and to establish a system of investigation and resolution of harassment complaints. Rather than taking responsibility for addressing problems within the RCMP, the minister has decided to simply give this responsibility over to the commissioner.

The NDP feels that a more balanced approach would involve strengthening the external review committee rather than concentrating the power to dismiss officers in the hands of a single individual. However, again, all proposed amendments were rejected at committee.

RCMP officers carry out difficult and dangerous work at considerable risk to themselves to protect Canadians. Some have died in this service, and that is a profound tragedy for all Canadians and particularly for the families of those officers.

The question for us to contemplate in this House is what those RCMP police officers are owed, in return, from us, yet we have so far even failed to create an open and respectful workplace environment for all members, which all Canadian workers are entitled to. In the circumstances of the police, who put their lives on the line and from time to time tragically lose their lives in that service, it is an absolute minimum expectation in any kind of tacit contract with members of the RCMP.

However, what we have are officers who experience harassment in the workplace and are fearful about even speaking up. They are fearful of losing their jobs, in fact. Many have even left their jobs because of these circumstances in the workplace.

For a bill that was supposedly introduced as a response to sexual harassment complaints brought forward by female RCMP officers, Bill C-42 is strangely silent on that very specific but critically important issue. We have female officers who have been serving the Canadian public in the RCMP for almost 40 years. In that time we have failed to bring about protections from this type of abuse, which is barred under Canadian human rights codes and provincial human rights codes and which all workers across the country in all workplaces and jurisdictions are entitled to.

In 2013, we have a Conservative government that is missing an opportunity to use this legislation to create a workplace in which RCMP officers, like all workers, should feel safe in bringing forward harassment complaints. NDP members on the public safety committee brought forward an amendment to the bill that would make harassment training mandatory for RCMP officers. However, just like every other amendment, the Conservatives voted it down.

The RCMP needs a clear anti-harassment policy that will set the standard for behaviour in the force. This would allow for a fair disciplinary process in cases where harassment occurs. Despite the NDP's best efforts, the government has passed up this opportunity to address that issue in the bill.

Earlier this month, the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP released its report on issues of workplace harassment within the RCMP. The report had this to say:

The RCMP bears a responsibility to foster public trust to the extent possible, and when the public perceives that the organization is unwilling to adequately protect and discipline its own employees, it is difficult to see how their interactions with the police and trust in the organization would remain unaffected. It is for this reason that swift and effective action must be taken by the RCMP in terms of dealing with workplace conflict and harassment, and taken in a manner that engenders the confidence of both members and the public.

We are not seeing swift and effective action here. We are not seeing action at all.

We on this side of the House believe that trust in the RCMP, for the officers and the public, is a critically important issue. Important legislative steps can be taken to enhance trust and accountability for the RCMP and for Canadians. However, Bill C-42 falls short of this mark. It is unfortunate that in their rush to pass this bill, the Conservatives did not even take time to make sure that the new legislation ensured that the RCMP and the public were getting the transparent and independent oversight they expect and deserve.

The men and women of the RCMP provide a vital service to all Canadians. They carry out this service in difficult and often dangerous situations, putting themselves in harm's way to protect others. Bill C-42 is a missed opportunity to protect them in return. They deserve the protection of independent oversight, and they should not be afraid to speak out about harassment in the workplace. The members of the RCMP deserve to know that when one of their own breaks the rules, that person will be held accountable. Canadians need to see this accountability to enhance the trust between the police force and the members of the public, a trust that has been weakened by recent incidents.

The men and women of the RCMP deserve better than what Bill C-42 has to offer. The Canadian public deserves better. Most certainly the women who work for the RCMP have a right to a workplace free from sexual harassment, and indeed, harassment of all kinds. They need and deserve our protection. Bill C-42 fails to adequately provide that protection and should, for that reason alone, be rejected by this House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and his dedication on the justice committee.

As he is aware, I am a retired member of the RCMP. I spoke with two members of the RCMP yesterday who feel that this bill has been a long time coming. The RCMP has been unable to do anything with regard to discipline, because it has not been there. Since 1873, the RCMP, and specifically the commissioner, have not had the opportunity to deal with anything. Bill C-42 would provide the commissioner of the RCMP with the authority to dismiss someone if the person is found to have caused a breach under the RCMP Act and/or the Criminal Code.

Does the member think that the commissioner of the RCMP should have the authority to remove someone who breaches either the RCMP Act or the Criminal Code, or does he believe that sending it to an independent body, which will have no authority to remove the member, would be better?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a point of clarification, for the record. I am not on the justice committee. I now sit on the Standing Committee on Health.

There were a couple of issues in the question. First, the member raised a hypothetical issue of an independent review body not being able to discipline or dismiss a member. I am not prepared to address a hypothetical situation. What I am prepared to address is what the government has done to redress the circumstances that Canadians surely find offensive. Whether Canadians work for the police, in retail, or the industrial sector, it does not matter; they have an expectation that they can work in a workplace where they are protected, by law, from harassment so that they can go to work and feel safe, do their jobs and return home to their families at night. For the RCMP, these days, unfortunately, that is not the case.

We know that there have been many charges of sexual harassment raised by members and former members of the RCMP. There needs to be a transparent process for handling those charges and there needs to be accountability within that organization. It is not reasonable to lodge all of that authority with the commissioner.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Liberals agree in the sense that there needs to be and always can be more transparency and accountability. The issue of harassment and bullying in the workforce among all the different professions is, of course, of great concern.

In committee, and even at second reading, there are ideas and thoughts on how legislation could be improved. There was a lost opportunity by the government in not necessarily taking the action it should have taken to directly deal in more tangible, concrete ways with sexual harassment. I would add workplace bullying, because it takes place in significant ways. We also need to recognize that what we are really talking about is a very small percentage of RCMP personnel that actually carry out such activities. A vast majority, 95% plus, actually do fabulous jobs in terms of their dedication to the force.

I am curious to know if the member thinks there would be any benefit whatsoever in supporting the bill at this stage. Does he see any benefit from the bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, the fundamental issue in what the legislation needs to do is change the culture of the institution. Clearly, there are issues within that culture. However, we have a government on that side that is effectively a one-trick pony. It knows only the stick. It knows only deterrence and punishment.

The provisions of the bill and the failure to bring about a process of an independent civilian oversight of the institution is a failure to get at the root of the problem, which is about changing the culture of the institution.

The notion that putting more power into the hands of the commissioner to fire individual officers in order to curb harassment would somehow change the culture of that organization shows a true lack of understanding of organizations and workplaces and shows a true lack of understanding for the pernicious effect of sexual harassment upon workers.

I am surprised that the member down the way would stand and begin his discussion with, effectively, a dismissal of the problem. The NDP and Canadians recognize that there is an issue . We know, of course, that there are a limited number of cases, but it is a critically important issue that needs to be addressed. Canadians understand that workplaces need to be safe and that workers, whether they are RCMP or others, need to feel that they can go to work and be free from sexual harassment. That means that the culture of the RCMP needs to be changed, and it needs to be changed through this legislation, which is why we welcomed the legislation being brought forward.

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as a mother and a member of the public, I believe we have a right to transparent police investigations. That is fundamental.

Could my colleague explain the points raised by the NDP about this bill, in particular the idea that investigations should be carried out independently so that the public can be sure that those at fault will receive due punishment and so that the atmosphere of trust and the atmosphere within the RCMP are tolerable for whistleblowers?

Could my colleague expand on that idea?

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

Mr. Speaker, there is very little in the bill that would enhance that protection. The fundamental mechanism that would be used is threat. It is by lodging into the person of the commissioner, and ultimately the Minister of Public Safety, the ability to dismiss RCMP officers who have breached the workplace rules and, in some cases, have broken laws. That is all they would have. It would not go to the culture of the issue.

What we expected to see included in the bill to change the culture were such things as a mandatory harassment policy, mandatory harassment training for RCMP members and a clear, consistent, transparent, accountable investigation process.

Instead we have a patchwork of investigation processes. Province by province, they can figure out how to do this. The options would still include, very problematically, police investigating police; very problematically, it would include the RCMP investigating itself without appropriate civilian oversight, and it would fail to bring comfort to those people in the RCMP who are concerned about having a workplace that is free from harassment in any form.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are times in debates in this House that speak to times and periods in our own lives. I was pleased to hear from the member for Kootenay—Columbia, who is an RCMP officer and who can bring to this debate a very clear perspective from inside the organization.

In my lifetime, as a young boy growing up in a town called Plaster Rock, New Brunswick, RCMP officers enforced the law in our province. My family had occasion to deal with them. When I was very young, my sister died at the hands of a person or persons unknown. It turned out to be a very ill family member.

For a long time afterwards my father talked about the investigators from the RCMP who handled that investigation. Initially he was taken in for questioning, and he talked about how professionally he, a man who was broken-hearted, who had just lost a daughter, was handled. In fact, that particular incident would affect the rest of his life. He became an alcoholic.

Again my family would interact with RCMP officers, who would pick him up from time to time, as they should and as they needed to do, but there was always a sense that they handled my father with a kind of dignity that perhaps they might not have under other circumstances. I do not know.

For a young boy growing up, my ideal was to become an RCMP officer. Well, if members look at me, I am wearing glasses and I am too doggone short to be an RCMP officer, so I had to forgo that, but I had this great interest in the RCMP, and a great respect for them, for an awful long time.

I still respect the RCMP, although they have fallen on difficult times. There is a cultural change that has happened, at least in my view, over the last number of years, relative to how they treat one another. We have heard those reports.

I recall, I believe it was in the 1970s, a group that was referred to as the "dirty tricks" squad. There was an investigation, and as I understand it, that particular group was disbanded.

The warning signs were there for some time about things that would later become almost institutionalized within the RCMP. Going back to Justice O'Connor in the Maher Arar case, Justice O'Connor made some very significant recommendations to the RCMP at that time, things that they needed to address, things that the government needed to address. That has gone wanting, as far as I am concerned.

Members will recall Bill C-38 in the last Parliament. It started to address this issue, and of course it was lost to the election cycle, as so many things are.

Going back to my friend from Kootenay—Columbia, who brings to this place a particular view of this institution and perhaps of the problems and of some solutions, I am looking forward to listening to his commentary as the day unfolds.

In my previous life as a union leader, one of the things that we had to deal with quite often was harassment in the workplace. We would get together with the company and work on strategies for education of the members who were involved with such things.

Within the union movement itself, I can recall that in the 1980s we worked hard dealing with our own conferences and doing our own internal work on the respect that needed to be paid to one another.

The key to it, in both of those cases, was education. I have a little saying: “With knowledge comes responsibility”. We have the knowledge today of the accusations and abuses that it is suggested have happened within the RCMP. We have enough knowledge to know that something of significance has to be done.

Our party was concerned about this bill because we felt it did not go far enough. During the committee stage, we made proposals for changes to the bill. For instance, a change that is needed is to add mandatory harassment training for RCMP officers.

Every single individual who works with the public and who works under the kind of pressure that these officers work under needs to have that training.

Again reflecting back on my own life, there was a time I worked for the Canadian National Railway as a signal maintainer. In Niagara Falls there was a place called Thorold Stone Road that some members here will know of. Four people were killed there, struck by trains while driving through.

My point is that day in and day out, our RCMP, our police officers and our fire departments deal with the aftermath of horrific events. Today I read in the newspaper that there was a six-car pileup in Hamilton because of the storm. Quite often the first on the scene is a police officer, who has to deal with the pressures that come from those situations. If we consider that pressure for a moment, it does not justify harassment, but in some cases it might help to explain it. It might help us to understand what officers' lives are like and the problems that they take home with them.

In any situation in the workplace, we have to give employees the tools they need to deal with those situations. In the case of the RCMP, I and our party have stressed the need for mandatory training. We also believe there should be a civilian body involved, someone at arm's length. Often we are too close to issues and problems ourselves and keep repeating the same mistakes and not addressing them in a fashion that is helpful to the situation, whereas a civilian board at arm's length would have the capacity to bring a different perspective to the situation. It is really important that the government should pause and look at this idea and give serious consideration to implementing civilian oversight.

In our view, some of the human resources policies we see are overly dramatic and perhaps even draconian in what they offer, but I am not going to dig too far into that because I do not want this to become a bashing of the RCMP. My party and I have great respect for this organization, but part of our responsibility in this place is to do the right thing to help that organization make the corrections deemed necessary by the government.

The government has made an attempt with this bill to start a process, but we do not think it has gone far enough. Witnesses at the committee made recommendations that the government did not see fit to follow through on, any more than it did for things proposed by our party at committee.

As I recall, the bill was put forward in June 2012. It referred to enhancing trust and restoring accountability to the RCMP. Accountability will need the oversight that was talked about. It will need someone at arm's length.

There are proposals in the bill to give more power to the superintendent in charge. The number one officer is going to be given authority where what I would call due diligence should come into play.

I am a great believer in people's right to be heard. People in the workplace, whether they are RCMP officers or regular workers in a plant, make mistakes and do things wrong, and there may be an arbitrary situation in which an employer says, “You're fired”. I worked for Bell Canada, which many times, in my opinion, fired people too quickly. Bell did not even listen to the story in those days. Hopefully that has changed—it has been almost 20 years since I was there—but the reality was that workers would be called on the carpet, the accusation would be made, and they were fired. Then, along with the union, they had to prepare a case to come back to correct the accusation. It is very concerning when that kind of power is vested in one manager or one superintendent in a workplace.

When there is a situation like with the allegations about the RCMP, which talk about a systemic problem that has had to have developed over many years, I remind members again of the pressures that these individuals live under. I want everybody to pause and think about it. It does not justify misbehaviour on the part of workers or officers, but we need to have a trail of due diligence that allows people to look at and understand the situation and help the officers retain their position and correct the behaviour with which people have problems.

As I look through some of the statements from our party and our view of things that could happen, we need the minister to prioritize the issue of sexual harassment. This is the part of the story that has received a lot of media attention. In my experience, the media sometimes make a flashpoint of an issue in which other underlying related or cultural issues in an organization are overlooked because the focus is drawn so heatedly on that point. Sexual harassment in any form in any place, workplace or otherwise, is certainly not acceptable and must be addressed.

However, we can look at the existence of police officers in general and the military-style training they have. Again, I refer back to 1963-1964 when I was a sapper apprentice in the Canadian army. At that time hazing took place. It was considered part of becoming a soldier. We had to be tough enough to put up with whatever happened, whatever was done. Fortunately, the environment I was in did not contain any sexual harassment, but there were other forms of it. Over time, the military dealt with that.

My understanding is that the world today in the military is entirely different. In the military-style training that police officers receive, the environment for that kind of culture is there, and it is just a very short distance between harassment or the buddy-buddy system where people are harassed in good-natured fun.

When women are introduced into the force, their sensibilities relative to what men consider jokes are often greatly different, in most instances. What a man may think is very humourous may tragically hurt a woman. Women live in an environment where the males in the environment have the perceived power in many instances, and they perceive themselves as not having the power to push back. If we listen to the accounts that have been made public by women officers in the RCMP, we hear that is exactly what they have felt happened. They were marginalized, troubled by what happened to them. When they went to superiors for assistance, they felt they did not receive the respect they deserved.

However, I go back to the question of whether the people they went to really had the training, understanding and development of sensitivity for what the women faced. Did they really and truly understand? It is easy to say that they neglected and ignored, but maybe they did not have a true understanding of the damage being done.

We have to go back to education and to changing the system that has evolved in such a negative way. We have to give the tools to the RCMP as a whole to begin to address this problem. We cannot fix these things from the outside. We can start doctoring and putting band-aids on it, but the culture needs to evolve itself. Again, we need sensitivity training of relationships between men and women in the workplace, and as well visible minorities, because that is another new thing within the RCMP. All of these things are added to the day-to-day pressures that these good officers live under and the culture that has sadly reached the point it has, a point where we have lawsuits and individuals going very public with their stories.

From my own experiences as a representative in the trade union movement, the last thing harassed people want to do is to make that public. In their minds, they look at it just like bullying in a schoolyard and the people will do it again, or they will lose the respect of their co-workers. All of those things need to be addressed.

When the bill went before the committee, the NDP went to committee in good faith. We understood that the situation had to addressed. We cannot support the bill in its present form because it does not go far enough.

The government has the idea that power can be vested in one person, that person being the head of the RCMP. The government believes that individual will create the environment. That individual is going to need exterior help, such as experts who deal with harassment situations and training experts to assist the people in charge of individual departments. A comprehensive training cycle has to be put in place or this will not work.

It has taken many years for this to evolve. We never heard stories like this before, and it is not because people were silent. We never heard about it because it was not happening. The pressure on modern-day police forces is beyond anything.

Being a child of the fifties, I am from the days when we did not lock our houses or our cars. Police officers in those days very rarely faced somebody with a firearm. The environment we lived in was different. Again, I want to stress that I am not justifying what has happened, but stress has to be part of the equation so we can understand what is happening to these officers and the spillover effect of that evolving negative culture. It totally is out of hand.

Many women RCMP officers have come forward, and I encourage all of them to come forward. They need to understand that there are people who sincerely want to see change. We want to correct the tarnished record of the RCMP. We also want those in charge of the RCMP to have the tools they need to create and sustain a healthy workplace, and I cannot stress that enough.

Members can probably tell that I speak with a great deal of sadness and that is because, as I said earlier, I wanted to become an RCMP officer, but that was a long time ago. I am talking the fifties.

The NDP went to committee in a sincere attempt to make the bill better. We can do better for our RCMP so that we can remain proud of the people who work so hard for us and put their lives at risk, but work in a difficult environment. There is a culture in the RCMP that has been tainted, and we have to do everything we can to fix that.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of things we should recognize. The RCMP has been our national police force since 1873, and on August 30 of this year it will have existed for 140 years. Another thing to recognize is that on September 23, 1974, the first female troop went through Depot, and since that time it has evolved from full 32 women troops down to integrated troops to a whole bunch of things. I do agree that the RCMP needs to recognize that transformation.

I hear what the opposition is saying, but the unfortunate part of the entire process is that the RCMP falls under its own federal statute, which is the RCMP Act. No one in the House can change that unless we want to remove the RCMP Act. As a result of that, the commissioner, and only the commissioner, has the authority to deal with things within the RCMP Act. Whether it be implementing programs or removing someone from the force or a number of things, they fall under the RCMP Act.

Recognizing that the commissioner is the totalitary of the RCMP Act, would my colleague agree that the commissioner is the one who needs to implement the programs that need to be brought forward to recognize the issues that the RCMP has, and whether we like it or not, the commissioner is the only person who can provide discipline to RCMP members?

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Kootenay—Columbia for his service prior to coming here. Within the question he just put to me, I hear the sense of his loyalty, something I greatly respect.

In the context of vesting the power with the commissioner, he will have the responsibility of implementing whatever we do, but we can alter the RCMP Act. We can alter the regulations that are part of the act, which would give direction to the commissioner and other folks in the RCMP who would deal with this situation.

I recall that In 1974 women first took part in the RCMP. I was just beginning my career in the labour movement and I remember how proud my sisters at Bell Canada were of the fact that women were taking their places.

Women's service in the RCMP or in the military has evolved over the last 30 or 35 years in a way most people did not think was possible. The environment has changed. Equipment within the military and the RCMP has changed. However, it takes people with exceptional skills to deal with that life, not only during the day but when they go home.

As I said in my speech, education is the key to this situation: education of the folks who have created the problem, because obviously there is a place they have to go; education for the folks who are on the receiving end, with assistance, help, peer counselling; and the HR people who administer whatever the commissioner brings forward.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, when I posed a question earlier, the member asked where the Liberal Party might be on this. It is important for us to recognize that whether it is the RCMP or the workforce in general, sexual harassment or bullying in the workplace is not acceptable. We need to address that issue head-on.

We have to recognize that the Conservatives, having a majority government, are not very sympathetic to improving legislation. We see that at committee when an opposition member attempts to bring forward amendments.

There is no doubt that the government could have done more to deal with sexual harassment in the workplace with regard to RCMP. There is a lost opportunity there.

The commissioner's increased capacity to deal with disciplinary action we thought, in principle, was necessary. Does the hon. member believe there is any necessity to increase the capacity of the commissioner to take disciplinary action? Does he believe there is any need for that whatsoever?

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is not often I am almost at a loss for words in this place, but this is one of them. The Liberal Party of Canada was the governing party for many years and lost the opportunity to address this problem.

At the committee our party made 18 proposals for amendments and his party made zero. The Liberals are in the House saying how things should be addressed when they were not even prepared to do their part in committee. I find that astounding.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank my colleague from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek for his excellent and very heartfelt speech to the House about the official opposition's position on Bill C-42. It was a fine tribute to our national policy, but especially to the men and women who serve on our national police force. It was a good way to recognize the incredible and hard work this police force does every day.

My colleague spoke about the training and the tools the RCMP needs to combat various problems, including sexual harassment. I found that interesting because one of the amendments we proposed in committee, after having various discussions with witnesses who appeared before the committee, would have required mandatory harassment training for all RCMP members. Unfortunately, this amendment was not adopted in committee, which is very sad.

What are my colleague's thoughts on the fact that this amendment was not adopted and the official opposition tried to make harassment training mandatory?

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for that question, because in my opinion, that is the most significant failure with respect to the bill going forward. We have to educate people. With knowledge comes responsibility.

Often people in the workplace, not just in the RCMP, but in general, do things with a sense of humour that they believe justifies what they do. They do not give a lot of consideration to the feelings and the fears of the people on the receiving end.

I recall a time, around 1966, when I worked for the railway, in a machine shop. There was a man there who was highly nervous. When people went by, they would give him a little tap, and he would jump. They had him so shell-shocked, he could not talk. If someone said boo, he would literally jump and take two steps away from him or her. The people in that workshop thought it was wonderfully humorous. That man was fragile and close to having a breakdown.

If we view that in the context of sexual harassment, we put it in a place where we have to talk about it. We have to understand that this so-called sense of humour is a testing vehicle for people. If they can do that to her, what else is available? It could be an exercise in power if it is done by a superior. In some instances in the RCMP, it was a superior who did these things. It humiliates the woman. It embarrasses and troubles her. It devalues her in front of her co-workers in a fashion that is totally unacceptable.

The only answer is to go back to those individuals who are doing it to determine whether they are truly bad people. They have established that they are people of trust by becoming RCMP officers and completing the training. In my opinion, the only answer to that is what you raised, which is to educate those people and provide corrective action that would bring them back where they belong.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order. I would point out to the member that he should address all of his comments to the Chair, not to individual members of the House.

Before I give the floor to the hon. member for Chambly—Borduas, I would like to inform the House that we will now go to 10-minute speeches and five-minute periods for questions and comments.

The hon. member for Chambly—Borduas.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to follow a speech like the one given by the hon. member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek.

He spoke about his own personal experiences, and I think that, in so doing, he attacked the very heart of this bill. We are talking about the impact that this can have on individuals and what can happen to people who have problems in the workplace, particularly those involving sexual harassment.

When a debate is held on this type of issue, it is very important to point out that criticizing those who put their heart and soul into serving their community, for example police or RCMP officers, will not advance the debate.

When we talk about matters pertaining to National Defence, Veterans Affairs or the RCMP, our opinions are often criticized and simplistic arguments are often made. Some would say that it is only natural for us to say such things since we do not support our police officers or our armed forces. It is very important to point out that nothing could be further from the truth.

Contrary to what the Conservatives believe, when we engage in a debate and have the courage to take a stand and say that the bill does not go far enough, it is because we have a great deal of respect for the work that is done and we think that it is important to implement measures that will allow RCMP officers to operate in a healthy work environment and that will improve the working relationship between the police and the people they have the duty to serve and protect.

Of course, we will oppose the bill at third reading. As always, we optimistically tried to make amendments to the bill based on the testimony given in committee, but as always, our attempts were in vain.

I would particularly like to acknowledge the work done by the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, our public safety critic, and the hon. member for Alfred-Pellan, the deputy critic. They certainly worked very hard to put forward these amendments.

I want to point out that these amendments were not based on some radical ideology, as the government claims. They were based on testimony from experts in committee. These experts have been involved with this issue for a very long time. It is not a new thing.

The first version of this bill, Bill C-38, was introduced during the 40th Parliament. It is not to be confused with the omnibus Bill C-38, which was introduced last spring.

The amendments came out of the testimony, but they were unfortunately all rejected, as usual. I think that is very disappointing. When we hear the points raised by witnesses and propose changes that do not necessarily change the spirit of the bill, but instead help make the measures in it more precise, effective and transparent, I think that the government should be more receptive to the proposed amendments. However, true to form, the government rejected all of the amendments outright.

The member who spoke before me talked about his experience with unions. With respect to the harassment within the RCMP, it is the only police force in Canada that does not have a collective agreement.

People will say that other measures will be put in place to ensure that workers' rights are respected. They are workers, because they work for us. However, when there are no appropriate measures in place, it becomes hard to defend their rights in cases of harassment. This is not the only workplace where harassment is a problem, but as my colleague pointed out, harassment is quite prevalent.

RCMP members have to deal with certain cases and, as one may well imagine, with a very heavy psychological burden in some situations. Sometimes that means that relations between the various individuals involved may be tense and negative behaviour may result. When you take all that into consideration, you realize how important it is to establish ways to manage those problems more effectively.

Continuing on the subject of harassment, when we say sexual harassment, we are talking about an issue that mainly affects women. That may seem to be a prejudicial view, but it is unfortunately true. From the standpoint of gender equality, it is even more important to address the problem of harassment when you want to encourage women to consider taking on any role in our society.

Government members will no doubt tell us that this bill would put in place a system that will solve that problem. We do not believe that is the case, particularly given the structure that would be introduced to do so. That is really our biggest concern in relation to this bill.

To put the matter simply, the government wants the police to investigate the police and the commission to be accountable to the minister, not to Parliament. The lack of political will that this minister has shown for some time now is becoming a problem. After all, when discretionary or decision-making authority lies solely in the hands of one minister, we have to rely on his political will, and he seems to have no such will at the present time.

On the contrary, if we asked the commission to report directly to Parliament, there would be more transparency, more answers and a structure more accountable to the public, which the RCMP is supposed to serve. That would also be good for people on the force, RCMP members, particularly those who are victims of harassment.

To put it simply once again, when we talk about the police investigating the police, this is really the problem that emerged from Justice O'Connor's report in the Maher Arar case. I am very interested in that case. At the risk of making myself seem very young, I was just a student when that report was issued in 2006, but I was very much involved and very interested in politics and current affairs, and I supported various causes.

I remember seeing the report at the time. One of the issues of great interest to me was the way in which our police forces and our armed forces acted, even though we were still in the post-September 11 phase five years after the fact. People in Canada, the United States and Europe were trying to adjust to this new reality as a society and give our police forces powers while protecting citizens' rights.

That report was an attempt to balance those two realities. However, this bill does not take its recommendations into account. Justice O'Connor recommended establishing an independent commission that would actually have been able to go further in changing the RCMP's culture and solving the harassment problem in particular.

We in the NDP want to see more concrete measures. That is why we oppose this bill, which is far too flawed. We want something much more concrete, and these are precisely the kinds of measures we will put in place in 2015 if we have the opportunity to form the government, in order to change this culture, protect RCMP members and ensure there is a better relationship between them and our communities.

I await your questions and comments.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, over the last number of years we have seen a huge increase in the need to deal with this issue. One of the reasons for that was several allegations of sexual harassment. However, it was in May of 2012 that the RCMP commissioner, in a public letter, talked about the need for legislation. The idea behind it is that the commissioner has to have some sort of capacity to take disciplinary action. Although this legislation falls short in being able to deal with a number of different issues, it at least addresses in part what the commissioner was calling for and has been calling for.

My question to the member is this: does he not believe we should be respecting, at least in part, RCMP Commissioner Paulson saying in his letter dated May 2012 that we need to have something? Does he not agree that this bill does at least something with regard to providing some form of disciplinary action, that something is better than nothing and, in that sense, that it is better for us to pass the bill in the hope that we will be able to bring in additional legislation in the future?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question.

The commissioner expressed his opinion, but despite the respect he deserves for the important work he does, he is just one piece of the puzzle. During my speech, I pointed out that, according to testimony heard in committee, this bill has significant flaws.

In response to the member's question I would say that we often support a bill if it is a step in the right direction. The NDP has often supported bills even though our amendments were rejected and the government could have gone much further or even taken an entirely different tack. The difference here is that there are very significant systemic problems. The bill has far too many flaws for us to be able to support it in its present form.

If there were fewer flaws, we would be more willing to support it, but the issues are far too serious. They were clearly identified in committee. When we are dealing with police forces and sensitive issues, as in the recommendations in the O'Connor report, it is very important that we implement far more tangible and fair measures.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member on his wonderful speech. Once again, he is an inspiration when it comes to speaking from the heart and representing his constituents' opinions.

I could not help but think of some of my constituents who are part of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and who are very disappointed with this bill. They are wondering when we will evolve.

The women who were victims of harassment must be bitterly disappointed in the government's lack of intervention and its inaction with this bill. What does my colleague think?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, since it gives me an opportunity to talk about something I neglected to mention in my speech.

There are RCMP members living in my riding and the surrounding ridings, and that is exactly what they are feeling. I pointed that out because this is not an attack against individuals, who do an excellent job within the RCMP. This is about combatting the attitudes that are institutionalized within this police force.

I believe that they want a change. When structures like the complaints system are inadequate and dated people want to see changes. That is where our role as legislators becomes very important. That is why we are so disappointed that there are so many flaws in this bill. That is also why we are opposed to it.

Furthermore, we would be happy to propose something concrete and much better to bring about real results. We will certainly have the opportunity to do so soon.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this place on behalf of the residents of Davenport, in the great city of Toronto, for whom this issue is of great concern and of great interest. The idea of, in particular, a civilian oversight of the RCMP and a more rigorous accounting of its operations is something that certainly the people in my riding and the people in Toronto are very much concerned about, particularly in light of events that occurred in Toronto in June 2010. I am referring to the G20 conference and the events that led to essentially the biggest mass arrest in Canadian history, for which the RCMP was the lead law enforcement agency.

We note that Bill C-42 does seek to reform the RCMP public complaints commission by establishing a new complaints commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and implementing a new framework to handle serious incidents involving the members.

The problem, though, is that while the name may change, the powers would not really change. It looks remarkably like the current RCMP public complaints commission, especially in that it would not be a fully independent commission reporting to the House of Commons. Instead, it would continue to report to the Minister of Public Safety.

We on this side of the House have great concerns about that because we have concerns about the minister himself. We cannot forget that this is the same minister who extolled and hectored and lectured Canadians, saying that if Canadians did not stand with him and his flawed online piracy bill then they were standing with pedophiles—an outrageous and offensive comment that earned the scorn, the rightful scorn, of Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

The changes in the bill would essentially mean that any major investigation would be overseen by the minister himself, who ultimately would be the final arbiter of these investigations.

As well, the new commission would have serious restrictions on its ability to undertake independent investigations, and its findings would be presented only in the form of non-binding recommendations to the commissioner and the Minister of Public Safety. These restrictions on the independence of the new commission would be a major issue for us.

As we have done on many bills that have passed through this House, we put forth many measured amendments to the bill, ones that would actually have beefed up the idea of civilian oversight and made it independent. Once again, the government ignored every single one of our recommendations and amendments.

This is particularly concerning in light of the 2006 report of Justice O'Connor of the O'Connor inquiry into the actions of Canadian officials in relation to Maher Arar, which called for the RCMP watchdog to be structured along the lines of the Security Intelligence Review Committee, which monitors CSIS. It would have the right to audit all RCMP files and activities and the power to subpoena related documents and compel testimony from any federal, provincial, municipal or private sector person or entity.

The present RCMP public complaints commission does not have review powers to ensure, systematically, that the RCMP's national security activities are conducted in accordance with the law and with respect for rights and freedoms.

This issue of civilian oversight and the independence of an agency that would oversee complaints is an important one. It is an important one for civil society. It is an important one for democracy.

I think it is important to note, as many of my NDP colleagues have during this debate, that we have enormous respect for officers in the RCMP. We understand that they are oftentimes working in extremely difficult conditions and situations, often chaotic, often situations where they have to make split-second decisions, quick decisions.

We understand that sometimes this is an incredibly difficult and pressure-filled job that we as Canadians ask them to do on our behalf, which is all the more reason why it is so important that we create and then maintain an independent oversight body for the RCMP. This is exactly what we had recommended.

We have seen some of the reactions from various stakeholders in Canada around this bill. We would also note that the former chair of the commission for public complaints, Paul Kennedy, commenting on the last iteration of this bill, Bill C-38—and not a lot in terms of this part of the bill has changed—said that the legislation is riddled with loopholes and does not meet Mr. O'Connor's standards.

The law would allow the Minister of Public Safety to make regulations concerning the watchdog's access to privileged information, such as classified intelligence or material about clandestine operations. It also permits the RCMP commissioner to deny the watchdog access to such information. The new law also lacks time limits for RCMP to respond to the commission's interim reports.

Many people may view this debate as a bit inside the bubble, as “inside baseball”. However, in fact, when we get down to the street level and go back to June 2010 and we think about what happened on the streets of my city, the biggest city in the country, the economic engine of this country, the cultural centre of Canada, we see what actually happened, especially right at the corner of Queen and Spadina.

Hundreds and hundreds of regular folks, most of whom lived in the neighbourhood, were kettled, or boxed in, in the rain, for several hours as the police pursued a tactic known as kettling. One of the many problems with what happened that night is that kettling is something the RCMP is not supposed to do. It is not part of their regulations. It is not part of their code, and they did participate.

A report into the RCMP's activities at the G20 was delivered in May 2012. It itemized, in rather minute detail, some of the issues that occurred that night. It also very clearly states that kettling was not part of the RCMP's mandate, and yet officers pursued it.

This is an example of why we need an independent civilian oversight body to build the public trust. I have to say that the events of the G20 severely damaged the public trust in our law enforcement agencies to both keep the peace and protect people who are peacefully coming together and expressing their democratic right of free speech.

I would like to end my comments there. I welcome any questions.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one thing that is really important, and we have stressed it, is for Canadians to know that we support the RCMP. The NDP tried to move some amendments so that we could actually support the bill. That is why, at second reading, we supported the bill going to committee. At committee, we proposed a lot of amendments and tried to work with the government to bring them forward.

Could my colleague comment on the reaction to the amendments we brought forward and how difficult it is, if we want to make a bill better, to work with the government? We know that none of the amendments were accepted. Could my colleague speak to that?

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is becoming a broken record in this place. It is a broken record that is dramatically out of tune. It is out of tune with Canadians. It is out of tune with the idea that Canadians elect parliamentarians to come and work together, to the best of their abilities, to craft the kind of legislation that is the best legislation we can come up with. Instead, what happens too often here is that partisan games and politics are played that supersede sound public policy. It has happened constantly. It is at play right now as we debate the bill. None of the amendments, not a single one the NDP presented on the bill, was accepted or considered by the government.

Occasionally the government will accept amendments from the Senate. Instead of listening to elected representatives and the wise counsel they can bring to a debate, it will go to the other place, get together with its various campaign buddies and hash out some amendments there. That is not the way Canadians expect this place to work, and that certainly is not the way the NDP, the official opposition, works.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I served in the RCMP for over 18 years. The opposition talked about kettling and public peace. What is it about public safety that is not in order, especially in Toronto? What police officers do is make sure that no one gets hurt. Individuals attending these protests or rallies or demonstrations then put other innocent people at risk. Having had to serve on the front lines with the RCMP and also having participated in issues like this and having actually been with the tactical troops, listening to an individual who has no clue, a downtown suburban person, does not make sense.

There are poor performers in the RCMP. Having been a sergeant in the RCMP and having had to administer the RCMP Act and do the investigations on those individuals, I know that the RCMP is looking for a tangible, meaningful way to get rid of the RCMP troublemakers who are tarnishing the image of the RCMP.

What I am asking my colleague, yes or no, is whether he is going to support the bill to get rid of the poor performers in the RCMP. This is what I had to investigate as a member of the RCMP.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, why do we not first start by getting rid of the poor performers in the Senate? Why do we not start there?

The member opposite starts talking about the fact that if someone lives in an urban or suburban part of Canada, one has no idea what one is talking about as it pertains to public safety. This is an outrageous comment from the member opposite. It really shows how this party--

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River rising on a point of order?

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Yes, Mr. Speaker. I asked a question, and I want that question answered.

[The Deputy Speaker]

That is not a point of order. We have about 20 seconds.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think this is an important point to bring up about the G20. It spells it out in the report. I am happy to give this report to my friend across the way. It also shows that when the RCMP participated in the kettling at Queen and Spadina, they actually arrested five people, two of whom were undercover police officers. I think urban people in Canada are very engaged with this issue. You have just insulted a wide swath of the Canadian population.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Again, could I direct all members of the House to direct their comments to the Chair and not to each other or other members of the House?

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher.

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

Mr. Speaker, on days like today it is discouraging to listen to what our adversaries opposite have to say. That just cannot be.

I am very disappointed, but not surprised by this government's approach, which is unproductive, indifferent and unfocused and whose failings have been laid bare. Today, the government is on the defensive because of its indifference. It is very evident this morning. Amendments put forward by the NDP included mandatory harassment training for RCMP members, a civilian body to investigate complaints against the RCMP, and an independent review body to avoid police investigating police. All these amendments were very reasonable and in keeping with what the many witnesses said. All these amendments were rejected.

Contrary to the recommendations in the O'Connor report on the Maher Arar case and the many witnesses who appeared before the committee, the government rejected the amendments and continues to favour an internal, perhaps even arbitrary, approach at the RCMP, as we would unfortunately expect, rather than an independent, external and transparent approach.

Unfortunately, Bill C-42 will not resolve the very serious problems that will continue to plague the RCMP. In the meantime, many people will suffer. We are obviously thinking of the women who experience sexual harassment.

Therefore, it is with great regret that we must oppose this bill for all the reasons mentioned and especially because of the lack of transparency and the government's blinkered approach to official opposition amendments.

The people in my riding of Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher sometimes ask me whether I am fed up with Conservatives' behaviour. Of course we are fed up. We cannot take any more of this closed-mindedness, this sense of divine authority and omniscience, the way the Conservatives do not want to listen to and consider other points of view, the bad faith. We are fed up with how the Conservatives always make their ideological agenda a priority, but especially with how, particularly lately, they are always using the buzzword “transparency” and talking about accountability when they are the champions of silence, the champions of working behind closed doors.

I cannot help but see something that is very suspicious in the Conservatives' attitude. What are they hiding by always calling for transparency and officially talking about accountability, when they have an agenda that they will never reveal?

This is very disappointing for us, particularly for those of my colleagues who have been asking for reforms for a long time, such as the member who is sitting right beside me. It seems that we are still working on the issue of harassment within the RCMP. The NDP has been asking the government for ages to take care of this situation, which affects many people, particularly women. It is a governance problem within the RCMP, a problem with the internal culture.

The bill that the government put forward is not a solution at all. We were hoping for a proactive approach and a strategy to prevent these regrettable situations from happening again, but unfortunately, the outcome we are seeing today is a dry, disciplinary, impersonal and ill-considered bill in which the word harassment appears only once. It is unbelievable. As I was saying earlier, although the amendments we proposed in committee were very positive, they were rejected, and the opinions of many witnesses and experts were ignored.

Once again, as is often the case, the Conservatives took a serious, systemic problem affecting the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and addressed it in a simplistic and—quite frankly—lazy manner. What is needed today to change the RCMP and reassure the public is a major change to the culture of this organization, something that this bill does not allow for. On the contrary, in a few years, we will once again be faced with the same problem because harassment will continue to be a serious problem within the organization. This bill does not reassure Canadians that their formal complaints will be examined with the attention they deserve.

Robert Paulson, Commissioner of the RCMP, has repeatedly said that a cultural change is needed. He said the following before the Standing Committee on the Status of Women:

It's the culture of the organization that has not kept pace... We haven't been able to change our practices and our policies...

[T]he problem is bigger than simply the sexual harassment.

David Brown, who led a working group on the issue in 2007 at the request of the federal government, also said the same thing. The name of that group was the Task Force on Governance and Cultural Change in the RCMP. It could not be clearer than that.

And yet rather than a real change of culture on the inside and outside, through unambiguous leadership and listening on the part of the minister’s office, we have been treated instead to a sort of “light reform”, which ultimately will do nothing to solve the fundamental problems we have been raising in the House for several months now, if not several years. It will do nothing to change the problems that have brought us to where we are and that this bill is supposedly intended to solve.

The system proposed in this bill for investigating the police completely fails to meet the test of logic and common sense. Bill C-38, which was cloned to produce the bill that is before us today, had provided that the RCMP would investigate itself in certain cases.

The strange structure we are presented with in this bill provides that in the case of serious incidents involving the RCMP—deaths and serious injuries—the provinces will step in and assign the investigation to an investigative body or police service. Otherwise, the RCMP may assign the investigation to another police service, and if that option is not available, the RCMP will carry out the investigation itself.

This means that the job of overseeing the RCMP is assigned in the first instance to provincial bodies, in spite of the fact that such bodies exist in only four provinces: British Columbia, Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan. Ultimately, and unfortunately, oversight of the RCMP is too often shifted to the provinces. This amounts to the federal government abdicating its responsibility and once again downloading the federal government’s costs onto the provinces.

I thought that the Conservatives wanted to reduce the size of government, since they told us they did, but that cannot mean that responsibility for the oversight of federal institutions has to be shifted to the provinces.

We are opposed to this Byzantine system because it can be simpler and more effective. We tried to do this through an amendment in committee, proposing that a national, independent civilian group be created that would systematically handle this and report to Parliament. Obviously, that amendment was rejected. We have to put an end to this system of the police investigating the police. Even the mayors of some municipalities are opposed to it.

We made proposals here and in committee to that effect. Our amendments and the recommendations from reports, task forces, commissions and witnesses have been waved off by a government that is running headlong toward disaster. Its stubborn insistence on doing nothing of any real effect is astounding, and we find it particularly tiresome.

The bill before us is also an abdication of the minister’s responsibilities. The proposal to significantly increase the powers of the commissioner of the RCMP amounts to running toward the nearest exit; it is the easy solution.

This is another abdication: the government should have led the charge against harassment inside the RCMP with a vigorous reform. Instead it is choosing to set up and endorse a system that massively increases the commissioner's powers, in the hope that this will change something.

All the witnesses and experts who are familiar with this issue say that we do not need more powers concentrated in the hands of a single person and that what we really need is a new system of transparency and independent oversight.

The Task Force on Governance and Cultural Change in the RCMP, which the government created in 2007, had another idea in mind. It proposed reforms that would bring the RCMP into line with the internal governance methods and structures used in civilian bodies, with a board of management that would oversee and could challenge decisions of the commissioner, that would require accountability, that could hear complaints from employees and that would exist within a transparent structure.

Unfortunately, what the government is proposing is, once again, the complete opposite. Clearly, the solution in this bill, which is to put more powers than ever in the hands of a single person, when what is needed is to overcome an organizational problem, will solve nothing. In fact, it may well create more internal problems and discontent.

This is a clash between two different philosophies. When the Conservatives are faced with a complex problem, they propose more powers in the hands of a single person, more order, more hierarchy, more unchallengeable or arbitrary decisions and more discipline. When we look at the same problem, we call for a system that is structured, transparent, well thought-out and systematic and that will act in the public interest and respect the rights of RCMP members, certainly, but most importantly the rights of the public.

In this bill, what the Conservatives are proposing is unprecedented: an enormous reform that will replace the existing commission that examines complaints against the RCMP and reports its findings to the minister with a commission that will examine complaints against the RCMP and report its findings to the minister. That is very impressive.

In conclusion, the people in my riding are not taken in by this kind of obsession with the rhetoric of transparency and accountability, and they hope that we are going to oppose this sham as long as we can.

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

Mr. Speaker, what the member does not understand is that the system his party is proposing cannot be integrated into the RCMP Act. It just cannot be done. The power needs to be implemented within the RCMP Act first, in relation to the Commissioner of the RCMP.

To say that only the Commissioner of the RCMP would hand out all or any punishment or any other types of things is simply incorrect. The Commissioner of the RCMP would automatically provide options for deputy commissioners, assistant commissioners, chief superintendents, superintendents and anyone of commission rank They could also provide guidance or discipline to members across this great country.

The RCMP has to fix itself from within, because since 1873 we as parliamentarians have done it that way. We created the RCMP Act. Therefore, I believe that Bill C-42 goes in the right direction.

My question to the hon. member is this: does he believe that not supporting Bill C-42 would solve anything?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I used to work in communications and media relations, so I can tell the Conservatives that this is what I see as their biggest problem. They march in authoritatively with their solutions, as though they had divine power and knew everything. They refuse to listen to suggestions from others and disregard what witnesses have to say. That is what is most pathetic.

We cannot support a government that asks for our trust, when history has shown that it has duped us on many occasions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to share with the House and the member who was speaking a comment from Paul Kennedy, who, as the former commissioner for the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, has all the credentials in the world to make comment on this bill.

He recently wrote:

The Government, at the cost of many millions of dollars, established a major initiative in the form of the O’Connor Inquiry to specifically provide policy recommendations upon which a new legislative regime of civilian review would be based. Bill C-42 presumably is a response to those recommendations. Having appeared as a witness before that Inquiry I am familiar with its key recommendations and can attest to the fact that Bill C-42 falls well short of the standard of review set by Justice O’Connor. It will serve neither the needs of Canadians nor the RCMP.

I am profoundly disappointed that a bill that purports to improve things for the RCMP falls so far short in the view of this expert. I ask my friend from Longueuil for his comments.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for her question.

It is very sad to see an experienced and eloquent person, like the witness she quoted, be completely ignored. That is exactly what the NDP is referring to when we say that the government does not listen, and the Green Party clearly agrees.

These people have their agenda and a one-track mind. We cannot support a bill like this because it is too little too late.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, RCMP Commissioner Paulson indicated in an open letter in May 2012 that the government needs to enhance the powers of the commissioner in order to take disciplinary action and cited issues such as sexual harassment.

The Liberal Party believes that we need to deal with this.

My question to the member is this: does he believe that passing Bill C-42 would make the current law weaker?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not an expert on police forces, but like many of my colleagues, I have a lot of respect for the work they do.

These people live under huge amounts of stress. It exists everywhere, but if this bill does not properly address the unbelievable stress caused by sexual harassment, we might as well take it back to the drawing board and address real problems.

These people, who have complicated jobs and put their lives at risk on the front lines to protect us, need to feel that we understand their reality and should not feel that we are denigrating it.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have an opportunity to speak to Bill C-42 at third reading. It is an important area of public policy that needs to be addressed by the House. Unfortunately it is our conclusion that it has not been addressed properly by the House, because the bill would not do what it is expected to do.

As previous speakers have said, the RCMP is a storied institution in Canada. As the member for Kootenay—Columbia said, it goes back to 1873. It has not always been a perfect institution, and we all know that. It has been open to criticism from time to time in its history for some of the uses to which it was put by various governments.

When I started practising law, the RCMP was regarded as the senior police force in the country. Police forces around the country looked up to the RCMP for standards and training and discipline and proper procedures.

Of late, unfortunately, people have become disconcerted with the way the RCMP has been able to handle matters, particularly those of an internal nature. We have heard complaints for a number of years about harassment, particularly the harassment of women. There are outstanding lawsuits by 200 women complaining about harassment within the force and the apparent inability of the force to deal with that issue. As a result of some constant prodding by the NDP in the House, legislative action was deemed necessary and taken. Unfortunately, the bill does not address the kinds of issues that caused the need for this legislation to take place.

We have talked about the need for a more respectful force in terms of having a proper method to deal with sexual harassment and a proper response to the concern about that harassment, the need for a broader and more balanced human resource policy and the removal of some of the more draconian powers that are proposed for the RCMP commissioner. None of these were accepted in committee.

The government's response to these problems is to create a more powerful hierarchy within the RCMP and to give the commissioner more draconian powers than ever. As the member for Kootenay—Columbia said, the commissioner is going to delegate all of these powers to various deputy commissioners and others. Instead of having a more balanced approach whereby people would have a right to have their grievances dealt with and issues responded to, we are going to have a top-down hierarchy, which will not inspire confidence but create more of a paramilitary organization. That is an anachronism when it comes to modern policing in Canada.

Obviously there needs to be discipline within a police force, and all of that should take place, but when it comes to matters such as complaints about sexual harassment, there has to be a safe place for people to go. People have to know that these matters will be dealt with. They should have a clear expectation that the professional police officers throughout the force, from the bottom to the top, are well aware of and sensitive to what sexual harassment is and what it can do. Previous speakers have outlined some of the particular ways in which that should happen.

Through some 18 amendments at committee stage, we talked about what could be done to meet some of these needs. All of these amendments were rejected by the government. These amendments included adding mandatory harassment training for RCMP members, and specifically adding those measures to the RCMP Act itself, so that it would be clear that this was a response to the problem. We wanted to ensure that there would be a fully independent civilian body that would be able to review and investigate complaints against the RCMP.

This is important. The model that was proposed was a model like SIRC, which oversees CSIS. It is independent, with decision-making power, not just the recommendation power in the bill. That was provided for as well. It was turned down by the government.

Third, we wanted to add a provision creating a national civilian investigative body. We still have the situation of the RCMP being able to investigate itself when complaints are made of improper behaviour by police officers. That is not right. There is an elaborate procedure in place that maybe the provinces would undertake something first and if not, then the RCMP would do it and potentially there would be some civilian role in that, but that is not good enough. Some of the provinces do not have the capability of an independent review. Also, there are three territories that do not have an independent police force, and the RCMP does the work there. It is going to be a situation of RCMP officers investigating cases involving their own activities.

The fourth one, which I just talked about, was to have a more balanced human resources policy, removing some of the powers that were proposed for the RCMP commissioner and strengthening the external review committee so cases involving possible dismissal from the force could have an outside review. Now the situation is that the final authority is being given to the RCMP commissioner, with no possibility of appeal or independent review. That is not right.

One of the complaints about that was made by the president of the Canadian Police Association, Mr. Tom Stamatakis, who stated, “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”. The contrast to that would be the example in Ontario, where a police officer subject to a disciplinary process has the right to appeal that decision against an independent civilian police commission.

These two go hand in hand. Having a proper policy and proper disciplinary process, but also an expectation by police officers themselves that the process is fair and impartial would allow for the cultural change that is required to take place. As the commissioner said, cultural change is required, but legislation cannot bring about all of the cultural change. In fact, he said that the culture of the organization had not kept pace. Commissioner Paulson stated:

—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.

It is the hierarchical system that he says has been part of the problem. Instead of making mandatory sexual harassment training part of the solution, instead of having a more balanced approach in terms of management and perhaps a board of managers to oversee this, what we have done is strengthened the hierarchical system. We have not found a solution to the problem that caused and brought about the need for legislation. Instead of solving the problem, this legislation has actually made it worse.

The member for Kootenay—Columbia asked why members would not vote in favour of it since, in part, it went in the right direction. In fact, we think voting in favour of this bill would not provide a solution at all.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I would like to congratulate the member for St. John's East on his speech. I must say that it is always a pleasure to listen to his fine analysis and his vast legal expertise as he picks apart bills that are brought before us.

I cannot help but draw a parallel between Bill C-15, which we are currently studying in the Standing Committee on National Defence, and the fact that the Conservatives refuse to hand more power over to people outside the system. That is what is happening with National Defence and military justice, and it is also what is happening here with regard to giving people outside the RCMP more opportunity to see what is going on within the system.

I would like to hear his thoughts on that parallel. Does he see a pattern in the Conservative government's actions?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his work on the defence committee.

Yes, we are going through a similar process as we went through on Bill C-42, for which the NDP brought forward a significant number of amendments. We are not through all of them yet, but so far the government has accepted none of the amendments we proposed, and that is the case here.

If there is a problem that requires a solution, legislation is brought forward. If it is inadequate and we provided means to address the problem for which the legislation was created in the first place, we would expect the co-operation that reasonable members of Parliament would address to an issue.

However, it appears the Conservatives say that it is their bill and they will not make any changes. They do not care what arguments are made and what support there is for them logically and from people who are experts in the field. They will continue to do what they want. This seems to be what happened here as well.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is the official opposition's national defence critic. I know that he is aware of the issue of sexual harassment in the armed forces, which is another government institution. I served in the armed forces. During my recruit course, I had sexual harassment training sessions, and they were given every year.

Does my colleague believe that they could have discussed this issue with other federal departments that have taken measures to prevent sexual harassment? Does he find it acceptable that the issue is not addressed in this bill, even though we know that in many cases it is very important to have women who are able to intervene and who are capable of doing the work of intervening in certain situations?

I would like to hear him speak some more and perhaps compare what he knows about sexual harassment at National Defence with the RCMP.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, there have been complaints in respect to both organizations, but what is comparable between the military and the RCMP is that we have hierarchical organizations in which the people who are senior in rank have an enormous amount of power over individuals below that rank. Therefore, in order to counter that, the culture has to have a very strong and robust anti-harassment policy and clear ways of dealing with it.

Neither in the bill nor anywhere else has the Minister of Public Safety mandated the adoption of clear anti-harassment policies within the RCMP containing specific standards for behaviour and specific criteria for evaluating the performance of employees. We need that kind of commitment from the government if the RCMP is to have the tools to deal with that, and the support and ability for discipline to take place and a fair process to deal with it. What is lacking is leadership by the government.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note certain statistics, because sometimes, in order to understand why a bill has been has been introduced in the House, we have to understand what led up to it.

A number of people in the House have already spoken, but it is very important to remember that more than 200 women who are now employed or who were employed by the RCMP have joined Constable Janet Merlo to bring a class action suit against the RCMP for sexual harassment.

This has caused quite a stir in Canadian society, and justifiably so. It is difficult to come up with a more contemptible crime in the workplace than sexual harassment, or even harassment in any form. I spent 30 years of my life as a labour lawyer for businesses, where staff relations are very important. Everyone wanted to develop harassment prevention policies. The more people talk to each other, the more familiar they become with the issue and the more likely they are to do what they have to do to get rid of harassment. It is the employer’s duty to ensure that the workplace is free from any form of harassment.

The cases that I dealt with in my area of practice were often the most tragic ones. I thought that when I arrived here as a member of Parliament, I would see fewer of these cases. Treasury Board has a great policy, and I really do not see much wrong with it. However, as I often say, the devil is in the details, in the implementation.

I am sure that some of my colleagues are hearing the same kinds of stories from their constituents as I am. Constituents who are public servants, members of the RCMP or some other agency contact us and tell us their horror stories.

I am not going to get involved in legal matters between the government and its employees, but I can barely repress a shudder when I hear some of their stories. I see people who, five years ago, followed the proper procedure: they filed a complaint, talked to their harasser, criticized the behaviour, and ended up being harassed more than before. Then they went to see their supervisor, who looked into the issue and realized that it was true.

Within the Canadian public service, apparently when there is a harasser, an offender, he receives a promotion after going on a training course to become a little more aware of the issue. Although the government claims to be on the victims' side, victims still have to jump through all the legal hoops. If we spent as much time trying to resolve the issue and change behaviours, which are sometimes attributable just to a lack of education and political will to solve the problem, we could avoid these types of situations.

People who are broken come to tell us their side of the story. Many do not understand that it is a case of harassment. Harassment is about control; it is a way of trying to demean someone. If the harassment is psychological, the harasser is messing with his victim’s head. If the harassment is sexual, there will be repeated actions. However, sometimes a single unwelcome act may be serious enough to be called harassment. As there is often a power relationship between the harasser and the victim, the victim often feels caught between a rock and a hard place, caught between losing her job and coping with the despicable behaviour.

We must remember what led to the introduction of Bill C-42. Let us remember the grand pronouncements by the Minister of Public Safety.

He said he would fix the problem and introduce a bill to ensure that the RCMP takes care of the problem. As I said, 200 people have brought a sexual harassment class action suit against the RCMP, which did not protect the victims. That is why we need a meaningful bill.

When Commissioner Paulson was appointed, he said that this was a priority.

When I am called to speak to a bill, I like to read it first, which may surprise the Conservatives, who think we do not read the bills. On the contrary, we in the NDP read the bills. Based on some of the questions I hear in this House, it is clear that some people did not read the bill or they would not be asking the questions they are asking.

The preamble says it all. In fact, it lays out what we would expect to see throughout the bill, but we do not see those things anywhere in the provisions. The preamble says:

Whereas

Canadians should have confidence in their national police force;

That goes without saying.

Whereas civilian review is vital to promoting transparency and public accountability of law enforcement;

That goes without saying as well, but these are concepts that the current government is not grasping. I think the government does not have the right definitions for these concepts.

Whereas civilian review should enhance the accountability of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to provincial governments that have entered into arrangements for the use or employment of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police;

Whereas all members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are responsible for the promotion and maintenance of good conduct and are guided by a Code of Conduct that reflects the expectations and values of Canadians;

And whereas the Government of Canada is committed to the provision of a framework that will serve to enhance the accountability of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and support its continued modernization;

A preamble like that augurs very well. Anyone reading it would say, “This is wonderful.” Again, the devil is in the details. A number of provisions in Bill C-42 give a tremendous amount of discretionary power to the commissioner.

My colleague from St. John's East did a good job of illustrating how we are in the process of creating a more powerful hierarchy within the RCMP. We know that the police like to investigate themselves. They would opt to investigate themselves every time, if we let them. However, this is at odds with values of transparency and accountability. It is best to have independent agencies.

With respect to labour relations, certain parts of the bill, namely clauses 2 to 34, indicate how the commissioner can make certain decisions. He would not necessarily make bad decisions, but there is a real danger in having the commissioner make all the decisions. Such provisions do not bode well for transparency. The commissioner would make reports and recommendations at certain committees, but implementation of these recommendations would not necessarily be mandatory.

We noticed serious problems during the debate at second reading. We were confident that the bill would be carefully studied at the Standing Committee on Public Safety. And that does seem to have happened. However, as is always the case for a number of committees, the problem arises when it is time to listen to the advice of anyone other than the government. The Conservatives can never listen carefully or actively, and they always have blinders on.

They are so afraid of leaving just one sentence that they have not penned in a bill, not being able to take full credit, not being able to say that they are the best, and so on, that they prefer to be closed-minded and wilfully blind and pass weak laws that may be challenged and may not achieve the desired results. This attitude is unfortunate and does not solve the problem.

To those who think that women will breathe a sigh of relief today because of Bill C-42 and that women will finally be able to put to rest the issue of harassment, feel respected and believe that there will be transparency and accountability, I say this bill deserves a big fat zero.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that it was actually RCMP Commissioner Paulson who ultimately got the government to take action.

Prior to the commissioner's going public in the form of a public letter, the government did absolutely nothing in terms of recognizing how important it was to, for example, allow the commissioner increased capacity to invoke some sort of disciplinary action against members of the force.

That said, there is no doubt that the bill falls short. I think all of us on the opposition benches, whether Liberal or New Democrat, would say that the bill falls short.

The question I have for the member is this: given the shortcomings of the bill, if this bill were to pass as it is today, does she believe the system would actually be worse than it is today, or does she think that at least in some small part the bill does deal with what Commissioner Paulson was hoping to achieve?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if it does that in some small part, it is really small. I would need quite the magnifying glass to find it.

I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North that Commissioner Paulson—and I am not here to criticize Commissioner Paulson—was appointed at the height of the storm and he made promises. He said he would do things. I will give him all of that. However, the fact that he could delegate some of his powers himself poses a problem.

Just read some of the clauses in Bill C-42 to understand what its limitations are. What will happen when there is no whistle-blower, like the RCMP officer who made this story public and instigated the class action suit? That is often what it takes in these situations. There needs to be a heroine. When you work for a police force, it is not easy to go public and say that you are a victim of sexual harassment. We know that it is such a macho environment and that it has been hard for women to find their place in that environment.

I find that this entire debate on Bill C-42 does not address the underlying issue, which is the pain and suffering of the victims. In short, not enough improvements are being made for us to say that we are taking a step in the right direction with this piece of legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me get this right.

We have heard evidence, overwhelming testimony, even on Tuesday morning—and clearly this member has not read a word of it—from not only the independent chair of the complaints commission but the commissioner himself, who has just laid out a very good and very thorough plan called “Gender and Respect”. The goal is to not only stop harassment and bullying within the RCMP but also to make sure there are more women within the RCMP.

Both of these individuals, as well as countless numbers of law enforcement agencies, have said that in order to do this, we need Bill C-42 passed so that we have a framework and can go ahead with the road map.

Let me ask this member a question. She is willing to stop this bill, stop the ability of the RCMP to end harassment and bullying and to have more women recruited into the RCMP. Is she willing to sacrifice all of that because she has a political agenda? Is that what the member is saying?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate how measured my colleague's speeches are. It seems to me that she did not listen to a word I said or maybe what I said was lost in translation.

On the contrary, measures need to be taken to increase the number of women in the RCMP. However, women wanting to enter these somewhat difficult work settings need reassurance. We need to let them know that we are sending them to work in an environment that is free from every form of harassment. Stories such as what happened over the past few years are not very reassuring at all. And often we only see the tip of the iceberg.

There are some agencies that will come on behalf of the government to say that we must pass Bill C-42. What we are saying is that there were some serious flaws that could have been fixed with a bit of political will. The government shies away from fixing anything if it is the official opposition's idea. That is the problem.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

I would like to remind all hon. members that they ought not refer to whether their colleagues are in or outside the chamber.

Resuming debate.

The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by pointing out that I made a speech on this bill at second reading. In it, I clearly stated my concerns and explained what I felt was missing from the bill.

Now that the bill has been studied in committee, we can see the outcome. We had decided to give the Conservatives a chance, believing that they were perhaps prepared to create a useful bill for the RCMP.

At issue here are the RCMP, accountability, transparency and sexual harassment. We are not discussing a bill about changing the colour of the placemats, but about the RCMP. I was accordingly expecting a degree of openness and a desire to do much more.

The 23 amendments put forward by the Conservatives were mainly grammatical corrections to the French. Is it not rather amateurish for a minister of the Crown to introduce a bill and then have to make so many amendments to correct the grammar? It strikes me that something was really messed up here. It is unacceptable.

It would be understandable if it was a private member’s bill that had to be introduced quickly because the member’s name happened to come up by chance early on, but this bill was introduced by a minister of the Crown who had received assistance from the department and many people, and even so he was unable to submit a grammatically satisfactory product. From the outset, this shows us just how botched it is because it was not worked on enough. It is really not that great.

The focus of the amendments proposed by the NDP was sexual harassment. In the bill as a whole, sexual harassment is mentioned only once, even though this issue was raised many times because of the legal action taken by the women who publicly condemned the fact that they were subjected to sexual harassment. It is a major problem.

If we want our institutions to work properly, then real action is required to deal with sexual harassment. Simply expecting the problem to disappear magically will not do; practical measures are needed.

When I was a member of the military, we received training on sexual harassment from the very beginning of my recruit course. We received such training virtually every year. I cannot remember exactly how many times, but it was fairly often. Soldiers took the issue seriously precisely because some women had spoken out about it at the time. Sexual harassment training and the measures that were introduced can never solve all the problems, of course. Nevertheless, having talked with a number of women who served in the Canadian Forces—veterans who served in the 1970s and 1980s, for example—and having taken training myself, I can tell you that things have changed and that the problem was taken seriously. There is still work to be done, but the situation has vastly improved. It too is a federal institution.

It is therefore important to stop burying our heads in the sand. People say they want more women, but they also have to want them to remain. It makes no sense to launch programs and go to great lengths to encourage women to join the RCMP and our federal institutions unless we are prepared to take steps to ensure that they will stay. It makes no sense at all.

The Conservatives rejected all of the NDP’s amendments, the precise target of which was sexual harassment. This is unacceptable. I believe they did not even look at the amendments as such. They merely looked beside the amendment and decided to oppose it when they saw the letters “NDP”. That is not a responsible attitude. If we really want to improve our legislation and our institutions, especially the RCMP, partisan considerations must be set aside. If some members of this House find it difficult to do that, we should conceal the name of the party submitting the amendment and consider it with a view to providing a logical response, instead of operating in an arbitrary way. This is important in order to improve bills.

We want to avoid having to return three, four, five, six or seven times to a bill on the same subject, namely the RCMP, to make corrections that could have been made at the outset. The government could have put together a very good bill, a complete bill, by showing some openness of mind. However, it decided not to do so. In my view, this is a major problem.

So who pays the price? Women in the RCMP, who will not have access to a legislative system to help and support them. This is not acceptable. For partisan reasons, the government persists in refusing to accept amendments. I am frankly disappointed that the NDP’s amendments were not accepted. It is a pity. What bothers me is the knowledge that it is women in the RCMP who will pay the price.

From my youth, I have always fought for the opportunity to do what I want in life, and never to be limited because I am a woman. I made a career in the military for a few years, and I am proud of it. I would not want other women to decide not to make a career in the RCMP, telling themselves that the situation is intolerable and the government is unable to give them the necessary support. That is not acceptable. In my view, we really should be doing more to protect women and provide them with a safe work environment.

I would like to return to another subject. There has been talk of unionization in the RCMP for over 35 years, but there is no reference to it in the bill. I think that would have been something useful to explore, and it would have enhanced the bill.

Contrary to what the Conservatives believe, unionization comes with many benefits. Usually, unions are dedicated to the welfare of their members. Many social measures have been introduced to workplaces as a result of union lobbying. This bill, however, makes no mention of that. It sweeps it under the rug. Basically, the government is interested in what it is interested in, and that is all, which is a pity. The government could have introduced a solid, comprehensive piece of legislation if it had conducted an in-depth study and been prepared to discuss and accept amendments. The government could have done that for RCMP members. Yet, the government chose not to, which is a terrible pity.

I would also like to briefly turn back to one of the problems with the RCMP: in some cases, it investigates itself. In my opinion, this was a golden opportunity to address the problem. The allegations that women were not taken seriously by the RCMP have recently been the subject of discussion. This is an important issue. The RCMP needs to properly address this issue. Unfortunately, if the RCMP investigates itself, or if an individual investigates himself, the findings may not be worth the paper they are written on.

It is important to understand that the purpose here is not to scold people unnecessarily. When an investigation is launched to determine what has occurred and what went wrong, the goal is not to castigate people and tell them that they are bad or have not done things properly. When a procedure is not followed and there seems to be a problem, the purpose of an investigation is to determine what the problem is, to address it and to find solutions. However, if this process is not followed, the problem will not be solved.

In closing, I believe that more could have been done for women and for RCMP members. It is really a pity that the government has this attitude. When we consider a bill, we must bear in mind that the ultimate objective of important legislation is to make genuine improvements and not to score partisan points.

I believe that something very positive could have been achieved. Unfortunately, the government did not even try to achieve anything with this bill, and that is a great pity.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member intently. I am on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. We did hear from the Commissioner of the RCMP as well as the chair of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, the person vested with investigating the whole issue of harassment in the RCMP.

I encourage all Canadians to look at the evidence presented at the committee, which will show, beyond a shadow of any doubt, that what this side of the House is saying is basically correct. He said that there's no systemic evidence of harassment in the RCMP. The Commissioner of the RCMP said there will be mandatory training for all RCMP officers, and that is his intent. To put it in his words, he has aggressive recruitment targets for additional women on the RCMP. I can say, after 30 years of working with both men and women in the police force, that it is possible for men and women to work together. It is possible for those targets to be met.

The member is saying that she is ideologically opposed to what this side of the House is saying, that no good ideas can come from this side, only that side. We are saying that we are listening to the commissioner and the person who--

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member did not hear the first speech I gave when this bill was at second reading. In it, I explained that this bill was a step in the right direction and that it constituted progress but that it did not go far enough and that other measures were needed. I never said that this bill was just a bad idea and that there was nothing good about it. Rather, I said that it did not go far enough and that we needed to build on it.

Unfortunately, after this bill was examined in committee, the Conservatives refused to go further. That is the problem. The problem is not the initial idea but the fact that this idea is not being transformed into practical measures to address sexual harassment.

The witnesses were not unanimous. In the testimony she gave on October 24, 2012, Yvonne Séguin, the executive director of Groupe d'aide et d'information sur le harcèlement sexuel au travail de la province de Québec, said:

With the 32 years of experience we have, we have found out that when companies do have a clear policy, when employees do know what is acceptable and not acceptable, it makes it much easier for management to deal with the problems.

So, in response to my colleague, I would like to repeat that I never said that the members opposite never have any good ideas. I think that the initial idea was good. However, the government did not take it far enough. The government could have made this bill really great but, unfortunately, did not do so.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that it was RCMP Commissioner Paulson who ultimately led to the government taking action and introducing legislation. I would not give credit to the government for taking action without being prodded by the RCMP, in particular the commissioner, in an open letter to all Canadians. In essence, to quote the CBC in May 2012: “The RCMP's disciplinary process is so bureaucratic and out of date that 'bad apples' end up staying on the force long after they should be thrown out, RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson said in a remarkably frank open letter to Canadians on Monday”.

Given that the very nature of the legislation allows for some additional authority for the commissioner, is it better that we pass the legislation that at least enables the commissioner to have some of that power, which is something the commissioner himself has been asking for, and look at making changes in the future as opposed to trying to kill the legislation outright? We all recognize that there are many shortcomings in this legislation. It could have done more on sexual harassment and so forth, but would the member agree that this is better than absolutely nothing? According to the commissioner, one might draw that conclusion.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot presume to know what the government's intentions are. It is possible that what happened pushed the government to act but that it would have done so anyway, but I do not have any proof of that. I will assume that it was acting out of goodwill and that it truly wanted to improve the RCMP. That is why I do not understand why it did not want to push this further.

I do not accept that something is better than absolutely nothing when it comes to a bill. I do not think that is logical. We cannot pass a bill just because it is better than nothing. It makes no sense. We must create something excellent, that will improve the situation and that we will not have to revise at some point. Voting for something because it is better than nothing makes no sense to me. That is not why I became an MP.

I want us to have excellent bills that go far enough, that are relevant and that we will not have to revise three, four, five, six, seven or eight times. So no, I do not think this is satisfactory.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

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

I would like to begin by saying how important the RCMP and the police in general are to me. My colleague also mentioned this in his speech. When we were young, several of us, including myself, wanted to be police officers. We thought that it was a noble occupation, that genuine conviction was needed to engage in it and that it was a way of dedicating oneself to society. This is part of the process, of the importance that I personally attach to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I therefore have enormous respect for all those people who have served, and I know that my colleague opposite has previously served. I tip my hat to them. As a member of various committees, I have had the opportunity to question and speak with RCMP members. Quite frankly, I must say that I owe them an enormous amount of respect.

The purpose of this bill is to solve certain problems that exist at present time. Although we assert that we admire those individuals and that we believe they are doing a good job, as in any organization, there are always minor problems and matters that must be resolved. In this case, we really want to solve those problems. The initial purpose of this bill was to do precisely that. The NDP supported it at second reading so that we could study it in greater detail. However, we knew from the outset that it was somewhat flawed.

I would like to provide more details on the bill’s deficiencies and the positions that have been taken. The bill in fact addresses the process for dealing with sexual harassment complaints within the RCMP. It was introduced in response to the headline-making scandals. It constitutes a government reaction to this problem. Unfortunately, it appears to have been an improvised reaction, since the government's bill contains numerous flaws. I will elaborate on that later.

With Bill C-42, the government wanted and we wanted to solve existing problems and address instances of misconduct. There were abuses of power, intimidation and harassment. So we wanted to give the commissioner the power to decide what disciplinary measures should be taken in those cases. However, one of the issues with Bill C-42 is that it does not solve the problem and, according to some witnesses, even creates more problems. To answer my Liberal colleague's question, that is why it creates more problems. I will come back to this a little later.

The purpose of Bill C-42 was also to add clauses respecting labour relations and to give the RCMP commissioner the power to appoint and dismiss members at his discretion. We see a problem with that. Also, the bill does not go far enough. Commissioner Paulson stated that current legislation was not enough to retain the public's trust and that serious reforms were needed. That is what led to the introduction of Bill C-42. We knew there were flaws and a problem regarding the public's trust in the system.

Once again I repeat how important it is for me to protect RCMP members, the men and women who are doing an outstanding and necessary job to maintain order in the society we live in. It is important for us as legislators to protect the RCMP. We have the opportunity to do it. We see what the public is calling for and what Commissioner Paulson, in particular, has demanded. The public has spoken, and that is why the government ultimately decided to move forward.

When we look at what has happened and where we are headed, we see that this is not enough. We would like the bill to result in a working environment that is more open, more co-operative and, especially, more respectful of all concerned. It would also benefit the RCMP if we brought in legislation that would achieve greater transparency and a better workplace. That would be good for the public and for the RCMP.

However, the minister has not really done his homework and has not gone far enough in this area, particularly with respect to disciplinary investigation procedures.

Here is what is happening. We are creating a new commission, except that, when we look at and analyze the bill, we see that, in actual fact, the RCMP public complaints commission already exists. However, there is no separation here; by that I mean that we do not have an entirely independent commission. We know that the commission already exists, but once again we are ensuring that police officers will manage police officers, or that RCMP people will manage RCMP people.

This commission has to be independent if we are talking about transparency and something more public. Its members must report to people other than the same people who must manage all this. In my opinion, this is one of the more important factors that has not been addressed in the bill for which we made recommendations.

We also have other restrictions in this area, particularly regarding the new commission's ability to conduct independent investigations. Its findings would serve only as a basis for non-binding recommendations. Consequently, recommendations would be made to the commissioner or to the Minister of Public Safety, but they would not be binding. Once again, we see that the "new commission"—as my colleagues opposite call it—would not be independent and would only issue non-binding recommendations. So ultimately nothing much is changing in this area. This is one of the major problems we had.

The second major point that really troubles me about this bill is that it does not address the problem of sexual harassment within the RCMP. On the other hand, I have sometimes heard it said that, if there is not really any sexual harassment, then it is not a big problem. We have to be honest, open our eyes and take off our rose-coloured glasses. This is a problem, but one not exclusive to the RCMP. We must not necessarily point a finger at it alone. Once again, I restate my enormous respect for the men and women who work at the RCMP.

However, we must protect the women who work for the RCMP. We know that our society is evolving. More and more women are entering the labour market. In some places, people's attitudes have not changed. I am not necessarily saying that this is the case in the RCMP specifically, but there are problems that we wanted to address. We really wanted to tackle this issue, to stop burying our heads in the sand and look at what we can really do to get rid of sexual harassment. Unfortunately, once again, this bill is not the answer.

Justice O'Connor made many recommendations. Fifteen of his 23 recommendations concerned the RCMP. As I mentioned, and I would like to mention again for the benefit of my colleagues, in the beginning we supported this bill. We found that it was indeed a step in the right direction. We wanted to move reasonable proposals to resolve the problems I mentioned a little earlier. We put forward 18 amendments that I find very thoughtful and reasonable.

For example, we wanted to include mandatory harassment training for RCMP members in the RCMP Act. How can anyone be opposed to that? Here again, it is obvious that if we bury our heads in the sand and put on our rose-coloured glasses we can say that harassment does not exist. The government is saying that maybe it does exist, that it problably does, that yes, it does. Now we have to take measures. We in the NDP understand that prevention and education are important. The members on the other side are primarily talking about repression. If we want to eradicate certain societal ills, harassment prevention and education are crucial. Among other things, this is what we are proposing here.

We also asked that a completely independent civilian body be established to review complaints against the RCMP. I think it is obvious that a certain degree of independence is essential. Here again, it is not only for the benefit of the RCMP, but also for the public’s benefit. Both the public and the RCMP would come out ahead.

Our goal in establishing this independent body is to reassure Canadians. Obtaining the public’s trust will help the RCMP directly. We must not forget that the RCMP works closely with the general public. It is important to show some transparency and some sincerity, and let Canadians know that not everything is being done behind closed doors. We know that is how the Conservatives prefer to do things, and unfortunately, it comes through clearly in their bills.

We are aiming for openness and consultation. Let Canadians be part of the process.

Moreover, we want to avoid cases where the police investigate themselves.

This bill does not really address the root of the problem, and one of the things that was really disappointing was that none of the amendments we brought forward, and I mentioned all of them, were accepted. We have a government whose members are not listening and not consulting. Unfortunately, that is why we have a bill that is flawed.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague, and I want him to speak a bit more on something that I find very concerning.

We see a pattern with the Conservatives where they shut down debate; they invoke closure continually. Whenever there is an attempt to be bipartisan in this House, to actually bring forward amendments to correct bills, because there is no such thing as a perfect bill, the Conservatives vote down every amendment every time. They refuse to address them and allow the ability to change and fix bills. What we see here is this attitude of infallibility. At that moment, Canadians have no reason to trust a government that is not willing to listen to the Canadian people.

Could my hon. colleague comment on why the government is so arrogant and so out of touch and why its members believe themselves to be infallible?

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Timmins—James Bay.

Let us not forget that this government is the first in Canadian history to be guilty of contempt of Parliament. That is the essence of this government. Clearly, it does not respect Parliament. It is the first time in Canadian history that a government has been guilty of contempt of Parliament.

Moreover, this government has a majority. It is perhaps trying to make up for the times when it had a minority. It is taking that majority to extremes and ignoring what people have to say.

The recommendations did not necessarily come from the NDP alone. Public servants were consulted. Having served on the Standing Committee on Finance, and now as a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, I know that the recommendations were set aside. I wonder if the government reads them. It scarcely reads them, and when it does so, it is only looking for points to argue.

There is often no reason to reject the amendments proposed, especially when they are reasonable and improve the legislation.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too listened with great interest to my colleague's speech and also to many of the other comments that have been made here today in the House. It is clear, based on some of the comments we heard earlier, that members opposite do not seem to have an appreciation that these are important issues in urban Canada as well. We have produced several amendments that the government dismissed out of hand.

In fact, since I was elected in 2011, I believe the government has not entertained a single amendment from the opposition side. However, it has entertained amendments from the unelected Senate. Would my colleague comment about this inclination toward a lack of democracy on the other side of the House?

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Davenport for his question.

That is a very good point. I had not yet been elected, but I remember that when the House passed Jack Layton’s bill on the environment, it went to the Senate, and the Senate completely killed it despite the fact that elected members had voted in favour of the legislation. I know that Jack and my colleagues did a tremendous amount of work on it. I had not yet been elected, but I found that extraordinary. I watched the vote on CPAC. That was something I did not often do at the time. To me, it showed real open-mindedness and a vision for the future. I was so happy about it. Nevertheless, without even looking at it, without even referring it to committee or studying it, the Senate killed it.

It is not for nothing that people wish to abolish the Senate. It has become such a partisan place. This is to be expected, because senators are appointed by the Prime Minister. We have seen the results this produces. Senators with a somewhat dubious past or dubious positions are not people who will always have good judgment. Some senators are now demonstrating this.

It is too bad that they listen to what senators have to say about bills, but not to the opposition or to witnesses.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this House to speak to this very important bill dealing with the RCMP.

It is important to me and to people in Surrey, British Columbia, because as members may know, Surrey has the largest RCMP detachment in the country. The men and women who work in the RCMP in Surrey do tremendous work to make our communities safe. In fact, I was very proud to have an opportunity to present Diamond Jubilee awards to a current member and a retiree in the last month. I am proud to work with the RCMP on a regular basis and to look at issues that deal with the RCMP on a regular basis.

As the House of Commons, we have a duty to restore public confidence in the RCMP, and we have an opportunity with this bill to do that.

The preamble of the bill states that the goals for this bill are transparency, improving conduct, strengthening the review and complaints body, and dealing with the climate of sexual harassment that exists in the RCMP. Those are all good goals, and we supported these goals at second reading, hoping that we would be able to scrutinize the bill more fully at the committee stage.

However, when we got to the committee, we heard witness after witness pointing out that the bill actually does not address a number of the issues that have been plaguing the RCMP over the last number of years. In fact, for the last six or seven years, the Conservatives have mismanaged this file so badly that the reputation of the RCMP has taken a beating.

Bill C-42 fails to act on any of the recommendations set out by Justice O'Connor in the Maher Arar inquiry that aim to improve the standards of review for the RCMP to meet the needs of Canadians. The bill is supposed to fix years of mismanagement of the RCMP by the Conservatives. The Conservatives presented Bill C-42 as a solution to a dysfunctional RCMP, but it fails to improve any of that.

The bill not only falls short of addressing sexual harassment within the force but also falls short on a number of other areas that the NDP tried to amend in the committee. The NDP put forward a number of amendments meant to ensure that Bill C-42 effectively meets the challenges the RCMP is facing.

Since I was elected in 2011, the NDP has made hundreds, if not thousands, of proposed amendments at the committee stage. I am quite surprised that not one of them has been accepted by the government. One would think that maybe one, two, three or ten would make sense to the government; no. It has consistently rejected all amendments.

Those amendments are based on consultations that happen in the committee. Experts come to the committee and provide expert testimony, but we know the Conservatives do not like to consult. On the aboriginal file, we have seen them fail to consult aboriginal people time after time. This is a similar case.

We had experts at the committee who provided testimony that gave good solutions as to how we could restore confidence in the RCMP. Again the Conservatives failed to take any of the amendments from the NDP. Some of those amendments included adding mandatory harassment training for RCMP members and ensuring a fully independent civilian review body to investigate complaints against the RCMP.

The credibility of the RCMP has taken shots in a number of high-level cases in British Columbia over the last number of years. I have talked to a number of people in my constituency and throughout British Columbia, and I have heard people on the radio as well talking about having a civilian body to investigate the RCMP. Throughout this country, Canadians have been calling for an investigative body that is independent of the RCMP.

Again, the Conservatives had an opportunity with this bill to put the RCMP on the right path and restore the confidence of the people of this country in the RCMP. However, they failed to do that. The bill before us does not address any of that.

Another of the amendments we proposed was to add a provision to create a national civilian investigation body that would avoid having police investigating police. Again, the Conservatives chose not to accept it.

We also offered to create a more balanced human resource policy by removing some of the draconian powers proposed for the RCMP commissioner and by strengthening the external review committee in cases involving possible dismissal from the force.

I would point out again that we saw the deterioration start under the Liberal government, and it has continued under the Conservative government.

The Liberals did not even offer any amendments at the committee stage. We offered 18 amendments, but not one of them was accepted by the Conservative government. The Conservatives voted down every single one of the amendments, ignoring many recommendations made by witnesses at the committee. Witness after witness explained that legislation alone will not foster a more open and respectful workplace for all.

We need to see an ongoing effort from the RCMP and the government to modernize the RCMP. However, Bill C-42 lacks the transparency and accountability necessary for that change. The bill does not go far enough in directly addressing the concerns of women serving in the RCMP, who are calling for urgent action to foster a more inclusive and safe environment for women in the RCMP. As well, the bill has been introduced without the benefit of the findings of the internal gender audit of the RCMP ordered by the commissioner, which is currently under way but not yet completed.

The Conservative approach does not make women in the RCMP a priority, which is necessary if we want to deal with the problem of harassment in the RCMP. My concern is that over and over we see the government attempt to gloss over the real issues within the RCMP and implement quick fixes instead of actually looking at the root causes of the problems and addressing them. Again, the Conservatives had an opportunity to do that; we in this House owe it to Canadians to address these issues, but the Conservatives have fallen flat on that.

The scope of sexual harassment in the RCMP is massive. We have seen a number of women come forward to talk publicly about harassment in the RCMP, and there are currently lawsuits in front of the courts. We had an opportunity to address this problem, but again the Conservatives have failed.

To conclude, I stress that in my community of Surrey and in communities across this country, crime and violence are a reality. Many shootings have occurred in the greater Vancouver region in broad daylight. However, instead of investing in crime prevention programs, the Conservative government is actually making it harder for the RCMP to do its job. Our job is to help the RCMP, give its members tools and resources, and invest in our forces.

The Conservatives had an opportunity to improve the reputation of the RCMP. We must get to the root cause of the internal cultural problem of sexual harassment in the RCMP, and we need to finally have binding independent civilian oversight so that we can deal with the real issues of accountability and transparency and ultimately restore public confidence in our force.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand to speak to Bill C-42, an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act., an issue that is not only of importance to all members in the House, but is of great interest to the public at large, from coast to coast.

To put this in context, I want to pick up on some of the themes that were mentioned by my hon. colleague from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, who gave one of the most thoughtful speeches on this subject, or any subject that I have heard in the House in years. What he touched upon, and what is important, was the special relationship that Canadians have with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I do not think there is a more memorable symbol of our country around the world than the iconic Royal Canadian Mounted Police figure. It has played a pivotal role in the history and development of Canada and is responsible for delivering police and community safety services in communities across our country.

This long storied history is not uncheckered. Like any organization, it has not been perfect. It has had its challenges in the past and it has its challenges today.

The job that we call upon of our RCMP women and men across the country to do is one that is of utmost importance to Canadians. It is one of the most challenging and difficult ones that exists. We expect these men and women to answer calls in the middle of the night, often alone, and to be first responders at times of crisis, tragedy and emergency. We expect them to be the first people on the scene of an accident to deal with death and injury. We expect them to put their lives on the line in defending our communities and keeping people safe. For that, all members of the House join together in expressing our deep gratitude and respect for the men and women of the RCMP.

At the same time, the RCMP is an organization that is facing some serious challenges. Is it possible in 2013 to create a national police force that has a proper civilian oversight structure? Is it possible to construct a labour relations framework that not only gives management the tools it needs to ensure there is an appropriate standard of conduct for the staff that work under it, as well as a fair structure for the men and women to ensure they have access to justice and are treated fairly and equitably? Is it possible to expect that we can have a national organization that can deal promptly, swiftly, fairly and adequately with important issues like sexual harassment? Is it possible to have a modern-day police force that meets the expectations of Canadians? I think all members of the New Democratic Party say, absolutely, we can do that and in fact we should do that.

Bill C-42 is the Conservative government's response to long-standing claims of sexual harassment in the RCMP and to some difficult scandals that have made headlines as a result of problems with the disciplinary process and, if we are honest, lenient disciplinary measures handed out to officers accused of serious misconduct.

Bill C-42 proposes to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act in three main areas. First, it adds new provisions to the labour relations clauses and gives the RCMP commissioner the power to appoint and dismiss members as he or she sees fit. Second, it seeks to reform discipline, grievance and human resource management processes for members. Last, it seeks to reform the former Royal Canadian Mounted Police Public Complaints Commission by establishing a “new” civilian complaints commission and implement a new framework to handle investigations of serious incidents involving members.

Because of the immense respect we have for the RCMP, we can talk about some of these challenges. We have had cases of deaths occurring in custody. In my home province of British Columbia, some very serious questions were raised about the conduct of RCMP officers when civilians died while in the hands of the police. Over 200 women have joined a class action lawsuit alleging sexual harassment against members of the RCMP and making the more disturbing allegation of a widespread, well-entrenched system of gender harassment within that structure.

Bill C-42 reiterates many of the provisions of Bill C-38 from the 40th Parliament. At that time, the NDP criticized that bill for not going far enough in dealing with these very important issues. A very significant difference from the former Bill C-38 and the present Bill C-42 before the House today is silence on the issue of unionization of the RCMP. I would like to start there for a moment.

There has already been a court decision that has struck down the labour relations structure in the RCMP as being unconstitutional. As I said when I was public safety critic, the RCMP is the only police force in the country that does not have the right to have its men and women freely choose their bargain representative and engage in free collective bargaining. It is a national embarrassment. It is also unjust to the men and women who all members of the House claim to support and respect. If we truly respect the men and women we send into dangerous situations, should we not also respect their ability to decide who will bargain the terms and conditions of their work and raise concerns as any other group in the country is free to do? I think we do.

It is not acceptable that to this day the government has not replaced the bargaining structure in the RCMP with a free collective bargaining structure that respects norms, a bargaining structure that not only every worker in the country expects but that is contained in international treaties to which Canada is signatory. The main reason we oppose the bill is that it refuses to deal with this very important issue.

When we talk about sexual harassment, as my friend from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek so eloquently pointed out, one of the many workplace issues that organized labour has worked toward in the county and has helped improve is the situation of harassment in the workplace, including sexual harassment. It is only by changing workplace culture and the attitudes not only of management but of the men and women who are in a bargaining unit or performing labour that we can make meaningful progress.

The fact that the government has failed to act as the court has directed it to—that being to replace the unconstitutional labour relations structure with one that actually conforms to our law and the legitimate desires of the men and women in the RCMP—is a contributing factor to the poisoned context and situation that occurs in many RCMP detachments across the country.

The NDP supported the intention of Bill C-42 to modernize the RCMP and address issues such as sexual harassment in the force and voted for the bill to move to committee because we believed that it was important to work with the government to bring in effective legislation. We made that good-faith attempt.

The New Democrats members on the committee proposed 18 amendments to help strengthen the bill and make it conform to not only the necessities of good legislation but also the dictates of previous commissions and the requests of very informed respected people who were knowledgeable about the RCMP, such as former RCMP complaints commissioner Paul Kennedy, groups such as the Supreme Court of Canada and people like Justice O'Connor, who made recommendations in the aftermath of the Arar inquiry as to how the RCMP could improve its standards. These are eminent non-partisan people who have made a number of deeply thoughtful suggestions as to how we can modernize and improve the RCMP. The NDP wanted to help build that legislation.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives rejected every one of those 18 amendments. For Canadians watching, this is a common daily occurrence in the chamber.

I have been in the chamber long enough to know that no party has a monopoly on good ideas. Sometimes they come from the right, sometimes from the left and sometimes from the centre. However, the Conservatives have an unprecedented fashion, governed by rejecting virtually every idea that comes from any other part of this chamber, because they are hyperpartisan and extreme.

We hear the hon. members clapping when they are called extreme. I will leave it for Canadians to judge the thinking that goes behind that.

I want to point out, as well, that the bill fails to directly address the issue of sexual harassment in the force. It fails to bring a civilian oversight body that is truly independent. It fails to deal with the unionization requirements of the workforce. It also fails to put in an adequate system that would deal with sexual harassment.

The New Democrats remain ready and willing to work with the government to fix those problems and we urge it to do so. The men and women of the RCMP and the public deserve to have a modern RCMP that upholds the finest traditions of this force and makes it prepared for the century ahead.

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

Mr. Speaker, is my hon. colleague aware of some of the amendments that his colleagues put forward during committee? One of them was to change the short title of the bill, which really had absolutely no purpose. Therefore, we defeated that one as it was not a good amendment.

Another proposed amendment shows that the NDP is not ready to govern because it does not know legislation and how it works. The NDP wanted to use word “harassment” within the legislation. We argued, and the Liberals agreed with us, that we did not put specific words in legislation like that. We give the RCMP the ability to deal with all kinds of inappropriate behaviour.

Ian McPhail just came forward with the report that stated harassment was not the number one problem in the RCMP, that it was actually bullying. The members on that side are strangely silent on that issue right now, which is smart. The bill would give the RCMP the ability to modernize the discipline process to deal with not only harassment but bullying and other inappropriate behaviour. It would give it the ability to have an absolutely independent civilian oversight body, as well as a number of other things for which the commissioner and the chair of the complaints commission asked.

The NDP members are down to process arguments. That is all they have left. They did not get their poorly written amendments passed, so they will not support the bill.

Is that what the member really thinks is going—

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, some of the amendments that the NDP proposed dealt with adding mandatory harassment training for RCMP members, specifically in the RCMP Act.

When we have a national scandal going where 200 women have launched a class action lawsuit alleging sexual harassment in the workplace, does one not think that putting mandatory harassment training in a bill dealing with the RCMP would be logical response? The New Democrats did. That is not procedure; that is substance.

The NDP proposed to ensure a fully independent civilian review body to investigate complaints against the RCMP. The number one problem with oversight of police forces in our country is that it allows, and the bill would still allow, police to investigate police. If we ask Canadians if they think it is a truly independent process to have police investigate police, even a different police force, they will tell us no.

Finally, the NDP asked for an amendment to create a national civilian investigative body that would be fully independent and could actually initiate investigations on its own and that would not have to report to the minister to avoid partisan political interference.

There are the kinds of substantive amendments the NDP put forward.

I might add that we will take no lessons from the Liberals, who put in zero amendments and who were in government for much of the last 30 years and did absolutely nothing to modernize these problems within the RCMP.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it distressing that the Conservatives are attempting to diminish the effect of sexual harassment on the 200 and some women by saying that it is merely a case of bullying. The RCMP commissioner, Robert Paulson, said, “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 commissioner of the RCMP understands that it is an issue of harassment.

What does hon. colleague think about the Conservatives attempting to say that this is just some minor schoolyard bullying and not harassment? It is very different terms.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. If we just stop and think for a moment, in 2013 I think Canadians expect that when men and women walk through the workplace door, they do not check their rights. When they walk through the workplace door, they expect to be treated professionally. They expect to have their civil rights respected. They expect to not have other co-workers be allowed to intimidate them, to demand sexual services, to suggest sexual services, to make fun of them, to have any kind of treatment or words or conduct that demeans their dignity as workers. We expect the people in the RCMP to uphold the law.

Here is the difference between the NDP and the Conservatives. The NDP believes RCMP officers should also have the benefit of the law. In this country, sexual harassment and bullying, and I do not make any real distinction between those two things, are both offensive and unacceptable. For the Conservative member to suggest, and she sits on the public safety committee, that somehow or other bullying is somehow a less serious form of workplace treatment than harassment shows the depth of misunderstanding that the government has and why the bill is so flawed.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is a great honour to stand in the House and represent the people of Timmins—James Bay and to speak on the issue of reforming the RCMP, which is a very serious issue.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Oh, oh!

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I see the member for Kenora is attempting to shut down my ability to speak, but he should realize this is not grade 6; I am actually here to speak.

In my region in terms of police issues, we see the Nishnawbe-Aski Police underfunding and the post-traumatic stress that is being faced by front-line officers. Our officers and our citizens expect that the people we put on the front lines will have the benefit of a secure work environment. That is a fundamental for them to have a secure work environment so that they can go out and create safety in our communities. Whether or not it is the Nishnawbe-Aski Police who in northern Ontario are dramatically underfunded and are servicing communities without backup, without proper radios in their detachments and with jail cells that are often in third world conditions, they put themselves above and beyond time and time again.

We look at the RCMP, which is perhaps one of the most famous symbols of Canada. As Canadians, we do not often brag about our history. We think our history is boring, but there is something to be said about the fact that we have a tradition in this country where we had a system of law and order. The Dakota Sioux talked about crossing the famous medicine line that was the 49th parallel; it was to go from lawlessness to the idea of the rule of law. That was because of our North West Mounted Police at the time.

Canadians, whatever their political stripes, whatever region of the country they are from, are invested in the RCMP. We all agree it has been very distressing that we have a very troubled force—the undermining of the force, the issues of harassment and the issues of leadership.

The bill purports to address the issues of harassment at the RCMP, where we have an unprecedented case of 200 women police officers who came forward in a class action lawsuit over the issue of harassment, which is intimidation, threats, the demand for sexual services that is completely unacceptable. It is a culture that has gone on far too long. I would like to quote Robert Paulson, the RCMP commissioner, who agrees on the need for this reform. “It's the culture of the organization that has not kept pace”, he said.

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....

I've said it publicly, and I'll say it again. I think the problem is much bigger than simply 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.

How do we address this poison that has affected and undermined our national police force? We were hoping we would be able to work with the Conservatives on bringing forward legislation that would get to the core of the problem and snuff this problem out once and for all. Unfortunately, once again we have a government that believes it is above democracy, that does not accept amendments, that does not accept debate. We have a government that is unprecedented in its use of shutting down debate in the House of Commons, of shutting down organizations like the round table on sustainable environment and the economy.

Conservatives are very threatened by anything that challenges them. It is a level of anger and paranoia. I have never seen such sore winners in my whole life. It is disturbing because the idea of democracy is that Canadians send us to the House of Commons to work together, and the muttering and the anger I see on the other side is reflective of very defensive and insecure people who are afraid to actually get to the bottom of the issue.

The New Democrats brought forward a number of good-faith recommendations, and some of those recommendations are key to addressing this, one of which is to address the issue of harassment. That is what the bill is about, but the government does not want to say it. The other is the need to establish a civilian oversight board. If we ask any Canadians how they ensure police services are accountable, they would say we should have an independent civilian board.

Unfortunately, what we see with the government is the idea that it will just give the RCMP commissioner the power to fire someone he feels has broken the rules.

It is important to move the process along for dealing with people who perpetrate harassment, but we also recognize the need, again through civilian independent review, to be able to look at the whole instance. It is not just about holding people accountable, but it is about ensuring that officers are actually able to have the right to due process.

This is a government that refuses to recognize the desire of the RCMP to put in place a members' union so that they could be protected and so that there is a balancing act.

Let us look at what the Canadian Police Association has said about this bill. Mr. Tom Stamatakis 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.

Again, it is unbalanced. The government is not looking at what other police services do. One would think that the government would actually listen and look at other areas that work, but the government is very paranoid and actually seems to believe it is infallible. It does not look to other services; it just ignores them. It is ignoring the president of the Canadian Police Association.

The Canadian Association of Police Boards president, Dr. Alok Mukherjee, said:

We...share the concerns that have been expressed...about...the...provisions of the bill. We fear that they could undermine true, effective oversight.

The Canadian Association of Police Boards opposes the government's plans.

Mr. Ian McPhail, who is the interim chair of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the Royal Canadian Mounted Police says:

The credibility of any civilian review process will be lost if the agency subject to review is in a position to control when investigation may or may not occur.

These are serious objections. They are not frivolous. If we had a sense of working for the common good in this House of Commons, we could have fixed the problems in this bill. We could have ensured that this bill had the power to deal with the issue of harassment, that we had a civilian oversight board, and that we had started to put in place the mandatory harassment training. It is needed in that organization. When there are 200 officers coming forward in a class action law suit, it is needed.

In terms of restoring the trust of Canadians, in terms of addressing the legitimization crisis, especially now with the allegations of potential sexual crimes on the trail of tears, Canadians need to know that if they bring forward allegations they will be investigated, they will be investigated fairly and independently. That is not what this bill does.

This bill actually creates another cone of protection around the leadership in the RCMP and, by extension, the government in that they would be able to limit the reviews, fire the troublemakers and not address the fundamental problems.

As parliamentarians we need to realize that this is not just about the attack notes that come out of the PMO on any given day. This is about saying there is a long-term systemic problem; it has been identified; it is undermining the officers and the communities they represent; and it is incumbent upon this House to begin to address this.

Let us look at some of the amendments that were turned down: adding mandatory harassment training for RCMP members, specifically to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act; ensuring a fully independent civilian review board to investigate complaints against the RCMP; adding a provision to create a national civilian investigative body that would avoid police investigating police; and the issue of creating more balanced human resource policies by removing some of the draconian powers that actually exist with the RCMP commissioner now.

This is not about a witch hunt. This is about ensuring that the RCMP officers, male and female, who go into their workplace and put their lives on the line in community after community across this country, can do so in an environment where they can be safe, free from intimidation, free from sexual threat, and at the end of the day that they can be promoted based on their merit, not on their sex.

Unfortunately, the government ignored every single amendment, just as it has done with every attempt in this House to move forward legislation. It refuses to work with anyone else. It believes itself infallible. Once again, it is showing the error of its way, and we have a bill that will not address the fundamental problem, which is the harassment in the RCMP.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out, before I ask the member opposite a question, that Ian McPhail of the independent RCMP complaints commission did appear before the status of women committee last week. He specifically said that the commission found, through surveys and investigation, that the problem of harassment and sexual harassment is not in fact systemic.

However, that is not to say that there are not very important issues that need to be addressed, and I want the member opposite to know that they are being addressed. In fact, today at committee, E division deputy commissioner Callens appeared to talk about the work it is doing.

I would like to ask the member opposite specifically if he agrees that establishing a civilian complaints body under Bill C-42 would help the problem. Why does he think that harassment and sexual harassment need to be detailed specifically, when Bill C-42 addresses the entire problem of all of these issues?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I refer my hon. colleague back to the words of the RCMP commissioner himself, who said that the problem was harassment and that this was the culture in the RCMP. He said that.

Now we hear, “Oh, it's not systemic”. Earlier we heard the Conservatives say, “Well, it's not harassment; it's just bullying”, as though we can somehow diminish the issue of sexual intimidation, threats and violence against workers with “it's bullying” or “it's not systemic”.

Well, if it was not systemic, then there would not be 200 police officers coming forward in a class action law suit.

Again, this is the kind of bubble the Conservatives live in. They believe that if they ignore the issues, if they shout down the opposition, that it will all just go away. This is what has created the rot and undermined one of the greatest police services in the world.

We need to get to the bottom of this and we need to deal with the issue of harassment, just as the RCMP commissioner has called on us to do.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, a while ago there was a justice bill going through this House, and our hon. learned colleague for Mount Royal proposed about eight to ten amendments. Every single one of those amendments was refused at committee, absolutely refused. However, when the bill came to third reading here in the House of Commons, the government realized it should have taken those amendments. The bill then went to the Senate, where a senator introduced almost the exact same amendments to the bill.

The NDP proposed some very proper and straightforward amendments to Bill C-42 that would fix the bill and address some of the concerns that my hon. colleague has outlined. Again, in typical Conservative Party fashion, the Conservatives refused any of the amendments, which is a huge mistake.

I would like my hon. colleague to comment on that, please.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think that example is excellent, because it shows how ridiculous government looks when it believes it is infallible, when good amendments are brought forward.

Every member in this House has a right to bring forward amendments, because we are here to work for the common good. However, the government shuts down everything and sees it as a personal threat. I see this in debate after debate on bill after bill.

However, when the Conservatives realize that they have created a really bad bill because they have been blocking their ears and not listening to reality, often they will just pass it and not care. Sometimes they have to rely on the Senate—the unelected, unaccountable Senate that is under massive investigation right now. The Conservatives do not mind going to the perps in the Senate, but they will not listen to the democratically elected members of this House.

That shows us that this government is fundamentally afraid of accountability and democracy.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to discuss concerns about Bill C-42.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with government members or anybody introducing legislation for better transparency, better accountability or better working arrangements within any department. The unfortunate part is that Bill C-42 would leave out many issues.

I have been following the RCMP and have been a fan for many years. I have been following careers and have tried, through my Veterans Affairs advocacy, to ensure that veterans of the RCMP receive the benefits they so rightly deserve.

Let us go back to how some of these things have happened. It was the current government that appointed, for the first time in my memory, a civilian to be the commissioner of the RCMP. If the Conservatives had tried to do that to the military and make a civilian the CDS, there would have been a riot and an uproar. For whatever reason, they thought it was okay that a civilian, Mr. Elliott, could look after the RCMP. Right away we could see that the rank and file RCMP members across the country were really upset. Many of them in my own riding were upset. They said that was not the way to go.

Young people join Depot and do the training and put on the yellow stripe. Probably the proudest day in many of these young men and women's lives is to wear the red serge. Maybe someone has ambitions and wishes to grow within the RCMP and maybe one day be the commissioner of the RCMP. Basically, the Conservatives said, “Don't worry about it. We're going to hire one of our friends and make him or her the commissioner of the RCMP”. That was such a wrong thing to do. It is nothing against Mr. Elliott personally. It is just that he never wore the uniform. I honestly believe that the only person who should be the commissioner of the RCMP or the CDS of the military should be someone who has actually worn the uniform at one time. That is my personal belief.

Only the Conservatives can do this. The RCMP has an organization called the Pay Council, which negotiates with government its pay and benefits for future years. In 2009, after many months of negotiation, they negotiated a 3.5% increase, which was fair in 2009. That was negotiated between the Government of Canada and the Pay Council of the RCMP. It was an agreement. On December 23, in the afternoon, an email went out from the minister's office saying that the 3.5% they had negotiated was completely off the board now and that they were getting 1.5%, end of story. It was just before Christmas. It was the Conservatives who did that, not the NDP, not the Liberals, not the Bloc, not the Greens, and not the independents. The Conservatives did that. Just before Christmas, they rolled back the pay increases of RCMP members without consultation. Just like that, it was done. Mr. Elliott said that there was nothing we could do at that time.

Also, on the desk of the former public safety minister, Mr. Stockwell Day, there was a long-standing request for members of the RCMP and their families to have access to the VIP, the veterans independence program, which is a great program for those in the military who receive it, although many of them do not. It allows members of the military and their families to stay in their homes longer as they age and require help with groundskeeping and housekeeping services. RCMP veterans have been asking for the same program for many years. What did they get from the Conservatives? They said no, even though it has been a request on the desk for many years.

The third factor in the abuse of RCMP veterans is that recently the government had to be taken to court to settle the SISIP clawback. These are pain and suffering payments. They came back. That ended up costing taxpayers $880 million, $150 million of which was interest and legal fees, which never would have had to be paid if the government had only listened in 2003, 2005, 2006 and 2007. Especially in 2007, before the legal proceedings started, the government could have saved an awful lot of money and a lot of aggravation on the SISIP clawback. The veterans won their case, and now those cheques will eventually be going out. We are glad that it has happened.

Did the Conservatives learn from that mistake? No. What have they done now? About 1,000 disabled RCMP veterans in the country have a lawsuit against the government on literally the exact same thing, a clawback of pain and suffering payments from their superannuation. Did the Conservatives learn from the expensive SISIP clawback legalities they went through after five years of litigation? No. Their answer is, “Take us to court”.

Given these three examples of the Conservatives' attitude toward the men and women of the RCMP, RCMP veterans and their families, it is no wonder that we on this side of the House distrust them when they bring forward legislation that is faulty at best.

We agree with the fact that there are certain elements of the RCMP that need changing, internally and structurally. We understand that, and we are willing to work with the government to see that it happens.

When my colleagues introduced amendments at the committee stage to improve the legislation, with very little discussion, the response from Conservatives was, “No, we are not accepting any opposition amendments. It is our way or the highway”.

As I said before, the justice committee was doing a justice bill. My hon. colleague from Mount Royal introduced some very relevant and important amendments that would have strengthened the bill and made it constitutionally legal in many ways. He is one of the finest human rights people in the entire world. He is one of the most respected people I know. He does not do things on the fly or willy-nilly. He is a thoughtful and intelligent person. He introduced amendments, and the Conservatives said, “No, we're not going to do it”.

It got to third reading, when amendments cannot be introduced, and all of a sudden, the government realized that maybe it should have listened to him. The bill went to the Senate, where a senator introduced amendments that were almost word for word the amendments the hon. member for Mount Royal introduced at the committee. It is incredible. What level of arrogance does the government have when it thinks that nobody in the opposition has an idea that may improve something it is bringing forward? It is incredible.

I have said for many years that it took the Liberals a long time to develop that arrogance. The Conservatives developed it very quickly, and I do not know why. Individual members of the Conservative Party are very good people. I do not know why they think they are the only ones who have all the answers. Many people came before committee and brought forward amendments that we in the opposition took from them to give the government. The answer was no.

The three examples I have given show exactly how the government treats RCMP members and their families. It is no wonder there is distrust. It is no wonder the morale among some members of the RCMP is really low.

I have been helping a veteran RCMP member for many years with his case with DVA. He lives in my riding. He said the proudest day of his life was when he put the red serge on at Depot. It was the proudest day of his life. He said the happiest day of his life was when he took it off. What did the RCMP or the government at the time do to make him so upset with the organization he had been willing to live and die for?

We in the NDP want to tell the government that we understand what it is trying to do. We are willing to work with it in this regard. It is going to have to bend to make this bill an awful lot better. If it is not willing to do that, then obviously, we are going to have to oppose this legislation.

I say, in closing, that the men and women who serve the RCMP have unlimited liability. We in government or in the opposition have the ultimate responsibility to see that their needs and their families' needs are met.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the member is aware, I am retired from the RCMP. I am very proud of the RCMP and am happy to wear the red serge today. I would strongly suggest to the hon. member that the retired RCMP member he was speaking of probably has a pension and was happy to receive that.

Beyond that and the other things the member said, I think the RCMP has served our country very well for 140 years and continues to serve its members as best it can. Bill C-42 just extends an opportunity for what the commissioners of the RCMP want, whether it be the first one, MacLeod, or Paulson, and that is the power to do something within the organization that since 1873 it has not been able to do. I would like to hear one thing from the other side that shows that the commissioner has had the power, because he has not.

Bill C-42 is at least a start down the road. Commissioner Paulson has been very clear that he wants to eliminate the problems within the RCMP. Does the member believe that Bill C-42 is at least a good start for the Commissioner of the RCMP?

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his service. The reality is that the gentleman I spoke to was very proud of his RCMP service. What he is not proud of is the way the government is handling his pension benefits affairs when he is fighting with DVA. That is what he is angry about.

We just want to ensure that the office of the commissioner does not have over-extenuating powers and that when the men and women of the RCMP have grievances or concerns that they are able to have them addressed properly. We agree that Bill C-42 was a discussion point to open up concerns within the RCMP.

I throw the question back to my hon. colleague. Why would his government not accept any amendments that came from experts, which were passed on to us and that we passed on to the government? Why is it that he, on behalf of his government, thinks that only they have the answers when it comes to the RCMP, when the fact is that we were trying to assist and help improve Bill C-42?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the issue of sexual harassment in the RCMP is an issue the Liberals have been talking about for the last number of years. In May 2012, Commissioner Paulson came forward with a public letter about how important it was that there be more authority for the commissioner to have the capacity to deal with disciplinary action. The sexual harassment issue is one of the things that really stirred that pot.

Bill C-42 has many shortcomings. We probably both would agree on the fact that it could have done a lot more in terms of making the bill better legislation. I agree with that. I agree with his comments, especially when he talked about trying to get amendments through with this government.

Does he see any merit whatsoever in Bill C-42? Does the bill improve the system at all?

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, as with most bills, there are always certain elements that move the discussion forward, possibly in a proactive way. The unfortunate part is that we have to take the bill in its entirety. The reality is that we cannot just pick a bill and say that one part is good and the rest is not. It is sort of like a budget. There are thousands of things in it. One thing is good and the rest is bad.

The unfortunate part is that Bill C-42 has many flaws. I am not sure if they are going to be supporting the legislation, but I encourage my hon. colleague to rethink the bill, because it could be greatly improved, and we have some suggestions for how to do that.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore for the tone and content of his remarks. I think he has summarized our objections to the bill in a very comprehensive way, from the heart and out of principle.

Given the nature and subject matter of the bill, I also want to recognize and pay tribute to my colleagues from London—Fanshawe, Churchill, Halifax, and the many others who are volunteering to be recognized today, with the notable exception of the member for Kings—Hants, for the contributions they have made to this important subject matter, which includes not only the serious issue of sexual harassment in the workplace but also the issue of restoring confidence and pride in our national police force, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

For whatever reason, we know that the image of the RCMP has suffered in recent years as a result of unresolved allegations, investigations and complaints regarding the operations and functions of that workplace in the context of harassment and in the broader context of bullying, a word that has come up a number of times in comments by learned members in the House. Bullying has almost become a motif or theme throughout a great deal of the objections we have heard, and I think we cannot separate the two.

I am also proud of the opposition day motion that my colleague put forward, the motion regarding an anti-bullying policy or strategy for this country. It is a shame that the anti-bullying initiative was turned down, because the issue we are dealing with today could be quite appropriately dealt with in the context of that anti-bullying legislation.

The reason I wanted to compliment my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore is that he got to the root of the problem, which is that it is actually too late to be debating the merits of the bill now that it is at third reading.

We tried to amend the bill at committee stage. We supported the bill at second reading in the hopeful belief that there was an intention of co-operation by the government side members to accommodate some of the legitimate concerns we brought forward. The theme of the speech by my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore was with respect to an arrogance in this place, the likes of which we have never seen in the government, as it has refused to allow a single amendment to a single piece of legislation in the entire 41st Parliament.

I was a member of Parliament during the majority Liberal government. We were a small party, about the size the Liberals are now, and almost as irrelevant as the Liberals are now. However, we did have one member on each committee, just as the Liberals have now. I can say without any fear of contradiction that during the Liberal majority years, my colleagues and I used to get amendments through on pieces of legislation at committee. That is only reasonable, because in a Westminster parliamentary democracy there is an obligation on the ruling party to accommodate some of the legitimate issues brought forward by the majority of Canadians who did not vote for the majority party.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order. I must interrupt the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre at this point. He will have six minutes remaining when the matter returns before the House.

The House resumed consideration of the motion 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.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to speak to Bill C-42 at second reading. At the time, I began my speech by talking about the scandals that the RCMP has been involved in. Sad revelations about police officers in northern British Columbia add to the many cases of misconduct and show the urgent need to take action and ensure that these police officers are quickly identified and removed from the force.

However, this is impossible to do given the existing culture within the RCMP. That is the origin of the principles of Bill C-42, which, I would like to remind hon. members, are designed to punish or fire more quickly members who are accused of violating the standards and laws that they are supposed to uphold and who cause significant harm to the organization's image. These are the words that I used in my speech at second reading.

When he was appointed, Commissioner Paulson said that he was aware that harassment exists within the RCMP and that this was unfortunately not a new thing. He added that mindsets must change and that these behaviours must not be tolerated. That is why I am talking about culture.

When Mr. Paulson was appointed, he said: “First on my plate will be addressing the issue of harassment and sexual harassment in the workplace.”

On this side of the House, we think it is too bad that the recommendations from the 2007 Brown report, which we did not really talk about, were not more fully incorporated into the spirit of the bill.

Mr. Brown clearly identified the importance of focusing on changing the organization's culture. These recommendations were diluted quite a bit and most of them were simply ignored in committee.

In his task force's report, David Brown indicated that the RCMP is not just another department. He said:

In many ways, the RCMP's approach to governance has been based on a model and style of policing developed from—and for—another era... [N]one of these changes will be sustainable without the fundamental changes to structure that we are proposing.

Theses are David Brown's own words. They bear repeating here.

To some extent, that is why the NDP wanted to study this bill in committee. We supported the bill at second reading. We reached out to the Conservative government by mentioning that we were going to propose several amendments that would improve the bill. The Conservative government was apparently not receptive to our overture because every one of the amendments we suggested to improve the bill, which we felt was inadequate, was rejected.

The committee made an effort to hear from those who would be affected—the experts and the women alike. It did hear from a number of these experts, and a number of the people affected, including those at the RCMP.

Bills are important, but they must be well crafted and do what we want them to. The government did not create all the tools it needs to properly and effectively achieve its goal. It rejected most of the Brown report recommendations; it refused to hold a public hearing; and it introduced this bill without waiting for a number of important reports, such as the review ordered by the new commissioner on relations between men and women and the role of women in the RCMP, or the conclusions of the independent inquiry on workplace harassment being conducted by the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP.

When the bill was tabled, the two reports had not yet been completed. They have been completed since then, but their recommendations were not included in the bill.

I therefore wonder whether this can really be a serious exercise by a government that claims to listen to what people have to say about a bill in committee, a government that in the end refuses to seriously consider any of the amendments and recommendations that have been proposed.

In committee, most of the testimony from those affected indicated that the bill did not go far enough, in terms of the nature and scope of changes to the structure and organization of the RCMP, to really effect a significant change in the culture. One such witness was Darryl Plecas, Royal Canadian Mounted Police Research Chair and Director of the Centre for Criminal Justice Research, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University College of the Fraser Valley, who was rather hard on the organization:

Again, if there is one thing that's glaring about cases historically it's that there has been a never-ending effort in the past to minimize the seriousness of offences through the way in which they're dealt with, and to minimize them again through the kinds of penalties that are handed out. I don't think any reasonable outsider could look at the penalties that are awarded and think for a second that they in any way reflect what should be given as a disposition to anyone, let alone a police officer.

I will quote Mr. Plecas once more, because his remarks were instrumental in the NDP's decision to oppose this bill at third reading. He said:

What would be the process to ensure there is a proper and independent vetting of that so that cases can't be scaled down when they more properly ought to be dealt with in a formal manner?

When one considers—or at least we found—it's the entire spectrum of code of conduct cases, hopefully those regulations would be such that they would provide some assurances to any outside observer that every case is being given full consideration.

Maybe I'm missing something in the proposed changes, but I'm not sure that's happening or could happen with what's in there right now.

As I said, the NDP tried to move amendments to the bill in order to improve it and tried to work with the government to ensure that the bill addresses the concerns of Quebeckers and Canadians.

However, the Conservatives rejected all the NDP's amendments without any discussion. They seem to think that the Commissioner of the RCMP should have absolute control of the RCMP, and that is why they oppose a more balanced approach to the issues of dismissal, independent oversight and harassment training.

One of the amendments rejected by the Conservatives in committee was adding mandatory harassment training for RCMP members to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act. Another amendment would have ensured the independence of the body that will investigate RCMP complaints. Yet another asked for a provision to create a civilian investigative body in order to avoid police investigating police. It was deemed inadmissible. Finally, we asked for a police service with a better balance of human resources by eliminating some of the more sweeping powers of the RCMP commissioner and strengthening those of the external review committee in cases of potential dismissal from the RCMP. This amendment was deemed inadmissible.

If this government were really serious about reforming the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the way it operates and its culture, it would have studied the amendments from the official opposition and the opposition in committee more seriously, in addition to the amendments that were suggested by external stakeholders, including the proposal to establish an independent RCMP oversight body that would report directly to Parliament, but that would be asking too much of the government; too much progress at any given time is a big no-no.

The new commissioner has, on several occasions, reiterated his intention and willingness to take action. It remains to be seen whether this government’s proposals will help or hinder him. It must never be forgotten that beyond its responsibility to enforce the law, the government must do everything within its power to avoid any appearance that it considers itself above the law. That is where the buck stops.

In closing, I would say that the bill before us at second reading seemed like a step in the right direction. We understood the intention behind it, and the problems with the RCMP, and we wanted to help the government do something about it. That is why we highlighted the major shortcomings of the bill, which include too much power in the hands of too few.

We believe that, as a result of this bill, the RCMP Commissioner will have too much power to unilaterally decide the outcome of problems that may exist within the RCMP. Another fundamental problem that explains why we cannot support this bill at third reading is that the bill will not lead to any radical change in culture. There was broad consensus regarding the testimony heard in committee, testimony given by people who have had to deal with these problems, and who have observed from the outside or experienced from the inside what goes on.

This bill will do nothing to change the culture at the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and that is a great pity. This was our chance to do something, but the government rejected our overtures and refused to make the changes that are sorely needed. I cannot—we cannot—in good conscience vote in favour of this bill at third reading.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out the obvious. In 2012 RCMP Commissioner Paulson published a public letter that in essence said, in good part, that the commissioner's capacity to deal with disciplinary issues that related to the issue of sexual harassment in the workforce required additional authority.

I believe the legislation could have been a whole lot better. There could have been amendments made and ultimately passed. I applaud those individuals who put forward some amendments. The government has never demonstrated sympathy in passing opposition amendments.

My question to the member is this. If C-42 were passed, could he clearly define why it would make it worse than it currently is, which is the reason he will be voting against it as opposed to allowing it to pass, recognizing that it has shortcomings that could be improved going forward?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked a straight question, and I will give a straight answer. The problem is that the bill creates a false sense of security. It gives the illusion of answering the question it was supposed to answer.

Harassment and sexual harassment are very serious issues and should be taken seriously. We believe that this bill provides only the illusion of an answer. If we pass this bill, Canadians, including people who have been victims of harassment and those who monitor the RCMP and its internal challenges, may have the impression that the problem has been solved, when in fact it has not.

We need an approach that really deals with the current RCMP culture. The bill does not do that. If we pass this bill, we create the illusion that the problem has been solved and that we can now move on to something else.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

The NDP argued that we need to do more to address harassment issues. Not only is harassment a serious problem within the RCMP, but the men and women involved absolutely need help and support to deal with these situations.

Would our colleague comment on that?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the member for Saint-Lambert, is entirely right.

The issues that have been brought to light at the RCMP, such as harassment and sexual harassment, are systemic. They are symptomatic of a culture that needs changing at the RCMP. They reflect not on the quality of the men and women who serve on the force, but on the culture in which they must work.

This culture may not be tangible but it exists all the same. Any sociologist or expert in the field would say that an organization's culture or atmosphere is certain to impact on its members' behaviour. In this case, the impact is negative. Given the systemic nature of the problem, we need the proper legislative provisions to change the prevailing culture.

These provisions are not found in Bill C-42.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my honourable colleague for his excellent speech.

He clearly laid out the effects of this bill, a bill whose initial promise quickly turned to disappointment. We brought forward many amendments in committee; unfortunately, all were rejected.

I would like my colleague's take on the Conservatives' unwillingness to consider the amendments brought forward to improve the bill.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my thoughts are easily summed up: same old, same old.

We try to work on bills that would benefit Canadians as a whole, and more specifically members of the RCMP and those who deal with the organization. The Conservative government categorically refuses to even consider the amendments that we bring forward to fill the gaps in its legislation. One can only decry this government's lack of openness with regards to these very important questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-42. In my last speech on this bill, at second reading, I mentioned that we welcomed the introduction of this bill, despite certain problems we had noted regarding harassment, an urgent public concern for Canadians. We also pressed the Department of Public Safety to make sexual harassment within the RCMP one of its priorities.

However, the initial version of Bill C-42 did not directly address the systemic problems rooted in RCMP culture. The bill, as introduced at first reading, would not have changed the climate currently prevailing within the RCMP. When the bill was drafted, the Minister of Public Safety does not appear to have considered the various recommendations made by the Task Force on Governance and Cultural Change in the RCMP.

We nevertheless supported the bill at second reading so that we could study it adequately in committee and improve it so that it could solve the problems that seem firmly rooted within the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Unfortunately, that is not how matters unfolded, and we were not satisfied with the committee's study of the bill. I am genuinely disappointed by the government's lack of co-operation on this matter, and, unfortunately, on others as well.

The Conservatives did not want to co-operate with us to ensure balanced representation of the various options and positions available. In committee, they were able to invite 12 witnesses, whereas the opposition could only invite seven. We also observed that the Conservatives' witnesses were unfortunately not entirely independent. All but one were representatives of the government or the RCMP. Consequently, they came and asserted the government's position without qualifying it in any real way. The witnesses selected by the Conservatives were thus not there to offer an independent opinion. That is what we observed.

The Conservatives were also not that eager to hear from our witnesses. Our first witness was unable to appear before the committee until the fourth meeting, and most of our witnesses were not invited until the last day of hearings. The Conservatives also forced us to submit all our amendments on the day of the last meeting in which we heard from witnesses. They asked us to provide our amendments three and half hours later that same day. That did not leave us much time to evaluate or consider the recommendations made by the witnesses before the committee.

We wanted to introduce amendments that would have made the legislation more effective so that it could achieve its objective, based on the recommendations of those same witnesses. This kind of behaviour on the government's part is unacceptable and impedes the proper conduct of parliamentary proceedings. This lack of co-operation by the government is what we have observed since the start of this Parliament. As far as I know, virtually none of the amendments introduced has unfortunately been accepted.

We proposed a number of amendments that were rejected by the Conservatives without any discussion. We proposed to include mandatory training on harassment for RCMP members in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, but they said no. The Conservatives simply do not want to hear a dissenting opinion, or even recognize its validity.

The director of the Groupe d'aide et d'information sur le harcèlement sexuel au travail de la province de Québec appeared before the committee and said:

With the 32 years of experience we have, we have found out that when companies do have a clear policy, when employees do know what is acceptable and not acceptable, it makes it much easier for management to deal with the problems.

But the Conservatives preferred to ignore that testimony and the others heard in committee. It is also disappointing that the minister did not ask for a clear policy on sexual harassment in the RCMP, with specific standards of conduct and criteria for assessing the performance of all employees.

Such a policy is necessary to provide a basis for a fair and effective disciplinary process. The director of the Groupe d'aide et d'information sur le harcèlement sexuel au travail de la province de Québec spoke eloquently on the importance of such a policy. The Conservatives chose to ignore her testimony and stubbornly insisted on a magic solution that will not resolve all the RCMP's problems.

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

If the Conservatives do not want to listen to Canadians or the opposition, perhaps they should listen to the former chair of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, who stated that the bill did not meet the standards of review set out by Justice O'Connor and that it did not meet the needs of the Canadian public or even the RCMP itself. I would like to point out that Justice O'Connor, in the Arar inquiry, said that Parliament should create an oversight body for the RCMP. It would appear that these remarks, like all those that are not in line with Conservative ideology, have fallen on deaf ears.

The bill will give the RCMP commissioner new power to decide on appropriate disciplinary measures. This includes the power to appoint and dismiss members at his discretion. During my first speech on this bill, I said that the approach taken by the Minister of Public Safety was perhaps a little too simplistic, considering the size of the problem. It is not enough simply to grant final authority for laying off employees to the commissioner.

This is why we put forward an amendment to solve the problem and to create police forces that are better balanced in terms of human resources by eliminating some of the more draconian powers given to the RCMP commissioner and strengthening those of the external review committee in the case of potential layoffs from the RCMP.

As I mentioned earlier, although Bill C-42 gives the commissioner the power to establish a more efficient process to resolve harassment complaints while at the same time giving more disciplinary authority, he will not be able to bring about a real cultural change in the RCMP, a change that is necessary not only to get rid of sexual harassment issues, but also to deal with discipline and behavioural issues more generally among RCMP officers.

As evidence, Commissioner Paulson himself stated that legislation alone would not be enough to preserve public trust and that extensive reform would be necessary to address the serious underlying problems within the RCMP, in order to create a workplace that is more open, more co-operative and more respectful of everyone. We can see that the minister failed to provide the necessary leadership to deal with the broader issues faced by the RCMP.

Commissioner Paulson told the Standing Committee on the Status of Women that he thought the problem was bigger than simply sexual harassment. This situation must change, and the minister should have taken the commissioner’s extensive experience in the RCMP into consideration.

All the witnesses told us that this bill would not be enough to establish an open, co-operative and respectful working environment, and that giving so many powers to the commissioner would lead to more problems than it would solve. The Mounted Police Professional Association of Canada shares our view. In committee, an association representative said that Bill C-42, rather than mitigating the issues mentioned, would only make them exponentially worse.

If Bill C-42 is adopted as it is—including the charter violations and the measures enabling managers to continue abusing their powers—rather than correcting the problems that undermine the RCMP, our Parliament will be promoting misconduct and the culture of cronyism by legitimizing these kinds of behaviours.

For all these reasons, we will vote against this bill at third reading.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to NDP members speak one after the other on Bill C-42, and it is clear that the majority of them have not read the testimony with regard to this bill. They have not even read the blues or the transcripts from the meetings. For example, most of the amendments were ruled out of order, including the amendment they introduced regarding an independent investigative body. It was poorly written, introduced late and ruled out of order by the Chair.

I am wondering about a couple of things. Did the NDP members who are speaking one after the other bother to actually read the documents and know what happened at committee with some of these very poor amendments that were ruled out of order and defeated—for example, silly ones like changing the short title? Has he bothered to actually read the legislation, and does he know that not only the RCMP but the commissioner and the chair of the commission said they need this to provide the framework to change the culture? The legislation will not do it alone, but the legislation is needed. Has he even read the bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for her question.

I may actually not have taken the time to read all the committee “blues”, but the parliamentary secretary is reporting only what suits her, in this case, because there were admissible amendments. They were all completely shrugged off by the government, as is the case every time in every committee, not just this one. It happens every time a bill is introduced and reasonable amendments are proposed, as in this case. A number of amendments were proposed. Some of them may have been ruled out of order, but that is not the case for all or a majority of the ones we proposed.

That is completely despicable. The parliamentary secretary says they were out of order, but most of them were not.

The government is not listening to Canadians. Canadians want a civilian police force that investigates the police and they are tired of having police investigate the police. There is an appearance of a conflict of interest there, and once again, the government is disregarding the opinion of Canadians.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed quite despicable to hear the parliamentary secretary asking us whether we have read every line of the committee transcripts, when in fact we need only look at the witnesses that are called. They are often in a conflict of interest and are not free to speak, and that discredits most of the things they say.

The few witnesses who are genuinely free to speak all agree with us. That is true at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security and at the Standing Committee on National Defence. So this is indeed despicable.

I would like my colleague to say more on this point, because it is absolutely unbelievable to hear the parliamentary secretary say this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saint-Jean for his comments and his entirely accurate observations.

We see in the committees that nothing suits the government, and often the witnesses they invite are not completely free to state their opinions or real, scientific facts. Nothing we propose suits it. That is more than despicable, because this government is anti-democratic in a number of ways. The way it behaves is quite frustrating, and not just in the House of Commons where it constantly muzzles us and imposes gag orders. It also uses its majority in committees to present bogus studies, and so on.

The government’s behaviour is simply despicable. That is the word that comes to mind, and that is what it is. It cannot be repeated often enough. With this government, doing anything in the House of Commons or in committee is an exercise in frustration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would actually like to begin where I was going to conclude with my speech, after hearing the, frankly, rather arrogant question coming from the parliamentary secretary.

We all know what the government does in committee time after time after time. Any amendment, however well framed, is voted down by the majority. There is almost a zero per cent passage rate of NDP, Liberal or independent members' amendments in committee in this Parliament, so to pretend that the fact of the writing of a few amendments by the opposition in this process would have made an iota of difference is the height of arrogance.

I would also like the House to know that in this context, most of the opposition witnesses were in the last two days, the majority on the last day. The majority on the committee voted to make sure that the amendments from the opposition came in three and a half hours after the session. Can we imagine, in the context of a complex bill like this, putting together well-crafted amendments when put up against an artificial deadline like that? This is the behaviour of the government in that committee. Committees do not function in any kind of straightforward or good-faith legislative manner.

I would like to address how far Bill C-42 diverges from and does not respect the recommendations from Justice O'Connor and the Arar commission for a proper review mechanism for the RCMP. Most of the other interventions have talked about other areas of the bill and other issues, but I would like to talk about how the bill does take a small step in the direction of the Arar commission recommendations, but ultimately stops far short. This is consistent with how the government has truly resisted appropriate oversight mechanisms for any body that deals with policing or security matters.

For example, in another bill that is before the House now, Bill S-7, Combating Terrorism Act, Conservatives have stoutly resisted any form of serious oversight or monitoring. In my speech on that bill, I will go into some detail on that. In each case, the NDP has proposed more than a dozen carefully considered amendments that would help make good on the Arar commission's exhaustive second report on a review mechanism, yet every one was voted down or ruled out of order.

This is consistent with the general approach of the government to the Arar commission. I had the fortune to be in the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security when the Minister of Public Safety appeared to defend the report called “Building Resilience against Terrorism”, and I asked him what the government's intention is with respect to the recommendations on a review mechanism coming out of the Arar commission report. It was absolutely clear from his response that the government has no interest in that report or using it as any kind of a reference point, baseline or road map. Bill C-42 has made that completely clear.

I will proceed as follows. I will provide a short overview of what the Arar commission did recommend by way of review mechanisms, and then I will look at how Bill C-42 on at least four points does not take those recommendations at all seriously.

The report I am referring to from the Arar commission is called “A New Review Mechanism for the RCMP's National Security Activities”. Before proposing the exact mechanisms, Justice O'Connor, who is of the Ontario court of appeal, outlined reasons for the inadequacy of existing accountability and review mechanisms for the RCMP's national security activity. In general, he pointed out that there has been an evolution and a deepening of the RCMP national security role, despite the fact that CSIS itself was peeled off from the RCMP at some point. Obviously in the post-2001 climate, we know that to be true and why that is true. He emphasized three elements.

First of all, there has been enhanced and deepened information-sharing with other countries and among federal, provincial and municipal agencies, and increased integration and national security policing. We know that information-sharing was at the heart of what happened to Mr. Arar.

Second, he talked about comparative and other Canadian experience with both policing and security intelligence review that led him to conclude that there was the “inability of a complaint-based approach to provide a firm foundation for ensuring that the often secret national security activities respect the law and rights and freedoms”.

Third, he said that the existing Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP has encountered “difficulties in obtaining access to information from the RCMP”. We will see that this is the understatement of the century when we look at some of the testimony.

For the information of the parliamentary secretary, I did read the blues and I did consider the testimony of various witnesses, including Mr. Kennedy, the former head of the CPC, whose testimony is irrefutable. The government did everything it could in committee to try to underplay and deflect the impact of that testimony.

Justice O'Connor recommended a number of features that the new review mechanism would have.

First, it must be authorized to conduct self-initiated reviews in the same way and to the same extent as SIRC, the Security Intelligence Review Committee that oversees CSIS. He talked about the need for these reviews not just at the time when activities were deepening, but in the context in which national security activities by definition were conducted in secret and received little by way of judicial scrutiny or other independent scrutiny. He emphasized how a self-initiated review had to be linked to the criterion of independence from the RCMP and the government in the right of access to information and to initiate those reviews.

The second feature that he felt would be important was that the body had to have investigative powers similar to those that public bodies had under the Inquiries Act. He emphasized a few things. Some of them are in the bill, such as the right to subpoena documents and compel testimony. Also, the review body has to have the right to decide what information is necessary and not have barriers put in front of it in making that decision or accessing the information.

Third, he stated:

—the review mechanism must not be hampered by jurisdictional boundaries. It must be able to follow the trail wherever it leads, to ensure full and effective investigation or review of the RCMP's national security activities.

With those principles in mind he went on to recommend a new independent complaints and national security review agency for the RCMP that would replace the CPC and would also take on the role he recommended for overseeing the Canadian Border Services Agency, the CBSA.

He went on to talk about the need for coordination across the various bodies, this new body he recommended, the existing SIRC, Security Intelligence Review Committee, and the commissioner for the CSE, the Commissioner for the Canadian Security Establishment, who also has broader and wider powers than what is found recommended in Bill C-42.

What is in Bill C-42 that falls far short of these recommendations?

The first major problem is that Bill C-42 does not give the new review body uninhibited access to information that the body deems necessary and relevant. In committee the Conservatives tried to avoid acknowledging that the bill would give the power to the RCMP commissioner to prevent examination and review of a broad range of privileged information. From lots of experience, we know how various bodies, including the RCMP, have abused the claim of privilege.

Mr. Kennedy, the former head of the CPC, noted in testimony before the committee, the findings of former Supreme Court Judge John Major in the Air India inquiry, who experienced first-hand the abuse of privilege by the RCMP.

Mr. Kennedy stated:

—with reference to the privilege. Justice Major, whom I talked to, was scathing in terms of his comments that the RCMP over-claimed privilege, concealed information from him, and in some case a witness who wanted to testify, they claimed they needed the information for investigative purposes which wasn't true.

The second major problem is that the RCMP commissioner can force the chair of the new recommended body, the CRCC, to suspend an investigation by means of a simple request in a letter on the grounds that it would compromise an ongoing investigation. Mr. Kennedy commented how this completely gutted the credibility of this body in the eyes of the public. It completely undermines any sense of independence of the body.

The third major problem is that the bill is largely void of timeframes within which the RCMP must respond to requests and findings of this new review body. As Mr. Kennedy said:

Inordinate and unjustifiable delay was the hallmark of the RCMP during the four-plus years that I was chair of the Commission for Public Complaints...

There was one fourth major problem, but perhaps a question will elicit that.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a comment on the hon. member's speech. I find it very interesting that when the other side of the House disagrees with this side of the House, this side of the House is automatically wrong. There is a possibility that side of the House is wrong. Just because this side of the House does not accept an amendment as proposed by that side of the House, then, again, we are wrong.

However, the truth of the matter is that many of the amendments do not meet the constraints of the bill. They are outside of the bill and do not add anything to it. In fact, they may well detract.

Therefore, prior to the hon. member's speech, his view of what happens on this side of the House, I respectfully submit, is very clouded, one-sided and without precedence in terms of any direct evidence that says what he is saying makes any more sense.

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

Mr. Speaker, I completely accept the member's observation that just because we take different views, it does not mean that one side is automatically right or wrong. I was simply responding to the rather strongly worded criticism coming from the parliamentary secretary.

I also pointed out the context in which amendments had to be drafted in this context: three and a half hours after the end of the majority of opposition witnesses were there.

I also noted that it was the practice of the Conservative government, working through government members on committees, to accept virtually no amendments across all committees. If the member has evidence to refute that claim, I would absolutely love to see it.

[Jean-François Larose, NDP, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his presentation.

As someone who used to wear the uniform, I found his excellent remarks very interesting, critical and detailed. I would like to hear the rest of his presentation.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are the party of co-operation.

I was simply add one further point, which is there is indeed something on which I would compliment the government. It did include the chair-initiated investigation procedure. However, it comes with a couple of conditions, one of which is that the commission, this new review body, cannot proceed on its own motion to investigate, quote, “if there is another review or inquiry that has been undertaken on substantially the same issue by a federal or provincial entity”. This may seem like a reasonable provision, but it opens the door for delay and challenges by the RCMP, including in court.

The judgment about whether it is germane to the commission to initiate its own investigations, frankly, should be with the commission. There should not be a mechanism whereby the RCMP can push back, including by using and drawing on government lawyers. There is a further provision that indicates that possibly the minister himself or herself could challenge. Therefore, the granting of a commission-initiated review or investigation is partly undercut by these conditions, and that was my only other point.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about unrestricted access to the commission, something that would ultimately be necessary for the success of this bill. Could he further expand on this?

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

Mr. Speaker, the only thing that I would mention is what was said by the former head of the CPC, Mr. Kennedy, which really stood out during the seven days of testimony. He talked about the context in which government bodies, including the historical pattern within the RCMP, invoke privilege—the idea that documents are privileged—as a way to shield from external agencies documents that had no reasonable basis to be excluded. He gave lots of examples.

The very idea that the minister can both set regulations on the scope of privilege and also have the RCMP commissioner, separate from the minister, actually decline to provide documents based on his or her own judgment of what is privileged in a way that would unduly affect the RCMP completely undercuts the independence of the body.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-42, Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act. The official opposition has been waiting for a long time for this enactment, which seeks to establish a new independent civilian commission to replace the present RCMP public complaints commission.

First, it is important to remember that, between 2005 and 2011, over 718 internal complaints were filed with the RCMP. These complaints related to sexism, bullying and reprisals. Worse still, the RCMP public complaints commission says that “these numbers probably only reflect part of the situation, because the Canadian federal police way of doing things does not encourage employees who feel wronged to file a complaint”.

A civilian member of the RCMP even contends that: “It takes an incredible amount of courage for people to step up with complaints such as these—to have them continually diminished, deflected and dismissed is an outrage. Further, it promotes an environment where people don't speak up.”

Our federal police also showed that when, in 2012, 150 women announced their intention to file a class action suit against the RCMP for sexual harassment. Despite mounting evidence, the institution's first reaction was to deny everything. Such is the climate in the RCMP. Such is the internal culture that prevails in our federal police.

In light of these harassment scandals, and other abuses such as the Maher Arar affair, the NDP has always argued for a major reform to oversee the internal practices of that institution. Unfortunately, these cases have tarnished the RCMP's reputation. They deserve strong action by parliamentarians. Bill C-42 should have been that answer.

Our party supported the bill at second reading, since its objectives were laudable and we were hoping to take an in-depth look at this legislation in committee. We wanted to work with the government and develop an effective act to tackle the various issues that need to be dealt with.

Given the bill's objectives, we thought it was critical to reform the processes relating to disciplinary reinforcement, human resources management and complaint handling. We also felt essential to create an independent and transparent investigative body to tackle the whole issue of harassment in the RCMP. In this respect, the NDP proposed several amendments to improve Bill C-42 and to better meet existing needs.

We proposed mandatory harassment training for all RCMP members to promote better prevention and to provide employees with the right tools to react more appropriately.The NDP also proposed the establishment of a civilian body to deal with complaints filed against the RCMP. This was to ensure an independent investigative and handling structure that would have been accountable to Parliament, and not directly to the minister, as proposed by the Conservatives.

In the same vein, we also wanted to set up an independent investigative body, because the current situation may leave room for partiality that should not exist and that could be reversed by a structure that is separate from police forces and from the department. As regards human resources, we were hoping for a strengthening of the RCMP External Review Committee to tighten up internal mechanisms, particularly in cases of harassment.

The Conservatives rejected all these proposals, which deserved special consideration and which would clearly have improved the government's legislation. In doing so, the government went against the recommendations of several witnesses who supported such measures and who were asking for more independence in the RCMP's investigative process.

The Conservatives also ignored the recommendations of Justice O'Connor in the Maher Arar inquiry to improve the RCMP's review standards.

The government completely ignored Commissioner Paulson's comments that much more extensive reform was needed to address the issues and to promote a more open, co-operative and respectful workplace.

For months now, the NDP has been calling on the government to make sexual harassment and institutional abuse at the RCMP a priority. Throughout the legislative process, we have advocated for measures that would have helped change the culture at the RCMP. By refusing to accept our party's suggestions, the government chose not to address the problem. By giving the commissioner more powers over discipline and complaints management, Bill C-42 does not directly address the problem of harassment anymore than it will change the corporate culture within the RCMP.

The government is keeping the existing structures and refusing to completely overhaul the internal processes. By allowing the RCMP to investigate the RCMP—the police investigating the police—the Conservatives are not addressing the issues. They are refusing to bring in a truly independent structure that operates at arm's length from the institution. There is nothing here to change the atmosphere at the RCMP.

With the new civilian complaints commission proposed in Bill C-42, the government is not straying far from the RCMP public complaints commission. We find it regrettable that the commission is not fully independent since it does not fall under the jurisdiction of the House of Commons, but it will instead continue to report to the Minister of Public Safety.

In conclusion, the government went against the recommendations made by a number of witnesses, Justice O'Connor and Commissioner Paulson. Not only did the government reject the opposition's amendments outright, but it also clearly refused to make the RCMP's internal investigation process more independent and transparent. It refused to fix the systemic problems within the RCMP.

Bill C-42 is not an adequate response to the culture of secrecy and harassment that unfortunately exists within our federal police force. It is also not a response to these women and men who have been the victims of bullying, harassment and retaliation.

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

Mr. Speaker, before asking my question, I would first like to congratulate my colleague from Saint-Lambert on her excellent speech.

I would like to share with the House something that has been bothering me about this whole sexual harassment issue. This regards a document that was released recently in response to an access to information request made by La Presse. According to that document, some female employees may be reluctant to report sexual harassment because they have no faith in the RCMP's current complaints process. The fact that women are afraid to use the current complaints process is very troubling.

I would like to hear my colleague's comments on this. Is she horrified to know that, because of the current system, women are afraid to speak up about misconduct? Could she comment on the fact that, with Bill C-42, the Conservatives are sadly refusing to protect female workers who spend their lives in the service of our country?

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question, which is truly of central importance. Where victims of harassment are concerned, of course, they already have difficulty in reporting what has happened, because announcing that you have been harassed is not easy, and it is even less so if they do not find the necessary and essential trust within the institution to be able to submit such complaints.

If a climate of trust has not been established, and a climate of violence is in place, because we can see that these women are victims of harassment and we do not find in Bill C-42 the necessary and valid responses to address this kind of situation, I totally agree with her that it is absolutely deplorable.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned in her speech the importance of the change in culture within the RCMP that we hoped to see effected, or at least addressed, by this bill.

At committee stage, an NDP amendment I find particularly interesting was rejected by the Conservatives, with no debate or discussion. It involved adding mandatory harassment training for RCMP members to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act. I find it absurd, in fact, that such training is not systematically provided.

I would like to hear my colleague’s comments on the impact mandatory training for RCMP members would have in terms of the cultural change we of the NDP are calling for.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Regardless of the location, in point of fact, whether in a private enterprise or within the RCMP, when you are dealing with a change in culture, it is fundamental to build it up through a coaching process. It becomes feasible when the necessary training has been put in place to enable people to talk about harassment.

In terms of training, talking about harassment means being aware of the fact that you can be a victim, or an abuser. It is important to have the necessary information and resources to avoid becoming a victim, and as a victim, to have the opportunity to make a complaint. Also, as a perpetrator, you can avoid becoming an abuser and find help, if needed, on the same basis as a victim.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, Environment; the hon. member for Alfred-Pellan, Correctional Service of Canada.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Drummond.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

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

Before beginning my speech, I would like to stress how committed the NDP is to this legislation. Many of my colleagues have risen over the past hour to show their commitment to addressing the problems within the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

On that note, it is important to stress just how disinterested the Conservatives are in this important legislation and in improving the RCMP. We have done very serious work in committee. Moreover, I would like to highlight the work of my colleagues who sit on this committee. They work very hard and have introduced amendments that, unfortunately, have not been accepted.

Now, what does this bill contain? To begin with, Bill C-42 adds new provisions to the sections on labour relations and gives the RCMP Commissioner the power to appoint and dismiss members as he sees fit. Secondly, it attempts to reform the process pertaining to disciplinary matters, complaints, and the management of human resources for the members of the RCMP. Finally, it is an attempt to reform the former RCMP public complaints commission by establishing a new civilian complaints commission.

As members can see, Bill C-42 reintroduces several provisions included in Bill C-38 of the 40th Parliament. At that time, the NDP criticized the bill because it did not go far enough in reforming the disciplinary inquiry procedures. The most notable difference between Bill C-42 and former Bill C-38 is the fact that the new bill says nothing about the issue of unionizing the RCMP.

On that note, I would like to remind members that the NDP is the only political party in the House of Commons whose employees are unionized. We are very proud of this. It is something that we care about deeply. For that reason, we stand behind workers and cannot stress enough how important it is to respect the work they do. We are proud that our employees are unionized. I take this opportunity to put the ball in the courts of the other parties, so that they, too, begin negotiating with their employees. I think that all employees of the House should have an opportunity to become unionized.

The NDP supported the intention of Bill C-42 to modernize the RCMP and to address problems such as sexual harassment, about which my honourable colleagues have spoken. The NDP voted in favour of referring the bill to committee. As I mentioned, my colleagues who sit on this committee have worked very hard, and very seriously.

After hearing from witnesses and experts, however, it became obvious that the bill had major shortcomings, and would not succeed in improving the RCMP's oversight mechanisms. Moreover, Bill C-42 does not reflect, for example, the recommendations of Justice O'Connor emerging from the inquiry into the Maher Arar case, which also sought to improve the RCMP's review standards so as to meet the needs of Canadians.

The Conservatives introduced Bill C-42 as the solution for the problems of the RCMP, which has become somewhat dysfunctional; on the contrary, however, this is not the solution. The bill does not directly address the problem of sexual harassment, as I said just now, and as my colleagues explained so clearly in their speeches earlier. Nor does it address a number of other issues that were the subject of NDP amendments at the committee stage, and which the Conservatives unfortunately rejected.

The NDP put forward a range of amendments designed to ensure that Bill C-42 reflected the challenges the RCMP is now facing. Once again, I take my hat off to my colleagues, who did such careful work in committee.

The main thrust of the amendments related to the following points. The first thing was to require all members of the RCMP to take harassment training, under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act. Unfortunately, this was rejected by the Conservatives. Next, we sought the establishment of a completely independent civilian agency responsible for investigating complaints against the RCMP. Unfortunately, this was denied by the Conservatives. We also proposed adding a provision to set up an independent national civilian investigating body to avoid having the police investigate themselves. Again, this was rejected by the Conservatives. We also wanted to develop more balanced human resources policies by withdrawing some of the draconian new powers suggested by the RCMP Commissioner, and strengthening the RCMP External Review Committee in cases involving discharge. Unfortunately, this too was rejected by the Conservatives.

So the Conservatives rejected all these NDP amendments, ignoring many recommendations from witnesses who had given up their valuable time to come and speak before the committee and explain their points of view, and to suggest amendments and ways of dealing with the shortcomings. We are in fact in favour of the RCMP review principle. We even supported this bill at second reading. Unfortunately, it is not well enough developed at this stage because the Conservatives botched the committee work. They rejected the amendments proposed by witnesses and members of the NDP in committee. That is why we are going to vote against this bill at third reading.

I will now return to the point we were speaking about just now about misconduct and sexual harassment. It is an exceedingly important point, one that has been very much in the news recently and needs to be addressed. Bill C-42 has not gone nearly far enough. Furthermore, as you know, we are asking that this bill should at least provide for training at the RCMP on sexual harassment issues. We are still awaiting the conclusions of the two reports that should shed light on sexual harassment at the RCMP—the investigation by the RCMP public complaints commission and the RCMP gender issues report.

Another problem I discussed earlier, which I find extremely important, is unionization at the RCMP. As I mentioned, we in the NDP are very proud of our support of the unions. We take pride in having unionized assistants and we would like to allow all employees to be unionized. The bill does not address this matter, which is currently before the courts. The RCMP is the only police force in Canada without a collective agreement. Imagine that.

For 35 years, labour relations representatives have been elected to manage employment-related matters. However, this way of doing things, which established a democratic process for employee representation, is a consultation process rather than a true collective bargaining process. As I mentioned, only the RCMP does not yet have a collective agreement and is not yet unionized. This is a shortcoming that needs to be dealt with and which this bill unfortunately does not address.

I could mention a number of other points like that to illustrate the failings of the bill and to explain why we will be voting against it. Among other things, it is because the Conservatives did not take the trouble to listen to the conclusions of the excellent work done by NDP members, in this committee and elsewhere.

I am available to answer any questions you may have about this. I would be more than happy to go into detail about a number of subjects, like sexual harassment and unionization, neither of which this bill deals with.

[Jean-François Larose, NDP, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, many MPs have said that this arrogant government thought our amendments in committee were not good.

Has my honourable colleague, who has heard the same things I have, had the same experience in the committee on which he sits? Do the Conservatives listen to the experts who appear there with an open mind, or are they always closed-minded? Do they always ask to proceed in camera, and do they merely do as they please?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my honourable colleague from Repentigny for his excellent question.

Before going any further, I would like to name the four NDP members who are doing an excellent job on this committee: the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, the member for Alfred-Pellan, the member for Compton—Stanstead and the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River.

My colleague from Repentigny is absolutely right in saying that it is hard to work on the committees at times. In my committee, the hardest thing is that, from the moment we want to talk about amendments, the meeting goes in camera and we cannot report on what happens there.

In a democracy, the public must know what is going on. When the Conservative government does not support our amendments or the recommendations of experts, and when it does whatever it wants to please its little buddies and to attend to its interests, the public must know. We have to tell the public about this so that they vote against the Conservatives in the next election and let the NDP win the election instead. That is what we will do in 2015.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member on the other side of the House for his position with the RCMP.

I would not hesitate to suggest that perhaps we are tarring the whole force with one brush. We are saying that the RCMP has no union. I respectfully submit that I am not sure it has ever asked to have a union. Somehow the hon. member has decided that is part and parcel of what should be in place and therefore, if the Mounties do not agree with it, they are out of sync. I have trouble understanding that.

Just because we do not agree does not mean we are arrogant. If we do not agree with something, it may well mean that we do not believe in it or that we do not think it is pertinent to the bill. I think we have to continually question ourselves. When we make an agreement and then we decide that we want to make a recommendation around the agreement, around the bill, and the other side does not accept it, then is the other side obviously wrong? In my way of thinking, that is the wrong premise to work under.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is entirely natural for us to have different positions. That is not a problem.

However, we are here to do a job, and we must do our work properly in committee. We invite witnesses because we want to hear their comments, recommendations and expertise. When we invite knowledgeable witnesses, we listen to them; then we introduce amendments and improve the bill. That was not done in this case.

It is not right that our NDP colleagues on this committee listened to the expertise of witnesses and introduced amendments, yet the Conservatives refused to implement them for purely ideological reasons. These are very serious, very grave matters. Sexual harassment is very serious. We must tackle it, but this bill does not. That is why we will vote against it.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to discuss solutions to the very serious problems of sexual harassment, abuse of power and bullying in the ranks of the RCMP.

Bill C-42 was introduced by the Conservatives to address serious allegations of abuse, bullying and sexual harassment that had been made by a number of female members of the force.

Those members reported that they were the target of sexist comments, sexual pranks and derogatory remarks in the workplace, and had been for decades.

The harassment came from co-workers as well as superior officers. They said the work environment was hostile and unhealthy for women. The abusive behaviour had become standard practice, one of them reported. According to these women, an abusive work environment had existed for years.

I am pleased that we are finally discussing this bill in the House of Commons. I hoped we would come up with workable solutions. I think we all agree that something has to be done to ensure that these RCMP employees are able to work in a healthy and safe environment.

The Conservatives introduced Bill C-42 as a solution. This bill gives the commissioner of the RCMP the ultimate power to discharge members for administrative reasons only and to appoint managers to resolve conflicts and investigate problems relating to harassment, in particular.

It also establishes the civilian review and complaints commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the CRCC, to replace the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP.

The new commission will do its own reviews of RCMP policies to ensure compliance with the minister’s directives, the act and the applicable rules. It will have access to information under the control or in the possession of the RCMP. It will establish new investigative powers, such as compelling witnesses and officers to testify and compelling the production of evidence and documents. It will report to the Minister of Public Safety and the commissioner, and its recommendations will be non-binding.

The bill also creates a mechanism for investigating serious incidents, that is, deaths or serious injuries involving the RCMP.

I will remind my colleagues that the NDP supported this bill at second reading, because in principle, we wanted to rectify the serious sexual harassment situation in the RCMP.

In committee, my colleagues listened carefully to the experts’ testimony. The witnesses were clear: this bill would not be sufficient to create an open, collaborative and respectful work environment.

Giving the commissioner more powers is not the solution. The RCMP and the government have to go further in their effort to modernize the RCMP.

My colleagues on the committee proposed amendments in good faith, based on the experts’ testimony, to strengthen the bill and try to genuinely solve the problems of abuse in the RCMP.

For example, we proposed that the bill be worded more proactively to combat the systemic problem of harassment, and particularly sexual harassment, among members of the RCMP. That amendment was rejected.

After hearing the testimony of Yvonne Séguin, executive director of the Groupe d'aide et d'information sur le harcèlement sexuel au travail de la province du Québec, we proposed amendments that would tackle the hostile and sexist work environment head on: incorporating mandatory training on harassment for RCMP members into the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.

When she appeared before the committee, she said:

With the 32 years of experience we have, we have found out that when companies do have a clear policy, when employees do know what is acceptable and not acceptable, it makes it much easier for management to deal with the problems.

This mandatory training would help establish a clear policy and a respectful work environment.

That amendment was also thrown out.

My colleagues also tried to guarantee the independence of the body set up to investigate complaints in the RCMP, which is an essential part of making the organization more transparent and responsible. That, too, was rejected.

The list goes on. The Conservatives voted against all of our amendments in the House without any discussion. They feel that the RCMP commissioner should have complete control over the RCMP. Concentrating power in one person's hands is not the solution. That is not how we will make the RCMP more transparent.

I would like to point out an important difference between the Conservatives and the NDP: we listen to experts and we are open-minded. When we look at a bill, we consult experts in the field, we do our research, and we study and consider numerous options. It is important not to focus on one opinion and cast all others aside. We do not start with a preconceived notion and ignore all those that differ from ours.

I would like to talk about the specific context of this bill. This issue is of utmost importance. We need to ensure that the female officers in the RCMP and the public served by the RCMP can trust our police system. I do not feel that this bill goes far enough to address the female officers' concerns. They asked for immediate, tangible results that will foster a safer and more open work environment, but the Conservatives have proposed giving the RCMP commissioner more power.

A recently published Human Rights Watch report describes how aboriginal women in the west mistrust the RCMP. Fifty women shared their experiences in the report. They alleged that the RCMP ignored their requests for help, abused its power and harassed them. They no longer call the police because they no longer trust them. This is only one example of the Canadian public's loss of confidence. Why not take appropriate steps now to deal with the problem?

It is important to deal with serious internal problems of abuse, intimidation and harassment in order to regain the trust of Canadians. We hoped that this bill might be a step in the right direction, but unfortunately the Conservatives chose to ignore all the recommendations made by the stakeholders. The solutions they have come up with would make things more difficult for employees who encounter abuse and bullying. This serious problem calls for real solutions and actions.

To conclude, I fail to understand how my colleagues on the other side of the House could have rejected all the amendments without any real discussion. I know that our points of view are different, but that is what debates are for. We might be able to find a middle ground. It is important not to forget the victims in this kind of situation. We are here to improve things. It is our duty to do so and that is what bills are for.

We have to go 110%.

A small step is not enough to tackle this matter; we need to do more. No matter what form harassment takes, it has serious consequences for the women or men who are affected. There are psychological consequences, like fear that the charges will be rejected, fear of being accused of provocation, anger, frustration, feelings of powerlessness, shame, intimidation, humiliation, depression, stress and anxiety, as well as a loss of self-confidence and self-esteem.

Harassment can also have serious tangible effects, such as poorer quality of work, job loss, loss of benefits, a bad reference from the employer, a tarnished employment record, unfair performance evaluation, or having one's work sabotaged. The victims' burden can take many forms.

It is totally unfair. That is why we have to change things and improve practices at the RCMP. People are supposed to have confidence in the RCMP and in this government. That is why I believe that we are not going far enough and not doing our duty.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we train a lot of police overseas. In the past, we have trained police in Kosovo, and we look at what is happening in Afghanistan.

One thing that is fundamental when training police is that the police have to understand that they have a responsibility to the people they protect. There has to be accountability within the police service. To do that, we often push for a lot of training and education on sensitivity. When it comes to sexual harassment and the use of power within the ranks by those who are in senior positions, we have to be vigilant to ensure that there is not an abuse of power. What we put forward as amendments to the bill was to have that accountability in there. It is not good enough to have these prescriptive pieces of legislation: we have to back them up with something. We put that forward in amendments, as my colleague described.

I wonder if my colleague could provide her perspective on the need to have that embedded in our police services. It is not just a matter of having the legislation, which is fine; we also have to have that other piece. We have to ensure that we are vigilant in making sure there is accountability.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not a police officer, but I do have work experience. I know that people have to have a good work environment and a healthy work environment. They have to trust in the people they work with, trust in the bosses and trust in the system. When there is no trust, the system will not work.

What we have asked for in our amendments is reasonable. I do not understand why they were not accepted or even discussed, because they came from witnesses. We did not just pluck them out of the sky because we thought we could make the bill bigger. There was a reason behind the amendments. Adding mandatory harassment training for RCMP members would help. Education helps. It helps to know what is right and what is wrong. It needs to be deep-rooted.

There needs to be a systematic change in how the RCMP proceeds. We know that there is a problem, and this is our moment to change it. If we do not go all the way, what is the point? That is why we are against this.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé to comment on the process used at committee stage.

Of the nineteen witnesses who appeared before the committee, twelve had been called by the Conservatives and only seven by the opposition. The first of the seven opposition witnesses was not heard until the fourth meeting. As a result, most of the opposition witness testimony was squeezed into the last meeting. The Conservative majority on the committee also forced the opposition to table its amendments by 3:30 p.m. on that same day, the day of the last meeting.

Since some questions from the government side implied that they were right and we were wrong, could my colleague comment on the process the Conservative majority chose to use at committee stage?

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his truly relevant question.

The work we do in committee is quite important. No matter how we add things up, there are simply too few NDP members to move things forward and win votes in committee. Things might change in 2015; let us hope they do.

I would still like to congratulate my colleagues who sit on the committee. It is not an easy job to draft amendments in less than three hours. Several amendments were brought forward without debate, and then a vote was held, but there were only four New Democrats, so we lost the vote.

I would like to point out that, when I was elected on May 2, 2011, I knew there were differences between Conservatives, Liberals and New Democrats, but I was convinced we could find common ground, or at least agree on some potential solutions. We are stronger when we work together.

It sometimes pains me that we cannot see eye to eye.

[Jean-François Larose, NDP, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about Bill C-42. Frankly, it is a privilege for me to speak to this issue, because I wore the uniform for close to 18 years. Incidentally, I want to salute all the people I met, including my RCMP friends, my son's godfather and all those who have worn the uniform and who have worked extremely hard. During the 18 years before I became a member of Parliament, I was a manager, a first responder, and even a trade unionist. I worked in the public, parapublic and private sectors, both in open and secure custody.

This is a special environment. Today, I heard my colleagues make very pointed and appropriate statements. I am pleased to participate in this debate. So, I decided to talk about the environment, because I think it is important. People who become police officers, or who wear the uniform and play a regulatory role in society, all do so with the best intentions. My son, who is five years old, wants to do like his dad and wear the uniform. He has a beautiful and idealistic perception of that. Before I wore the uniform, I myself had this noble ideal, which always stayed with me. We must have the strength to protect those who need to be protected. Even now, as a member of Parliament, it is still the same.

Throughout my career, I met people who wore the uniform and who did extraordinary things, who went above and beyond the call of duty and who saved lives. One of my colleagues, who was retiring, took the time, after attending the party organized in his honour, to go out and meet all the people he had dealt with at one time or another during his career and who were out on the street. He simply wanted to say hello to them and to ask if they were all right. He did that on his last day at work. Another one of my friends jumped into the water to save a woman in distress. He was prepared to sacrifice himself for her. I remember the explosion at the Accueil Bonneau, in Montreal. There were many victims. I was one of the first responders. There were many people, but no one was paying attention to what the others were doing. Everyone was there for the right reasons.

Despite all this great energy, there is also a very negative and dark side. During my career, I met people who committed suicide. They felt the environment was excessively hard and, despite all the representations to managers and all the efforts in their private life, they would have wanted to be listened to more carefully, and they would have wanted support mechanisms to be put in place. Unfortunately, these support mechanisms were not available. They made a choice with which I do not necessarily agree, a choice I find extremely sad and which affected me and many of my colleagues. We hope that this no longer happens.

Today, we are talking about harassment, and that is a reality in every environment where people wear uniforms. There is a culture and an isolation, but that must no longer be tolerated. In 2013, we still see practices that existed 40 years ago. I can guarantee that these practices are not those of front-line and street workers who are there every day. They want to move forward and to evolve, but there is a political and an administrative culture that stifles them and prevents them from getting out of this rut.

When I was a manager, I was given the opportunity to test new approaches, and I did. I had 34 people wearing the uniform and working under my authority. They were being treated like kids. Problems were kept secret and we did not want the media to know that these problems existed. I proposed an organic, dynamic, proactive and inclusive system. We were trying to reconcile administrators, workers and the population. We sat around the table, we talked to each other respectfully, and we tried to understand the problems and frustrations that had been lingering for a long time. We had to realize that these people have problems with schedules, which are often very demanding, and also with extremely demanding legal pressures.

They do not need to get hit with a club. They simply need to be listened to and to be given the opportunity to put in place appropriate mechanisms. That is often what we see. That is the criticism we heard today in the House and also in committee. I sat on four committees, and it was the same thing in each one of them: the meeting was held in camera and people were never prepared to listen to what others had to say.

We say this is arrogance because witnesses tell us that what is being put in place is a half-measure, that improvements should be made but that the government is not making them. Why? What is the intention here? These witnesses are professionals, people who impress me; my colleagues impress me, but the government is not listening to them. How are the people on the front lines at the RCMP supposed to feel helped and supported if the government is not even prepared to listen to them when they come and testify? There is a problem here.

Bill C-42 is a half-measure at best, and once again we are talking about administrative oversight. When we move an amendment to provide employees with training on harassment to support and help them in their distress, it is brushed off. Why? This is a simple measure that could have been put in place, but it was rejected.

What message is being sent? Are we saying that harassment is all right? Are we being tolerant and agreeing to perpetuate a closed environment in which there is a gulf separating oversight, police officers and civilians? The government wants to put measures in place, but not to increase transparency or accessibility.

When I was a manager, I had the opportunity to put in place mechanisms that helped bring together schools, issue tables and street workers. However, the solution to the problem was also to include workers and people who were on the front line. We sat down and held open conversations about each party's frustrations so that there could be a reconciliation and we could grow.

We are talking about a constant culture of separating entities and increasing secrecy. When I was a manager, I never once saw any danger of a leak on operational matters. That had nothing to do with anything. However, the workers were highly motivated, and mutual respect made it possible to achieve progress and a unique dynamic. People felt increasingly supported.

It should not be forgotten that the primary mandate of law enforcement agencies is to be there for the public, not for the government. This is not an oversight mechanism based on dubious policies. They represent and defend the people, and the government represents the people. It must not use police services merely as it wishes, especially if it has made bad policy that is thrown back in its face. This is creating a cycle.

I have a great deal of respect for those who wore the uniform for many years before me, just as I have for all the MPs who were members for 20 or 30 years. It is a great pleasure for me to sit down with them and to understand the mechanisms that were previously in place. Those people said a number of times that there was a culture of isolation and that they were being completely excluded. That creates a gulf and mistrust, which is absolutely unacceptable.

We are seeking amendments that are more than reasonable. I do not understand why there cannot be a reconciliation so that we can move forward. This makes no sense. Let the Conservatives remain arrogant and maintain their position. That is up to them, but there is no way that will reconcile law enforcement agencies with the public service.

I recently read a quote by Nelson Mandela. He said that when he was imprisoned in South Africa, he spoke to the prison warden and told him that the relationship they had today would be important tomorrow because tomorrow their roles would not be the same. How will we eat tomorrow's meal? How many people have I seen become professional police officers as adults, and how many police officers have I seen become civilians? The same is true of MPs and the relationship we have in the House today.

In a recent speech, President Obama said we are not here to be perfect, but to do a job. Unfortunately, every day in every committee, there is a barrier that should not exist because we are trying to move forward, to listen and to put appropriate mechanisms in place. The amendments we proposed are more than reasonable. The Conservatives could have kept at least one of them, but they did not.

We are trying to come up with a policy of reconciliation. It is a positive and constructive step, one that would result in more transparency and accessibility and an improvement in services in the field. I am proud of our workers in uniform because they do an excellent job. I am proud to have worked with them and to have been one of them. However, there are some serious issues that need to be dealt with.

We must put a stop to the harassment in this work environment. Let us put an end to it once and for all.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by the member. I know that even shortly after I was first elected to the House, the issue of sexual harassment in the RCMP was a big issue. I know it has been raised for a number of years now, and it is one of the reasons I believe that the RCMP commissioner ultimately went public in providing a letter saying that he wants to have more ability to discipline RCMP officers in situations such as sexual harassment.

It is somewhat frustrating that when we get good ideas on this side of the House and an amendment comes up, it does not seem to matter if the amendment is good or bad; it just does not have a chance at passing because there is a new mentality with the majority government that if it is an opposition amendment, it is automatically bad.

I wonder if the member would like to comment with respect to amendments and that process. I know there was an attempt on their part to try to improve the legislation because, like the Liberal Party, they believe that the bill falls short and that the government could have done more.

[Jean-François Larose, NDP, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question and comments.

Having sat on four committees, I can indeed confirm that amendments are always dealt with in the same manner. I once pleaded with the Conservatives, in camera, saying I understood their position but disagreed with them, and I asked if we could at least meet halfway in order to move forward.

I know the members of the committee because I have had to replace one of them in the past. They are quite professional and thorough. I even heard someone say how good it was to have someone who once wore the uniform, because no one else had that experience. Unfortunately, however, no one there really listened.

All questions raised and solutions brought forward are brushed aside. I believe the people know better and will draw their own conclusions regarding the government's intentions.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and his great experience with this segment of our society, which makes his words even more powerful.

The Conservatives have a thing about amendments. With regard to Bill C-47, some 50 amendments were put forward. Most of them came from northerners, and the bill was on the north. Most of the amendments came from witnesses from across the north, who brought them forward in amendment form, and that made the body of the amendments that were put forward. None of them were voted for by the Conservatives, of course.

I want to clarify something with respect to these amendments that were brought forward. What was the position of many of the witnesses before the committee as to these amendments?

[Jean-François Larose, NDP, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was not in committee, but I did read the blues and I did go through all the material. I would say the majority of them said two things. First, they said that Bill C-42 fell short. That was all there was to it. It did not address their issues. Second, the amendments that were brought forward were brought forward with the information of the witnesses.

I do not understand what the position of the government is. They bring in witnesses who contradict Bill C-42 and say that it is a good step but it is far from being sufficient and it needs to be modified. This is how they see it. Then we propose the amendments, both sides, the NDP and the Liberal Party, and the Conservatives systematically vote against them. I am a little confused. They can say they listened to the experts, but when they bring in their own experts, they do not even listen to them.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleagues who spoke before me, especially my colleague who has a great deal of experience in this area.

The NDP has often wondered why RCMP members were not really consulted.

The government says that 12 members of the House used to be police officers in various parts of the country and that they should understand the situation and the changes and amendments that need to be made to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act. I am sorry, but the 20,000 officers in the field who serve every day across the country were not consulted. They will be the forgotten ones in this process. We are not asking that each and every one of them be consulted, but only that the government go out into the field. Did the famous government members go back to the field to see how things are going? Do they know how all the changes resulting from Bill C-42 will pan out?

Having said that, I would like to express my gratitude for being able to speak to Bill C-42, Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, more commonly known as the modernizing RCMP services act. If we want to modernize a service as important to public safety and national security as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we must establish a certain process for consulting its members.

I was a human resources manager. When you want to make changes to an organization and its members, you must consult them, listen to them, be receptive to their comments and especially take care of their injuries. Whether or not they are unionized is not part of this discussion. Some have been carrying around not only physical injuries, but also emotional and psychological injuries for too long at the RCMP. They are not being consulted. They are not being listened to. They carry weapons. It seems to me that the government should feel a sense of responsibility to them, should listen and be attentive to them, especially those who are in distress.

It is a matter of national security. Sometimes, they are the first line of defence, but the government is not listening to them. They seem to have been left out of a process meant to enhance performance and increase efficiency so that they can protect us faithfully. I know some of them. I have come to know them since I was elected. They are very proud of their work, their history and the culture of their police force. A negative culture may have permeated the RCMP over the last few years, but we must look at the evidence, examine the situation coolly, and then make changes and implement them in the field.

We know how important it is to have not only an effective police force, but also police officers who have optimum working conditions, especially when it comes to public safety, as I mentioned. Everyone acknowledges that Canadians should be able to trust their national police force. This is indisputable.

This bill emphasizes that civilian oversight of the RCMP is critical to promoting accountability to the public and ensuring transparency in police forces. There must also be transparency in the review process when legislation that is as important as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act is being rewritten. Similarly, civilian oversight should increase the RCMP's accountability to the provincial governments that its forces serve. All too often we forget that, throughout Canada, the leading police service is the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

The legislation is also meant to provide the Canadian government with a framework that would be used to launch an ongoing modernization process. As I said, unless the government consults and goes to see what is happening on the ground, we will be unable to accept any of its measures, and so will Canadians and people in the RCMP. When such huge changes are being considered, they must be acceptable to everyone involved.

As I said, since I was elected on May 2, 2011—almost two years ago—I have had many opportunities to meet members of the RCMP and to learn about the extraordinary work they do, despite the limited human, materiel and financial resources available to them. Because they are expected to do more work with less money, major components of our national security are at risk.

We are talking 2,500 km. There are six border posts in my riding. We have 22 in Quebec. We have the east coast, the west coast, the north and the Arctic. The RCMP is a sizeable police force. Over 20,000 workers have been and will continue to be subject to accusations and cuts, over and over. In spite of everything, they have to continue to perform their duties under difficult conditions. Morale has been seriously affected. How can they ensure the safety of Canadians and, often, that of visiting dignitaries, summit security, as we have seen, and sometimes even the Prime Minister?

As a manager, I would tend to pay attention to the mood of such people. This is important to me because I do not like to see workers whose basic right to be heard is being disrespected, especially when they are showing signs of distress. There is plenty of that within the ranks of the RCMP.

Yes, the intent of the bill is good. They want to resolve matters, but are they not trying to resolve the image rather than the real problem that exists within the RCMP?

In terms of organizational structure, it is the same thing. They are going to give more and more discretionary powers to the commissioner. They say:

It modernizes the Royal Canadian Mounted Police’s human resources management regime [and] authorizes the Commissioner to act with respect to staffing...

I know very well that staffing is involved. They are replacing trained RCMP officers with civilians in public service positions. They go on:

disputes relating to harassment and general human resource management.

The Commissioner can have a right of oversight, but it is not up to him to do that.

In big corporations, they never let senior management decide everything—not under these conditions. It is unacceptable. People must be listened to and consulted. Human resources management is done by professionals. I look forward to hearing the reaction on the shop floor when they appoint a human resources management professional as commissioner. They will say he knows nothing about the job, because he has never worked on the shop floor.

This is what they are doing. They are leaving the management of things as important as promotions and complaints to the commissioner. He will not even be bound by observations made by the civilian review body.

Under these conditions, it is unacceptable to have a police force the size of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police which also has to co-operate and share responsibilities with provincial and municipal police forces in many provinces. As for First Nations police officers, they were not even heard from in this process, yet they are an important part of the equation.

I could discuss this at greater length.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate and thank my colleague from Compton—Stanstead for the work he did on this file in committee.

In his speech, he clearly pointed out how the bill should have been improved. Sadly, the Conservatives rejected every excellent amendment the expert witnesses had suggested. It is very disappointing.

I would like my hon. colleague to tell us more about the work he did at committee stage. I would also like to hear his thoughts on the fact that the Conservatives rejected all the amendments from our NDP colleagues. Could he tell us how this attitude interferes with our work as MPs and is forcing us to vote against this bill, when we could have supported it had the amendments been passed?

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank my colleague from Drummond, who does an excellent job on environmental issues in his riding and in our party.

The committee members get along well. We all agree on some points, but on other issues, we hit an unbreakable wall. There is a total rejection of any recommendations that come from NDP-supported reports and a total rejection of NDP amendments.

We even see personal attacks at times. The Minister of Public Safety himself has launched attacks against NDP members instead of answering questions.

The government claims that, because some of its MPs are former police officers, it knows exactly how to fix that type of legislation. This attitude is unacceptable. Once again, the government rejects all collaboration. It does a sloppy job on bills, rushing to get rid of them. Canadians will have to live with the consequences.

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we were talking about sexual harassment in the RCMP. One thing worries me. Victims are afraid. How can a woman speak about such a difficult situation when she is ashamed? There are many other factors that come into play. If the person harassing her is her boss—the one who makes the decisions—she is out of luck.

Could my colleague explain how it is possible to introduce a bill that is so lacking in that area.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a report was released by the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP on February 14. That is not that long ago. Ian McPhail made 11 recommendations aimed at improving the manner in which the RCMP deals with workplace conflict. He recommended enhanced reporting and tracking of harassment complaints. Some complaints in the RCMP have been collecting dust for four or five years. When it comes to a harassment or other complaint, if there is a delay of four or five years, it is easier to forget the victim and the person who might be accused of harassment or wrongdoing. Then what happens?

There are 900 RCMP positions in Canada. The answer is far too easy. I have heard about officers who worked for 10 to 15 years in their province and then were transferred when they were suspected of doing something wrong. They were moved three or four provinces to the east, west or north to remove them from the situation and demoralize them further until a proper procedure was put in place.

Every employee in Canada's public service, every provincial employee and even every non-unionized worker has access to a labour relations grievance process, but the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is not entitled to have a process that is fair for both the victims and those accused of negligence.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on Bill C-42, the Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act.

We can see quite clearly, through the work that has been done by our side of the House in exposing it, how difficult it was to get any amendments to this bill and how difficult it was to deal with the real issues that witnesses in front of the committee brought forward. This is a pattern that the Conservative government in its majority has worked on pretty hard. It exists in almost every committee of this House.

While I support the need to modernize the workplace of the RCMP, this bill does not do enough to reach that objective. My colleagues on this side of the House have gone through the process and raised many valid issues and complaints.

As a person from the northern regions of Canada where the RCMP is the only police force, and having lived there all of my life, I see that there is really a requirement in small communities across the north for RCMP officers to have the opportunity to have a very direct relationship with others that they can get hold of in order to deal with the kinds of grievances that may arise in very small detachments. I just do not see that this bill is adequate to deal with that.

Having said that, I want to focus on two proposed new subsections of the act that maybe have not received much attention and that I think are very interesting subsections of the bill. We need to look at subsection 31(1.3) and subsection 31(1.4).

Section 31 of the act sets out when an RCMP member may make a grievance and sets out limitations to when an officer may not make a grievance.

Proposed subsection 31(1.3) reads:

A member is not entitled to present a grievance relating to any action taken under any instruction, direction or regulation given or made by or on behalf of the Government of Canada in the interest of the safety or security of Canada or any state allied or associated with Canada.

In other words, officers who refuse to carry out an unlawful order can be disciplined up to and including dismissal from the force, and they would not be able to complain that they are being punished for refusing to obey the law.

This section could also mean that RCMP officers who blow the whistle on illegal orders would also be subject to discipline, including dismissal, and would have no right to complain that they were being disciplined for revealing illegal activities inside the RCMP, even if they were under the instruction of the government—especially if they were under the instruction of the government.

Retired RCMP officer Rob Creasser, spokesperson for the Mounted Police Professional Association of Canada, said:

It places RCMP members in an untenable situation when they are being directed...to break Canadian or international law.

Proposed new subsection 31(1.4) reads:

For the purposes of subsection (1.3), an order made by the Governor in Council is conclusive proof of the matters stated in the order in relation to the giving or making of an instruction, direction or regulation by or on behalf of the Government of Canada in the interest of the safety or security of Canada or any state allied or associated with Canada.

In other words, the cabinet, a small group of like-minded politicians meeting in secret, would determine which laws the RCMP would have to follow and which laws the RCMP would break, and what those mean.

Gail Davidson, executive director for Lawyers' Rights Watch Canada, describes this clause as very dangerous, saying:

Police officers have special powers...to use force and to deprive people of their liberty, and the reason they have those powers is to keep the public peace.

Keeping the public peace means ensuring that the laws are upheld, and this is legitimate laws and the rule of law.

Some of the dangers in here are that these clauses could be used to condone torture and the use of information gathered through torture. Torture and the use of information gained through torture are against both Canadian law and international law. However, once enforced, this bill would negate these laws.

Upholding the law and the rule of law is something the Minister of Public Safety does not appreciate. With his directions to the RCMP, the Canadian Border Services and CSIS, he has instructed them to use information gained through torture.

Last November Surrey, B.C., RCMP Constable Lloyd Pinsent circulated a paper he wrote with the title, “The Terrorists Have Won. RCMP Ordered to Accept Torture-Tainted Information”.

In his paper, Constable Pinsent lays out how Bill C-42, combined with the Minister of Public Safety's direction that it is okay to use information gathered through torture, essentially ordered the RCMP to break the law.

Mr. Pinsent wrote:

While the direction from Minister Toews is in contravention of existing Canadian and international law, under [Bill C-42’s] section 31. (1.4) the order is to be viewed as conclusive proof and questions about the legitimacy of the order are not allowed either....

What we have here is a situation that can lead to abuse in the future. Why did the Conservative government decide to put this particular aspect into the accountability act, such as they call it? In other words, RCMP members are not accountable here, cannot be accountable and cannot stand up and speak the truth about what is happening to them or how they feel about the imposition of illegal practices upon them through an order of the Governor in Council. The Governor in Council can make that decision in secret, based on its desire to ensure what it considers to be the safety and security of Canada. This smacks of a police state, and I think everybody would agree to that.

In this country, we always have a need for people to deal with illegal behaviour. Canada is a signatory to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which states:

No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

Therefore, with regard to the minister's attempt to justify torture and the use of information gained from torture, any such use or activities are illegitimate under Canada's international legal obligations. However, considering recent actions, the Conservative government has little respect for the rule of law.

In June 2012, the UN Committee Against Torture released a report on Canada's compliance with the UN Convention Against Torture. In this report, the committee raised serious concerns with the Conservative's laissez-faire attitude toward torture saying that it could result in violations of article 15 of the convention. However, Bill C-42 would give more authority for any government to act in a way that is improper and could lead to Canada's reputation being tarnished before the world. It could lead to great human rights abuses. It could lead to a number of other things, such as the need for illegal wiretaps and information collection, and all kinds of activities that could take place in the name of the security of this country. These are very serious issues.

In 2006, Justice Dennis O'Connor, in his report on the events relating to Maher Arar, recommended:

Policies should include specific directions aimed at eliminating any possible Canadian complicity in torture, avoiding the risk of other human rights abuses and ensuring accountability.

These sections in Bill C-42 would go against that recommendation. These sections would create a situation in which the government would have the ability to direct the police force in a way that is inappropriate. Here we have a proposed law that would essentially make it legal for the police to break the law, and if they choose not to break the law, they may be dismissed without the right to a grievance.

This is supposed to be legislation about modernizing the RCMP workplace. However, these clauses would take it backward in time and should not have been put into the legislation. It should have been debated in a different fashion. Perhaps the laws could have been amended to provide some security to Canadians. However, when it comes to viewing these clauses in the bill and the thought of the Conservative government overriding civil rights in the name of national security, we must ask these questions: Did the terrorists win? Has the Canadian state acquiesced?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned Mr. O'Connor. The other person we should be listening to is Paul Kennedy. He was the one who recommended many things that the government should do to reform the RCMP.

Paul Kennedy, after having spent much time trying to deal with things internally in the RCMP and the complaints commission process, said it had to be outside the RCMP, that it had to be civilian oversight. He said that the legislation this one is based on, Bill C-42, which is a reiteration of Bill C-38, “is so riddled with loopholes it doesn't meet O'Connor's standard”.

Could he comment on Mr. Kennedy's comments about this legislation?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I have addressed my remarks to one particular section of the legislation that I find to be unacceptable, and I am sure many other people would look at it in that fashion.

Having met with the RCMP over many years here on different occasions, I feel very strongly the RCMP needs a union or an association that could protect the individual rights of the RCMP members. Until that happens, we will have the situation we have now. Thousands of grievances are backlogged, and RCMP officers are unhappy. There is no opportunity for people to deal with the kinds of situations in which they find themselves in the workplace and there is no intermediary on their side.

How can people work in that kind of environment? How can they do their jobs in the kind of risk-oriented work that police officers have to take on every day, with the stress and the strain they have to deal with, without some measure of support that is legitimate and is there for them when they have troubles or situations where they need to have someone on their side?

We can create any law we want. Without giving the police forces, our RCMP, the opportunity to have the same rights as other Canadians and other Canadian workers, this simply will not work.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Western Arctic will have, if he wishes, two and a half minutes left for questions and comments when the House next resumes debate on the question.

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Bill C-42—Time Allocation Motion

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

moved:

That, in relation to C-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the third reading stage of the bill; and

that, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government orders on the day allotted to the consideration at the third reading stage of said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67(1), there will now be a 30-minute question period.

I would invite hon. members who wish to participate in the 30-question period to stay and participate in the debate, and we will proceed to that debate forthwith.

The hon. member for Saint-Lambert.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have yet another gag order in the form of a time allocation motion, a tactic that the Conservatives are unfortunately using far too often.

This is a record 29th time that this government has moved a time allocation motion. This record may belong in the Guinness Book of World Records, but it does nothing to improve the image of the House.

When the government imposes time allocation on all members of the House, it is essentially gagging all Canadians, and we cannot repeat that enough.

This government needs to take responsibility and do what people expect it to do. We should be able to have in-depth discussions of bills in the House. It is completely unconscionable and unacceptable that we are faced with yet another time allocation motion.

My question is simple: what is the government trying to hide and what reason does it have for cutting off debate on this bill?

[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?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is important that we recognize the fact that the government has a record in terms of putting time allocation on numerous bills. The Liberal Party has been fairly clear in stating its support for the principle of the bill that is in question today, and we would ultimately like to see it pass. We have not been putting up speakers to try to delay, or anything of that nature, but we do question the level of frequency by which the government uses time allocation. We have seen it on numerous bills, whether it is Bill C-27, the first nations accountability bill, Air Canada, Canada Post, CP, the Panama free trade agreement, budget bills, back to work legislation with regard to Air Canada, the Financial System Review Act, the gun registry, the copyright bill, the pooled pension plan bill, one of my favourites, and the Canadian Wheat Board. All of these are bills, and more, on which the government has decided to invoke time allocation.

My question is more for the government House leader. Why does the government choose to introduce time allocation on many bills, which therefore takes away the responsibility of opposition members and all backbenchers, I would suggest, to provide due diligence in ensuring that every bill is given due process and is well debated and ultimately passed or defeated in the House of Commons? Why does the government go to this tool time after time?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North is up on his feet quite a bit. I often turn on the television in my office and there is the member for Winnipeg North. I remember the member for Winnipeg North when we served together in the provincial legislature. He is a fine member. He gives his constituents good representation. I think they are pleased to see him here rather than the former party that used to occupy that seat. His constituents have taken one step up in terms of representation.

The member's position is that there has been enough debate. However, that is not the issue. The issue is that closure has been brought in. If there has been enough debate, then why is it not time to close it down and get on with a vote?

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I would like to remind hon. members to try to keep the interventions to around a minute or so, both the questions and the responses.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if that exchange between my two friends across the way was the minister trying to help out my friend in the next election campaign or trying to severely curtail his chances of winning. I do not know if that goes on a brochure or not.

My point is this. The irony of the government using a closure motion, a motion to shut down debate on a bill called the RCMP accountability act, seems to be lost on it. The fact that the RCMP is in need of reform is well understood in this country. I have debated the minister often on this, and he has stonewalled efforts for years. Now, when the government has brought a bill forward, insufficient and incomplete, according to members themselves, the minister says we have talked enough about this; it is good enough, like it or lump it, this is how it is going to be.

We do not often get the chance to reform the RCMP. It does not happen every year. It does not happen every 10 years. One would think that getting the bill right would be important to the government, but it is not. What is important to the government is its continuing treatment of this place with disdain, and its fundamental disrespect of the voters we represent in saying that whatever the government's agenda is, so be it. It is the Conservative way or the highway. That is not good enough for Canadians. That level of arrogance, of uncertainty, in terms of dealing with our democratic institution, is something that will be lost.

[An hon. member]

They do not want your style, like every piece of legislation that comes through here.

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

Mr. Speaker, the members can heckle if they want, but we all know that the ability to govern requires a certain amount of intelligence, and from time to time a certain amount of humility, something the government is often lacking.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I was not born with the intelligence of the member across the way, but in my own humble way, I try to do my best and move things along.

NDP members have brought forward an amendment to get rid of the short title of the bill, which is the enhancing RCMP accountability act. Once we get down to a discussion to not include any reference to enhancing accountability, then where can the debate go from there? We are saying we need to enhance accountability. They are saying not to enhance accountability. After 15 days, the debate has ground to a halt. This is the only logical thing the government can do because there is no desire on the part of the opposition to enhance accountability. The opposition is against the concept of accountability. Those members have said so by wanting to remove the short title.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in listening to the last comments, my friend from Winnipeg North talked about the record of the government in bringing in time allocation. I would suggest it is a record in terms of the opposition delaying any bit of legislation as much as they possibly could. We have been dealing with this issue in committee as well. We have had 15 days in the House and time in committee.

The opposition House leader talked about accountability. At some point, the House has to be accountable to eventually come to a decision on something, and not drag it out forever. We have 13 police officers in our caucus who have all worked hard on this piece of legislation. The NDP said it can no longer support it, one of the reasons being that it will give the commissioner of the RCMP the ability to root out bad apples. The opposition states it wants accountability and yet it would not support measures that would give the commissioner the ability to hold individuals accountable for their actions.

Can the minister comment on this apparent dichotomy?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the member has raised these types of substantive issues. Canadians who have been following the debate understand the nature of the bill and what the government is trying to accomplish with the RCMP.

I am very proud of the RCMP, the commissioner, and the work the commissioner is doing with the RCMP. However, the commissioner cannot do it all by himself. He needs the support of the House. The attorneys general across Canada have told us they want reforms. We brought forward this bill for accountability, and I am pleased the Liberals are supporting it in principle. It is a very progressive bill in respect of dealing with issues of accountability.

At this point, all I can say is that I want to help the RCMP and the commissioner, and I am calling on the House to do exactly that by passing this bill.

[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, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the translation was correct, but what I was indicating was that the member said she wants to talk about substantive issues and content, and yet time and time again the NDP brings forward frivolous amendments. The one primary frivolous amendment it is bringing forward is wanting the people of Canada to listen to a debate, not about accountability or how to make a more effective national police force in Canada, but whether we should have a short title for the act that is called enhancing RCMP accountability act. Once we are into that kind of discussion, whatever substantive arguments there might be have all been exhausted.

We are talking about getting down to the issue. Let us vote. The substantive issues have clearly been discussed given the nature of the amendments that the NDP brought forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could enlighten the hon. minister. Perhaps he has been off the opposition benches for so long that he has forgotten the very cogent and sensible reason why members of the opposition parties, who have been part of committee processes by the rules of this place, could only put forward deletions at third reading, and in order to get priority for speaking opportunities in third reading debate choose such things as a deletion of the short title in order to get a speaking spot. I can assure anyone watching these proceedings that the official opposition will not waste its time saying why it wants to delete a short title. It will use that speaking opportunity to put forward concerns that are real and legitimate about this legislation.

I happen to know the rules quite well because I have the somewhat unique perspective of being able to bring forth both deletions and substantive amendments at report stage. In this case, it is a disservice to those who might be looking at this debate, or reading Hansard later, to think the official opposition is obsessed about the short title. It is simply looking for a chance for democratic debate.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what that party's or that member's position is. She is not a member of the official opposition.

The official opposition is the New Democrat Party. I see from what they have brought forward that all of those issues have been fully considered and that we are beginning to spin our tires by bringing forward amendments that would delete the short title of the act.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I think the minister has made his point quite clearly.

As members of the Canadian public reflect back on Hansard, they will see clearly that members of opposition have taken an opportunity to engage in this debate. One after another, they are not talking about the substance of this bill. They are talking about process, not content.

The only questions that have involved the content of this bill at all have come from members on this side. On that note, I would like to ask the minister what he has heard. I can share the experience of the Yukon's “Sharing Common Ground” report, and the review of Yukon's police force asks for some very specific things, which are reflected directly in this bill in terms of accountability and in terms of improving the RCMP.

I was wondering if the minister would take an opportunity to comment on what he has heard across all provinces, particularly the Yukon experience, and how this bill is going to help that territory with its relationship with the RCMP?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank that member for his question. I also want to thank that member for the work he has done on this file and, prior to that, for his work as a correctional officer and even a member of the RCMP.

In fact, he was a member of both the correctional and enforcement areas of the law and certainly brings a lot to bear. The people of the Yukon are well served by an individual who puts his territory, his jurisdiction, right to the forefront of the discussion and ensures that people here in Ottawa hear what the people of Yukon are saying.

I have had the occasion to travel to the Yukon. At least once a year, I try to get there to hear what the people of the Yukon are saying. Generally speaking, I find good broad-based support for this legislation, not only from government officials but from people generally who want to see accountability in the RCMP. They want the RCMP to be everything it can be. This bill would do exactly that.

[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?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think there are certain very key principles that this act encompasses or encapsulates and brings forward to this House for our consideration.

Each one of those principles in the act have been thoroughly discussed, things like strengthening the RCMP review and complaint body; the new statutory framework for serious incident investigation involving RCMP members; and the modernization of the discipline, grievance and other human resource management processes.

These issues have been brought forward in this legislation. They have been debated for 15 days. That is not even taking into account the broader context of the knowledge that each member brings to a particular file like this.

The issues that have been raised in the past to the RCMP all bear down on this particular experience. We tried to encapsulate them as quickly as possible and ensure that both sides of the argument have been heard. In terms of amendments, both sides of the argument have been canvassed fully in this House.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons we argue for more scrutiny, oversight and due diligence is the fact that the particular party and particular minister have a reputation now of launching bills that are half-baked and that have not been given the oversight and scrutiny they deserve.

I was here when the minister had to stand up and amend his own legislation because, even though he was warned all through the process of the legislation that certain elements offended the charter and were unconstitutional, et cetera, the Conservatives would not allow a single amendment. In fact, they have not allowed a single amendment to a single bill in the entire 41st Parliament. It is as if they have some of kind of monopoly on wisdom in this regard, but in actual fact, they make a lot of mistakes. I have a list here of some of the charter challenges on legislation from the government since 2007; two of them dealing with the RCMP and the Expenditure Restraint Act.

The Conservatives cannot tell me that they are not launching stuff into this House of Commons that may not have been vetted properly by the Department of Justice officials, as according to whistleblower Edgar Schmidt. In actual fact, bills arrive here in a state that should not be passed, that deserve to be analyzed further, criticized and scrutinized and have the merits of their arguments tested by legitimate debate in the House of Commons, the way God wanted it.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I know that member is closer to God than I am, and so I will have to take his word on that.

However, I find the member's arguments a little puzzling. He said we have never allowed any amendments, that we are rigid in our position, but in the next breath he is saying the minister amends his legislation.

I have to say that we have listened to arguments, and where there are valid concerns and arguments, we amend it, as the member himself has indicated.

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

Mr. Speaker, what is happening here this afternoon seems quite paradoxical. Just when we are being told that debate has gone on long enough, the majority of the remarks coming from the Conservative bench are focusing on arguments or the bill. Yet this short, 30-minute window we have been given should be used to debate the time allocation motion, which, I would like to remind the House, is meant to be used as an exception.

What happened in committee or while this bill was being studied that would justify muzzling the members and shortening the time for debate when we know that enlightenment comes when ideas collide?

They are not debating that. They are debating the amendments we proposed, which were rejected. It makes no sense. I am having a hard time wrapping my head around this whole situation.

I would like the minister to explain how the government can justify a time allocation motion and muzzling members.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, actually, I found the comments from members on the Conservative side to be very instructive to this particular debate on time allocation. What I heard the members from the Conservative side say is that there are some very important principles at stake here in terms of the substance of the bill, and why is it that the NDP would consistently oppose those principles?

That is my concern as well, because I have not heard any substantive arguments in the past 15 days of debate that would in fact indicate there is any problem with this substantive bill that is moving forward. Therefore, time allocation is the appropriate measure in these circumstances.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to participate in the debate on this bill as well as hear my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, make a very strong argument on why this bill is necessary. Not only is the bill necessary, but it is timely.

We have heard members of the opposition stand up on this bill and talk about how these changes will make the RCMP function more effectively. We have heard from stakeholders within the organization, and without, talk about why these amendments and changes to the legislation are so important. The fact remains that amendments were made.

This bill is an important piece of legislation. The opposition has agreed to this principle. Therefore, my question to the minister is: Given this basic fact, why is it so important for us to pass the bill in a timely and efficient manner? Can the minister confirm that in this House there have been hours and hours of debate as well as committee testimony on this bill?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her work on this bill and for the question.

I do want to reiterate that, in fact, there have been many hours of debate—15 days—and that is quite a significant amount of debate. I am a little confused about one issue. I hear the Liberal position and I think it is a responsible position. The Liberals say that even though they disagree with us on some aspects, this would move the process forward in terms of enhancing the accountability of the RCMP.

On the other hand, the New Democrats consistently criticize the RCMP and suggest there is something untoward happening in the entire organization, and yet they are not even willing to agree on the fundamental principles that we need to enshrine in legislation to move that organization forward.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I must contradict the member for Trois-Rivières, who said earlier that time allocation is an exceptional measure. It is no longer an exceptional measure. Members were just saying that it has been invoked 29 or 30 times; I have counted 32 instances.

My first question for the minister is how many times has it been invoked? It would be good to know the exact number of times.

Furthermore, I was listening carefully when he answered the opposition members. He said that there have been 15 days of debate and that that is enough. He then said that is a good bill, that he does not see why it should be amended, that the opposition members have debated it long enough, that the government is sick and tired of listening to them and that it is time to move on to other things.

Is 15 days now the Conservative government's standard even if the opposition does not listen to reason at some point and wants to continue hearing from witnesses? If members of civil society want to express their opinions about a bill, is that the point when MPs are muzzled? Is that the criterion? I would like to know exactly what triggers time allocation, so that we do not get prepared for nothing.

The Conservatives need only introduce bills and immediately invoke time allocation. That would speed things up.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I don't ever recall saying I am sick and tired of listening to the members opposite. In fact, if this were just a friendly debate between friends, as we all are of course, and if there were no consequences and we could go on forever, I could well see us talking the night away, for however much time we have patience. I am never sick of the member or tired of the member. The member brings valid contributions to this House.

However, we have a very specific responsibility. There comes a time, and I think that time has come in the life of this bill, that we move it forward to the vote. It is reflected in the type of amendments that are being made and the type of arguments that are being made. There is nothing new that the opposition members, in particular the NDP, have brought forward in the last 15 days. We have heard these arguments over and over. I invite members of the public to review the transcripts and see if there is anything substantively new, which all of a sudden is going to develop. The positions have been laid out very carefully. Members in all parties and private members now can determine in what direction they want this bill to go. We said it should come to a vote. We think it is time to pass this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, the lack of credibility that the minister presents and the need for shutting down debate comes from a party that moved 471 amendments to the Nisga'a Final Agreement in some attempt to block the efforts and the will, not just of the Nisga'a but of the Canadian people.

The minister also now pretends that he has listened to 15 days of debate and he is going to play judge, jury and executioner as to whether the debate is finished in his view, whether valid points are being raised anymore. This also is coming from a minister in a government that at no time accepts any amendments to any of its legislative pieces, ever. The Conservatives simply sit there and say that what they introduced the first time is good enough.

We now find out that within their own department there used to be a 95% certainty of a Charter challenge for legislation coming from the Government of Canada, and this law and order government is now saying that the threshold for success of a bill to stand a Charter challenge is 5%. So if it even has a whiff of possibility of passing through a Supreme Court challenge, the Conservatives will introduce it. Why? It is for politics, not for policy, not for governing, but for pure politics

The Minister of Public Safety, so-called, does this time and again and then stands up and says he is open to discussion and open to amendments and that he is a very reasonable guy, but his actions are otherwise. The current government's actions are otherwise.

The members of the government do not like the problems of democracy and the inconvenience of debate, but maybe, from time to time, they could have the humility to take the views of the experts and of the members of the opposition and once in a while have the humility to change their legislation to make it better, make it stronger and finally serve Canadians.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if I want to learn lessons in humility, I will go to the NDP. Perhaps I will come there for that lesson. In respect of being concerned about what lawyers are saying about the bill, I want to say one thing. We want to do the right thing for the people of Canada. The people of Canada have asked us to bring forward an agenda, and we are bringing it forward.

We are prepared to go to the courts and explain why this is necessary. Courts do not set policy. This House sets policy. The member is an individual who is prepared to abdicate his responsibility as a policy-maker and let lawyers and judges determine our future. I have more faith in the House of Commons, indeed even in an elected NDP member, than in that kind of claptrap.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

This will bring the period allocated for debate to an end, but before we put the question, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway, International Trade; the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, Housing; the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, Citizenship and Immigration.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

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

Vote #623

Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from February 28 consideration of the motion 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.

Third Reading

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I wish to inform the House that because of the proceedings in the time allocation motion, government orders will be extended by 30 minutes.

The Chair has notice of a question of privilege from the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.