Debates of April 3rd, 2009

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was happy to hear that my friend from the NDP will be voting in favour of this legislation, subject, of course, to some of the issues that may come up in public safety committee, of which we are both members.

I listened intently to his preamble, which really had nothing to do with the bill, so I think it offers an opportunity for some questions that actually have to do with the bill.

One of the issues he talked about and the reason NDP members are supporting the bill is that it is good for the RCMP. I am glad to hear they will be supporting the bill but, of course, the vote in the House will be the determining factor as to whether they do. We have been disappointed by some of those votes, which relate directly to support of the RCMP. I refer to budgetary items such as the hiring of 1,600 members of the RCMP. When we work really hard, we need extra bodies to help, and he and his party voted against that.

He and members of his party also voted against money to expand Depot so they could train those new officers. He also voted against some of the other measures we took that will greatly enhance the RCMP's ability to do their job.

I wonder if he would like to comment on those additional things. Why did he vote against those measures?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, does the member really think Canadians are that stupid that they do not understand that nobody votes separately on a budget item in this House, such as whether we should increase the number of police officers? We support the increasing of support for the RCMP, and we have supported that publicly. We know it helps to make communities safer. We need to act to prevent crime, not just treat criminals with the kind of harsh measures that the government seems to have as the only solution.

Members opposite do this every day. They think that Canadians are really stupid and they do not understand that when we vote for a budget, it is the entire budget, all the bad things. The budget, for example, contains the rollback of RCMP wages. All the negative things are also in the budget. A budget is a statement of confidence in the government and we do not have it, which is why we voted against the budget.

It is not a question of voting against individual measures. Obviously there are many positive things in any budget. If what the member said were true, no budget would ever be defeated and no one would ever really bother to have budget votes. The government would just say that this is its budget and everyone will support it because otherwise they will be voting against something positive.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for St. John's East for his fine speech and for his indication that the NDP will be supporting the bill at second reading.

I want to ask him something specifically about the importance of this legislation. In the province of British Columbia and in Newfoundland as well RCMP officers in many of our communities are the only police force. In my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan the RCMP is the only police force there. I also understand that in many of our communities, and again this is the case in my community, we often have difficulty in filling the vacancies for RCMP officers. The bill currently before us may help in some of that recruitment and retention.

I wonder if the member could comment first of all on some of the challenges he sees with recruitment and retention of RCMP officers, but also how the implications in Bill C-10, which roll back that agreement, will contribute to some challenges for the RCMP in recruiting the members that many of our communities rely on. Rural and remote communities are often not the first community of choice. If we cannot make sure that RCMP officers are treated fairly with their wages and pensions, we are going to have increasing difficulties. I wonder if the member could comment on that.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to RCMP officers, first and foremost they are people with careers with families, who want to understand that they have financial security and that they are treated fairly. The bill is an aspect of that. They are going to have more security in their jobs and are more likely to stay in those jobs, and undertake the responsibilities of working in small communities, doing their duty in places where others may not wish to go because they will know they are being treated well by their pension system. That is an enhancement of that.

The taking away of pay increases is a bit of a breach of faith and does go the other way and increases the insecurity that RCMP members feel. We are very disappointed with that and why we strongly opposed it. It does affect recruitment and also affects perhaps even more retention, the people who might want to stay for an extra two years knowing they are going to get an increase, and that their pension will be increased and their security after work is going to be increased. They might say, “I might as well get out now because I am not being treated fairly while I am in”, so that is important as well.

First and foremost they are workers, they have families and careers, and they deserve fairness.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-18 which is an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, to validate certain calculations and to amend other acts.

From some briefings that were provided in terms of the content of the bill, I want to highlight a couple of the aspects of the bill. I also want to thank the member for St. John's East for highlighting some of the challenges that will be brought forward in committee. The NDP is firmly in support of the bill and the member for St. John's East has identified a few problems that could be resolved at committee, and hopefully the government and other members of the House will take a look at some of the shortfalls in the bill.

The bill aims to make RCMP pensions more portable by allowing for the expansion of existing election for prior service provisions and permitting the introduction of pension transfer agreements.

The pension portability schemes are generally enacted to improve recruitment options especially for lateral applicants. Without pension portability provisions, such as those allowed by Bill C-18, pension credits with former employers, for example, with a municipal police force, would not be transferrable to the RCMP pension plan, making a lateral transfer to the RCMP less attractive.

The introduction of pension transfer arrangements will allow the RCMP to enter into formal arrangements with other Canadian pension plans to permit the transfer of pension credits into and out of the RCMP pension plan. Once implemented the pension transfer agreement sections will bring the RCMP pension plan into line with the federal public service pension plan which has approximately 770 pension transfer agreements.

We can see from that very brief outline that this is a very technical bill, but we can see that these kinds of pension agreements are already in place within the public service. It seems reasonable that the RCMP, who play such a critical role in many of our communities, should be able to have access to the same kinds of arrangements.

The member for St. John's East touched upon this, but I want to remind the House that these proposed changes have actually been in the works since 1995. Once again, what we have is long delays in dealing with some legislative amendments that could have been dealt with more than 10 to 15 years ago. It happened in 1995, in 1999, and it happened again in 2005.

Both the Conservatives and the Liberals simply could not get their act together in terms of addressing this anomaly.

I am pleased that it has now come before the House, but I want to touch on a couple of other points that I know the member for St. John's East raised. I want to touch on them just so that people understand that the bill is still not perfect.

There have been some questions raised about the anomalies in the fact that although current recruits are being paid during training, previous recruits were not being paid. There are some concerns that they will not get the pension credit for that six months of unpaid training. That has changed, but there are current RCMP officers who are serving, who do not have that pension credit or the possibility of that pension credit. Therefore, I am sure that will be raised in committee.

There are other concerns that have been raised around the fact that civilian employees for the RCMP are treated differently. Again, I am sure that will be raised in committee with an opportunity for potential amendments.

I just want to talk about the importance of this for a moment. In the briefing that was provided it talked about recruitment and retention. In my community of Nanaimo—Cowichan, the RCMP are a vital part of the community. The RCMP is our police force. In the province of British Columbia, many of our communities are in that position. I know in Newfoundland that is also the case.

Therefore, this bill is an important one in terms of both recruitment of officers and ongoing retention. I know that in my own community of North Cowichan, as a previous municipal councillor I was part of the protective services committee. One of our roles was examining the agreement that we had between the RCMP, the province and then of course the municipalities. We were consistently short of officers.

I live in a very beautiful part of the country. It was not an issue around RCMP officers wanting to work in my community. It was the fact that recruitment was often an issue. Retention was an issue. There were some challenges with leave provisions. For example, when an officer went on maternity leave at that time, there were no provisions to replace that officer.

Bill C-18 is a very important factor when we talk about recruitment and retention. In many remote communities, it is very difficult to find officers to serve there. We need to make sure we are providing a compensation package, which includes pensions, that is very attractive so that we can recruit and retain.

There is another issue that has come up and has been mentioned a number of times in the House. When Bill C-10, the budget implementation bill, was put forward, it negated the agreement that had been put in place with RCMP officers around wage improvements. I know members throughout the House have been receiving letters, phone calls and emails about the unfairness of this.

I have an email from an officer who wanted to make sure that members understood the potential impact of the negating of that agreement in Bill C-10. The email states:

For the last 135 years, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have been at the heart of our communities, serving Canadians and keeping us safe.

From stopping liquor trafficking and gaining the respect and confidence of Aboriginal peoples to fighting child sexual exploitation and clamping down on gang and gun crime; Canada's national police force has always counted on men and women of sound constitution and good character to serve and protect. And for more than a century, that's exactly what thousands have done.

On December 11, 2008, Treasury Board modified a previously signed wage agreement that ensured the RCMP could compete for the best and brightest new talent and offer an incentive for seasoned members to stay with the force. The original agreement was supported by the Commissioner, the Minister of Public Safety and approved by Treasury Board as recently as June 2008.

Changes to this previously-enshrined agreement will inflict irreparable damage to ongoing efforts to retain current members and will have serious consequences for recruiting new cadets--a stated priority for this government--who do not qualify for incentives afforded to members with more than five years experience.

This Treasury Board decision poses long-term challenges for bolstering public safety in Canada. Without significant changes, the legacy of this decision will be a series of negative and enduring repercussions for RCMP capacity building; particularly when it comes to recruiting new cadets.

Further on, the email goes on to state:

I write to ask that you act to protect the integrity of Canadian public safety; frontline RCMP officers ask only that the existing, signed agreement be allowed to stand. In full-recognition of the serious economic challenges we face as a country, the men and women of the RCMP are committed to abide by the letter and the spirit of that agreement for the next two years.

It goes on to talk about the fact that the RCMP, of course, played a significant role in this country's development and expansion, and that it will continue to play a very important role in public safety in our communities.

Again, I come back to my own community of Nanaimo-Cowichan. I know RCMP officers there are absolutely dedicated women and men who often contribute a lot of their own personal time to be involved with youth, first nations and a variety of community organizations. They often sit on committees contributing in a very positive way to the overall health and well-being of our communities.

I would argue that we should ensure once again to not only look at pension changes that will significantly contribute to recruitment and retention but that we also look at negotiated signed agreements. I know the member for St. John's East raised the fact that the Supreme Court has upheld the ability of the RCMP to form a union and the current government continues to fight that.

The RCMP has a staff association in place to represent its interests. My understanding is that RCMP members have stated that they would agree not to strike, but there is no reason why, in a democratic country, our police force could not have the mechanism to organize and represent itself in terms of labour management issues.

One of the reasons that this discussion around pensions is so critical is because in today's current economic climate there are some serious challenges with pensions. One of the elements that was raised in a current pension issues and trends paper talks about bankruptcy protection and pension insurance. Fortunately, at this point, the RCMP's pension fund is not in this kind of situation and would not likely ever be.

Many Canadians are very concerned about what is happening to their pensions in the current economic climate. One of the things that has been identified is this bankruptcy protection and pension insurance. It states:

The laws concerning bankruptcy protection and pension insurance are closely related to the rules governing pension funding. If pensions are fully funded when employers enter bankruptcy protection, then bankruptcy laws do not matter much to the fate of the pension plan. On the other hand, if pension plans are underfunded when the employer becomes bankrupt, then the question of the nature of the claim that the pension fund has on the bankrupt company is critical, as is the question of whether the pension deficiency is insured.

This is just one aspect of some very serious problems going on with pensions right now. The member from Hamilton will be going out to the public to talk about the kinds of reforms that are needed to pension plans.

Bill C-18 talks about portability. Many members will be surprised that I am quoting from a C.D. Howe Institute commentary on pensions, but the portability of pensions is an absolutely critical aspect. Again, for RCMP officers we are recognize that portability of their pensions is extremely important. Members of municipal police forces should have the ability to move from the municipal police force to the RCMP and not lose their pension credits. It is a very important aspect.

The C.D. Howe Institute is talking about pension portability from job to job across Canada. It is not talking specifically about RCMP officers; it is talking about all Canadians. I would argue that as we set the standard for RCMP officers to have that portability, we should make sure that other Canadians have that pension portability as well.

In this particular case, the C.D. Howe Institute makes another recommendation. To put it into context, it says, “Canadians must understand that they all do not need to become experts in life-cycle finance and investments to achieve this goal”. It is talking about maintaining standards of living in retirement. The member for Sault Ste. Marie has been a tireless advocate on poverty generally but certainly on poverty as it relates to seniors. One of the aspects that significantly impacts on seniors is changes that were made to the Canada pension plan.

In the context of the Canada pension plan, I am getting a number of emails from people who are concerned about what is happening with the investments in the Canada pension plan. People want us to raise that here in the House. They are concerned about how the Canada pension plan is currently managed. However, that is outside the scope of Bill C-18.

The C.D. Howe Institute indicates that Canadians should be insisting that their elected representatives and employers play informed and constructive roles in inserting the major missing piece in Canada's current pension system that would deal with the inadequate coverage in retirement savings facing millions of Canadians.

Part of the issue is that, first of all, many Canadians simply do not have a pension plan. We are talking about portability in the context of Bill C-18, that pension plans in Canada largely are not portable and we cannot take them from job to job, and because we are talking about this with Bill C-18, I would argue that at some point we need to introduce legislation that talks about portability across this country.

I touched on the bankruptcy provisions. Many pension plans in this country are underfunded. If a company goes into bankruptcy protection, workers are at risk. In my riding we see forestry company after forestry company laying off people. There are some concerns as these companies go into bankruptcy protection with their underfunded pensions that workers who have worked 30 and 40 years, rather than going into retirement, have to go back to work. It is critical that we, as a House, perhaps using Bill C-18 as a kickoff point, look at conducting a broader pension review. I know the government has been talking about examining what is happening with pensions, but we need to move on this very quickly.

Women have been very concerned about what is happening with pensions because many women do not have either a private or a public pension. We are very concerned that we will see an increase in seniors living in poverty.

Many women have been in part-time, seasonal, contractual employment. This means that when they retire at the age of 60 or 65, they will only have access to the Canada pension plan, and because they have been in that kind of part-time, seasonal, contract employment, they will not have the full Canada pension plan.

The group WE*ACT has put together a number of very good proposals for overall reforms to the pension system. Unless we act quickly, we are going to see a spike in seniors poverty once again. I would encourage the House to use Bill C-18 as a catalyst to move quickly.

Again with Bill C-18, we have seen a bill that was looking at amendments back in 1995. We simply cannot wait that long for the kind of pension reform that is necessary. There is a wave of baby boomers, the first edge of which is turning 65 as we speak, that is going to change the face of retirement in this country. All too often we ear very sad stories about people who, after working for over 40 years, come up to retirement and find that they have to work at a McJob to survive in retirement.

There are a whole number of other issues that are facing seniors as they retire, such as the lack of availability of long-term care, home care support, access to prescription drugs, access to hospitals, and access to all kinds of other support programs for seniors. That is outside the scope of Bill C-18, but I would hope that we would put together a proactive package that looks at that whole range of issues.

We often hear in this House of the social determinants of health. I would argue that we also need to look at the social determinants of aging, and at such things as housing and income security. Because there is this wave of baby boomers coming up to retirement, this would be an opportunity for us to be proactive and we could put together a package that would have some meaningful impact on people as they retire.

In conclusion, Bill C-18 is a very important move toward protecting our ability to make sure that our communities are kept safe. It is important that we put together a package that will encourage young men and women to see the RCMP as a viable career opportunity, and make sure that the pensions help in our ability to retain police officers.

I am very pleased to say that New Democrats will be supporting this bill. I look forward to hearing from the member for St. John's East about testimony that will come forward at committee. Perhaps some amendments will be made to deal with some of the deficiencies that are currently in the bill before the House. Hopefully it will help us to ensure that our communities stay safe and well protected.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for my colleague.

My colleague is someone who knows very well the issues of our aboriginal and first nations people. We all want to see more recruitment and retention of aboriginal and first nations people in the service. Does she see this as an opportunity to invite more aboriginal and first nations people into the service? If the pensions were portable, people right now who might be fully trained and are wanting to go into the service could take their pension, which perhaps is with the public service, and go into the RCMP.

The other question I have is in regard to the need of our rural areas to have more representation in the RCMP of people who are from the rural areas. Does she see this bill as helping in any way to recruit people from the rural areas, as well as aboriginal and first nations people?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely correct. Anybody who has ever worked in human resources management knows that an essential part of recruiting people to a particular career or profession is to ensure that attractive packages are in place. One of the aspects of Bill C-18 is the portability of pensions when officers have served with other police forces. In many parts of this country there are tripartite agreements in place where the police force is band operated. I would hope the bill would include that.

Tripartite agreements are a whole separate issue. In many communities, we have had a great deal of difficulty because either the provincial government or the federal government is dragging its feet when it comes to signing those tripartite agreements so that first nations officers serve their own communities. However, that is another issue. The portability of pensions is extremely important around an attractive incentive program to recruit and retain officers.

Rural officers are the other aspect of this. Many of this country's communities are either fly-in communities or they are not easily accessible by rail or road. It is absolutely essential to recruit rural officers who have a good understanding of what it is like to live in a rural community. Again, the portability of pensions is an important aspect. Officers from large urban centres may want to go to remote and rural communities. However, they will not be able to transfer their pensions from a municipal police force to the RCMP force if we do not pass this bill.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her statement and the hon. member for Ottawa Centre standing up and making sure that we are able to ask questions. I want to highlight a couple of things about Bill C-18, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act.

Last month in my riding, I had the opportunity to attend the Tri-Force Regimental Charity Ball. It is an event that is put on by our local police forces: the RCMP, the OPP and the greater Sudbury regional police. This is just another example of the great work done by our law enforcement officers across our great land. They raise money for local charities. Specifically, this one was for Crime Stoppers. It was during that event that several RCMP officers approached me to talk about a few things that were happening here on the Hill. They talked about their concern for the rollback of their wages. Another discussion was about the portability of their pensions. Many of the officers approaching retirement age want to ensure that they have a secure retirement that they can enjoy.

It is important for us as parliamentarians to outline what we think are the important pieces of this bill that will benefit RCMP officers. I would like the hon. member to do that for us.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as the member was speaking, I was reminded that about a month ago there was an RCMP appreciation night in the city of Nanaimo. The funds raised went toward supporting the local mid-island crisis and relief centres. Thousands of dollars were raised that night. It was a way of honouring the RCMP officers, but it was also a way of working with the RCMP to raise funds for a very important initiative. The RCMP officers generously gave of their time to attend that event and support the crisis centres. They also work very closely with the crisis centres. We know that those crisis centres have saved lives.

As members have pointed out, this is a very technical bill, but the portability of pensions is absolutely critical. We have been talking about the fact that the non-portability has been a barrier.

Also, RCMP officers have not been paid as well as other police officers in this country. That is the sad part of Bill C-10, the budget implementation act. It rolls back a negotiated wage increase that would have made some steps toward the RCMP being paid the same rate as other police forces.

Right now, the non-portability of pensions is a deterrent to attracting officers. If officers want to move from a municipal force to the RCMP, it is a deterrent for them to do it because they will not get credit for their time served with the other police forces. This bill will remedy that. That is an important step toward recruitment and retention. Again, I believe that all members in the House will be supporting the bill.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, unlike the hon. member from British Columbia, in Northern Ontario, in the Nickel Belt and in Sudbury we do not have RCMP officers. We have the Greater Sudbury Police Service, which is second to none, and I want to make that quite clear.

If we had RCMP officers in Northern Ontario, what would they bring to those communities?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. What we would not want to see is the RCMP poaching from some of the very good police forces that are in place. That is not the objective of this.

The RCMP has extensive experience in rural and remote communities throughout the country. In many parts of the country the RCMP is the only police force. What It would bring to places like Northern Ontario is an understanding of what it is like to serve in rural and remote communities.

I think most of us, if we have not been lucky enough to visit some of these communities, have no understanding of what it is like to live in them, where fly-in is the only access. Some communities are accessible by ice roads, but with climate change, access times are diminished.

First, the officers bring training and experience that helps them work in these communities. For example, they are often on call 24/7. We know that has been a problem in some of the communities because they have been unable to retain or recruit officers. Also, they are very visible. In the rural and remote communities the officers are on the streets every day. They are very visible and the community is small enough so everybody recognizes them. They also play an important part, and I addressed this earlier, in the overall health and well-being of the community. They would bring a very broad perspective to some of the northern communities in Ontario.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chance to put a few thoughts on the record today about the bill and about why this caucus intends to support it. However, we also think it is important we have a debate around it.

If members have read the briefing notes that were prepared for the legislation, they will know we are cleaning up work that should have been done more effectively and properly under the Liberals back in the 1990s, when they passed an act on pensions for RCMP officers.

Over the last few years we have changed the rules for doing business in the interest of expediting the will of the governing party to the detriment of a good political process of oversight, which includes getting it right the first time, dotting all the is and crossing all the ts. Instead of doing that, we are back here today cleaning up work that should have been done right the first time.

In the few minutes I have, I want to talk about that because it is important. The bill, as presented, is a bit of a no brainer in terms of people supporting it. We thank the government for bringing it forward and we all need to get behind it. However, we need to ensure we do the right thing, which is to committee. Then we can invite all those who will be affected by it, or who may want to speak to it because of other concerns, or may want to bring other ideas to the table before the committee. We want to ensure they get a chance to do that.

Because of the way the House has been operating, particularly surprisingly under a minority government, legislation gets pushed through rather rapidly. Many people are concerned that we do not understand the full and complete impact of legislation on the lives of those who are directly affected by it and those who may be indirectly affected by it at the end of the day. Therefore, we need to look at that.

The other thing I want to speak about for a few minutes is something close to my heart. As I have done my work on trying to eradicate poverty in our country, I have been looking at this for quite some time. I have been at it now for almost 18 and a half years, both at the provincial legislature in Toronto and the federal level.

This comes from my work in the community where I ran a soup kitchen and worked with families that were under stress, trying to ensure their children would get a good start in life. They wanted to ensure they were supported and were aware of and knowledgeable about the services provided by governments and other organizations so they could live in dignity, as children, as families and as seniors.

It is important for all us to consider what we do for those who are perhaps in more privileged positions, and say that with some caution. They might not always be as privileged as some might think. However, for those who have pension plans, we need to ensure we make it as fulsome, supportive and as lucrative as possible for them. They have worked and have paid into it and they deserve it because of that effort.

The great majority of Canadians do not have pensions, never mind the portability of pensions. The government needs to think about that as well, as we move the bill through the House. A lot of seniors across the country are struggling to make ends meet. Even on the very good program under Canada pension, because of inflation, the cost of living and other factors, seniors are struggling to pay their bills, their rent, their mortgages and their ever-increasing fuel costs. They have worked hard to build our country. They have participated in the industry of our country. Now they are in their twilight years and they find themselves struggling.

We are talking about enhancing pensions for a particular group in our society, which is the right thing to do, to ensure those pensions are portable. What they have earned by way of pension in other sectors, they get to take it with them to new sectors. It is important that we consider others who would love to be in a position of having a pension, other than Canada pension, to live on in their future years.

I want to talk a bit about that. We are living in difficult economic times. Many people struggled and pinched pennies to put away a little something above and beyond the Canada pension so they would have something to allow them to stay in their homes, or to look after family members, or to educate their kids or for their grandchildren who end up at their doors, who they have to look after. This bit of extra money set aside in their working years has now almost completely disappeared. We did not put in place those rules and regulations, which we now say we should look at for the RCMP, to protect and guaranteed that their money would be there for them when they retired.

I would like to go back to the whole issue of the process and why we are here today. It is 10 years after the Liberal government of the day passed a bill that affected the pensions of RCMP. The Liberal government did not finish job. Somehow things fell off the table or were pushed under the carpet.

We do not pay enough attention to the importance of the processes that we put in place. Earlier in our history people may perhaps say we were not as sophisticated or connected communication-wise to ensure what we did was here the right thing. We need to ensure that when we do something, we do it completely and we understand the full ramifications of how it affects people.

Having served in the provincial legislature, as the member knows only too well because he worked there, the rules of that place were changed three times under three different political parties. The first time was when the provincial Liberals became the majority government in the late 1980s and they tried to rush their agenda through the legislature, without due process or considering the input of so many who had something to say or had some concerns about some of the legislation.

I remember some of the Liberal members were totally opposed and angry about what was going on. They explained what the impact would be, but nobody would listen because the government of the day was in a big hurry. It wanted to make changes and put in place the things it thought were in the best interests of the broader public, which at the end of the day sometimes turned out not to be. With the new rule changes, members were not given the chance to consider what could have been done to make it better.

I remember my party, when it became government in 1990, did the same thing. We were not sure we would be there very long, and that turned out to be the case. We wanted to get stuff done. We had pent up expectations when we finally came to power in 1990. We did not want these old-fashioned, long-term, difficult processes or hurdles, such as going to committee, going out on the road, listening to people, listening to more people and considering their input. We were in a hurry. We wanted to get it done.

To be frank and honest, we did some things as government, at that time, that had we thought longer about, had we opened up to more public input, listened to more people and been more considerate about, we might not have done. It might not have been so damaging to us politically at the end of the day. We got thumped big time in 1995 because of some of the things we did, not all of the things.

We did some pretty good things, I have to say, between 1990 and 1995, some of them in the area of social policy where we changed rules and regulations in the workplace, for example, and we tried to improve the lot of seniors and our first nations in the jurisdiction of Ontario.

However, we did some things that we might have thought longer about, that we might have been more willing to expose to the processes of the legislature at that particular point in time, which would have been helpful to us and ultimately to the broader public of Ontario. We did not do so and we paid a political price later.

I say that to the government members in this place at this time, and I say it to the Liberals because they are propping up the government in its rush, in its haste to move forward on some things. I believe we would all be better served if we took a little bit longer and if we were more open to constructive criticism from others, not only inside the House but others out there who may want to speak to the issues, who have more to offer, who may have more understanding or may have studied or researched longer some of the things we address here as, for the most part, generalists. We need to respect the role of committees. We need to allow committees to do the work that committees are thought able to do, or at one time in our history, did, when they travelled across the country.

As a matter of fact, I speak to people who served in both the House of Commons and legislatures across this country in days gone by, who would not only travel across Canada to hear from people on things like the piece of legislation before us today and other very important public policy matters, but would travel across the world to get input, to see what other people were doing, to hear from other people as to whether what they tried worked, how it is working now, how long they had been at it, and what else should be considered as we look at the same challenge that perhaps they have dealt with, maybe in a different way. Perhaps we could add to it and we would contribute our intelligence to that discussion as well.

We seem to be, in this place these days, in one heck of a hurry to get through things, to get stuff out the door and to change the way we interact with each other, do public business and put in place public policy.

I believe, in the end, that will not only hurt the government party that is in power, as it bears the responsibility and the brunt of mistakes that often get made in that kind of environment, but it affects all of us who have been sent here to give leadership, to be responsible, to take responsibility and to act on behalf of our constituents, those communities that are so fragile, particularly in the difficult economy that we face right now. It is important that we do the right thing.

We are inviting other members of the House of Commons to get up and speak to the bill and so many other pieces of legislation that work their way through the House these days, on which we seem to be the only ones speaking.

Every now and again we hear from a member of the Bloc Québécois, who are certainly engaged in an interesting and important way in the development of social policy, in my experience, for Quebec and for this country.

However, mostly in this place these days, every afternoon, day after day, it is New Democrats standing up, raising issues, putting on the table concerns we have, introducing the research we have done on behalf of a certain piece of public policy or an approach that the government wants to take, challenging it and pointing out the deficiencies, suggesting changes that would make it better, suggesting that the work we do here that is so important find its way to committees so that we can bring in other people and have their input. Then we can listen to them, and at the end of the day, once we have heard from those people, we can actually make amendments to the bill that would reflect the fact that we heard and listened. We do not think we have all the answers. Somebody else might bring something else to the table. So we need to do that.

We are saying it again in this instance, as we have week after week, month after month, over the last four and a half years that I have been here, as subsequent governments, first Liberal then Conservative, have tried to ram stuff through in a hurry, in a way that presents opportunity for mistakes to be made.

Back in the late 1990s when there was a bill presented to the House to be helpful to RCMP officers and their recruitment, in giving them the comfort they need to go out there and do their job well because they know they are going to be looked after in their retirement years, we dropped the ball. We made a mistake. This place made a mistake. Somehow this fell through the cracks.

I would hope and expect that it did get before committee, although there is even the odd time in this place when a piece of work that is going to affect so many finds it way through first, second and third reading without even getting to committee. We need to think long and hard about that. Often that kind of haste is a mistake, and if that is what has happened in this instance with this bill, here we are now, trying to correct it, and hopefully we will correct it.

Hopefully we will deal with the bill in a way that will reflect the spirit of the bill, what is intended, and that it will be sent to committee and we will invite witnesses, and if need be, we will travel a bit to hear from people who perhaps cannot come and speak to us about what impact they think this will have, so that we can do the very best for our very important officers of the law, the RCMP. They have been given the back of the hand, frankly, by the government through what it has done with the budget that we just rushed through this place in a matter of a couple of weeks, only a short time ago, to reduce a commitment that was made through proper labour negotiations with the RCMP, for them to now find that in fact that is not going to be honoured.

Here we are again, speaking to our RCMP officers through the work we do here, saying to them by way of getting the bill through the House and dealt with properly that we appreciate and understand the difficulty of their work, the fact that so many of their colleagues in the last few years have been killed on the job, have given the ultimate sacrifice in the protection of the public and our communities. We apologize for that action that has reduced their income as they go out and do that work, and for the message that sends in terms of confidence, and we will do the right thing by them in this instance.

We will get the bill to committee where we can fix any holes that might be in it, bring forward some amendments perhaps and hear from some people as to what else we should do. In doing that, we would consider the need to make sure that all Canadians, no matter what job they are doing and no matter how they are contributing to the overall good of our communities and our country, would also have a pension. They would not only have the Canada pension, which is a vehicle that is very important in this country, but they would also have access to those other small pots of pension money that become so important at the end of the day for so many of the things that we all want to contribute to in our community, to our families and in looking after ourselves.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member of Parliament for Sault Ste. Marie he is my neighbour, and he too knows the vastness of northern Ontario.

Greater Sudbury is home to the Sudbury RCMP detachment, with 17 officers and two public service employees. This detachment provides excellent federal policing services to the city of greater Sudbury, the districts of Manitoulin, Cochrane, Timiskaming, Nipissing and Parry Sound. These great public servants provide service in an area that is bigger than some European countries. The important thing for the House to understand is that these individuals put their lives at risk every day and provide services to this huge area of our great country.

I wonder if the member could speak about the importance of having federal policing services in northern Ontario.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the member for Sudbury very publicly how much I appreciate the contribution he makes in this place in his role as a member of Parliament and how good it is to have him as a colleague in northern Ontario, working on behalf all those really wonderful people who call our wonderful part of that province home.

Absolutely, the contribution that the members of the RCMP make in so many unique ways because of the areas they work in, the areas they specialize in, makes a big difference in our communities.

In my own community we have a detachment that, because of the proximity of Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, to Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, plays a lot of different roles in terms of the traffic that goes back and forth between our two countries and the unlawful activity that might take place. That in fact is dangerous work, because one does not know who is coming across the border, what they are bringing with them and how they might be armed, in order to protect oneself in doing that work.

Therefore, absolutely we need to be doing everything we can in this House, given the very dismal track record of the government, particularly recently in taking away that increase in pay they were expecting to get, to at least protect their pensions and make it possible for those who moved to the RCMP from other policing jurisdictions to actually bring their pensions with them.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Motion agreed to. Accordingly the bill is referred to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek the consent of the House, you would find unanimous consent to see the clock as 1:30 p.m

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from March 3 consideration of the motion that C-300, An Act respecting Corporate Accountability for the Activities of Mining, Oil or Gas in Developing Countries, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Corporate Accountability of Mining, Oil and Gas Corporations in Developing Countries Act

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois supports the principle of Bill C-300, An Act respecting Corporate Accountability for the Activities of Mining, Oil or Gas in Developing Countries.

The issue of social and environmental responsibility for Canadian companies abroad, particularly Canadian mining companies, has long been a concern for the Bloc Québécois.

Canada is a world leader in the mining industry. It has a huge presence in Africa, where most companies are Canadian or American and are incorporated or listed in Canada.

For some years now, a number of Canadian mining companies have been directly or indirectly associated with forced population displacements, significant environmental damage, support to repressive regimes, serious human rights violations and sometimes even assassinations.

That is why the Bloc Québécois has always defended the need to impose standards of social responsibility on companies when operating abroad. But the federal government has always defended the principle of laissez-faire, preferring a voluntary approach.

Also, we have always defended the recommendations in the advisory group report entitled “National Roundtables on Corporate Social Responsibility and the Canadian Extractive Industry in Developing Countries”, whose recommendations were unanimously supported by civil society and the extractive industry.

While Bill C-300 is a step in the right direction, we believe it has flaws in terms of what the national roundtables advisory group recommended. For example, Bill C-300 does not provide any clear, independent and transparent process to ensure accountability or to monitor Canadian companies' compliance with accountability standards.

Here is a review of Bill C-300 by Delphine Abadie, Alain Deneault and William Sacher, the authors of Noir Canada: Pillage, corruption et criminalité en Afrique, published by Écosociété in 2008.

First, the bill does not take the Canadian International Development Agency's policies and activities into account.

Second, it does not take Export Development Canada's lack of transparency into account.

Third, it does not take into account instances of political interference attributed, in some cases, to Canadian diplomacy in southern countries on behalf of Canadian mining interests.

Fourth, it does not take into account the harmful role of the Toronto Stock Exchange in the appreciation of mining claims often obtained suspiciously in southern countries.

Fifth, it does not say whether and under what terms, Canadian companies can or could be prosecuted civilly or criminally in Canada for injurious actions attributed to them abroad.

Sixth, it does not provide for an independent body to receive complaints from foreign nationals, leaving it rather to the minister.

Seventh, it does not provide a process to evaluate the damages to populations outside Canada and consider implementing redress programs.

Eighth, it totally ignores the numerous cases of abuse by Canadian companies already recorded in many credible documents. I am thinking of expert reports from the United Nations, parliamentary reports, conferences held in parliamentary precincts, reports from independent organizations like Amnesty International and Global Witness, comprehensive investigative reporting, compelling documentaries, assessments by recognized experts, and so.

Here are some representative cases cited in Noir Canada with respect to Canadian mining companies' detrimental activities in Africa.

The first example is from Bulyanhulu, Tanzania. In the summer of 1996, bulldozers and the national police force were used to expropriate several hundred small-scale miners and clear the way for Canada's Sutton Mining to exploit the area. Fifty-two people were buried alive in that operation. Sutton Mining was then bought by another Canadian company, Barrick Gold. Canada's diplomatic service was actively involved in the affair; allegations of interference are well founded. The Government of Norway, the Lawyer's Environmental Action Team, Friends of the Earth, Rights & Democracy—an organization founded by the federal government itself—Mining Watch and master's student Dennis Tessier have all stated publicly that these allegations are credible and alarming.

The second example is Banro, a company that helped kindle the bloody conflict in the African Great Lakes region in eastern Congo between 1997 and 2002. Millions died in that conflict, and untold distress was inflicted on the people in the form of rape, recruitment of child soldiers and destruction of villages.

The third example has to do with Diama-Manantali and Sadiola. The Canadian International Development Agency steadfastly supported dam construction projects that profited Canadian engineering firms. These dams, which have a catastrophic impact on the people—think of floods, loss of arable land, ecosystem destruction, disease, social tension and so on—allowed IamGold to turn a 38% profit on operating an open pit mine in Sadiola, another project with a disastrous impact on the people.

The fourth example is the Talisman corporation, which had to leave Sudan after, according to several sources, it apparently ordered the Sudanese army to violently remove any civilian presence in the vicinity of its development site. This passage from Noir Canada shows that Talisman was pressured to leave Sudan because it was registered on the New York stock exchange, not just the Toronto exchange.

Another book that has been written on this topic is Not on Our Watch: The Mission to End Genocide in Darfur and Beyond, by Don Cheadle and John Prendergast, published by Hyperion in 2007. On page 62 is a paragraph that reads:

The Sudanese regime, supported by Canadian, Malaysian and Chinese oil companies, was able to wipe out whole populations in south-central Sudan, leaving the way clear for the oil companies to start pumping the oil.

This information is supported by a memo from the International Crisis Group, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. The book I quoted from has an introduction written by none other than Barack Obama, who was then a U.S. senator, and a preface by Elie Wiesel.

Bill C-300 is a step in the right direction. But to put an end to injustices by Canadian and foreign mining, gas and oil companies, we must make sure that they fully respect human rights and environmental rights, without exception.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we support this bill.

Fundamentally, this project regarding corporate social responsibility is about taking the responsibilities, the rights and the standards that we enjoy here in Canada, that people have worked so hard to put in place, and ensuring that those standards on human rights, labour rights and environmental rights are applied to Canadian companies when they do their business abroad.

I do not have to tell members that this is important work that we have done here, and we continue to do that kind of work, protecting the environment and protecting human rights and labour rights here in Canada, but it is absolutely critical that we establish standards that are consistent when our companies are doing operations abroad.

I want to thank the member for Scarborough—Guildwood for his initiative. I also have to reference a couple of my colleagues who brought this issue to the House. The member of Parliament for Ottawa Centre prior to me was Ed Broadbent. He worked tirelessly on this file, on democratic reform, and he pushed to have the round table report written.

Members will know that the round table report was a good way of getting to the issue by bringing people from both civil society, including some of the groups that were mentioned by my friend from the Bloc, as well as from business. Mr. Broadbent, during his entire career in terms of academia and public service, as a member of this House and as leader of our party, always wanted to see the model that has worked so well in other mature democracies, where we bring together all of the disparate groups of business, labour and civil society, to forge good policy.

I must give credit. That was done. We had the report. It was tabled and the government was asked for a response over two years ago. It was not until just last week that we received a response from the government. I am actually very upset, disappointed and surprised that the government did not take the advice given to it from business and civil society to do the right thing.

Instead of bringing in standards, along the lines of what I just laid out, on human rights, labour rights and environmental rights that should apply to Canadian companies doing business abroad, and bringing in an enforcement and monitoring mechanism with an ombudsperson, what did the government do? It brought in voluntary guidelines. Just put those two words together and I will leave it to members if they think that is sufficient.

Instead of an ombudsperson, it brought in a counsellor. Counsellors have a role. We go to them for advice sometimes, but they have no business in this file. What the government did was play around with nomenclature. It said that instead of an ombudsperson there will be a counsellor.

What the government did was an insult, to be blunt. After years of waiting for a response from government on this important file, it gave back thin gruel. It might as well have not responded at all because the consensus report by business and civil society was very clear as to the road forward. All it had to do was adopt the recommendations.

I remember well at committee, having a motion put forward at the foreign affairs committee asking for a response from the government. It said, “It's okay. We're working on it”. Two years later and this is what we get.

This is an important initiative. We have to forge ahead. We cannot let this ball be dropped. We cannot let it be watered down. We cannot let the government's response be seen as a responsible response to all those people who worked so hard on this file.

What is this about? I want to talk a bit about the extractive industries abroad. I worked for half a year in Latin America in countries like Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Guatemala, I saw directly what happens to everyday people when a company comes in, obtains rights to drill or mine and moves people who have been there forever off of their land because they are allowed to do whatever they want. They pull the resources out of the land, make a profit and leave town. They often leave behind tailings, a devastated environment, people who received meagre wages and an economy that is not better but worse. As they leave the country, they bring with them a handsome profit.

I know that most people who invest want to ensure their investments are ethical. Most people believe they are. I do not know anyone in my neighbourhood or constituency who would sleep well if they knew that the profits they were making off their investments were made at the expense of human suffering or environmental degradation. Sadly, most of the time they have no idea what is going on. This bill and the idea of corporate responsibility would shine a light on what is going on abroad and ensure we have standards and oversight in place.

I know many members of the Conservative caucus believe strongly in human right and in ethical investment. Many are members of faith communities and the old adage that one should not make a profit off the back of their brother is consistent with their faith. It is something that is understood and internalized by them. I am not sure that they know this as members of the Conservative caucus but they have not taken this opportunity.

Many faith groups have gotten behind this initiative, as well as civil society groups that believe strongly in the representation of workers and indigenous peoples in third world countries. Since I pushed my private member's bill initiatives at committee, the number of petitions from faith groups of all faiths that I have received in support of the bill has been tremendous. They have been very determined to see that what we do abroad is something that is consistent with our values. For them, it is consistent with their faith. For them, there is a direct connection between their faith and what happens to our companies that are investing abroad.

I am a little surprised that the Conservatives would allow voluntary guidelines to replace an ombudsperson with a counsellor. It does not seem to be consistent with many of them and their work within faith communities and the grassroots communities that we all work with. I challenge those within the Conservative caucus to take a look at the private member's bill here, take a look at their response that took two years and really measure it. I challenge them to talk it out with some of the people who are behind these initiatives in their faith communities. I think they would have a different opinion than the opinion they have provided. I challenge the members of the Conservative caucus to do that.

In summary, this is the way forward to get responsibility in our investments abroad. This would ensure that Canada's name is solid and that the article we saw in The Globe and Mail yesterday about Canada's reputation will not be repeated. This would ensure that when we have mining companies in South Africa, Latin America or anywhere else in the world where Canada is involved in enterprise, we will not be seen as exploiting people, nature or any of the other conditions that we seem to be exploiting. We need this and we should support it. I stand here gladly supporting this initiative and my party will as well.