Debates of Feb. 12th, 2013

Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act

[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?