Debates of Feb. 28th, 2013

National Defence

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Jeanne-Le Ber.

Canada Revenue Agency

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

Mr. Speaker, Revenue Canada now only mails income tax packages to Canadians upon request. Most seniors file a paper return, not an electronic one. However, the Canada Revenue Agency has not clearly indicated that paper copies will only be sent upon request. This measure discriminates against seniors and people who do not have access to the Internet in my riding.

Will the minister fix this?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Minister of National Revenue and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, the way that Canadians file their taxes is changing, and we are changing to meet those needs.

We do, however, understand and recognize that everyone does not have access to a computer or can use a computer, so that is why we have ensured that taxpayers can still file on paper. They can pick up their tax forms at any Service Canada or local post office. They can also call the 1-800 number and have the tax form mailed to them.

Last year 1.3 million packages that were mailed out were never used. That is not a good, efficient use of resources.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Due to the technical difficulties before, I am going to give the floor back to the hon. member for York South—Weston for a very brief question.

Airline Safety

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

Mr. Speaker, there are risks associated with hiring foreign pilots, particularly when it comes to understanding Canadian safety regulations.

Why is Transport Canada rubber-stamping wet leases and letting potentially unqualified foreign pilots fly Canadian flights? Does the minister consider this an acceptable practice?

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Minister of State (Transport)]

Mr. Speaker, the same question was asked in French and an answer was given in French. I will provide the English answer, which is exactly the same.

Canada has one of the safest transportation systems in the world. It gets stronger every year. The number of aviation accidents has fallen by 25% since 2000 while air travel has increased significantly.

Foreign pilots, just like Canadian pilots, go through a rigorous selection process in order to ensure that they are fully qualified. Officials are currently reviewing this policy to see if reform is needed.

Rail Transportation

[Bruce Hyer, Independent, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the United States, China, Japan and Europe are all investing heavily in passenger rail, but Canada is going backwards.

The Conservatives seem determined to kill VIA Rail, chopping more than 60% of VIA's budget over two years. These reckless cuts will cause a train wreck for service across Canada.

Which services will be slashed as a result of these drastic cuts, and will the last remaining trans-Canada service be further cut?

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Minister of State (Transport)]

Mr. Speaker, again, the member has his facts completely wrong.

Since this government has taken office, we have invested almost $1 billion in VIA Rail for new cars so that they could be made accessible. We have invested in rail track and the corridor between Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto. The frequency of rail service has increased, and that is due to the investments we have made. The rail service is better than it has ever been and that is thanks to this government.

Oral Questions

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since I did not have enough time during my two questions to read the entire list of employers from eastern Quebec who are opposed to the EI reform, I want to table the list in the House for my colleagues.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

No.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise on behalf of Canada's official opposition.

My questions for my friend across the way deal with the calendar for the rest of this week and going into the next. I notice the lack of action on repairing the cuts and damages done to services Canadians rely upon, such as employment insurance, rail safety and food security. I wonder if the government has any response to the hue and cry coming from Canadians.

My friend also seemed to confuse and misunderstand the role of Parliament in his references earlier today in question period. I wonder if, now that we are at a year and a day since the last time the Conservatives brought in their so-called Senate accountability act, there are any plans for him to reintroduce the bill, which he claims the official opposition has delayed. In fact, all we have done is what MPs do, and that is to debate legislation. He may have confused the role that members of Parliament play on behalf of their constituents.

He could spend a little less time defending the unelected, unaccountable and under-investigation senator colleagues in his caucus if he could find a way to deal with the fragile nature of the Canadian economy in any of the legislation the government sees forthcoming in the next number of days.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Does the hon. government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?

[Some hon. members]

No.

Tabling of Documents

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

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, yesterday the opposition members asked the government to table in the House documents relating to costing that was conducted by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation in response to Bill C-400. This is the NDP private member's bill for a national social housing program. I have the document here today, which I am proud to table in the House, and it shows the clear reason our government could not support it. It would indeed put us $5.45 billion further into debt. I am pleased that we were able to do this work for the New Democrats since apparently they had not costed the document. I would like to table the document at this time.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I thank the hon. government House leader for that.

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

Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to speak to Bill C-42 at second reading. At the time, I began my speech by talking about the scandals that the RCMP has been involved in. Sad revelations about police officers in northern British Columbia add to the many cases of misconduct and show the urgent need to take action and ensure that these police officers are quickly identified and removed from the force.

However, this is impossible to do given the existing culture within the RCMP. That is the origin of the principles of Bill C-42, which, I would like to remind hon. members, are designed to punish or fire more quickly members who are accused of violating the standards and laws that they are supposed to uphold and who cause significant harm to the organization's image. These are the words that I used in my speech at second reading.

When he was appointed, Commissioner Paulson said that he was aware that harassment exists within the RCMP and that this was unfortunately not a new thing. He added that mindsets must change and that these behaviours must not be tolerated. That is why I am talking about culture.

When Mr. Paulson was appointed, he said: “First on my plate will be addressing the issue of harassment and sexual harassment in the workplace.”

On this side of the House, we think it is too bad that the recommendations from the 2007 Brown report, which we did not really talk about, were not more fully incorporated into the spirit of the bill.

Mr. Brown clearly identified the importance of focusing on changing the organization's culture. These recommendations were diluted quite a bit and most of them were simply ignored in committee.

In his task force's report, David Brown indicated that the RCMP is not just another department. He said:

In many ways, the RCMP's approach to governance has been based on a model and style of policing developed from—and for—another era... [N]one of these changes will be sustainable without the fundamental changes to structure that we are proposing.

Theses are David Brown's own words. They bear repeating here.

To some extent, that is why the NDP wanted to study this bill in committee. We supported the bill at second reading. We reached out to the Conservative government by mentioning that we were going to propose several amendments that would improve the bill. The Conservative government was apparently not receptive to our overture because every one of the amendments we suggested to improve the bill, which we felt was inadequate, was rejected.

The committee made an effort to hear from those who would be affected—the experts and the women alike. It did hear from a number of these experts, and a number of the people affected, including those at the RCMP.

Bills are important, but they must be well crafted and do what we want them to. The government did not create all the tools it needs to properly and effectively achieve its goal. It rejected most of the Brown report recommendations; it refused to hold a public hearing; and it introduced this bill without waiting for a number of important reports, such as the review ordered by the new commissioner on relations between men and women and the role of women in the RCMP, or the conclusions of the independent inquiry on workplace harassment being conducted by the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP.

When the bill was tabled, the two reports had not yet been completed. They have been completed since then, but their recommendations were not included in the bill.

I therefore wonder whether this can really be a serious exercise by a government that claims to listen to what people have to say about a bill in committee, a government that in the end refuses to seriously consider any of the amendments and recommendations that have been proposed.

In committee, most of the testimony from those affected indicated that the bill did not go far enough, in terms of the nature and scope of changes to the structure and organization of the RCMP, to really effect a significant change in the culture. One such witness was Darryl Plecas, Royal Canadian Mounted Police Research Chair and Director of the Centre for Criminal Justice Research, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University College of the Fraser Valley, who was rather hard on the organization:

Again, if there is one thing that's glaring about cases historically it's that there has been a never-ending effort in the past to minimize the seriousness of offences through the way in which they're dealt with, and to minimize them again through the kinds of penalties that are handed out. I don't think any reasonable outsider could look at the penalties that are awarded and think for a second that they in any way reflect what should be given as a disposition to anyone, let alone a police officer.

I will quote Mr. Plecas once more, because his remarks were instrumental in the NDP's decision to oppose this bill at third reading. He said:

What would be the process to ensure there is a proper and independent vetting of that so that cases can't be scaled down when they more properly ought to be dealt with in a formal manner?

When one considers—or at least we found—it's the entire spectrum of code of conduct cases, hopefully those regulations would be such that they would provide some assurances to any outside observer that every case is being given full consideration.

Maybe I'm missing something in the proposed changes, but I'm not sure that's happening or could happen with what's in there right now.

As I said, the NDP tried to move amendments to the bill in order to improve it and tried to work with the government to ensure that the bill addresses the concerns of Quebeckers and Canadians.

However, the Conservatives rejected all the NDP's amendments without any discussion. They seem to think that the Commissioner of the RCMP should have absolute control of the RCMP, and that is why they oppose a more balanced approach to the issues of dismissal, independent oversight and harassment training.

One of the amendments rejected by the Conservatives in committee was adding mandatory harassment training for RCMP members to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act. Another amendment would have ensured the independence of the body that will investigate RCMP complaints. Yet another asked for a provision to create a civilian investigative body in order to avoid police investigating police. It was deemed inadmissible. Finally, we asked for a police service with a better balance of human resources by eliminating some of the more sweeping powers of the RCMP commissioner and strengthening those of the external review committee in cases of potential dismissal from the RCMP. This amendment was deemed inadmissible.

If this government were really serious about reforming the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the way it operates and its culture, it would have studied the amendments from the official opposition and the opposition in committee more seriously, in addition to the amendments that were suggested by external stakeholders, including the proposal to establish an independent RCMP oversight body that would report directly to Parliament. But that would be asking too much of the government; too much progress at any given time is a big no-no.

The new commissioner has, on several occasions, reiterated his intention and willingness to take action. It remains to be seen whether this government’s proposals will help or hinder him. It must never be forgotten that beyond its responsibility to enforce the law, the government must do everything within its power to avoid any appearance that it considers itself above the law. That is where the buck stops.

In closing, I would say that the bill before us at second reading seemed like a step in the right direction. We understood the intention behind it, and the problems with the RCMP, and we wanted to help the government do something about it. That is why we highlighted the major shortcomings of the bill, which include too much power in the hands of too few.

We believe that, as a result of this bill, the RCMP Commissioner will have too much power to unilaterally decide the outcome of problems that may exist within the RCMP. Another fundamental problem that explains why we cannot support this bill at third reading is that the bill will not lead to any radical change in culture. There was broad consensus regarding the testimony heard in committee, testimony given by people who have had to deal with these problems, and who have observed from the outside or experienced from the inside what goes on.

This bill will do nothing to change the culture at the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and that is a great pity. This was our chance to do something, but the government rejected our overtures and refused to make the changes that are sorely needed. I cannot—we cannot—in good conscience vote in favour of this bill at third reading.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out the obvious. In 2012 RCMP Commissioner Paulson published a public letter that in essence said, in good part, that the commissioner's capacity to deal with disciplinary issues that related to the issue of sexual harassment in the workforce required additional authority.

I believe the legislation could have been a whole lot better. There could have been amendments made and ultimately passed. I applaud those individuals who put forward some amendments. The government has never demonstrated sympathy in passing opposition amendments.

My question to the member is this. If C-42 were passed, could he clearly define why it would make it worse than it currently is, which is the reason he will be voting against it as opposed to allowing it to pass, recognizing that it has shortcomings that could be improved going forward?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked a straight question, and I will give a straight answer. The problem is that the bill creates a false sense of security. It gives the illusion of answering the question it was supposed to answer.

Harassment and sexual harassment are very serious issues and should be taken seriously. We believe that this bill provides only the illusion of an answer. If we pass this bill, Canadians, including people who have been victims of harassment and those who monitor the RCMP and its internal challenges, may have the impression that the problem has been solved, when in fact it has not.

We need an approach that really deals with the current RCMP culture. The bill does not do that. If we pass this bill, we create the illusion that the problem has been solved and that we can now move on to something else.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

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

The NDP argued that we need to do more to address harassment issues. Not only is harassment a serious problem within the RCMP, but the men and women involved absolutely need help and support to deal with these situations.

Would our colleague comment on that?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the member for Saint-Lambert, is entirely right.

The issues that have been brought to light at the RCMP, such as harassment and sexual harassment, are systemic. They are symptomatic of a culture that needs changing at the RCMP. They reflect not on the quality of the men and women who serve on the force, but on the culture in which they must work.

This culture may not be tangible but it exists all the same. Any sociologist or expert in the field would say that an organization's culture or atmosphere is certain to impact on its members' behaviour. In this case, the impact is negative. Given the systemic nature of the problem, we need the proper legislative provisions to change the prevailing culture.

These provisions are not found in Bill C-42.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my honourable colleague for his excellent speech.

He clearly laid out the effects of this bill, a bill whose initial promise quickly turned to disappointment. We brought forward many amendments in committee; unfortunately, all were rejected.

I would like my colleague's take on the Conservatives' unwillingness to consider the amendments brought forward to improve the bill.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my thoughts are easily summed up: same old, same old.

We try to work on bills that would benefit Canadians as a whole, and more specifically members of the RCMP and those who deal with the organization. The Conservative government categorically refuses to even consider the amendments that we bring forward to fill the gaps in its legislation. One can only decry this government's lack of openness with regards to these very important questions.