Debates of Feb. 28th, 2013

Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not a police officer, but I do have work experience. I know that people have to have a good work environment and a healthy work environment. They have to trust in the people they work with, trust in the bosses and trust in the system. When there is no trust, the system will not work.

What we have asked for in our amendments is reasonable. I do not understand why they were not accepted or even discussed, because they came from witnesses. We did not just pluck them out of the sky because we thought we could make the bill bigger. There was a reason behind the amendments. Adding mandatory harassment training for RCMP members would help. Education helps. It helps to know what is right and what is wrong. It needs to be deep-rooted.

There needs to be a systematic change in how the RCMP proceeds. We know that there is a problem, and this is our moment to change it. If we do not go all the way, what is the point? That is why we are against this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé to comment on the process used at committee stage.

Of the nineteen witnesses who appeared before the committee, twelve had been called by the Conservatives and only seven by the opposition. The first of the seven opposition witnesses was not heard until the fourth meeting. As a result, most of the opposition witness testimony was squeezed into the last meeting. The Conservative majority on the committee also forced the opposition to table its amendments by 3:30 p.m. on that same day, the day of the last meeting.

Since some questions from the government side implied that they were right and we were wrong, could my colleague comment on the process the Conservative majority chose to use at committee stage?

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

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

The work we do in committee is quite important. No matter how we add things up, there are simply too few NDP members to move things forward and win votes in committee. Things might change in 2015; let us hope they do.

I would still like to congratulate my colleagues who sit on the committee. It is not an easy job to draft amendments in less than three hours. Several amendments were brought forward without debate, and then a vote was held, but there were only four New Democrats, so we lost the vote.

I would like to point out that, when I was elected on May 2, 2011, I knew there were differences between Conservatives, Liberals and New Democrats, but I was convinced we could find common ground, or at least agree on some potential solutions. We are stronger when we work together.

It sometimes pains me that we cannot see eye to eye.

[Jean-François Larose, NDP, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about Bill C-42. Frankly, it is a privilege for me to speak to this issue, because I wore the uniform for close to 18 years. Incidentally, I want to salute all the people I met, including my RCMP friends, my son's godfather and all those who have worn the uniform and who have worked extremely hard. During the 18 years before I became a member of Parliament, I was a manager, a first responder, and even a trade unionist. I worked in the public, parapublic and private sectors, both in open and secure custody.

This is a special environment. Today, I heard my colleagues make very pointed and appropriate statements. I am pleased to participate in this debate. So, I decided to talk about the environment, because I think it is important. People who become police officers, or who wear the uniform and play a regulatory role in society, all do so with the best intentions. My son, who is five years old, wants to do like his dad and wear the uniform. He has a beautiful and idealistic perception of that. Before I wore the uniform, I myself had this noble ideal, which always stayed with me. We must have the strength to protect those who need to be protected. Even now, as a member of Parliament, it is still the same.

Throughout my career, I met people who wore the uniform and who did extraordinary things, who went above and beyond the call of duty and who saved lives. One of my colleagues, who was retiring, took the time, after attending the party organized in his honour, to go out and meet all the people he had dealt with at one time or another during his career and who were out on the street. He simply wanted to say hello to them and to ask if they were all right. He did that on his last day at work. Another one of my friends jumped into the water to save a woman in distress. He was prepared to sacrifice himself for her. I remember the explosion at the Accueil Bonneau, in Montreal. There were many victims. I was one of the first responders. There were many people, but no one was paying attention to what the others were doing. Everyone was there for the right reasons.

Despite all this great energy, there is also a very negative and dark side. During my career, I met people who committed suicide. They felt the environment was excessively hard and, despite all the representations to managers and all the efforts in their private life, they would have wanted to be listened to more carefully, and they would have wanted support mechanisms to be put in place. Unfortunately, these support mechanisms were not available. They made a choice with which I do not necessarily agree, a choice I find extremely sad and which affected me and many of my colleagues. We hope that this no longer happens.

Today, we are talking about harassment, and that is a reality in every environment where people wear uniforms. There is a culture and an isolation, but that must no longer be tolerated. In 2013, we still see practices that existed 40 years ago. I can guarantee that these practices are not those of front-line and street workers who are there every day. They want to move forward and to evolve, but there is a political and an administrative culture that stifles them and prevents them from getting out of this rut.

When I was a manager, I was given the opportunity to test new approaches, and I did. I had 34 people wearing the uniform and working under my authority. They were being treated like kids. Problems were kept secret and we did not want the media to know that these problems existed. I proposed an organic, dynamic, proactive and inclusive system. We were trying to reconcile administrators, workers and the population. We sat around the table, we talked to each other respectfully, and we tried to understand the problems and frustrations that had been lingering for a long time. We had to realize that these people have problems with schedules, which are often very demanding, and also with extremely demanding legal pressures.

They do not need to get hit with a club. They simply need to be listened to and to be given the opportunity to put in place appropriate mechanisms. That is often what we see. That is the criticism we heard today in the House and also in committee. I sat on four committees, and it was the same thing in each one of them: the meeting was held in camera and people were never prepared to listen to what others had to say.

We say this is arrogance because witnesses tell us that what is being put in place is a half-measure, that improvements should be made but that the government is not making them. Why? What is the intention here? These witnesses are professionals, people who impress me; my colleagues impress me, but the government is not listening to them. How are the people on the front lines at the RCMP supposed to feel helped and supported if the government is not even prepared to listen to them when they come and testify? There is a problem here.

Bill C-42 is a half-measure at best, and once again we are talking about administrative oversight. When we move an amendment to provide employees with training on harassment to support and help them in their distress, it is brushed off. Why? This is a simple measure that could have been put in place, but it was rejected.

What message is being sent? Are we saying that harassment is all right? Are we being tolerant and agreeing to perpetuate a closed environment in which there is a gulf separating oversight, police officers and civilians? The government wants to put measures in place, but not to increase transparency or accessibility.

When I was a manager, I had the opportunity to put in place mechanisms that helped bring together schools, issue tables and street workers. However, the solution to the problem was also to include workers and people who were on the front line. We sat down and held open conversations about each party's frustrations so that there could be a reconciliation and we could grow.

We are talking about a constant culture of separating entities and increasing secrecy. When I was a manager, I never once saw any danger of a leak on operational matters. That had nothing to do with anything. However, the workers were highly motivated, and mutual respect made it possible to achieve progress and a unique dynamic. People felt increasingly supported.

It should not be forgotten that the primary mandate of law enforcement agencies is to be there for the public, not for the government. This is not an oversight mechanism based on dubious policies. They represent and defend the people, and the government represents the people. It must not use police services merely as it wishes, especially if it has made bad policy that is thrown back in its face. This is creating a cycle.

I have a great deal of respect for those who wore the uniform for many years before me, just as I have for all the MPs who were members for 20 or 30 years. It is a great pleasure for me to sit down with them and to understand the mechanisms that were previously in place. Those people said a number of times that there was a culture of isolation and that they were being completely excluded. That creates a gulf and mistrust, which is absolutely unacceptable.

We are seeking amendments that are more than reasonable. I do not understand why there cannot be a reconciliation so that we can move forward. This makes no sense. Let the Conservatives remain arrogant and maintain their position. That is up to them, but there is no way that will reconcile law enforcement agencies with the public service.

I recently read a quote by Nelson Mandela. He said that when he was imprisoned in South Africa, he spoke to the prison warden and told him that the relationship they had today would be important tomorrow because tomorrow their roles would not be the same. How will we eat tomorrow's meal? How many people have I seen become professional police officers as adults, and how many police officers have I seen become civilians? The same is true of MPs and the relationship we have in the House today.

In a recent speech, President Obama said we are not here to be perfect, but to do a job. Unfortunately, every day in every committee, there is a barrier that should not exist because we are trying to move forward, to listen and to put appropriate mechanisms in place. The amendments we proposed are more than reasonable. The Conservatives could have kept at least one of them, but they did not.

We are trying to come up with a policy of reconciliation. It is a positive and constructive step, one that would result in more transparency and accessibility and an improvement in services in the field. I am proud of our workers in uniform because they do an excellent job. I am proud to have worked with them and to have been one of them. However, there are some serious issues that need to be dealt with.

We must put a stop to the harassment in this work environment. Let us put an end to it once and for all.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by the member. I know that even shortly after I was first elected to the House, the issue of sexual harassment in the RCMP was a big issue. I know it has been raised for a number of years now, and it is one of the reasons I believe that the RCMP commissioner ultimately went public in providing a letter saying that he wants to have more ability to discipline RCMP officers in situations such as sexual harassment.

It is somewhat frustrating that when we get good ideas on this side of the House and an amendment comes up, it does not seem to matter if the amendment is good or bad; it just does not have a chance at passing because there is a new mentality with the majority government that if it is an opposition amendment, it is automatically bad.

I wonder if the member would like to comment with respect to amendments and that process. I know there was an attempt on their part to try to improve the legislation because, like the Liberal Party, they believe that the bill falls short and that the government could have done more.

[Jean-François Larose, NDP, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question and comments.

Having sat on four committees, I can indeed confirm that amendments are always dealt with in the same manner. I once pleaded with the Conservatives, in camera, saying I understood their position but disagreed with them, and I asked if we could at least meet halfway in order to move forward.

I know the members of the committee because I have had to replace one of them in the past. They are quite professional and thorough. I even heard someone say how good it was to have someone who once wore the uniform, because no one else had that experience. Unfortunately, however, no one there really listened.

All questions raised and solutions brought forward are brushed aside. I believe the people know better and will draw their own conclusions regarding the government's intentions.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and his great experience with this segment of our society, which makes his words even more powerful.

The Conservatives have a thing about amendments. With regard to Bill C-47, some 50 amendments were put forward. Most of them came from northerners, and the bill was on the north. Most of the amendments came from witnesses from across the north, who brought them forward in amendment form, and that made the body of the amendments that were put forward. None of them were voted for by the Conservatives, of course.

I want to clarify something with respect to these amendments that were brought forward. What was the position of many of the witnesses before the committee as to these amendments?

[Jean-François Larose, NDP, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was not in committee, but I did read the blues and I did go through all the material. I would say the majority of them said two things. First, they said that Bill C-42 fell short. That was all there was to it. It did not address their issues. Second, the amendments that were brought forward were brought forward with the information of the witnesses.

I do not understand what the position of the government is. They bring in witnesses who contradict Bill C-42 and say that it is a good step but it is far from being sufficient and it needs to be modified. This is how they see it. Then we propose the amendments, both sides, the NDP and the Liberal Party, and the Conservatives systematically vote against them. I am a little confused. They can say they listened to the experts, but when they bring in their own experts, they do not even listen to them.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleagues who spoke before me, especially my colleague who has a great deal of experience in this area.

The NDP has often wondered why RCMP members were not really consulted.

The government says that 12 members of the House used to be police officers in various parts of the country and that they should understand the situation and the changes and amendments that need to be made to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act. I am sorry, but the 20,000 officers in the field who serve every day across the country were not consulted. They will be the forgotten ones in this process. We are not asking that each and every one of them be consulted, but only that the government go out into the field. Did the famous government members go back to the field to see how things are going? Do they know how all the changes resulting from Bill C-42 will pan out?

Having said that, I would like to express my gratitude for being able to speak to Bill C-42, Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, more commonly known as the modernizing RCMP services act. If we want to modernize a service as important to public safety and national security as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we must establish a certain process for consulting its members.

I was a human resources manager. When you want to make changes to an organization and its members, you must consult them, listen to them, be receptive to their comments and especially take care of their injuries. Whether or not they are unionized is not part of this discussion. Some have been carrying around not only physical injuries, but also emotional and psychological injuries for too long at the RCMP. They are not being consulted. They are not being listened to. They carry weapons. It seems to me that the government should feel a sense of responsibility to them, should listen and be attentive to them, especially those who are in distress.

It is a matter of national security. Sometimes, they are the first line of defence, but the government is not listening to them. They seem to have been left out of a process meant to enhance performance and increase efficiency so that they can protect us faithfully. I know some of them. I have come to know them since I was elected. They are very proud of their work, their history and the culture of their police force. A negative culture may have permeated the RCMP over the last few years, but we must look at the evidence, examine the situation coolly, and then make changes and implement them in the field.

We know how important it is to have not only an effective police force, but also police officers who have optimum working conditions, especially when it comes to public safety, as I mentioned. Everyone acknowledges that Canadians should be able to trust their national police force. This is indisputable.

This bill emphasizes that civilian oversight of the RCMP is critical to promoting accountability to the public and ensuring transparency in police forces. There must also be transparency in the review process when legislation that is as important as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act is being rewritten. Similarly, civilian oversight should increase the RCMP's accountability to the provincial governments that its forces serve. All too often we forget that, throughout Canada, the leading police service is the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

The legislation is also meant to provide the Canadian government with a framework that would be used to launch an ongoing modernization process. As I said, unless the government consults and goes to see what is happening on the ground, we will be unable to accept any of its measures, and so will Canadians and people in the RCMP. When such huge changes are being considered, they must be acceptable to everyone involved.

As I said, since I was elected on May 2, 2011—almost two years ago—I have had many opportunities to meet members of the RCMP and to learn about the extraordinary work they do, despite the limited human, materiel and financial resources available to them. Because they are expected to do more work with less money, major components of our national security are at risk.

We are talking 2,500 km. There are six border posts in my riding. We have 22 in Quebec. We have the east coast, the west coast, the north and the Arctic. The RCMP is a sizeable police force. Over 20,000 workers have been and will continue to be subject to accusations and cuts, over and over. In spite of everything, they have to continue to perform their duties under difficult conditions. Morale has been seriously affected. How can they ensure the safety of Canadians and, often, that of visiting dignitaries, summit security, as we have seen, and sometimes even the Prime Minister?

As a manager, I would tend to pay attention to the mood of such people. This is important to me because I do not like to see workers whose basic right to be heard is being disrespected, especially when they are showing signs of distress. There is plenty of that within the ranks of the RCMP.

Yes, the intent of the bill is good. They want to resolve matters, but are they not trying to resolve the image rather than the real problem that exists within the RCMP?

In terms of organizational structure, it is the same thing. They are going to give more and more discretionary powers to the commissioner. They say:

It modernizes the Royal Canadian Mounted Police’s human resources management regime [and] authorizes the Commissioner to act with respect to staffing...

I know very well that staffing is involved. They are replacing trained RCMP officers with civilians in public service positions. They go on:

disputes relating to harassment and general human resource management.

The Commissioner can have a right of oversight, but it is not up to him to do that.

In big corporations, they never let senior management decide everything—not under these conditions. It is unacceptable. People must be listened to and consulted. Human resources management is done by professionals. I look forward to hearing the reaction on the shop floor when they appoint a human resources management professional as commissioner. They will say he knows nothing about the job, because he has never worked on the shop floor.

This is what they are doing. They are leaving the management of things as important as promotions and complaints to the commissioner. He will not even be bound by observations made by the civilian review body.

Under these conditions, it is unacceptable to have a police force the size of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police which also has to co-operate and share responsibilities with provincial and municipal police forces in many provinces. As for First Nations police officers, they were not even heard from in this process, yet they are an important part of the equation.

I could discuss this at greater length.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate and thank my colleague from Compton—Stanstead for the work he did on this file in committee.

In his speech, he clearly pointed out how the bill should have been improved. Sadly, the Conservatives rejected every excellent amendment the expert witnesses had suggested. It is very disappointing.

I would like my hon. colleague to tell us more about the work he did at committee stage. I would also like to hear his thoughts on the fact that the Conservatives rejected all the amendments from our NDP colleagues. Could he tell us how this attitude interferes with our work as MPs and is forcing us to vote against this bill, when we could have supported it had the amendments been passed?

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank my colleague from Drummond, who does an excellent job on environmental issues in his riding and in our party.

The committee members get along well. We all agree on some points, but on other issues, we hit an unbreakable wall. There is a total rejection of any recommendations that come from NDP-supported reports and a total rejection of NDP amendments.

We even see personal attacks at times. The Minister of Public Safety himself has launched attacks against NDP members instead of answering questions.

The government claims that, because some of its MPs are former police officers, it knows exactly how to fix that type of legislation. This attitude is unacceptable. Once again, the government rejects all collaboration. It does a sloppy job on bills, rushing to get rid of them. Canadians will have to live with the consequences.

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

Mr. Speaker, we were talking about sexual harassment in the RCMP. One thing worries me. Victims are afraid. How can a woman speak about such a difficult situation when she is ashamed? There are many other factors that come into play. If the person harassing her is her boss—the one who makes the decisions—she is out of luck.

Could my colleague explain how it is possible to introduce a bill that is so lacking in that area.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a report was released by the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP on February 14. That is not that long ago. Ian McPhail made 11 recommendations aimed at improving the manner in which the RCMP deals with workplace conflict. He recommended enhanced reporting and tracking of harassment complaints. Some complaints in the RCMP have been collecting dust for four or five years. When it comes to a harassment or other complaint, if there is a delay of four or five years, it is easier to forget the victim and the person who might be accused of harassment or wrongdoing. Then what happens?

There are 900 RCMP positions in Canada. The answer is far too easy. I have heard about officers who worked for 10 to 15 years in their province and then were transferred when they were suspected of doing something wrong. They were moved three or four provinces to the east, west or north to remove them from the situation and demoralize them further until a proper procedure was put in place.

Every employee in Canada's public service, every provincial employee and even every non-unionized worker has access to a labour relations grievance process, but the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is not entitled to have a process that is fair for both the victims and those accused of negligence.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on Bill C-42, the Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act.

We can see quite clearly, through the work that has been done by our side of the House in exposing it, how difficult it was to get any amendments to this bill and how difficult it was to deal with the real issues that witnesses in front of the committee brought forward. This is a pattern that the Conservative government in its majority has worked on pretty hard. It exists in almost every committee of this House.

While I support the need to modernize the workplace of the RCMP, this bill does not do enough to reach that objective. My colleagues on this side of the House have gone through the process and raised many valid issues and complaints.

As a person from the northern regions of Canada where the RCMP is the only police force, and having lived there all of my life, I see that there is really a requirement in small communities across the north for RCMP officers to have the opportunity to have a very direct relationship with others that they can get hold of in order to deal with the kinds of grievances that may arise in very small detachments. I just do not see that this bill is adequate to deal with that.

Having said that, I want to focus on two proposed new subsections of the act that maybe have not received much attention and that I think are very interesting subsections of the bill. We need to look at subsection 31(1.3) and subsection 31(1.4).

Section 31 of the act sets out when an RCMP member may make a grievance and sets out limitations to when an officer may not make a grievance.

Proposed subsection 31(1.3) reads:

A member is not entitled to present a grievance relating to any action taken under any instruction, direction or regulation given or made by or on behalf of the Government of Canada in the interest of the safety or security of Canada or any state allied or associated with Canada.

In other words, officers who refuse to carry out an unlawful order can be disciplined up to and including dismissal from the force, and they would not be able to complain that they are being punished for refusing to obey the law.

This section could also mean that RCMP officers who blow the whistle on illegal orders would also be subject to discipline, including dismissal, and would have no right to complain that they were being disciplined for revealing illegal activities inside the RCMP, even if they were under the instruction of the government—especially if they were under the instruction of the government.

Retired RCMP officer Rob Creasser, spokesperson for the Mounted Police Professional Association of Canada, said:

It places RCMP members in an untenable situation when they are being directed...to break Canadian or international law.

Proposed new subsection 31(1.4) reads:

For the purposes of subsection (1.3), an order made by the Governor in Council is conclusive proof of the matters stated in the order in relation to the giving or making of an instruction, direction or regulation by or on behalf of the Government of Canada in the interest of the safety or security of Canada or any state allied or associated with Canada.

In other words, the cabinet, a small group of like-minded politicians meeting in secret, would determine which laws the RCMP would have to follow and which laws the RCMP would break, and what those mean.

Gail Davidson, executive director for Lawyers' Rights Watch Canada, describes this clause as very dangerous, saying:

Police officers have special powers...to use force and to deprive people of their liberty, and the reason they have those powers is to keep the public peace.

Keeping the public peace means ensuring that the laws are upheld, and this is legitimate laws and the rule of law.

Some of the dangers in here are that these clauses could be used to condone torture and the use of information gathered through torture. Torture and the use of information gained through torture are against both Canadian law and international law. However, once enforced, this bill would negate these laws.

Upholding the law and the rule of law is something the Minister of Public Safety does not appreciate. With his directions to the RCMP, the Canadian Border Services and CSIS, he has instructed them to use information gained through torture.

Last November Surrey, B.C., RCMP Constable Lloyd Pinsent circulated a paper he wrote with the title, “The Terrorists Have Won. RCMP Ordered to Accept Torture-Tainted Information”.

In his paper, Constable Pinsent lays out how Bill C-42, combined with the Minister of Public Safety's direction that it is okay to use information gathered through torture, essentially ordered the RCMP to break the law.

Mr. Pinsent wrote:

While the direction from Minister Toews is in contravention of existing Canadian and international law, under [Bill C-42’s] section 31. (1.4) the order is to be viewed as conclusive proof and questions about the legitimacy of the order are not allowed either....

What we have here is a situation that can lead to abuse in the future. Why did the Conservative government decide to put this particular aspect into the accountability act, such as they call it? In other words, RCMP members are not accountable here, cannot be accountable and cannot stand up and speak the truth about what is happening to them or how they feel about the imposition of illegal practices upon them through an order of the Governor in Council. The Governor in Council can make that decision in secret, based on its desire to ensure what it considers to be the safety and security of Canada. This smacks of a police state, and I think everybody would agree to that.

In this country, we always have a need for people to deal with illegal behaviour. Canada is a signatory to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which states:

No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

Therefore, with regard to the minister's attempt to justify torture and the use of information gained from torture, any such use or activities are illegitimate under Canada's international legal obligations. However, considering recent actions, the Conservative government has little respect for the rule of law.

In June 2012, the UN Committee Against Torture released a report on Canada's compliance with the UN Convention Against Torture. In this report, the committee raised serious concerns with the Conservative's laissez-faire attitude toward torture saying that it could result in violations of article 15 of the convention. However, Bill C-42 would give more authority for any government to act in a way that is improper and could lead to Canada's reputation being tarnished before the world. It could lead to great human rights abuses. It could lead to a number of other things, such as the need for illegal wiretaps and information collection, and all kinds of activities that could take place in the name of the security of this country. These are very serious issues.

In 2006, Justice Dennis O'Connor, in his report on the events relating to Maher Arar, recommended:

Policies should include specific directions aimed at eliminating any possible Canadian complicity in torture, avoiding the risk of other human rights abuses and ensuring accountability.

These sections in Bill C-42 would go against that recommendation. These sections would create a situation in which the government would have the ability to direct the police force in a way that is inappropriate. Here we have a proposed law that would essentially make it legal for the police to break the law, and if they choose not to break the law, they may be dismissed without the right to a grievance.

This is supposed to be legislation about modernizing the RCMP workplace. However, these clauses would take it backward in time and should not have been put into the legislation. It should have been debated in a different fashion. Perhaps the laws could have been amended to provide some security to Canadians. However, when it comes to viewing these clauses in the bill and the thought of the Conservative government overriding civil rights in the name of national security, we must ask these questions: Did the terrorists win? Has the Canadian state acquiesced?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned Mr. O'Connor. The other person we should be listening to is Paul Kennedy. He was the one who recommended many things that the government should do to reform the RCMP.

Paul Kennedy, after having spent much time trying to deal with things internally in the RCMP and the complaints commission process, said it had to be outside the RCMP, that it had to be civilian oversight. He said that the legislation this one is based on, Bill C-42, which is a reiteration of Bill C-38, “is so riddled with loopholes it doesn't meet O'Connor's standard”.

Could he comment on Mr. Kennedy's comments about this legislation?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I have addressed my remarks to one particular section of the legislation that I find to be unacceptable, and I am sure many other people would look at it in that fashion.

Having met with the RCMP over many years here on different occasions, I feel very strongly the RCMP needs a union or an association that could protect the individual rights of the RCMP members. Until that happens, we will have the situation we have now. Thousands of grievances are backlogged, and RCMP officers are unhappy. There is no opportunity for people to deal with the kinds of situations in which they find themselves in the workplace and there is no intermediary on their side.

How can people work in that kind of environment? How can they do their jobs in the kind of risk-oriented work that police officers have to take on every day, with the stress and the strain they have to deal with, without some measure of support that is legitimate and is there for them when they have troubles or situations where they need to have someone on their side?

We can create any law we want. Without giving the police forces, our RCMP, the opportunity to have the same rights as other Canadians and other Canadian workers, this simply will not work.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Western Arctic will have, if he wishes, two and a half minutes left for questions and comments when the House next resumes debate on the question.

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from January 28 consideration of the motion that Bill C-457, An Act to repeal the Clarity Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Clarity Act

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia has four minutes remaining.

[Jean-François Fortin, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since I am the first to speak during this second hour of debate, I would like to remind members that this bill is very important to the very foundations of democracy and the right to self-determination of a people that forms a nation. I would like to share the definition of self-determination as recognized in international law and by the member nations of the United Nations.

In international law, self-determination, or the right of peoples to self-determination, is the principle that a people must have the free and sovereign right to determine its own form of government independently of any foreign influence. It is a collective right that can only be assumed by a people that forms a nation.

The Bloc Québécois bill, introduced by my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska, is very simple. It contains only whereas clauses and one clause that would fix a serious violation of the inalienable right of the Quebec people to self-determine its own future if it chooses to do so.

Whereas

the Québécois form a nation;

Whereas that nation has been formally recognized by the House of Commons;

Whereas the decision on its future within Canada lies with the Québécois nation, not the federal government;

And whereas the Québécois nation has laws that give its government both the right to consult the people of Quebec by means of a referendum on the subjects of its choice and the right to determine the wording of the referendum question;

[Consequently] the Clarity Act...is repealed.

The Bloc Québécois and all the parties of the Quebec National Assembly, whether they be sovereignist or federalist, agree that this law, which was passed by the federal Parliament, is in direct violation of the right of the people of Quebec to self-determination. The Clarity Act is an aberration. The National Assembly is sovereign and can consult its people on anything it chooses and as it sees fit.

Now, it is important to remember the very harmful impact of the Clarity Act. This law interferes in an internal debate, a Quebec debate, over which the people of Quebec should have control. The House of Commons used this law to give itself the power of disallowance with regard to the results of a referendum on Quebec's sovereignty. The House of Commons wants to determine, retroactively, whether the question is clear and whether there is a clear majority, namely, by taking into account the views of the other provinces.

In closing, since my time is almost up, I urge all members of this House who respect international law and the rights of peoples to determine their own future to support the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska's bill. Quebec, Canadian and international democracies are at stake. Regardless of allegiance, members must support this bill to uphold our values and democracy.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-457, An Act to repeal the Clarity Act. First of all, I must say that the NDP team is working very hard to restore Quebeckers' faith in politics.

In introducing this bill, the Bloc Québécois is trying to resuscitate old debates and is proposing nothing new. In view of the fact that Quebeckers have overwhelmingly rejected parties that have disappointed them in the past and those that took them for granted election after election, my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois should be ashamed.

The NDP's approach is different. We believe the federal government should be an ally to Quebeckers, as a nation, as acknowledged in the House, and that it should co-operate with the provinces in a way that respects them. This shows once again that the Bloc does not really want to help people build bridges or bring them together from sea to sea. We know that people are prepared to move on to something else in good faith and to set aside the old debates. That, moreover, is the message they sent in the last election.

The NDP has even tabled its own bill, which follows from the Sherbrooke declaration and its positive vision of federalism, which turns the page on the old debates. We believe that the leader of the official opposition is the person who can best bring together the people of Quebec and the rest of Canada to work together to build a more just, greener and more prosperous Canada. The NDP's team and leader are the only ones who really want to establish winning conditions for Canada in Quebec in a manner respectful of democracy.

Speaking of democracy, allow me to point out that, in an election, members solicit votes under a political banner with ideas and promises from the party they wish to represent. Once elected, members have a duty to respect the people's choice and be accountable to their constituents throughout their term.

I introduced a bill to that effect last year. Its purpose was to make the people's representatives more accountable and to enhance the image of the country's political institutions. That bill provided that a member's seat would be vacated and a byelection called for that seat if the member, having been elected as a member of a political party or as an independent, changed parties or became a member of another party. However, the seat would not be considered vacant if the member, having been elected as a member of a political party, chose to sit as an independent.

In other words, my bill proposed that byelections would be called when a member elected as a member of a political party chose to change political parties during his term. It proposed that byelections would also be called. That is respect for democracy.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not like to interrupt my colleagues when they are in full flight. However, with all due respect for the Chair, I would like to remind him and my colleague who is making a speech that we are discussing Bill C-457. I really do not see the connection with the bill he is talking about now.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It is the practice of the Chair to give members some latitude in terms of relevance when they are speaking to a matter before the House. I would encourage the hon. member for Pontiac and all members to make their remarks relevant to the matter before the House.

The hon. member for Pontiac.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply disappointed that my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois have recently not exhibited the same fundamental respect for basic democratic principles and the democratic choice of the voters in a riding located in the heart of Quebec.

Nor do the Liberals have any lessons to teach us, having led Canada to the brink of separation in 1995. The Liberals will not learn from their mistakes. Their response to the unity crisis was the sponsorship scandal. The Liberals gave up on the political battle for Canada. As a last resort, they introduced an obscure act that is far from clear.

Instead of attacking the NDP for the progress it has made in Quebec, the Liberals should be applauding it. Thanks to the NDP, a majority of the members elected by Quebeckers are federalist, for the first time since 1988, and at the same time Quebeckers defeated the Bloc Québécois, which wants to revive old quarrels.

As a Quebecker, I believe with all my heart that it is important to restore the hope of the people of Quebec in their country and to see that Ottawa respects the people of Quebec, while working with them to build a better future for everyone.

Quebeckers do not want to move backwards. They have had enough of the old quarrels. We have to put an end to these pointless squabbles. That is what the NDP is committed to doing.

Our team succeeded in restoring hope among Quebeckers: the hope of being heard, understood and respected in their country and the hope that their values are shared by other Canadians and will soon be able to guide a government in action.

Unfortunately, some people are prepared to stifle that hope, simply to score cheap political points, because that is precisely what the Liberal Party and the Bloc Québécois are trying to do by resuscitating their old debates with this motion and the Clarity Act.

That is why I will be voting against this bill. Quebeckers deserve better than the Bloc's desperate efforts, and certainly better than to pay the price for the irresponsible political games of the Liberal Party, which wants to create a national unity crisis where none exists. That is political opportunism.