Dan Harris

[Ethics, February 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has appointed more senators than Brian Mulroney. That is the Conservatives' record.

I guess senator Dennis Patterson forgot to read Mike Duffy's book, “A Quick Exit Through Kitchens for Dummies”, because he was cornered in a room with no exits. When asked point blank where he lived, he replied, “It is a complex matter with many facets”.

How many more complex senators is the Prime Minister hiding and when will he get our money back?

[Ethics, February 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, to quote Senator Hugh Segal, “The reason you get collective judgment about all senators is because...the body itself does not have core legitimacy”.

Four out of five senators under investigation were appointed by the current Prime Minister. Four out of five dentists will tell us that rinsing will not get that bad taste out of our mouth.

Why are Conservatives defending a $90 million institution that even senators are calling illegitimate? When will they get our money back?

[The Economy, February 13th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' failure on the economy is having a disastrous effect on mid-size businesses. Between 2006 and 2010, 17% of mid-size companies were lost. The decline is even steeper in Ontario, where one-quarter of these firms have shut down. Just like the Business Development Bank of Canada, New Democrats believe these numbers should be a call to action.

When will the Conservatives act? Or, will they just go on doing nothing while Canada loses these important businesses?

[Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, February 12th, 2013]

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

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

[Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, February 12th, 2013]

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

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

[Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, February 12th, 2013]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ethics, February 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we voted against it because it is an expensive band-aid, not a solution to the $90 million a year boondoggle that is the Senate.

At the end of the day, the Prime Minister's bagman, campaign managers, failed candidates and personal friends will collect over $115 million in salaries from taxpayers. Senator Brazeau alone will collect $7 million.

We could save hard-working taxpayers $90 million a year by getting rid of the Senate. It is a black hole of accountability and a national embarrassment. When are Conservatives going to do the right thing and abolish it?

[Ethics, February 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, in addition to Senator Brazeau, we have Liberal Senator Mac Harb claiming a housing allowance despite living here for decades. Fictional Prince Edward Islander Mike Duffy literally runs through kitchens to avoid answering questions about his residency. Now Pamela Wallin refuses to confirm whether she lives in Saskatchewan.

The Prime Minister has made 58 Senate appointments and has now unseated Brian Mulroney as the king of Conservative patronage. When will the Conservatives get serious about permanently fixing the Senate and abolish it?

[Ethics, February 1st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the rules are not worth the paper they are written on if they are not enforced, and that is where the government is at.

They may claim that ministerial ethics rules should not apply to Conservative ministers, but the Conflict of Interest Act and the Prime Minister's guidelines for ministers have specific rules laid out. The Ethics Commissioner has made it clear that the Conservatives broke those rules. Canadians deserve much better from their ministers.

Since the House leader will not explain this rule breaking, will he explain, now, how a minister writing on behalf of a Conservative donor who does not live in his riding is the job of a local MP?

[Ethics, February 1st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, Canadians are fed up with the succession of Conservative ministers who get caught with their hands in the cookie jar and do not even get a rap on the knuckles for their blatant ethics violations.

The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner also believes that this farce has gone on long enough and wants more powers to impose penalties. She is not asking for a study, she is asking for real powers.

Will the Conservatives grant her request?