House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2021, with 56% of the vote.
Transboundary Waters Protection Act February 8th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on my colleague's question. I would ask the hon. member what the government would do if a province lifted its current prohibition on exporting water. If, for example, a province like Newfoundland and Labrador decided to lift its prohibition and allow tanker ships to take water from Lake Gisborne to another country, would the member's bill prevent that?
The Environment February 7th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, the Commissioner of the Environment confirmed that the government did not require companies engaged in hydraulic fracturing to be transparent. These companies are not required to inform the public about some 800 chemicals that they may inject into the ground, chemicals that may contaminate our drinking water.
How can the government regulate products when it cannot confirm their use, and how can it manage the risks associated with toxic products when it does not even know the quantity used for shale gas development?
Business of Supply January 31st, 2013
Mr. Speaker, one of the points the hon. member for Toronto Centre made is that it is important to respond to the concerns of our first nations. One of the main problems facing first nations is the quality of their drinking water, the quality of the water from which they fish and so on.
I will share my experience with respect to the situation in Fort Chipewyan. I was with the environment committee a couple of years ago and we went up to Fort Chipewyan where there were grave concerns expressed about the quality of the water as a result of pollution from the oil sands. We were up in Fort Chipewyan because we were exploring whether there was a link between the development of the oil sands and the pollution of the land and water on which the first nations depend. However, it took a long time for the government to recognize that there might be a link. Finally, it did after it was pushed by world-class scientists to recognize that there might be a problem. At that point, the government reacted and said that it needed to monitor the situation.
Would the member for Toronto Centre not agree that we have to be more open in our attitude toward the concerns that the first nations are raising? That is very much what Idle No More is all about. The people who are protesting are raising concerns. Does the member not feel that we have to be more open as a government, as a Parliament and as a society to what people are saying?
Superintendent of the Year Award January 29th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an accomplished educator, Robert Mills, director general of the Lester B. Pearson School Board, which encompasses primary, secondary and professional schools in the western Montreal region.
Mr. Mills was recently named the 2012 Superintendent of the Year by the Canadian Association of School Administrators. He was also awarded the Xerox Excellence in Educational Leadership Award at the CASA national conference in July 2012.
Throughout the many stages of a career that began in the classroom, Bob Mills has helped manage major changes in Quebec's educational system, some truly tectonic, such as the transition from confessional school boards to linguistic boards. The mark of a true leader, Bob Mills had the foresight to partner and plan for difficult challenges ahead so as to preserve the exceptional educational programs that have defined Lester B. Person School Board's reputation for excellence.
A nation that values education is one that will know social progress and economic prosperity. On behalf of all members of the House, I thank Bob Mills for his recognized contribution to making Canada such a nation.
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns January 28th, 2013
With regard to federal research relating to water: (a) in which federally-owned facilities and departments, including the Experimental Lakes Area, is the government conducting research on water issues, including but not limited to research relating to fisheries, fish habitat, climate change, groundwater, water quality, and wastewater technology and processes; and (b) since January 1, 2006 what major water-related research projects have been or are currently being undertaken in these facilities and departments, ranked by project budget size?
Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act December 12th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, my understanding was actually the same as the parliamentary secretary's. Maybe I did not express myself properly.
If there were a civilian review agency in a particular province, that could be used. However, if there were not, a police force in that province could undertake the investigation. What I neglected to say to clarify matters was that the other police force in that province would not be the RCMP, but would be a different force. I apologize if I did not make that clear and I thank the hon. member for bringing that up.
Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act December 12th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to say how much I respect my hon. colleague's previous experience before being elected in dealing with police forces. He brings a lot of experience and insight to this process.
It is a logical conclusion that training on how to deal with sexual harassment or what constitutes sexual harassment will drop naturally out of this process. I trust that will be the case. If it is not, I am sure that we will have questions for the commissioner the next time he appears before the committee as to what—
Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act December 12th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I did not address it directly, but there are mechanisms. My understanding is that “serious incidents” has not been clearly defined in the legislation and that is something that we should look out for. However, in the case of serious incidents, the new civilian review agency would have the power to look at those situations. Other than that, it could be the review agency of another police force. If one does not exist in a province, it could be another police force that would look into the incident, according to my understanding.
Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act December 12th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to take the opportunity to express warm season's greeting to my colleagues on both sides of the House.
I will say at the outset that the Liberals will be supporting Bill C-42 at report stage and at third reading.
Fundamentally, it is because, even though the bill is not by any means perfect, we find there are no compelling reasons not to support the bill and not to take the step forward in trying to solve a problem that has appeared to have become a little bit intractable over the years and which is undermining the credibility of one of our finest national symbols, which is, of course, our great national police force, the RCMP, which is composed of thousands of Canadians, some police officers and some civilians with a strong ethic of public service whose reputation, unfortunately, is being tarnished by the actions of a few who are not following the codes of conduct and not behaving properly as members of the RCMP. On top of that, their misconduct appears to take far too long to be addressed.
That is what the bill is about. It is about changing the culture of the RCMP. I believe it was Mr. Brown who said that the current set of procedures, the current way of managing problems within the RCMP is just not up to the task of what has become a major organization.
One of the things that happens when organizations get very big as things progress and so forth is that they tend to become very bureaucratized. That is very much what has happened within the RCMP around how to deal with misconduct. Over the years, procedures have been created such that a case of misconduct goes through a hearing, then maybe another hearing and the problem never seems to be resolved, certainly not on a timely basis, and this leads to frustration.
I will now comment on what I observed at committee, especially during the amendment process. I observed that the NDP brought a particular model to the problem. It is not a criticism of the model but it struck me as being very much a labour-focused model, which is based on the notion that management's latitude must always be restricted in the interests of labour within the organization.
There is nothing wrong with standing up for the rights of labour, especially in large organizations where we need unions, we need associations as a kind of counterpoint to the power of a large organization. However, when it comes to managing large organizations, we need effective leadership. We cannot have effective leadership if those leading the organization, in this case the commissioner, has his or her hands tied.
Leadership is not a bureaucratic process. It is an art form and it requires making judgments. If every time the leader of an organization wants to make a decision or make a judgment call, he or she is constrained by having to, for example, adhere 100% to the recommendations of a particular committee within the organization or an advisory board, then I cannot see that leadership in that organization would be effective.
That does not mean that leaders must not seek input from advisory bodies and so on, but to suggest that they must adhere to 100% of the recommendations is a constraint on leadership.
I noticed that, when we received witnesses, the witnesses who were representing RCMP officers, sort of within a union context, they saw the problem of harassment and the root sources of harassment within the RCMP very differently from the way, for example, Commission Paulson sees it. They said that the reason for harassment was because the line officers in the management structure had too much power and that there was a kind of cronyism that had set in. By definition, if we accept that assumption, then we need to restrict the powers of management that much more.
This point of view is diametrically opposed to the basic principle at the heart of this legislation, which is to give the commissioner and managers down the line more latitude, more power, to resolve disputes quickly and to take effective action if someone is found guilty of misconduct and not behaving properly according to the ethics and conduct code of the RCMP.
I think that there is a fundamentally different way of looking at this problem. However, I must say that we come down on the side of giving more authority to the commissioner to deal with these problems. If he or she does not deal with these problems, we can be very certain that the media will bring them to the attention of the minister, the government and the opposition. Outside pressure will be brought to bear on the management of the RCMP. Therefore, it is not as if the RCMP has no accountability to the broader society in which it operates.
It was brought up many times that a sexual harassment code was not included in the legislation. However, members have to understand that when we are dealing with enabling legislation, we do not include that level of detail. I have never seen it where we would include policies and codes in enabling legislation.
I take the point that we are trying to address the problem of sexual harassment in the RCMP as well as other problems of misbehaviour. However, the bill does provide the minister with the authority to create a harassment policy. Of course, that harassment policy will be the subject of great interest on the part of the opposition and the media, which will make sure that it is a proper policy and that it is strict enough. Again, there will be some accountability in that respect.
According to some, the bill may have fallen short with the new commission, which will look into public complaints against the RCMP, in that it could have had its power enhanced. The scope of its power could have been broader. There is no doubt about that. For example, Justice O'Connor thought that review bodies should have the authority to look at issues involving national security and how the RCMP dealt with issues of national security. In that respect, this new body for receiving civilian complaints does not have the same scope of power as the Security Intelligence Review Committee.
One could argue that things could have been pushed a little further in that respect. One could also argue that the commissioner would have an obligation to implement 100% of the recommendations of the civilian review commission or of the external review committee.
We could argue that point, but based on what I said at the beginning of my speech, these may not be shortcomings because the commissioner must retain some leadership freedom. We do not feel that these shortcomings, if they are shortcomings, compel us to vote against the bill.
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns December 11th, 2012
With regard to Public Safety Canada, what grants and contributions under $25,000 did it award from January 1, 2011, to the present, including the recipient's name, the date, the amount and the description?