Jack Harris

[Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, February 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have an opportunity to speak to Bill C-42 at third reading. It is an important area of public policy that needs to be addressed by the House. Unfortunately it is our conclusion that it has not been addressed properly by the House, because the bill would not do what it is expected to do.

As previous speakers have said, the RCMP is a storied institution in Canada. As the member for Kootenay—Columbia said, it goes back to 1873. It has not always been a perfect institution, and we all know that. It has been open to criticism from time to time in its history for some of the uses to which it was put by various governments.

When I started practising law, the RCMP was regarded as the senior police force in the country. Police forces around the country looked up to the RCMP for standards and training and discipline and proper procedures.

Of late, unfortunately, people have become disconcerted with the way the RCMP has been able to handle matters, particularly those of an internal nature. We have heard complaints for a number of years about harassment, particularly the harassment of women. There are outstanding lawsuits by 200 women complaining about harassment within the force and the apparent inability of the force to deal with that issue. As a result of some constant prodding by the NDP in the House, legislative action was deemed necessary and taken. Unfortunately, the bill does not address the kinds of issues that caused the need for this legislation to take place.

We have talked about the need for a more respectful force in terms of having a proper method to deal with sexual harassment and a proper response to the concern about that harassment, the need for a broader and more balanced human resource policy and the removal of some of the more draconian powers that are proposed for the RCMP commissioner. None of these were accepted in committee.

The government's response to these problems is to create a more powerful hierarchy within the RCMP and to give the commissioner more draconian powers than ever. As the member for Kootenay—Columbia said, the commissioner is going to delegate all of these powers to various deputy commissioners and others. Instead of having a more balanced approach whereby people would have a right to have their grievances dealt with and issues responded to, we are going to have a top-down hierarchy, which will not inspire confidence but create more of a paramilitary organization. That is an anachronism when it comes to modern policing in Canada.

Obviously there needs to be discipline within a police force, and all of that should take place, but when it comes to matters such as complaints about sexual harassment, there has to be a safe place for people to go. People have to know that these matters will be dealt with. They should have a clear expectation that the professional police officers throughout the force, from the bottom to the top, are well aware of and sensitive to what sexual harassment is and what it can do. Previous speakers have outlined some of the particular ways in which that should happen.

Through some 18 amendments at committee stage, we talked about what could be done to meet some of these needs. All of these amendments were rejected by the government. These amendments included adding mandatory harassment training for RCMP members, and specifically adding those measures to the RCMP Act itself, so that it would be clear that this was a response to the problem. We wanted to ensure that there would be a fully independent civilian body that would be able to review and investigate complaints against the RCMP.

This is important. The model that was proposed was a model like SIRC, which oversees CSIS. It is independent, with decision-making power, not just the recommendation power in the bill. That was provided for as well. It was turned down by the government.

Third, we wanted to add a provision creating a national civilian investigative body. We still have the situation of the RCMP being able to investigate itself when complaints are made of improper behaviour by police officers. That is not right. There is an elaborate procedure in place that maybe the provinces would undertake something first and if not, then the RCMP would do it and potentially there would be some civilian role in that, but that is not good enough. Some of the provinces do not have the capability of an independent review. Also, there are three territories that do not have an independent police force, and the RCMP does the work there. It is going to be a situation of RCMP officers investigating cases involving their own activities.

The fourth one, which I just talked about, was to have a more balanced human resources policy, removing some of the powers that were proposed for the RCMP commissioner and strengthening the external review committee so cases involving possible dismissal from the force could have an outside review. Now the situation is that the final authority is being given to the RCMP commissioner, with no possibility of appeal or independent review. That is not right.

One of the complaints about that was made by the president of the Canadian Police Association, Mr. Tom Stamatakis, who stated, “Without any additional, and most importantly, independent avenue for appeal, I would suggest there is a possibility that RCMP members could lose faith in the impartiality of a process against them, particularly in situations in which the commissioner has delegated his authority for discipline”. The contrast to that would be the example in Ontario, where a police officer subject to a disciplinary process has the right to appeal that decision against an independent civilian police commission.

These two go hand in hand. Having a proper policy and proper disciplinary process, but also an expectation by police officers themselves that the process is fair and impartial would allow for the cultural change that is required to take place. As the commissioner said, cultural change is required, but legislation cannot bring about all of the cultural change. In fact, he said that the culture of the organization had not kept pace. Commissioner Paulson stated:

—the problem is bigger than simply the sexual harassment. It is the idea of harassment. The idea that we have a hierarchical organization overseeing men and women who have extraordinary powers in relation to their fellow citizens, which requires a fair degree of discipline.

It is the hierarchical system that he says has been part of the problem. Instead of making mandatory sexual harassment training part of the solution, instead of having a more balanced approach in terms of management and perhaps a board of managers to oversee this, what we have done is strengthened the hierarchical system. We have not found a solution to the problem that caused and brought about the need for legislation. Instead of solving the problem, this legislation has actually made it worse.

The member for Kootenay—Columbia asked why members would not vote in favour of it since, in part, it went in the right direction. In fact, we think voting in favour of this bill would not provide a solution at all.

[Business of Supply, February 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from the Beaches on his speech. He covered a lot of issues there. However, I want to outline that the Toronto Region Board of Trade says that gridlock is now the greatest threat to economic prosperity in the region. We know there are six million people in the GTA, which is the largest urban municipality in Canada. People in this House do not generally talk about concerns about Toronto because they think everything is hunky-dory there, but we have a significant crisis, as the member has pointed out.

Could the member comment on why members opposite, who continue to talk about the mantra of jobs, growth and prosperity, may not support what this partnership that is implied in the strategy is all about?

[Safer Witnesses Act, February 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I know this issue has been canvassed, but I do find it disturbing that even on the current RCMP website, it says there are instances when the cost of witness protection may impede investigations, particularly for smaller law enforcement agencies. Provincial witness protection programs do not apply if the crime is federal in nature, involving drugs for example. The RCMP takes over those cases and charges the local police departments with the full cost. That is disturbing.

In the last year ending March 2012, only 30 people out of a total of 108 considered for the witness protection program actually got to benefit from it.

These seem to be significant problems. Is the member convinced that this legislation solves those problems?

[National Defence, February 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it seems the minister has already decided her annual reports on the F-35 project, but we think Canadians would like to hear from the Minister of National Defence on these matters. He is the minister who is responsible for the F-35 debacle. He is the one who has not been able to get Sikorsky to deliver the Cyclone helicopters. He is the one who refuses to ever acknowledge his mistakes. The Prime Minister has even stepped in to ask another minister to take over and try to clean up these procurement messes.

Why will the Minister of National Defence not stand and at least show a shred of accountability to the House?

[Points of Order, February 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, to the alleged point of order, these submissions were made by members of Parliament, not by political parties.

[Conflict in Mali, February 5th, 2013]

Mr. Chair, it is of primary importance that we provide some assistance. One of the encouraging things we have seen as a result of recent events is that the MNLA, the Tuareg group which was partnered with AQIM, obviously has decided that it made a bad decision and is now seeking to integrate and is willing to enter into negotiations and discussions with the rest of Mali and seek a road map to peace.

That is something in which we do have some expertise, and we ought to be contributing. Unfortunately, as has been pointed out earlier in the debate, Canada is one of the few nations that does not seek to engage in that. Instead we had the Minister of Foreign Affairs engaged in finger wagging. I do not know if that term is any worse than “whacking”. It clearly means that all one is doing is standing up and wagging one's fingers and saying, “You folks should get yourselves to be more democratic”. That is not much help from this distance, I should say to the members opposite. There has to be engagement, and Canada has failed in that, although we do have that capability.

[Conflict in Mali, February 5th, 2013]

Mr. Chair, I do not know how far it got, but one of the notions that was being floated around in the last few weeks was the suggestion, and I think the French were talking about this, of the possibility of UN observers participating in monitoring the situation to ensure respect for human rights as an integral part of any operations that were being undertaken between the Malian troops and the French troops. I do not know whether that is something whose time has come and gone. That is a suggestion that has been made.

Obviously, as the member has pointed out, if we have a situation where there is an army that is seeking to secure the country that we believe should have security, and it is not following human rights principles and rule of international law, then all is lost. That does not provide security to the population, the people of Mali.

As my colleague has pointed out, it is a very complex situation. The exact solution is not in sight at this point, but we do know that the AFISMA organization, which is not primarily obviously Mali forces, is seeking to take a strong role. It will be taking control over this from the French government and it should get all the support it needs, starting, in this instance, with what it asks for, which is financial support, and which so far the government has failed to provide.

Maybe we should take one step at a time and see what the later asks are and see what other efforts come from the—

[Conflict in Mali, February 5th, 2013]

Mr. Chair, I know that there is a bit of baiting going on here tonight by the members opposite in the government. However, I think he has to examine his own understanding of what peace-building and peacekeeping actually mean. If he looks at the various 10 enumerated actions, which I suggest he look at, he will understand that peace-building, building and assisting in strengthening the rule of law and institutions in the host countries, and helping national authorities develop priorities and strategies to address the needs of judicial institutions, police, corrections, et cetera, are some of the mandates listed there.

The fact of the matter is that the experience of peace-building is complex. It is multi-dimensional. It may involve assisting in a circumstance where, once peace has been achieved and we are not engaged in combat, we can provide assistance to have greater security in Mali.

We just talked about the inadequacies of the Malian army in terms of being able to provide security for their country. We were astonished, and I am sure that the parliamentary secretary was astonished, to hear General Ham suggest that the Americans had neglected to provide ethical training when they were assisting in training troops in Africa. I do not think we are guilty of that. I think the training provided by Canada and that can be provided by Canada has a different dimension to it.

There may be ways we can be helpful. We have to first find out if there is going to be any mission of that nature and see what Africa needs.

I know this. When we were asked to provide financial assistance to AFISMA to take over control of the operations, we said no.

[Conflict in Mali, February 5th, 2013]

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to be able to participate in this debate tonight on the security situation in Mali and Canada's role in it. It is an important debate. It is important that we are having this debate as a Parliament and are talking about executive action in this important region of the world. It is important because we were involved in helping to create a thriving democracy in Mali for some two decades, which has been an independent country for only 50 years. It is also important that there has been some consultation between the leader of the opposition, the Prime Minister and the leader of the Liberal Party to attempt to achieve a consensus as to what Canada should do and a commitment and a stipulation by our leader, the leader of the opposition, that this be brought to Parliament as quickly as possible.

This country has a spotty record of having interventions discussed by Parliament. We are not talking about committing to combat. We are talking about a commitment to military assets, so far, in the case of the use of the C-17.

We have had a developing practice, not yet a convention, although I hope we get there, of having parliamentary oversight in a stronger way over international interventions. Chuck Strahl, for example, when he was a Reform MP, actually brought a motion to the House asking for parliamentary approval before troops were put in any overseas operations. It failed. The Liberal government defeated it. Another Reform MP, Bob Mills, made a similar attempt in 1996, which also failed. However, I think at the time there was a recognition, even by the government of the day, that there was a growing sense that Parliament ought to be directly involved. We are keeping up with that tradition tonight in terms of talking about what potential role Canada might play, because we are seeing a changing situation.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs talked about the situation with al-Qaeda. As he mentioned, the situation in Mali has developed over the last year, starting with a coup last March. Some people are asking why we are helping a government that was founded on a military coup. There are two answers. The first is that we are actually attempting to help the people of Mali, as opposed to this particular government of Mali. The second point that needs to be underscored is that almost immediately upon this coup taking place, the international community, and, in particular, the regional community of the African Union and ECOWAS, the Economic Community of West African States, acted immediately to expel Mali from the African Union. They sent delegations there to seek to restore a constitutional government. They received a commitment, in fairly short order, that there would be a transitional government and eventually the development of a road map to the restoration of democracy under the constitution of 1992. That happened as a result of significant pressure at the regional level and the international level with the withdrawal of international support for the coup-led government, which almost immediately made it clear that the government would not be able to actually operate.

We were told by officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs that Mali was recognized by other people engaged in international aid and development as a country that did not use the money given to it by other countries to build up its army. Therefore, it actually had a weak army. It was weak in terms of its strength, but it may also have been weak in terms of its discipline, its record and its ability to properly carry out ethical and moral operations.

We have heard of the abuses and the allegations of abuses. However, the reality is that the army was not strong. Once the coup took place, Mali was a vulnerable state and was exposed to the events that took place. The rebellion in the north was assisted by the Islamist extremists, mainly al-Qaeda in the Maghreb and the other group of Islamist extremists that took part in that, which led quickly to a serious deterioration, which the United Nations Security Council took seriously.

In a series of resolutions, beginning last July, then in October and December, the UN Security Council took strong action to seek the support of the international community to aid the African-led International Support Mission to Mali using African troops, the support of the African Union, and the support of ECOWAS. The United Nations Security Council was acting on its mandate as the primary body for international peace and security in the world authorizing this action and was seeking the support of other nations.

The timing was interesting, because it was expected that this would take several months, up to next fall, to be ready to carry out the military mission. Events overtook the plans, which often happens. We saw the attempt by the Islamist extremists, seeing a weakness and seeing a delay, to take over the country.

We saw the response to that. France took action. We supported that action. We are now in a situation where a peacekeeping mission in Mali is being contemplated.

As my colleague from Ottawa Centre pointed out, this is something we ought to be monitoring carefully to see what kind of mandate may or may not come from this suggestion. It is obviously premature to be talking about that right now . There is no peace to keep. However, if it comes to the point where there is discussion about that, Canada should be ready to see whether we play a role and what role we might play. We need to consider what might be a substantial UN peacekeeping mission in Mali. We would anticipate this being, again, African-led. It is important to consider what role Canada might play in assisting.

That does not necessarily mean troops. I want to preclude the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs jumping to his feet right after I finish to accuse us of suggesting that. I would encourage him, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, to read resolution 2086, a new resolution of the Security Council, which was adopted on January 21, 2013. That resolution reiterates the role of the UN in peacekeeping. It spells out, in great detail, the kind of multi-dimensional peacekeeping missions that may be mandated by the Security Council. It is extremely important. All Canadians should have a look at that, because it defines the kinds of roles nations would be asked to play in nation-building and peace-building in nations around the world.

I say that because my colleague, the hon. member for Ottawa Centre, was generous in saying that Canada was the 53rd nation in its contributions to international peacekeeping missions. We are actually the 55th nation, according to the United Nations organization on December 12. While there are some 80,000 troops engaged in peacekeeping around the world, Canada contributes 11 troops and 19 police officers. That is where we are after 35 years of being perhaps the lead nation in assisting in peacekeeping around the world. That is just on the troop side.

Ten enumerated actions may be mandated. They are spelled out in United Nations Security Council resolution 2086. It recognizes that each mandated peacekeeping mission would be specific to the needs and the situation of the country concerned. It is based on some very strong principles, including the consent of the nations involved. The mandate could include a mix of civilian police and military capabilities under a unified leadership. Those are the benefits of the United Nations involvement--

[Business of Supply, February 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for talking about workers, communities and small businesses. This is a big concern in my province of Newfoundland and Labrador, where there are so many small communities.

Does the hon. member think there is any relationship between this program the government is undertaking, which is effectively deterring seasonal workers in Canada, and the temporary foreign workers program the government has been promoting assiduously?