Jasbir Sandhu

[Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, December 12th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have talked to many citizens, not only across this country but in particular in the city of Surrey. As I pointed out, we have the largest RCMP detachment anywhere in the country.

It surprises me to hear the member talk about sexual harassment. The words “sexual harassment” are not even in the bill. That tells me that the Conservatives are more concerned about ideology rather than addressing the real issue of harassment in the RCMP.

The member talked about accountability and transparency. Accountability and transparency have to start with the Conservative government, which has not been accountable and transparent at all. We have seen that with the F-35s. If the government really wanted the RCMP to be accountable and transparent, it would respect the will of the people who want an independent body investigating the RCMP.

The Conservatives have clearly failed on this measure.

[Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, December 12th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak to Bill C-42 on behalf of my constituents from Surrey North.

Surrey has the largest RCMP detachment in the country. The men and women who work in my city, RCMP members and civilian members who work with them, do a wonderful job. Not only that, my office meets with them on a regular basis to deal with some of the local issues that come up in my constituency. I am very thankful to them for providing that wonderful service to the citizens in Surrey.

First, it should be a priority of the House and the government to restore public confidence in the RCMP. A functioning, effective RCMP that holds the public trust is critical to building safer communities across the country.

On this side of the House, we support the stated intent of the bill and we hoped to make some amendments in committee that would address some of our concerns. I will talk about that a little later on, as to what happened. I have stood in the House, time after time, and called on the government to step up and deal with problems that years of Conservative mismanagement have caused in our national police force.

The goals stated in the preamble of the bill, transparency, improving conduct, strengthening the review and complaints body and dealing with the climate of sexual harassment that exists in the RCMP, are all good goals. We hoped that we could make some amendments at the committee stage to improve the bill and make it more effective, so we could deal with the issues the RCMP had been dealing with for a number of years.

For those reasons, we supported the second reading of the bill, because we thought we would actually get to address some of those real issues plaguing the RCMP. Unfortunately, every amendment the NDP put forward in committee to improve upon the very things I talked about were turned down, without even simple consideration.

We would have thought that maybe one amendment might have made sense to them. We have seen this in many other committees. I sit on the international trade committee, as well as other committees, including the public safety committee. Not one amendment from the opposition, out of the thousands and thousands of amendments that have been brought forward in committees, has been accepted by the Conservative government.

One would think that out of the thousands of ideas we have presented maybe one would fit the Conservative ideology, but that is not the case. It is very unfortunate. This was an opportunity for the Conservatives to right the wrong of the mismanagement of the RCMP over the last six or seven years. This just did not happen.

The reputation and the respect of the RCMP has been built over the years, but let us look at what has happened over the last six or seven years. The Conservatives have totally mismanaged those issues.

One of the amendments that the opposition put forward basically added mandatory harassment training for RCMP members, specifically through the RCMP Act. Another amendment we brought forward was to ensure a fully independent civilian review body to investigate complaints against the RCMP.

In my province of British Columbia, that has been an ongoing issue, where the police investigate themselves. Canadians deserve clarity on this. Conservatives have the opportunity in this bill to bring that in to help Canadians have the RCMP be accountable and transparent. Again, the Conservatives have, and I hate to use these words, missed the bus on this part of the amendment.

We wanted to add provisions to create a national civilian investigation body that would avoid police investigating police. We also wanted to create a more balanced human resources policy by removing some of the more draconian powers proposed for the RCMP Commissioner and by strengthening the external review committee in cases involving possible dismissal form the force.

What did the Conservatives do? Again, they voted down every single one of those amendments. Those amendments would have provided some form of clarity and transparency to Canadians. Yet the Conservatives chose not to accept any of those recommendations or committee amendments.

The Conservative government is ignoring calls for more balance and standing by its argument that putting more power in the hands of the RCMP commissioner to fire individual officers would curb ongoing issues at the RCMP and that the RCMP commissioner should have the final say on all dismissals. Expert witness after expert witness explained that the legislation alone would not help to foster a more open and respectable workforce for all and that the concentration of power in the hands of the commissioner is part of the problem, not the solution. We need to see an ongoing effort from the RCMP and the government to modernize the RCMP, and the bill would lack the transparency and accountability necessary for that change.

Basically, the bill would not go far enough. My colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca and a number of other NDP members have called upon the government to be more transparent and more accountable. The Conservatives had this opportunity to make the RCMP, our national police force, more accountable and more transparent, yet again they missed the opportunity. My colleagues have also talked about having a safe work environment for the men and women who work in our force. Clearly, the Conservatives have missed that opportunity.

It is clear that sexual harassment is not only a problem, it is a symptom. It is endemic to the internal culture of the RCMP. The Conservatives' approach would not make women in the RCMP a priority, which is necessary if we want to deal substantially with this problem. My primary concern is that, over and over, we see the Conservatives attempting to gloss over the real issues within the RCMP. They implement quick fixes instead of truly taking the steps necessary to fix the force for the sake of those serving in the force, and to restore public confidence in the RCMP ultimately for the safety of our communities.

The scope of the problem of sexual harassment in the RCMP is massive. More than 200 women, both current and former RCMP officers, are seeking a class action suit against the RCMP on the grounds of sexual harassment. That does not include the individual lawsuits that could be filed by them. My NDP colleagues and I pushed for the minister for months to prioritize the issue of sexual harassment in the RCMP. Unfortunately, Bill C-42 would not directly address the systemic issues in the culture of the RCMP. It is clear that the bill by itself would not change the current climate in the RCMP.

I have a lot to speak about on this particular issue, but in summary I will say a few things. The Conservatives had an opportunity to fix the RCMP, to address the issues of sexual harassment and of transparency and accountability. They have clearly not taken advantage of the opportunity to do that. I stress that in my community of Surrey and in communities across the country, crime and violence are a reality. A few weeks ago in the Lower Mainland, a known gang member was shot and killed in broad daylight.

This kind of violence is unacceptable, but instead of investing in measures to prevent crime in our communities by supporting the work of the RCMP, the Conservatives are making it harder for police to do their jobs. We have come to know that 42 RCMP office support staff in B.C. have received notices stating that they could lose their jobs.

We need to be supporting the work of the RCMP, not making its job harder. The government has put forward a bill that seems to finally acknowledge some of these problems, but it simply does not address the major issues that we need to address. An effective RCMP is a matter of public safety and real action is long overdue. The Conservatives have failed Canadians again.

[Asbestos, December 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, last night Conservative MPs voted to support asbestos, even though they know asbestos kills. Conservatives oppose including asbestos in the Rotterdam convention, which helps protect workers around the world, such as those handling Canadian asbestos in places like India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. They have voted against efforts to help Canadian asbestos regions transition into other industries.

When will the Conservatives finally put human lives first when it comes to this deadly substance called asbestos?

[Asbestos, November 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful to have the opportunity to speak to this very important motion, Motion No. 381, on behalf of my constituents from Surrey North. The motion has been brought to the House by my colleague, the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.

I want to share a story about my first day in the House. I am not new anymore, but the first day I arrived on the Hill, like most members of Parliament, I took one of those green buses from my office and came to the main entrance of this wonderful building. I was happy to see my NDP, Liberal and Conservative colleagues. When we pulled up to the front of the House of Commons, I noticed a building that had an envelope around it. Wanting to know what was happening, I asked my colleagues. Gleefully, they said that the building was having the asbestos removed from it because it is carcinogenic. We needed to clean the air to make it healthy for MPs and all the employees who work in the House of Commons. It was not just NDP, Liberal or Conservative members who said this; it was all members who said we needed to remove the carcinogenic substance from the buildings.

However, I found out later through a number of debates in the House how the asbestos industry impacts not only the building here but buildings around the world.

Basically, the motion seeks to put an end to the government's support of the harmful crystallite asbestos industries, both here in Canada and abroad. However, I think it is a tragedy that this motion needs to exist and that there is a need to speak about it in this House, considering we are getting rid of the same material from our buildings that we are exporting. I think it is very tragic that I am standing here today speaking about it.

We know that asbestos is incredibly dangerous, and we know the health risks associated to working with asbestos are too high to be acceptable. The World Health Organization, the Canadian Medical Association and the Canadian Cancer Society all said that asbestos should be banned in all forms and that Canada should no longer produce it at all. Internationally, the WHO and the International Labour Organization agree that there is no safe level of exposure to asbestos.

Approximately 30 countries in the world have banned the use of crystallite asbestos due to its carcinogenic characteristics. Yet, in Canada, not only do we produce and export this toxic substance, but our government has been actively supporting and promoting the industry for years.

The Conservatives have actively worked to stop asbestos from being on the United States' list of dangerous substances, which would basically require exporters to provide information on the toxicity or safe handling of dangerous substances. This means that when we export asbestos to developing countries, companies are not required to include health and security labelling for workers or their communities that will bear the burden of asbestos exposure.

New Democrats understand that people who work in the industry in Canada are worried about their jobs. That is why this motion includes specifically that the government must establish an industrial restructuring plan to ensure the creation of alternative employment for the workers and communities that presently rely on the asbestos sector.

In 2009, Canada exported nearly 153,000 tonnes of crystallite, and more than half of that went to India. I came to this wonderful country from India 32 years ago. The rest of the asbestos went to Indonesia, Thailand, Mexico, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and the UAE.

At present, due in large part to the efforts of the Conservative government to support this industry, the workers in these industries are unpacking and handling this toxic substance and there is no requirement for Canadian companies to let them know that materials they are working with could cause them serious harm. This is just dead wrong.

Canada can and should do better. We should support positive, progressive, mutually beneficial trade with other countries and we can do better than this. My Conservative colleagues know better and they know that we can and should do better. That is why my New Democrat colleagues and I ask for support for the motion. Members know that it is the right thing to do.

The motion is very reasonable and clear about what we need to do. The motion basically asks for a restructured industrial plan for communities that would be affected by the closure or the ban on asbestos to other countries. It asks the government to consult with communities on how to best restructure the industry so the people affected are provided with resources to transition into other industries. It asks for support for the inclusion of chrysotile on the Rotterdam Convention list of dangerous substances. It also asks for a stop to financing or supporting the asbestos industry within six months following the adoption of the motion.

There is a body of clear medical and scientific evidence that asbestos causes harm to workers, their families and the residents of countries to which we export asbestos. Yet, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, Canada sponsored and funded 160 trade missions in 60 countries to promote asbestos. The government also granted $150,000 over the last three years to the Chrysotile Institute, a lobby group from the asbestos sector that ensures promotion of asbestos chrysotile internationally.

However, for Canada, even on Parliament Hill, it is another story. We have banned this substance in our country. We have condemned entire buildings and are spending millions of dollars because we know the dangers of asbestos. I gave the example when I started that even this building is being cleaned of asbestos. When I was first elected, I came to the Parliament building and talked about this experience.

Why would we export a substance to other countries that we have banned? We have banned it in this building. That is still very troubling to me and I have not found any answers from the government side on this issue. The Conservative government is spending taxpayer money to export this very dangerous material to other countries.

That brings us to a really important ethical question. Conservative members of the House have double standards. What does it say to the rest of the world when we say something is dangerous to Canada, yet it is okay for other countries? What does it say to the workers here, including those in the West Block who are working to remove this substance and we are spending millions for them to do it safely, while workers in India are working with this substance with no warning at all? The government has actively lobbied for them to not have any warning about the hazardous nature of this substance. This is a double standard and is not okay in my books.

Canada has a global responsibility to fix this and to right our wrongs when it comes to the manufacture and export of asbestos. There has been some causes of hope. The Minister of Industry has said that Ottawa will no longer oppose the inclusion of asbestos on the Rotterdam Convention list of dangerous substances. That is a step in the right direction.

However, the government needs to go further than that. We should not be discussing this matter, which we should have resolved it a long time ago. If asbestos is not safe for Canadians, it is not safe for us to export it to poor third world countries.

[Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, November 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, we need to start by consulting first nations. We need to bring them to the table and talk to them. We need to look at their needs and address those needs in a collaborative way, with the government and the opposition sitting at the table.

However, this bill would basically unload federal responsibility onto first nations. We have seen this with other legislation in the House, which has off-loaded federal responsibilities onto provinces and then further onto municipalities.

I had a chance to talk to officials of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities last week. They commissioned a study in 2007 showing that municipalities back then had a deficit of $31 billion in infrastructure for clean water systems.

The Conservative government has not lived up to its responsibilities. If it is going to create regulations via this bill, then it needs to provide resources, whether for first nations or municipalities and cities across this country. We need to provide those resources.

Let us not set up first nations for failure. If there is no funding and no investment to go along with this legislation, then we are setting up first nations for failure. Clearly, the Conservatives do not have a long-term strategy to address the fundamental need for clean water and wastewater systems for first nations.

[Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, November 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, all the Conservatives have been doing over the last number of years in government is talk. Talk is not going to resolve the very issues that are affecting our first nation communities. Talk is not going to resolve the housing issues in first nation communities. Talk is not going to resolve education issues in first nation communities. Talk is not going to resolve the problem of creating jobs for young first nations people.

The government's own study pointed to investing in first nation communities so they can have access to clean water and water systems in place to clean waste water. The Conservatives have clearly failed on that. They have a piecemeal strategy in place that has not worked for our first nations. It is shameful that they keep saying that they have invested money and do not need to invest more money.

As Canadians, we can do this. Let us work together in the opposition, the NDP and Liberals, and all parties together and solve this issue of having clean drinking water in first nations.

[Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, November 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand in the House on behalf of my constituents from Surrey North to speak to Bill S-8, An Act respecting the safety of drinking water on First Nation lands.

Before I get into the bill, the title of it would have one believe that the Conservatives are actually going to do something about safe drinking water for first nations. It uses the word “respecting”. To me, respect is listening to the very people that this legislation is going to impact. Respect is to listen to their concerns and implement some resolutions to those concerns as part of the solution for creating a better environment for clean water and waste water systems for first nations. This bill would not do any of that.

We have heard debate in the House on this bill, we have heard testimony in committee and we have heard from experts that the government is not listening to first nations. It has, in fact, failed to consult the very people who are going to be impacted by this particular legislation. The word “respecting” is very misleading, because the government is not respecting the very people who would be impacted by this legislation.

We in the House all agree on the need for clean water and water systems accessible to first nations. A fundamental right of Canadians is to have access to free and clean drinking water. In fact, after Russia and Brazil, we have the third largest supply of clean water in the world. Yet first nations are having difficulty accessing clean and safe water for their drinking needs, and that is not acceptable to Canadians. In this day and age, we need to provide clean water for first nations. It is doable. We have heard in the House that we can provide safe, clean water, but it needs a commitment from the government to invest in first nations so they have access to clean water.

This issue of clean water has been boiling for the last 10 or 15 years, as far as I know. The Liberals tried to fix it and I know the Conservatives have tried a piecemeal strategy to address the needs of first nations, but over a period of time they have failed again and again because there was no substance in previous bills, or even this one, to help them get clean water. In fact, this particular bill does not provide the investment for first nations to build the infrastructure needed for access to clean water.

Having clean water is a fundamental right. Not only that, but it helps first nations build their economy and improves their health. If they do not have good health, it is going to impact the economy. If the Conservatives are truly worried about building an economy and providing jobs to first nations youth, it is important for government to step up to the plate. It has been saying for many years that there is going to be clean water for first nations, but their words are hollow.

All this legislation would do is provide for a regulations framework. That is all it would do. It would not provide the infrastructure or investment that is needed. All it would do is provide for additional regulations that will be put on first nations. The government did not even consult first nations, the very people who are going to be impacted by this legislation. In order to put a system in place that provides clean water for first nations, it is very important to consult those people. Yet the Conservatives failed to do that.

The Prime Minister talked about building a new relationship with the first nations. What I believe he meant was to consult with first nations. It is our duty to consult first nations when bringing in legislation that would impact them. I believe his words were hollow when he said that we would build a new nation by consulting first nations. Clearly, this legislation would not do that at all.

Not only do we need infrastructure and additional investments in our communities to provide them with clean water, but also for waste water that ends up in our lakes and streams. The government is focused on cutting the very regulations that help protect our lakes, rivers and oceans. Not only is it not providing the infrastructure needed to treat the waste water that would be released into our lakes and rivers, it is gutting the environmental regulations that we have in place to ensure that Canadians across the country have adequate access to clean safe water.

Over the years, we have seen the numbers. Hundreds of first nations communities across the country have been under boil water advisories. In Ottawa and back in Surrey, we take it for granted that we can turn on the tap and drink the water. However, hundreds of communities across the country do not have access to clean water and are under a Health Canada boil water advisory. This is happening in the 21st century. We are trying to build that new relationship that the Prime Minister so often talks about but the government is not delivering on its promises of trying to help the first nations.

Over the last couple of weeks, we have seen legislation brought in by the government, whether it is the transparency act or matrimonial land rights, without any consultation with the first nations people. The courts have told us that it is our fiduciary duty to consult with first nations on any legislation brought into the House that concerns them. We need to hear their views. Not only must we consult with first nations, we must also work with them toward addressing the concerns that they have brought forward.

This is a hollow bill that fails to address the very things that need to be addressed. Over and over again, the Conservatives are failing to address the very needs of the first nations. They never talk about housing or education for our young people. They never talk about investing in young people so that the cycle of poverty in our first nations can be broken.

The government talks about spending millions of dollars and investing in first nations but its own report called upon the government to implement a strategy over a period of time wherein additional investments into drinking water for first nations would take place over 10 years. The government has not only failed Canadians but also first nations by not investing and providing the infrastructure that is needed for clean water and waste water management. The bill would not address any of the concerns that the first nations have brought forward, and Canadians are aware of some of those issues as well.

[Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, November 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague was very clear in her excellent speech that on any legislation that needs to be brought forward in the House, the people who will be affected should be consulted. Clearly, that has not been the case with Bill S-8.

In legislation that has come from the government in the last number of weeks in regard to our first nations, about transparency, about land rights, we have seen a downloading of responsibilities to the first nations, but yet there is no investment, there are no resources attached to it.

We have seen the government downloading issues to the provinces, whether it is health care or other responsibilities on which traditionally the federal government has taken a leadership role.

Conservatives talk about investing in our young people. My colleague talked about investing in our aboriginal young people who are the largest young population in our country. Yet we see no investment in housing or in education. Could the member talk about those?

[Northern Jobs and Growth Act, November 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Western Arctic always stands up for people in the north.

I was curious to hear the parliamentary secretary point out to the member that he had a rare opportunity to support this legislation. If this is a rare opportunity, it is because the Conservative government has not brought in legislation, policies or programs that could help develop our northern territories in a sustainable and environmentally responsible way.

The member for Western Arctic has constantly spoken up for northerners and is very familiar with the file. Could he describe the government's record in the northern Arctic?

[The Environment, November 22nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, Bear Creek, in my community of Surrey, is a prime example of critical salmon habitat that is under threat because of the government. The Conservatives have used their monster budgets to systematically undermine and dismantle environmental protections for our rivers, lakes and streams right across the country.

Urban waterways, like Bear Creek, are under pressure from development and related pollution, and legislation that traditionally helped to protect these sensitive areas is being gutted by the Conservatives.

Local governments are struggling to fill the gaps but they cannot do it alone. Last week, I met with officials from the City of Surrey and they said very clearly that they rely on strong legislation and enforcement from the federal government to do their jobs.

It is time for the government to stop making policy at the whims of their oil industry friends and start standing up for the needs of our communities.