Joe Comartin

[RCMP and Law Enforcement in Canada, April 12th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I am not surprised at the parliamentary secretary taking a different position from mine. We have been having this fight for the better part of several months, not just between ourselves but between myself and a number of members of the justice committee.

He consistently throws the section of the RCMP Act at us, but he consistently, and he did it again this evening, does not quote the whole section.

Section 5.1 reads “that the governor in council”, that basically is the cabinet in these circumstances, “may appoint an officer to be known as the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who”, and this is the part he always leaves out, “under the direction of the minister”, and then goes on with what he always quotes, “has the control and management of the force and all matters connected therewith”.

There is a role for the minister; it is a legislated role. It is, quite frankly, a role that is the responsibility of the minister in a representative government. That is what we have with the Westminster system which says that “you are responsible as the minister” and cannot hide behind part of this section of the act.

When we deal specifically with the Quebec situation, we are talking about a policy decision, one that has been adopted by a number of countries. It does not say it is right and it is one that the minister should have been involved in. She has refused to do that. She has consistently said that she will not get involved. I believe what she has been consistently saying is that she is shirking her responsibilities under section 5.1 of the act.

[RCMP and Law Enforcement in Canada, April 12th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, like a number of the other speakers this evening, I too wish to express publicly on behalf of myself and my party our sincere regrets for the loss of the lives of Peter Schiemann, Leo Johnston, Anthony Gordon and Brock Myrol.

These murders were profoundly shocking to the country. We have not seen this type of overwhelming tragedy and loss in our police forces for well over 100 years. Arguably, any time in the past when we lost this many RCMP officers it was in a military action, not in a police action as was occurring in Mayerthorpe earlier this year.

As I was preparing for this evening I could not help but think of the commemorative service that we had in Windsor. In fact, Peter Schiemann's uncle is a Presbyterian minister in Windsor. He officiated at the commemorative services. He told us in the course of the service, as is so often with our police officers that they act way beyond their absolute responsibilities in doing extra work. In this case, Constable Schiemann was not even on duty. He had stopped by to spend some time with his colleagues. As a result he was trapped and ultimately murdered.

That type of dedication of our officers so often, generally, goes without recognition by our society. We all believe that we do whatever we can to support our police officers. I suppose our responsibility here as policy-makers is to continue that responsibility in that role as policy-makers.

In the last year or so I believe there have been a number of incidents in various ways that have drawn to our attention the dependency that we have on the RCMP and its extreme responsibilities. That was even more heightened after 9/11 and the added responsibilities it took on at that point to deal with the issue of terrorism, both domestically and in our relationships with other countries, particularly the United States.

There have been, quite frankly, a number of criticisms of both the government and the senior members of the RCMP, muted I think most of the time, but it raises questions as to whether it is not a time, and maybe these deaths in Alberta have re-emphasized this, that we may be at one of those periods of time when a broader oversight should be taken of the role that the RCMP plays in our country. Should it in fact be expanded? Should greater consideration be given to the role between the RCMP, the commissioner and the government?

It was interesting to listen to the Deputy Prime Minister earlier this evening discussing that, She was taking, as she has on a number of occasions, an absolutist position, that the present relationship between what used to be the solicitor general and is now the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness should be at quite some arm's length.

I know that this has been a friction point between the minister and the justice committee, and in particular over the closing of the detachments in Quebec. I must say that I could not help but feel on a number of occasions that the minister was misapprehending her responsibility.

It was interesting to listen to my colleague from the Bloc. He was the former minister in the province of Quebec responsible for police forces. He played a much more activist role, without interfering with the day to day operations and nobody is suggesting we do that, in the setting of policy and particularly in combating organized crime.

He and his government brought about some shifts and similar activities are being carried on in the province of Manitoba by the minister responsible for police in the fight that Manitoba is waging against organized crime. Innovative criteria and policy are being put in place, but a good deal of that is being driven by the political master, not left exclusively to the senior administration of the police forces in those provinces.

That comment is in no way a criticism of our police forces. The point being made is that there are times when it is appropriate that the policy-makers and legislators take positions and then see that they are implemented at the policy level.

At this point I am going to speak specifically about the decision that has been made, which occurred in Ontario first and is now in Quebec, to close detachments. That happened to a number of detachments in Ontario. It is clear from listening to the commissioner, when he appeared before the justice committee on a number of occasions, that these decisions were made based on a policy that, quite frankly, we have adopted from another country. I cannot remember right now, but a policy that in effect was saying we would concentrate our efforts in larger metropolitan areas and in effect leave the policing at the local level to local police forces.

The problem with this is that it reminded me of the decisions that were made by local police forces both in Canada and the United States in the mid and late fifties when we stopped community policing and moved police officers into police cars. It was sort of a high tech advance at the time. That policy proved to be a disaster in a number of major cities in the United States.

I cannot help but think that if that decision had been made not based on some of the limited resources that police forces had and not by senior police officers but by political people, they would have been faced with the reality of what they were doing and maybe paid the political price. What I see happen all too often is that we as politicians use our police forces as a shield. Politicians say that it is an operational issue and they have nothing to do with it. It is their responsibility; they make the decisions. They have nothing to do with it.

In fact, what it really is about in most cases is that we have denied adequate resources to our police forces. They are forced to make these decisions, which are oftentimes economic, financial, and limited resource decisions. We blame them and as politicians and policy-makers we avoid any responsibility. Quite frankly, in my opinion, that is reprehensible and an area that we should be looking at and reviewing.

In particular, with regard to the RCMP, it is an issue that has to be addressed. I expect at some point, if the government itself does not do it, that the legislative committee, in the form of the public security subcommittee or the justice committee itself, would be taking this on and making recommendations in that regard.

[RCMP and Law Enforcement in Canada, April 12th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, as I am sure the minister and all of us can appreciate, the country was truly shocked by the murders in Mayerthorpe. I recall the discussion quite frankly that we had at the justice committee shortly after the incident. Not wanting to be seen as interfering in any way with the internal investigation that would go on in those circumstances, and I think our committee probably still feels that way, I would like to ask the minister a question.

I believe the country wants to have some understanding of how something like this could happen. We have not had that many RCMP officers killed at one time for over 100 years, arguably never, because any other time where there were multiple deaths of RCMP officers, it was more in a military action than in a police action.

Is there, in some fashion, going to be disclosure to the general Canadian community as to how the investigation has gone, an explanation as to how something like this could happen, and I suppose recommendations or a policy put in place to ensure that it never happens again?

[Standing Orders and Procedure, April 11th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, my Liberal colleague's question concerns an issue that I have addressed in my own mind repeatedly in regard to the ability of any committee to properly, effectively and efficiently review all the appointments that are within its purview.

I sit on the justice committee. I was told that on an annual basis we have somewhere between 500 and 1,000 appointments, I believe, including in the judiciary, the parole board and the Correctional Service. The list is almost endless.

Of course it is impractical for any committee, especially a committee of the nature of the justice committee, to even contemplate reviewing every single appointment. That is why we thought it was so important to establish criteria which would then be mandated for implementation by all of the civil service, by commissions or whatever is making the appointments. It would serve as a screen for us. As appointments come before us, we may very well want to check from time to time, and I think as a committee we should be doing that, to see if the process is in fact working and that merit is the test, not political affiliation or political patronage.

I just have one final point in response to the question and that is the question of resources. I have analyzed, and I think my party has done the same thing, the need to have additional resources in the way of staffing to assist the committee specifically on appointments. I think it has to be looked at as a way of making it possible for us as elected members to do a meaningful review of appointments, perhaps some specific ones but also more generally. I think we need some additional staff resources to do that.

[Standing Orders and Procedure, April 11th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, on my colleague's question and comments, it is my belief that government can be influenced by committee work through government members sitting on the committee. If the committee is in fact functional and effective all the members of the committee both exchange and grow ideas, which are then transferred to each of their caucuses. I believe this very strongly.

I think that is why the setting up of the committee on the status of women was extremely important. As we increase the gender parity in the House over the next decade or two, and I am afraid it will take that long, I hope that committee will become more influential in all of the caucuses in the House, obviously including the caucus of the government of the day. I believe that the work and the analysis the committee members are doing and the particular analysis they are bringing to bear as women members of the House on government programs and policy will be shared and I hope will influence all members of the House and all caucuses in the House.

[Standing Orders and Procedure, April 11th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting to rise in this debate given that this is the first one we have had on the standing orders since we have had a minority government, our first minority government in 25 years. It is interesting to look at it from in terms of some of the developments that have occurred. In effect, I believe Parliament has forced the Prime Minister and the government to respond to the democratic deficit in the House.

As we approached the changes in the standing orders that we were seeking as a party, we had certain guiding principles, which I want to address briefly. Our first guiding principle was that we were looking for a more efficient operation of the chamber and that delays and time wasted would be, as much as possible, a thing of the past.

We also wanted to elevate the quality of the debate in the House and that the contributions from all members on both sides of the House would be reflected both in the chamber and perhaps more important, because of the improvements we sought, improvements in their ability to do the work in committee where so much of the legislative process does take place and so much of the important changes occur at that level, or should, which has not always been the case in the past.

We also wanted to deal with the issue of government appointments. We believe this is a glaring failure of developing the democratic process up to this point and it continues even now. I am going to make more extensive comments about that in a moment.

Finally, we are looking to, as a chamber as a whole, facilitate individual members being able to bring forward in a meaningful way local concerns so that even though they may not be beyond that riding or perhaps the region, that they still are of some national significance and need to be brought forth in this chamber. We feel at this point we have not been able to accomplish that.

Let us look at what we have done. We have changed the nomination process for the deputy speaker and chair of the committee of the whole. It is no longer a partisan nomination. The name comes from the speaker that we elect at the start of the Parliament. This is definitely an improvement from the past situation where this position was simply chosen by the prime minister and, generally, when one looks at the history of the choices, it has been made completely based on political affiliation and, to some degree, straight patronage as opposed to looking at the ability of the individual and the respect that individual had from the House as a whole. We have made some substantial changes in that respect in this term of office.

We have also changed the standing committee structure. In this regard, one that we are particularly proud of from this end of the chamber is the women's committee. For so long we have not had a standing committee on women's issues. It is long overdue. We are looking forward to some of the work that will be coming out of that committee, in particular the gender analysis it is doing of government programs, something that again is long overdue.

We have changed the structure of the debate in the House to allow for questions and comment periods for almost all speeches. This has expanded the debate and it has become a more realistic debate. We would, however, say that there is one flaw that we have pushed for and have not yet achieved and that is to allow for more extensive questions about the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition when they give their opening debates on a particular bill.

We have made all opposition days votable. It never made any sense that we had not done this in the past. If the issue was important enough to take up the day of Parliament on opposition, that issue was important enough for all members to be given the opportunity to vote their position.

We have changed the provisions for the debate based on committee reports. We now have provisions for a three hour debate when the reports come back.

It is almost a travesty that when so much good work is being done at the committee level historically, when the work is reported back to the chamber it often gets ignored both by the chamber, on impetus from the government, and, more particularly, by the government. Now at least there will be a three hour debate on those reports, as needed, and there will be a vote on those reports so that Parliament as a whole will be given the opportunity to respond.

I make one caution. We have noticed that there have been a good number of concurrence motions on committee reports, some of which, quite frankly, we would say are frivolous and designed simply to take up the time of the chamber. We believe we need to review this at the committee level in order to see if there is some way of forestalling that abuse of the chamber.

I want to go to the one major failing that we feel has occurred in this Parliament in terms of expanding the democratic nature of Parliament, and that is with regard to government appointments. The member for Ottawa Centre from my party, a person with a long tradition in the House who had stepped away and is now back in the House, has prepared a proposal and we have begun to try to move it through the various committees. Up to this point more than five of the standing committees have in fact accepted the proposals that we as NDP members have put forward.

We said that if we are going to be doing something meaningful as members of Parliament about government appointments, we need to have some type of criteria. We have told each committee to establish a criteria as to how appointments are going to be dealt with. We have made it very clear that criteria must include merit; that the appointment has to be merit based as opposed to just a political party one happens to belong to or the person is a friend of the person making the appointment.

Finally, the process we are pressing forward with and getting some response from committees on is that the process would be reviewed on an ongoing basis, the appointments would be reviewed in some meaningful fashion and that information would be communicated so that there would be some transparency and some accountability to the appointment process.

I recently had the opportunity, along with the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, to be both in New Zealand and Australia to watch some of their debates. We attended their after adjournment proceedings, as they are referred to I think more formally, or what we call the late show. Originally, if we look at the history of that process, it was designed to expand detail and debate on issues that were asked in the House during question period. In fact, it has turned into being one individual member of Parliament making a set statement in the form of a short speech, a government member responding in the same fashion, and there really is no significant exchange of ideas.

It was interesting to watch question period in particular in New Zealand, and I had seen it earlier in Australia, where there was a much greater exchange. Real principles were being debated, real thoughts and issues were being transferred back and forth between the person asking the question and the government member, whether it was a minister or a parliamentary secretary responding. We believe it is possible to change our late show process to incorporate that so there is an exchange but it needs more work.

We also believe that if we handle that properly it would let us address the other issue that I had mentioned, which we do not believe we have been able to do at this point, which is to allow individual members of Parliament to bring forward local issues that are of particular concern to their ridings or regions. By expanding the scope of the late shows, it would allow us one opportunity to do that.

We believe that the minority government has had some significant impact on the orders and the way the House is operating and we look forward to working toward expanding that even more in the future.

[Official Languages Act, April 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, like the other members who spoke earlier, I would like to thank Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier for Bill S-3.

Like a number of French-speaking people living outside Quebec, I am from a part of our country that, during its history, has welcomed European immigrants coming directly from France. In Windsor and the riding of Essex, originally, a major segment of the population was entirely French speaking. These people could go to French schools and speak their language anywhere: at church, in stores and so on. This was not a problem.

However, after the second world war, particularly because of the influences of the United States, the French language began to disappear in my riding. This continued until the 1960s, when we started to fight against the disappearance of French.

Whether from St. Joachim, Belle-River, Pointe-aux-Roches or La Salle, all members of the community began saying that they and the federal government had the responsibility to ensure that their children will be able to continue to speak French and to preserve the French culture.

As a result of that battle, a lengthy fight has gone on. To some degree, Bill S-3 addresses the problem with this government and, quite frankly, previous Conservative governments. Although they paid lip service to official languages policy and passed legislation, they were not prepared in spirit to enforce that legislation. It seems to me that this attempt by Senator Gauthier is to enhance the ability for us to do that, those of us who for the last 40 to 50 years have had to fight to protect the language and culture of the francophone community in English Canada in particular.

It is difficult to say whether we should support this legislation even in principle as opposed to telling the federal government to get serious and do what it is supposed to do. We recognize the legislative responsibility it has and it should do the same thing: “protect” and “enhance”, as the existing language says, the rights of the francophone and anglophone communities to be able to use their language as they deem appropriate and as they desire to do.

In preparation for today, I was thinking about one of the stories from our critic in this area, who is from New Brunswick. He made a point at one of the hearings in the official languages committee about an individual who was speaking French in the workplace and was disciplined as a result of that by the federal government. This was an employee within the federal public service. In the last couple of years I think of the fight that the francophone community in Windsor and Essex had to lead to keep French services at the post office. Terminating those services was seriously being considered.

I will be the first to say that in a democracy people have to fight for their rights; it is that argument of eternal vigilance. I fully support that, but clearly there is a major responsibility here on the part of the federal government. The Official Languages Act should be sufficient at this point, given all the experiences we have had, but what happens so many times is that individuals, communities and groups of communities have to come together and fight in the courts, sometimes all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, just to have their rights recognized and enforced. Quite frankly, it is a role that has not been played to anywhere near a sufficient degree by our federal government.

This bill is going to make it easier to do that, but even though I recognize the need for this given the role the federal government has not played in enforcing the Official Languages Act, it still begs the question as to whether at this stage, in this millennium, after all the battles we have had, it is necessary to do this. I would like to think that at the end of the day the federal government will finally come to the table and enforce the legislation, because we keep running across situations where it is not doing that.

We expect that this bill will go to committee and will be addressed at that point, perhaps with some amendments, recognizing what I believe are very valid concerns on the part of the province of Quebec in terms of the potential intrusion into provincial responsibility in that particular province. I am hopeful that the bill might be amended to a degree that would satisfy those concerns. If it is not, my party will have to give serious consideration as to whether we will be able to support it.

With regard to the bill itself, the provisions that add responsibility to the minister in terms of the Official Languages Act, the amendments to section 41, seem to me to make good common sense. Perhaps this is a response to the member for Provencher who said that should be our guiding light.

I am not sure, given the history of his party, that this has always been the case on its part, but it should be in this case. Subclauses 1(2) and 1(3), which Bill S-3 is proposing to add to section 41 of the Official Languages Act, would appear to us in the NDP to be appropriate amendments as a way of delivering a message to the government and in particular to the minister about their responsibility, and perhaps in a specific way. I am now speaking specifically of subclause 1(2), which is being proposed as a specific way to enhance the language and cultural rights of the francophone and anglophone communities in this country.

The third amendment to Bill S-3, which is to add part VII of the Official Languages Act to the list for which individuals or groups can in fact start court action, that is, take the initiative themselves, I have to say we have concerns about that. We believe the last thing this country needs is more litigation over the Official Languages Act. What we need is enforcement within the existing structure.

We have often talked about and were so critical of the Soviet Union having a great constitution protecting human rights because we knew that absolutely no enforcement was ever made of those constitutional provisions and the enshrinement of those rights. It is a similar type of situation here. I will not suggest it has gone that far. It is a halfway measure.

It always seems to be a halfway measure on the part of this government and in fact of previous governments. The government will push it this far and then it stops. Quite frankly, if one goes to francophone communities across the country one sees that halfway measures are no longer acceptable and they have not been for a long time. Whether the francophone communities are in my home county of Essex or right across the country, they are no longer prepared to accept that.

It should not be the responsibility of these communities to have to fight these cases to the degree that has been dumped on them, especially when it repeatedly seems that even if it is won at the first round, the federal government will appeal it to the highest court in the province and then to the Supreme Court of Canada. That conduct on the part of this government and previous governments has to stop.

If it is necessary for this bill to go through to stop it then perhaps we have to support the bill, but I would ask this government to seriously consider taking a more proactive position and to stop these appeals and enforce the Official Languages Act as it is enshrined now.

[Supply, April 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, there was evidence before the trial judge in the criminal case and findings that he made expressing concerns about the conduct of CSIS, the quality of the work that was done and the lack of cooperation between CSIS and the RCMP.

Does the member not believe that this should be explored as one of a number of things by a public inquiry?

[Supply, April 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to comment on the member's statement that somehow the anti-terrorism bill came out of the Air-India crash. His point is obviously well taken over the length of time, but anyone who has been involved in the process, and I am currently involved in the review of it, I can assure the House that if it had not been for 9/11, we would not have an anti-terrorism bill today. The Air-India crash did not provoke that legislation from this government whatsoever.

With regard to the main question, a survey has been done on the impact that the decision has had on the community. It was done in British Columbia. It showed that, as a result of the outcome, 61% of the population surveyed felt a loss of confidence in the justice system. So to suggest that the justice system has performed well in these circumstances and that the community generally was satisfied with it, and that somehow by having the inquiry we would damage it, that damage has already occurred.

It seems to me that one the principal aims and goals of the inquiry would be to say to the families that here is how the system worked, it failed in these regards, if those determinations were made, we have put in place remedies for all of those and the families should feel reassured and confident that it will not happen again. This would build up both the credibility in the system and confidence that the problems that occurred surrounding the Air-India crash would never occur again. It will build up confidence in the system. It will rehabilitate the criminal justice system rather than damage it.

[Supply, April 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it was the former Premier of British Columbia, the current Minister of Health, who said on June 4, 2003, that the Air-India crisis was treated in a casual manner because it involved people from the South Asian community. I am not making that up. That was in the public domain at that point. It was in the community in particular and it is still there. Whether the government wants to recognize it or not, that feeling is there. It is a very strong reason why we should be looking definitively at an inquiry.

To answer the second part of the member's question and comment, as to what would I expect to come out of this? I will just use SIRC as an example. It is quite clear to me, as a lawyer, when I see the report that we received from SIRC, and I see both the evidence and the comments from the judge in the criminal trial, that SIRC failed us. That is one area. The question that I would ask and I would expect to get an answer during the course of the inquiry: how did it happen and what was SIRC's problem?

I have indicated already that I think the problem with SIRC was that its mandate was too limited. Whether the resolution of that is to expand its mandate or to set in place the parliamentary oversight committee, I would lean toward the latter, but that is one of the points that I would see coming out.