Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe

[Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act, February 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her passionate speech.

Bill C-30 was a disaster, as someone said earlier.

What do we need to make sure we do when it comes to Bill C-55? What process do we need to go through to ensure that this bill complies with the charter and the parameters set by the Supreme Court for protecting privacy?

[Pensions, February 14th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, last week, I met with the National Pensioners and Senior Citizens Federation. It is calling on the Conservatives to reverse their plan to increase the eligibility age for old age security from 65 to 67. It also wants the government to create a national pharmacare plan. And it is urging the government to better protect pensions, combat poverty and invest in affordable housing.

The NDP supports these demands.

Will the minister follow up on these demands?

[Business of Supply, February 14th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the hon. member for Yukon, is trying to change the subject today by talking about Bill S-2.

Is my colleague from Yukon aware that most major aboriginal organizations in Canada and many first nations groups have spoken out against Bill S-2? Does he know why? In fact, I have an answer that ties in with today's debate. First nations need to be consulted and involved in any processes that concern them.

Perhaps my colleague can tell us how this was done in the case of the motion before us today.

[Business of Supply, February 14th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her speech and for moving such a worthwhile motion in the House today.

I would like to talk about a report from Canada's Auditor General, which exposed the situation in our country's aboriginal communities. It showed that, despite the goodwill of successive governments, despite the money and the programs put in place by the Government of Canada over the past 10 years, there is no proof that the situation in these communities has improved, for a number of different reasons.

For one, there is the fact that first nations must be more involved in the solutions brought forward and put into place. This involvement must be at the root of the solution. People living in these communities are aware of their own realities. They have wisdom and knowledge. Not only do first nations have the right to be involved, but their input should be the basis for any action the government takes concerning them. First nations are not a file; they are peoples, they are nations.

How does my colleague feel that first nations should be involved in the proposals being put forward today? How is this proposal any different from everything that has been done in the past 10 years? How can we believe that it will really make a difference?

[Petitions, February 13th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, today, I am presenting a petition in the House concerning old age security and the guaranteed income supplement.

Because the Conservatives decided to raise the age of eligibility for old age security; because economists have shown that this change is not necessary to ensure the program's viability; and because this change will likely hurt many seniors, especially those living in poverty, the petitioners ask that the government maintain the age of eligibility for OAS at 65 and increase the guaranteed income supplement to lift every Canadian senior out of poverty.

This is what one would expect in a country like Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will give a very brief response. Notice to all Canadians listening to us today: the titles of the Conservative bills are frequently misleading about their content. Here, we want to address a problem. And yet, upon reading Bill C-42, the problem is not mentioned and it is not even clear that the government has understood it.

There are many other bills like this. For example, the bill to combat elder abuse does not provide any preventive or intervention measures to deal with the abuse. I could give all kinds of examples of misleading titles of Conservative bills.

I will stop now, but I hope that things will change in 2013.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague said that it was frustrating to him to see this imperfect bill that does not deal adequately with the problem. It is frustrating to have Liberal colleagues who agree that the bill is imperfect but who do nothing to improve it. That is frustrating for me.

This is not the first time we have seen this. There was the pooled registered pension plans bill. That bill will not accomplish much, but because it was innocuous, they allowed it to pass. I have said it before and I will keep saying it for as long as I have to. This is not the way the NDP works and this is not the NDP vision.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is highly amusing to see my colleague stand up and say, “If you do not support the Conservatives’ bills, then you surely do not have the ability to think for yourselves”. This is very typical of Conservative demagoguery.

However, I would like to point out something that my colleague herself said a short while ago. She said that the bill was not perfect. The Liberals said the same thing when their public safety critic said that the bill was not perfect. This is a typical tactic by the Liberals and the Conservatives. They claim to be not as bad as the others and ask people to vote for them. The NDP does not do that sort of thing. This is not a new problem. What are they waiting for before they are willing sit down and do some serious work on the matter?

We will not get involved in half measures. We can do more. We can do better. Claiming to be imperfect but not as bad as the others does not work for the NDP.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate today on Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

I already spoke to this bill at second reading and will not hide the fact that I supported it at that stage. I wanted to make sure the subject matter of Bill C-42 was debated. The issue is close to my heart. I may have voted in favour of the bill at second reading but I regretfully will not be able to do so at third reading.

I would first like to echo the comments made by my colleague. I will not go over every specific issue or speak of the flaws of a handful of agents or the mistakes they made. I think every member will agree that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is an institution we wish to keep. As my colleague has stated, 99% of agents, perhaps more, are exceptional people who serve their country and their community. I want that to be crystal clear. I am not here to put down the people who work at the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

That said, every member will also agree that the organization currently faces many challenges. People are looking to us, to Parliament, to give the institution the tools it needs to meet those challenges. Obviously, Parliament cannot solve every problem, but there are things that we can do. These challenges were mentioned a little earlier. One of them is sexual harassment.

Before my colleague accuses me of not sitting on the committee that studied the bill, I would like to say that is true: I did not sit on that committee. However, I do not want to echo my colleague's highly demagogic arguments. I want to point out to Canadians, who may not be experts in parliamentary procedure, that, while we may not sit on a particular committee, we have outstanding colleagues, such as the member for Alfred-Pellan, who do. They tell us what goes on there, the measures that are taken and their opinions on these bills.

As my Conservative colleague is of course entirely aware, it is possible to read the bills and to consult the discussions and testimony of the people who have appeared before the committee. In short, it is not because we do not sit on the committee that we are not aware of what goes on there and do not have an opinion to offer, whether it be that of our fellow citizens, our colleagues, people in our families, people whom we know or experts on the subject who want us to express certain concerns.

The NDP therefore introduced several amendments and proposed some changes to Bill C-42. From what I was told, those proposals unfortunately did not fall on sympathetic ears. In fact, we can see that none of those amendments is before us in this debate today.

Some of those amendments sought to add mandatory harassment training to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to establish a completely independent civilian organization responsible for examining complaints filed against the RCMP. Our amendments also sought to add a provision to create an independent national civilian investigation body to prevent the police from investigating the police. Lastly, we wanted to introduce more balanced human resource policies by withdrawing some of the new draconian powers proposed for the RCMP commissioner and by reinforcing the RCMP external review committee.

These proposed amendments introduced by the NDP did not spring out of thin air. They come from various sources, including testimony heard before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

I would like to name some of the experts and witnesses who were invited to appear before the committee and who expressed their concerns.

Since the beginning of the debate, we have been accused left and right of making up the fact that people supported the NDP's position, and we are told that practically everyone was in favour of what the Conservatives were proposing. I would like to set a few things straight and provide some names in order to show that is not some fabrication by a handful of NDP members.

The problems we are dealing with today are not new. In 2006, Justice O'Connor's report on the inquiry into the Maher Arar affair, entitled, “A New Review Mechanism for the RCMP's National Security Activities”, urged Parliament to create an RCMP oversight body that would be entitled to audit all the RCMP'S files and activities and could demand to see related documents and subpoena witnesses from every federal, provincial or municipal body, or from the private sector. I would like to read an excerpt from the report:

I agree that the CPC is deficient in this regard and does not have review powers to ensure systematically that the RCMP's national security activities are conducted in accordance with the law and with respect for rights and freedoms.

In 2007, another report, that of David Brown, entitled, “Task Force on Governance and Cultural Change in the RCMP”, recommended that the paramilitary hierarchy of the organization be replaced by a more modern system of oversight and transparency including a board of directors.

I have other quotes from former chairs of the RCMP Public Complaints Commission. According to Shirley Heafey, the RCMP Public Complaints Commission should report directly to Parliament instead of the minister or the commissioner of the RCMP.

As for RCMP Commissioner Paulson, he expressed concerns about the cultural change needed at the RCMP. In his April 23, 2012, testimony given at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, he said:

I've said it publicly, and I'll say it again. I think 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.

A number of witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security spoke out against the fact that the RCMP commissioner would be granted more powers and criticized the lack of independent oversight of the RCMP. I would like to quote a few of them. Mr. Creasser, British Columbia media liaison for the Mounted Police Professional Association of Canada, testified on October 29, 2012. He said:

One major problem that exists in the RCMP is the tremendous power imbalances within the organization. Bill C-42, rather than mitigating these issues, will only make them exponentially worse.

Here is another quote, this one from Tom Stamatakis, president of the Canadian Police Association, who also testified before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security on October 29, 2012. He said:

Bill C-42 provides the commissioner with extraordinary powers in this regard, powers that go beyond what one might find in other police services across Canada.... 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.

Other witnesses also gave similar testimony, but I will not quote them all. However, I would like to express my disappointment. The Conservatives deny hearing this testimony and refuse to listen to it.

Why have the Conservative members not risen today in the House to explain the main reasons why they did not support the amendments proposed by the NDP?

Why did the Conservatives not rise during the debate today in the House to say why they were not responding to concerns raised by the witnesses who appeared before the committee?

Instead, the Conservatives rose to present unfounded demagogic arguments and to make accusations against the opposition. What we want to hear are arguments that would raise the level of debate.

Why were these amendments not accepted? Why should specific concerns formulated by experts have been set aside?

That is how people work in committee and how serious work is done on important issues.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is something I do not understand.

The Conservatives acknowledge that this bill is not perfect. The Liberals just acknowledged that this bill is not perfect.

The problems within the RCMP came up five or ten years ago.

Why do we not take a few more weeks to come up with a better bill? Everyone agrees that this bill could be improved, so why do we not do it?

That is why the NDP cannot support this bill. As it stands, it misses the mark. Let us fix it once and for all. Let us create a better bill that at least meets the expectations of the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that.