Nycole Turmel

[Business of Supply, September 20th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to back up to put things back in context.

I was saying that we are part of a federation and that, up to now, Stephen Harper has ignored the provinces' desire to talk about the economy. The Prime Minister has even refused to attend the national economic summit that will be held in November by the Council of the Federation. This is a far cry from the open federalism Stephen Harper was calling for not too long ago—

[Business of Supply, September 20th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak today to the motion put forward by the member for Outremont. The motion deals with a pivotal matter, a matter crucial to the future of our country: the economy.

The Canadian economy is facing unprecedented dangers and uncertainty. The world economic crisis and the choices made by this government have weakened the fabric of industry and the job market in several regions of the country. Today, Canadians are hoping that this government will show leadership and openness to dialogue, especially with the provinces. Currently, this government has been content to repeat that the Canadian economy is in good shape. But the imbalances that can be seen are threatening our potential to build a Canadian economy for the 21st century, an economy that is solid, diversified, balanced and beneficial for all.

I am going to ask the hon. members opposite a very simple question. Do they find it acceptable that income inequality is constantly on the rise, as is the case in our country? Do this country's workers, who are up early, working by the sweat of their brow and paying their taxes honestly, not have the right to a greater share of the fruits of our growth?

For 25 years, income inequality has steadily worsened. The income of the wealthiest 20% in our society keeps going up while the income of the remaining 80% keeps going down. Other statistics show that our economy is not working as it should. In 2010, for example, about one Canadian in 10 was living in poverty. This included 546,000 children, a regrettable number. Moreover, Canadian households are facing a record level of debt, now at 152% of income.

Other statistics tell us that the annual income of seniors dropped by about $1,000 between 2009 and 2010. There is reason to believe that the Conservatives' unjustified cuts to old age security and the guaranteed income supplement will hasten the decline in seniors' incomes.

When they hear the Conservatives tell them that they are creating wealth, the question that Canadians have to ask themselves is this: but who is the wealth creation benefiting at the moment? Under the Conservatives, the wealth being created is essentially benefiting the wealthiest. Growth is necessary, of course, even essential; but it has to benefit everyone. That is not the case at the moment. The Conservatives have made choices whose result has been to keep most of our fellow citizens outside the circle of those who are actually benefiting.

The government's response to the most recent global economic crisis clearly illustrates the ideology that is guiding its decisions, an ideology that is causing greater economic imbalance. First the Conservatives decided to cut taxes for large corporations, hoping that they would reinvest the money and create jobs, but that never happened. Now those corporations are sitting on over half a trillion dollars, which is lying idle in their coffers rather than driving the economy. This Conservative approach to stimulating the economy does not cut the mustard.

The Conservatives also decided to adopt a policy of fiscal restraint. They told Canadians to tighten their belts even further. Canadians are fed up with having to pay for the Conservative ideology and want to receive the services that their tax dollars pay for. In that regard, this government's cuts to the public service have hit my riding of Hull—Aylmer very hard. The repercussions are very real and quite apparent.

In addition to the serious human and social consequences of losing one's job, this also has major economic implications. The budget cuts are having numerous adverse effects. The most obvious is the reduction in household spending and falling sales for SMEs.

A number of people in my riding have told me that their sales are down. What happens when SMEs see their sales slump? They lay off their staff or shut down completely. It is a vicious circle.

The Canadian economy has been affected by the global economic crisis and by the Conservatives' response to it. Today, four years after the crisis began, uncertainty still abounds.

We still have major challenges before us. Since our economy is open to the world, the economic health of our trade partners has a particularly serious impact on us. Our largest trade partner, the United States, is having a difficult time. Our second largest trade partner, Europe, is in a serious position. Basically, the Canadian economy is confronted with extraordinary risks and uncertainty, and it is especially true that, within Canada, there are major imbalances among the provinces with regard to unemployment and growth.

In this context, Canadians are entitled to expect the country's Prime Minister to at least take the time to consult the provincial premiers in order to look at the various options available.

We are part of a federation, and the Prime Minister has so far been deaf to the provinces' desire to discuss the economy.

The Prime Minister is even refusing to attend the national economic summit in November organized by the Council of the Federation—

[Business of Supply, September 20th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I believe there is consent from all parties to adopt the following motion. I move:

That, at the conclusion of today's debate on the opposition motion in the name of the member for Outremont, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion be deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred to Tuesday, September 25, 2012, at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.

[Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, September 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to speak more about the challenges with regard to recruitment in light of problems with sexual harassment. The employer is trying to achieve gender equality and 200 harassment complaints have been filed. What message does that send? I would like to point out something else. The commissioner has all the rights, such as the right to fire an employee, without there being a trustworthy and transparent process for dealing with a complaint.

In that regard, I would like to hear from my colleague about young women, the message being given to young women and minorities who would like to be recruited and hired by the RCMP. How is their morale?

[Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, September 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, one of the problems that has been raised has to do with giving the commissioner the arbitrary power to fire people. We feel that this approach is not sufficiently clear or transparent and that a tremendous amount of power is being placed in the hands of one single person.

So there should be a commission or an independent office that reviews the complaints. As we know, since there is no workplace representative, it is difficult to have a fair process. As a result, we would like the committee to study that part of the legislation.

[Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, September 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the question, because, having worked on preparing and developing workplace policies, I know that, even with such policies in place, it is still not enough. As I said, you have to create a work environment where women and men feel comfortable; they have to be able to lodge complaints at a specific place and feel safe when they do.

Other things that are important include workplace training on harassment and the right to say no. That is equally important. But even when you have this type of workplace, we very well know that, when new officers are hired—and that goes for all workplaces—when the person is new and there is a minority, changing the culture does not help. The culture has to be changed at all levels, starting at the top, and people need to have the opportunity to advance in line with their career plans.

[Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, September 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, bills do not change culture. They certainly provide guidelines, rules and positions. However, the RCMP needs to develop policies, offer training, and create an open and transparent environment with a complaint system that individuals can trust, knowing that their problems will be looked into. That is the only way, and we know it is because of past examples of sexual harassment or harassment in the workplace.

[Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, September 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be sharing my time with the member for Welland.

Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, addresses issues of urgent public concern with respect to the RCMP.

The men and women in uniform at the RCMP have a difficult and often dangerous job to do every day, a job that requires a great deal of judgment and conduct beyond reproach. We should be mindful of the fact that the majority are fathers and mothers who risk their lives to ensure our safety. However, the admiration we have for their courage and commitment should not prevent us from collectively examining the corporate culture of the RCMP and the repercussions this culture may have on workplace relations and the RCMP itself, which is accountable to the public and must be more transparent.

We have all heard that over 200 female employees and former employees of the RCMP have joined a class-action lawsuit alleging sexual harassment. Other individual lawsuits have also been filed. Sexual harassment has no place in our society. It should not be tolerated anywhere, least of all in the RCMP.

We have also heard about disciplinary measures imposed on RCMP officers accused of gross misconduct, measures that many believe to be too lenient. For the past few months, we have been urging the Minister of Public Safety to make sexual harassment in the RCMP a priority.

Bill C-42 appears, at least in part, to be a response to public concerns about this issue. But is it an adequate response? Does the bill go as far as it should to reassure the public that the government is doing everything it can to change the prevailing culture within the RCMP? Like many others, I have my doubts.

Let me be clear. Yes, Bill C-42 is a step in the right direction, but it does not go far enough. We will support it at second reading knowing that the committee will have to work hard to improve it.

I would like to commend the minister for the openness he expressed in his opening remarks earlier this week. He said that he was open to the committee amending the bill. I think that we should all make an effort to collaborate more here in the House.

As I said, we agree with the spirit of Bill C-42. For example, we agree that restoring public confidence in the RCMP is a priority. One would have to be blind or wilfully ignorant not to have noticed public confidence declining over the past few years. The tragic death of Robert Dziekanski and the force's response to it, along with the sexual harassment allegations that I mentioned earlier have done serious damage to the RCMP's reputation.

Second, we also recognize that civilian review is vital to promoting the RCMP's obligation to ensure transparency and public accountability; it is crucial. This is especially true because, without accountability and transparency, the goal of regaining public trust cannot be achieved.

As for the goal of promoting irreproachable conduct within the RCMP, that is self-evident. That being said, it would be in everyone's best interest to clearly specify the consequences of and the procedures to follow in cases of misconduct on the part of any employee. This is the kind of proposal that could be discussed in committee.

On both sides of the House, we share certain ideas about the goals we wish to achieve with this bill, but where we might disagree is on how to go about achieving them. While we support some aspects of the bill, we believe that it should be more ambitious regarding certain points.

It is not a question of criticizing for the sake of criticizing, but rather being constructive and proposing options and solutions.

For instance, we believe it is crucial to allow the RCMP commissioner to carry out reforms in the area of discipline in order to deal with the climate of sexual harassment that exists in the organization. No one is against virtue.

Everyone agrees that the current process to address problems and misconduct in the workplace is too complex and needs to be simplified. However, we also think it is crucial to bring in a clear anti-harassment policy. Specific standards of behaviour regarding sexual harassment and specific criteria for evaluating the performance of all employees must be put in place. It is also important to ensure that these reforms in the area of discipline do not lead to any arbitrary dismissals.

The RCMP is the only police force in the country that does not have a collective agreement. Under these circumstances, we must ensure a balanced disciplinary process in order to avoid any abuses.

We also support reforms to the old RCMP Public Complaints Commission. The public must have full confidence in the independence of that institution. I think the Conservatives and the NDP can agree on that.

Where we perhaps disagree is with regard to the degree of independence that the new civilian review and complaints commission should have. Everyone agrees that we should strengthen the RCMP's review and complaints body. However, Bill C-42 is not robust enough in that regard.

The bill sets out that, like the former commission, the new commission will report directly to the Minister of Public Safety rather than to the House of Commons.

We believe that this way of doing things does not promote the independence of the commission and the investigations that it will conduct. If we really want to restore the public's confidence in the RCMP, we have to guarantee that the civilian review and complaints commission is fully and completely independent.

In order to guarantee the civilian review and complaints commission's independence, we must also do things differently when it comes to the contracts of the commissioners who will oversee it. The current commissioner, Ian McPhail, inherited a one-year contract when he replaced Paul Kennedy. This one-year contract was recently renewed for just one more year.

One year contracts are meant to ensure that the complaints commissioner has an arm's length relationship with the government and to avoid any perception that he does not. Some people will wonder whether the commissioner is able to do his work properly if he does not know whether he will have the job from one year to the next.

The bill provides for contracts of more than five years. Now, we must ensure that this way of doing things does not open the door to a practice similar to the one that is currently in place, that of a one-year renewable contract.

In closing, I would like to emphasize the importance of working together within the House. Above and beyond our political allegiances, we all have the duty to best serve the interests of Canadians.

As I mentioned, we agree with the spirit of Bill C-42 and that is why we will support it at second reading.

However, there is still work to be done. We still have to fine-tune this bill in committee. I raised a few ideas that I hope will be incorporated. My colleagues will do the same. Together, the government and the opposition must ensure that we come up with the best bill possible.

[Petitions, September 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I also wish to present a petition on behalf of many Canadians who, like my colleague from Trinity—Spadina, would like to see a national public transit strategy.

[Ethics, June 21st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, we can see by their answers that they have not learned their lesson. Some ministers have used military helicopters as personal taxis; others have refused to apologize for insulting Alberta's deputy premier; others are rewriting the conflict of interest record book; and their parliamentary leader has issued repeated gag orders out of fear of debating with the NDP.

Will they use this parliamentary break to pull their heads out of the quicksand they keep sinking into?