Pierre Jacob

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for LaSalle—Émard.

I am pleased to be taking part in the debate at third reading of Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts. This bill amends the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act. It deals with modernizing discipline within the RCMP, gives RCMP commissioners greater powers and discretion, and changes the procedures for complaints and human resources management. The bill also replaces the civilian complaints commission with the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP.

This bill incorporates numerous provisions of Bill C-38, which was introduced in the 40th parliament and which the NDP strongly criticized at the time. Although we supported the spirit of the bill, which aimed to modernize discipline-related items within an institution that is dear to the hearts of Canadians, we were critical of what it failed to do, since the content of the bill did not adequately reflect the goal.

While the bill that is before the House today incorporates a majority of the provisions of Bill C-38, it does not include the provisions relating to unionization of the RCMP. The RCMP is the only police service in Canada that does not have a collective agreement, which is an essential bargaining tool between employees and employer. Members of the RCMP have to be content with a consultation process, and this is regrettable.

The current government introduced Bill C-42 on June 20, 2012. Canadians’ perception of the RCMP, the key police force in our system, has changed in the last few years.

Statistics from the Management of the RCMP Disciplinary Process 2010-2011 Annual Report unfortunately highlight the fact that this institution has a problem when it comes to discipline.

The statistics on formal discipline hearings held from 1994 to 2011 show that 750 formal discipline hearings were held across Canada. In this same period, 206 regular and civilian members resigned from the RCMP and 20 of those members resigned in reporting period 2005-06. From 2008 through to 2011, there were 145 formal discipline hearings held. In this same time span, a combination of 40 regular and civilian members resigned from the organization.

On the annual number of formal discipline hearings, from 2000 to 2011 there were 915 new formal discipline cases, which averaged out to 83.18 new cases a year. The anticipated number of new formal discipline cases for 2011-2012 was 83. There were 123 cases carried over on April 1, 2011, from the previous reporting period. The estimated number of formal discipline cases to be dealt with in 2011-12 was 206 cases.

On the sexual harassment complaints, over 200 women who work or have worked in the RCMP have joined Const. Janet Merlo to launch a class action against the RCMP on the ground of sexual harassment. The first court hearing took place on August 2, 2012, but the class action application has not yet been approved. Other individual actions against the RCMP are under way, including the actions by Cpl. Catherine Galliford and Const. Karen Katz.

When we read these figures and consider the various testimony heard by the committee, it is apparent that changing the organizational culture should be central to any comprehensive examination undertaken by the Minister of Public Safety.

Of course, legislation means that outdated procedures that were seen as too much of an administrative burden will now have a framework and will be updated. From the legislative point of view, there must be an in-depth analysis of the RCMP's corporate culture, so that changes can be made.

According to Robert Paulson, the RCMP commissioner, it is a central issue. He came to testify at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women on April 23, 2012, when the committee was studying the role of female employees in the RCMP and the challenges they face. He said, and I quote:

It's the culture of the organization that has not kept pace.... We haven't been able to change our practices and our policies, or provide systems that would permit women to thrive in the organization and contribute to policing, which they must do.... 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.

The term “harassment” appears in the bill's summary and in paragraph 20.2(1)(i), which states that the RCMP commissioner may “establish procedures to investigate and resolve disputes relating to alleged harassment by a member”.

Even though harassment, and more specifically sexual harassment, is at the heart of the debates on the culture within this police force, the legislator failed to address this issue in the bill. The official opposition, which voted to send this bill to committee to be examined thoroughly and amended, is opposed to the bill at third reading.

The 18 amendments proposed in committee were either rejected or deemed out of order. The NDP's amendments had to do with substantive changes to the text of the bill, unlike the Conservatives' amendments, which had to do with grammar-related corrections in French. This shows once again that a government bill was botched before it was even introduced in the House.

One of the amendments had to do with amending the Canadian Mounted Police Act to add mandatory harassment training for all RCMP members. This is a simple, concrete measure that meets the expectations of many witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. This measure would have helped provoke the necessary corporate culture changes in order to change the perception certain RCMP members have of the concept of harassment.

In closing, the Conservatives have yet again shown their lack of openness and co-operation with other parties by rejecting the official opposition's amendments and not considering expert advice in order to restore the RCMP's increasingly tarnished image in Canada.

If, as the Minister of Public Safety claims, this institution is synonymous with “professionalism, honesty, integrity and compassion”, this bill is misguided and the RCMP may no longer live up to those adjectives in the long-run.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his very convincing presentation.

I would like him to tell us, in his own words, why we need both an independent complaints commission and increased accountability from RCMP senior officials if we want to ensure that the police force does not end up investigating itself.

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

Mr. Speaker, as usual, my colleague made quite a heartfelt speech. Could he give us a general idea of the suggestions that were made in committee?

Members spoke of adding mandatory training, ensuring an independent body and creating a civilian investigative body in order to avoid situations where the police investigate the police. There was also talk of creating a more balanced police force, from a human resources perspective.

I would like my colleague to comment on these amendments brought forward in committee.

[Hydroelectric Project, January 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that Canada could become a world leader in renewable energy. The NDP believes that the federal government must make this transition a fair one for all of the provinces, including Quebec.

I would like to ask my colleague the following question. Why is it that the governments of this Prime Minister and his Liberal predecessors ignored the economic opportunities of a green transition for too long?

[Citizenship Act, January 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for his speech.

Given that the term “legal resident” is not defined, this bill is at risk of rendering citizens stateless, which is in contravention of international law.

Could the member please explain how this term might be interpreted?

[Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, January 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my esteemed colleague for his question.

Like him, I believe that the right to appeal is an absolutely fundamental part of any legal process. I am therefore inclined to reply that we should ensure a basic right to appeal for all individuals affected by this law and the associated legal process.

[Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, January 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my esteemed colleague for her excellent question.

The porous Compton—Stanstead border has attracted a lot of refugees who have claimed refugee status after being arrested. That is fine, but the ones I am worried about, given repeated cuts to the RCMP and border services, are those who avoid the border crossing entirely, who smuggle weapons or cigarettes or participate in human trafficking and so on. That is what really worries me.

[Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, January 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-43, which is intended to reform the procedures for removing foreign criminals.

First, this bill provides for faster deportation of foreign nationals and permanent residents who have been convicted of a serious crime in Canada or outside Canada, by denying them access to the Immigration Appeal Division. The bill provides a new definition of the concept of serious criminality, as follows: “crime that was punished in Canada by a term of imprisonment of at least six months”, as compared to the two-year period set out in the present act.

Second, it gives the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration broader discretion, including the power to agree or refuse to grant a person temporary resident status for a maximum of 36 months for public policy reasons. It is unfortunate that this concept itself is not defined.

Third, it imposes conditions on permanent residence for foreign nationals who have been found to be inadmissible on grounds of security.

And last, the bill seeks to eliminate any duty or ability of the minister to review a humanitarian and compassionate application by a foreign national who is inadmissible on grounds of security, violating human or international rights, or organized criminality.

In its usual spirit of openness, the official opposition wanted to co-operate with all parties and so had supported the bill at second reading. The bill was then sent to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, which held nine meetings to study it. At that crucial stage of the legislative process, time allocation was imposed by the Conservatives and the nine amendments proposed by the NDP were unfortunately rejected.

Those amendments related to several points: first, reducing the powers given to the minister, which we consider to be extreme and arbitrary; second, reintroducing reasonable processes into the deportation system; third, excluding conditional sentences of imprisonment from the definition of serious criminality; and fourth, addressing the narrow scope of the questions put to foreign nationals by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. One of our amendments contained recommendations made by the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism himself.

The New Democrats wanted to co-operate with the other parties and guarantee speedy deportation of serious criminals who do not have Canadian citizenship. Unfortunately, the Conservatives did not want to work with us so that improvements could be made to this bill.

As a result, at third reading, we are now opposed to this bill in its present format.

In addition to the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism and representatives of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, 16 groups and individuals testified before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. Some of that testimony makes it clear that Bill C-43 is flawed. It may have negative repercussions for a category of immigrants who could potentially be subject to removal to a country of origin with which they have few or no cultural or emotional ties.

In addition, those people could find themselves facing dangerous situations when they return to their country of origin, such as arbitrary arrest, persecution or even torture.

In its brief to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, Amnesty International said: “Eliminating the possibility of humanitarian relief for these types of people runs afoul of international law. Denying individuals access to this process might result in them being sent to torture...or persecution...”.

Similarly, the print media published analyses concerning the bill we are debating today. I am going to read an excerpt from an opinion piece written by Andrew J. Brouwer that was published in Embassy. “If passed as is, Bill C-43 will have an immediate and serious effect on many refugees and immigrants, and their families. The vast scope of the inadmissibility provisions, combined with the dismantling of the only available legal safeguards, will result in the removal from Canada and exposure to persecution of clearly innocent people—including some who, like Mr. Mandela, should properly be considered human rights heroes.”

Another pitfall in the bill was mentioned by a number of witnesses at committee stage. The problem with serious criminals delaying deportation is there is no coordination whatsoever between the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and the Canada Border Services Agency.

The NDP believes it is essential that the government examine this problem and come up with meaningful solutions, by providing more resources to better train the public servants who work in immigration and to encourage integration of information and monitoring technologies within the public service agencies in question.

This brings me to some more general comments about the impact of this bill. The government is introducing a new bill dealing with immigration, but its approach to the subject is skewed. Instead of focusing on removing criminals who do not have Canadian citizenship, would it not be more logical to provide the Canada Border Services Agency with more resources so that it can arrest those people when they enter Canada? At the risk of repeating myself, when I talk about resources, I mean hiring more front-line officers and improving monitoring techniques and technologies.

What has the government done in this regard? It cut $143 million from the Canada Border Services Agency in the 2012 budget implementation plan. Those irresponsible cuts will have an impact on the security and effectiveness of our borders. This issue is of particular importance to me, because part of the area within my riding is on the border, and these cuts are already being felt.

In conclusion, this government is once again on the wrong track when it comes to immigration reform. A majority of the immigrants Canada takes in every year obey the laws of our country and aspire to prosper in Canadian society. It is the duty of the government to provide appropriate services to newcomers by giving them access to resources that match their needs.

[Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, January 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech.

If the government cares so much about reducing crime among non-citizens and speeding up the deportation of non-citizens who commit crime, why does it not invest more money in the federal agencies responsible for identifying and deporting these non-citizen criminals?

[Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, January 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

The Conservative government has not kept its 2006 promise to put more police officers on the streets in cities and communities.

Why is the government demonizing newcomers instead of focusing on protecting our communities?