Sylvain Chicoine

[Veterans, February 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, this adjournment debate this evening relates to a question I put to the Minister of Veterans Affairs on October 25 and to which I did not get any response.

To give a bit of context, at the time I said that the government, through the funeral and burial program, was providing only $3,600 to cover the funeral expenses incurred by a veteran in need, while the actual cost of a decent funeral is at least $7,000, if not $8,000.

In the days that followed, specifically on November 5 and 6, several of my colleagues put questions to the minister but did not get any response.

We asked why, since taking office, the government had not increased funding for funeral and burial costs for our veterans, despite being aware of this issue since 2009.

Of course, the minister gave a stock reply that did not at all answer the question. The only answer provided was that he would not cut into the veterans' programs, like the Liberals had done before. Of course, that was not my question. I did not ask whether he would make cuts to the programs, but whether he was going to increase funding for this funeral and burial program.

So, I hope to get that answer today. I am looking forward to hearing the parliamentary secretary tell us whether the government intends to increase funding for this funeral program in the 2013 budget or, at the very least, during the review of the new veterans charter.

I also think it is important that the minister and the parliamentary secretary take a closer look at the Patrick Strogan report, which was tabled in February 2009 and which focused precisely on this funeral fund program. What have they done since? Absolutely nothing.

In his report entitled “Serve with Honour, Depart with Dignity”, the veterans ombudsman, Patrick Strogan, mentioned seven major concerns. Among other things, he feels that the funding is lower than the costs, that the program has too much red tape and that it should be offered to all veterans, and not just to a single class of the poorest veterans.

In its study on the commemoration of the 21st century, the committee made the same recommendation, namely that the program be improved. At the time, before October 25, the Funeral Service Association of Canada sounded the alarm. It confirmed that funding for the program was well below funeral costs. That funding has not been adjusted since 2001, while costs have increased significantly since.

The association even said that its members provide funeral services at a lower cost to veterans than to the general public. Those businesses are partially funding funerals for deceased veterans because they feel it is important that veterans have a burial that is worthy of their sacrifice. I thank them for their commitment to our veterans. We are asking the government to have the same level of commitment and to improve the program to cover all funeral costs, as it should.

Eligibility also seems to be an issue. Since 2006, 67% of requests have been denied. That is an alarming percentage, and it is high time the government review its eligibility criteria. All veterans should have access to this program, no matter where and when they served. The ombudsman and the NDP feel that there should not be different classes of veterans; they should all be equal.

Using the estate or means test to assess the net worth of a veteran's estate also seems to be problematic because it restricts a veteran's access to the program. The Royal Canadian Legion stated that the government had effectively limited the ability of the Last Post Fund to meet its mandate by reducing the estate exemption from $24,000 to $12,000. That happened under the Liberal government, but the Conservative government has done nothing to change the situation since 2006.

I will ask the government again. Will it make improvements to this program in the 2013 budget, and will it change the eligibility criteria for the program?

[Veterans, February 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the government tabled its report on depleted uranium. The report shocked former soldier Pascal Lacoste, who staged a hunger strike so that the government would recognize that he and his fellow veterans were poisoned by depleted uranium while on tour in Bosnia. Yesterday, he asked the minister if he would have the right to medical care.

But, as usual, the minister did not know what to say. Now that he has had time to think about it, can the minister tell us today if Pascal Lacoste and his fellow veterans will have the right to medical care?

[Veterans, February 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, too often, the Conservatives turn their backs on veterans. Their so-called action plan in response to the ombudsman's recent report is no plan at all. According to the ombudsman, “the changes to the...application process...fall short of ensuring procedural fairness.”

Instead of proposing half measures to try to hide the problem, why do the Conservatives not do what is necessary to help the veterans who are being denied disability benefits without any justification?

[Veterans, February 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, with these kinds of cuts, the Conservatives are demonstrating that they are the ones who are soft on crime.

Today the veterans ombudsman released his third report on procedural fairness. He concluded that the application process is unfair for veterans. One of the department's primary responsibilities is to issue pensions and benefits to our veterans who served their country well.

It appears that the Conservatives have forgotten our veterans in their speeches and slogans on economic prosperity. Why do they continue to ignore these problems and why are our veterans the ones who are suffering because of the Conservatives' mismanagement?

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, January 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are using the courts to lower disability benefits for retired RCMP members, which is a blatant double standard.

An agreement with Canadian Forces veterans was recently reached as a result of a class action lawsuit.

When will the Conservatives finally step up to the plate and treat all veterans fairly and stop making cuts to benefits for retired RCMP members?

[Petitions, January 28th, 2013]

Me. Speaker, I have the honour to table a petition signed by dozens of Canadians from across the country, who are calling on the House of Commons to support a national strategy on affordable housing. They also note that Canada is the only G8 country that does not have such a national strategy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question and for his excellent work during the committee review of Bill C-42.

The member himself proposed this change to the bill to provide training to RCMP officers in order to make them more aware of their obligations regarding sexual harassment. During her testimony before the committee, an expert on this issue fully supported this measure to raise police officers' awareness.

The best way to do so is to give them training on their obligations, the rules to follow, the content of the legislation and the aspects that they need to consider. The hon. member is absolutely right: the best way to raise police officers' awareness is to train them in this regard.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question, which I may not have clearly understood. Was he talking about harassment complaints filed by RCMP employees?

Unfortunately, we found that the harassment of female RCMP officers by male officers is a major problem, and that female officers probably have some difficulty being heard and breaking the silence. Will the proposed legislation improve these people's lives? We doubt it.

Instead of giving this mandate to police forces, it would have been much wiser to create a civilian investigative body to deal with these issues, listen to female officers and investigate sexual harassment complaints. Female officers would probably be much more comfortable with this type of structure.

The establishment of a totally independent civilian investigative body would certainly have been more appropriate for dealing with this type of whistle-blowing and would have helped officers who may find it hard to report a fellow officer to do so confidentially.

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

Mr. Speaker, before addressing Bill C-42, now before us, I would like to wish a happy holiday to all hon. members, to our support staff, including the pages, clerks and officers of the House, to our listeners and to you, Mr. Speaker. This is probably my last speech in the House in 2012.

In my previous speech on Bill C-42, I said I was pleased with the introduction of this legislation in the House. The issue of harassment is a public and urgent concern for Canadians. We put a lot of pressure on the Department of Public Safety to make the issue of sexual harassment in the RCMP a priority. That is why we supported this bill at second reading, in the hope of improving it and proposing amendments in committee to make it acceptable and efficient, so as to adequately tackle the issue of sexual harassment.

The first version of the bill did not deal directly with this systemic problem, which is deeply rooted in RCMP corporate culture. The wording of the bill introduced at first reading would not have changed the existing climate within the RCMP.

When the bill was drafted, the Minister of Public Safety did not seem to take into consideration the various recommendations of the Task Force on Governance and Cultural Change in the RCMP. As I mentioned, we still supported the bill at second reading to properly study it and improve it in committee. Unfortunately, the study in committee did not go very well. I am really disappointed by the government's lack of co-operation on this issue.

The Conservatives did not really want to co-operate with us to ensure a balanced representation of the various views and positions. The government presented 12 witnesses to the committee, while we could only have seven. Moreover, in my opinion, the Conservatives' witnesses were not completely independent. All but one of the witnesses, who represented the government or the RCMP, presented the government's position without any real nuances. We feel the witnesses selected by the Conservatives did not come to express a completely independent opinion.

The Conservatives were also in no hurry to call the witnesses that we wanted to appear before the committee. The first witness was called to appear only at the fourth meeting, and most of our witnesses were called only on the last day scheduled to hear evidence. In a way, the Conservatives forced us to present all our amendments on the last day scheduled to hear our witnesses. They also asked us to present our amendments three and a half hours later, on the same day. That did not leave us much time to assess and examine the recommendations made by witnesses.

We also wanted to table amendments, based on the witnesses' recommendations, in order to make the legislation much more effective, so that it would achieve its objective. Such behaviour on the part of the Conservatives is totally unacceptable and impedes the work of Parliament.

We also proposed a number of amendments that were rejected by government members without any discussion. We proposed to include mandatory training on harassment for RCMP members in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, but that was also rejected. The Conservatives simply do not want to hear a dissenting opinion, or even recognize its validity.

The director of the Groupe d'aide et d'information sur le harcèlement sexuel au travail de la province de Québec appeared before the committee and said: “With the 32 years of experience we have, we have found out that when companies do have a clear policy, when employees do know what is acceptable and not acceptable, it makes it much easier for management to deal with the problems.” But the Conservatives preferred to ignore this important testimony.

It is also disappointing that the minister did not ask for a clear policy on sexual harassment in the RCMP, with specific standards of conduct and criteria for assessing the performance of all employees. Such a policy is necessary to provide a basis for a much fairer disciplinary process. The director of the Groupe d'aide et d'information sur le harcèlement sexuel au travail de la province de Québec also spoke eloquently on the importance of such a policy.

They chose to ignore her evidence and stubbornly insisted on a magic solution that will not resolve all the RCMP's problems.

We too put forward an amendment that would guarantee the independence of the body set up to investigate complaints in the RCMP. Once again, the answer was no. We also proposed adding provisions to establish a civilian investigative body, to stop the police from investigating themselves. Once again, this amendment was thrown out. Yet all Canadians are asking for such a provision. Trust in police investigations has to be rebuilt. When a police force investigates another police force, there may well be a conflict of interest or a perceived conflict of interest.

If the Conservatives do not want to listen to Canadians, perhaps they will listen to a former commissioner of the RCMP Public Complaints Commission. He believes that the bill is not in line with the review procedures established by Justice O'Connor and that it will not meet the needs of Canadians or the RCMP.

I would like to remind the House that Justice O'Connor mentioned in the Arar inquiry that it was important for Parliament to set up an oversight agency for the RCMP. It would appear that his recommendations have simply been gathering dust.

The bill would give the RCMP commissioner new authority, the authority to decide on appropriate disciplinary measures. This would include the authority to appoint and dismiss members as he chooses.

During my initial speech, I also said that the approach by the public safety department was a simplistic solution to a much bigger problem: they were just giving the commissioner final authority for dismissing employees. This is why we proposed an amendment to create police forces that were better balanced in terms of human resources, by removing some of the more extreme powers held by the RCMP commissioner and by strengthening those of the external review committee in cases of possible dismissal from the RCMP.

As I said earlier, while Bill C-42 may give the commissioner greater authority to set up a more effective process for resolving harassment complaints, and greater authority over disciplinary matters, it cannot provide the RCMP with the genuine cultural change that it needs to eliminate not only sexual harassment, but also cases relating more generally to the discipline and behaviour of RCMP officers.

Commissioner Paulson himself stated that legislative measures alone would not be enough to retain the public's trust, and that far-reaching reforms would be needed to address the serious underlying issues in the RCMP and foster a work environment that is more open, more co-operative and more respectful for all.

It is obvious to the NDP that the department lacked leadership with regard to dealing with the broader issue the RCMP is facing. Commissioner Paulson told the Standing Committee on the Status of Women that the issue goes well beyond sexual harassment. This situation must change. I believe that the minister should have taken the extensive experience of the RCMP commissioner into account.

In conclusion, if the Conservative government really wanted to modernize the RCMP, it would have agreed to implement the recommendations from the oversight agencies and proceed with an audit of the RCMP by a group of independent auditors that would have reported directly to Parliament. NDP members attempted to amend the bill so that it would deal with issues raised in the evidence heard, but the Conservatives refused to get on board.

[Radiocommunication Act, December 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the Union des municipalités du Québec and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities for effectively supporting my bill. I also want to thank the majority of other groups of municipalities in the other provinces, which I contacted and which also were enthusiastic about this legislation.

I also want to thank all the hon. members who used their right to speak, in most cases, to support my bill, with the exception of some government members who, during the first hour of debate, raised some objections which I would like to address.

First, in his speech, the hon. member for Ajax—Pickering basically raised six points to oppose the bill. He said that Bill C-429 would increase the administrative and regulatory burdens.

In this regard, I would like to say that there is no regulatory duplication, since existing directives would simply be replaced and included in the act. Also, if the regulations included in Industry Canada's directive had been properly respected, perhaps we would not be debating this bill today, because the country would have probably experienced far fewer problems.

Some members did not support the bill. They said that some requirements in this legislation would make the existing regulations more vague. The Telecommunications Act and the Radiocommunication Act are framework laws that require very few specifics. Details about their implementation are included in the regulations. I think government members are well aware of that. Therefore, they are trying to pretend that this legislation would create chaos. The issue of uncertainty was also raised.

I think this is a denial of the current situation. In recent years, few bills proposed by opposition members were supported by the members opposite, and that is regrettable. They raise all sorts of objections that are questionable to say the least.

This bill does not create a huge administrative burden, as claimed earlier. I think it is perfectly normal for some documents to be presented to strengthen transparency among telecommunications promoters. Presenting a document explaining the reasons to not share an antenna site is already a requirement in the directive. Therefore, it does not create a new administrative burden, or a need for a new service at Industry Canada, as claimed by the hon. member for Ajax—Pickering in his speech.

The Conservatives are also claiming that the current regulations are effective because promoters follow Industry Canada requirements to the letter. In my opinion, this is a total denial of the current situation. Many problems have been experienced across Canada. It has been quite some time since certain members opposite have gone out to meet with people from municipalities grappling with these problems.

I believe that the current regulations are not really effective because they are not enforced. Penalties are also not applied. With this bill, I am putting the regulations into the legislation and adding some provisions.

The Conservatives are also claiming that dispute resolution is much more effective and accessible. It is time that the Minister of Industry listen to the stakeholders and talk with Industry Canada.

In closing, I find that the Conservatives' arguments against the bill are rather weak. I am asking my colleagues to evaluate the bill properly. It is not a huge bill that would make matters worse. It will have the opposite effect. This bill will not solve all the problems plaguing cities and their residents. But it will improve the current situation.