House of Commons Hansard #209 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was public.

Topics

Citizenship and ImmigrationOral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Calgary Southeast Alberta

Conservative

Jason Kenney ConservativeMinister of Citizenship

Mr. Speaker, it is unacceptable that new Canadians have an unemployment rate twice as high as that of the general population. That is why this government has tripled our investment in settlement services.

We are reforming our immigration system to ensure that people who arrive here have the skills to succeed upon arrival, but we have also invested significantly in pre-arrival orientation.

Through the Canadian immigration integration project, today we have graduated 20,000 newcomers from abroad, people who have a much better chance to get settled, find good jobs and succeed in their new Canadian lives. We are investing in the success of newcomers.

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Liberal

Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON

Mr. Speaker, the environment commissioner has outlined serious concerns about the lack of federal oversight and public disclosure of the chemicals used in fracking. When asked about the issue last week, the Conservatives dodged the issue completely.

Yesterday, the Minister of Natural Resources had a miraculous conversion while promoting the Keystone XL pipeline and admitted that Conservatives could be doing more to protect the environment. Here is their chance. Without passing the buck to the provinces, could the Minister of the Environment provide the House with the list of chemicals used in fracking?

The EnvironmentOral Questions

3 p.m.

Calgary Centre-North Alberta

Conservative

Michelle Rempel ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, as I have said in the House several times, the issue at hand is primarily a matter of provincial jurisdiction. The environment commissioner also commented on the progress that we have made in numerous areas concerned in his report.

However, this also gives me an opportunity to talk about the Liberal record on the environment, which includes a 30% rise in greenhouse gas emissions. I just wonder if my colleague's colleague, in his travels around the country, reminded Canadians of that fact and also continues to remind Canadians of the fact that he has absolutely no respect for Alberta MPs.

Aboriginal AffairsOral Questions

3 p.m.

NDP

Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON

Mr. Speaker, aboriginal people across the country are starving. The report of the UN special rapporteur on the right to food states that Inuit are facing severe food insecurity. The report recommends a food strategy that defines the responsibilities of every level of government.

Will the government be part of the solution instead of the problem when it comes to safe, affordable nutrition for Inuit living in Canada's north? Will it put forward a Canadian food strategy?

Aboriginal AffairsOral Questions

3 p.m.

Nunavut Nunavut

Conservative

Leona Aglukkaq ConservativeMinister of Health

Mr. Speaker, our government is making huge investments to the nutrition north program for Canada's north. Our government increased the program to $60 million, which that party did not support.

I met with the UN special rapporteur last May and was very surprised how ill-informed the rapporteur was on the government's investment. At the same time, he failed to meet with the people in the north in terms of the real opportunities and the challenges faced by aboriginal people around food security. We will not be studied from afar and we will not accept the recommendations from a UN rapporteur that fails to meet with our people.

Foreign AffairsOral Questions

3 p.m.

Conservative

Joe Daniel Conservative Don Valley East, ON

Mr. Speaker, North Korea continues to thumb its nose at the world. Today, the regime in Pyongyang confirmed it conducted a third nuclear test, in direct contravention of the global will and North Korea's international obligations.

Can the Minister of Foreign Affairs please update the House on this matter and Canada's reaction to it?

Foreign AffairsOral Questions

3 p.m.

Ottawa West—Nepean Ontario

Conservative

John Baird ConservativeMinister of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Don Valley East for his leadership on this issue.

This reckless and provocative test marks a serious, misguided threat to regional peace and security. What makes it even more unconscionable is that many North Korean people are starving to death while their government misallocates resources on a nuclear weapons program. We are disappointed that North Korea's leaders have continued along this irresponsible path of placing nuclear weapons above the well-being and health of their own people. Canada will work with our international partners to pursue all appropriate actions and sanctions against this rogue regime.

Aerospace IndustryOral Questions

February 12th, 2013 / 3 p.m.

NDP

Djaouida Sellah NDP Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC

Mr. Speaker, while the Jenkins report talks about the importance of innovation to economic prosperity, the Canadian Space Agency is dealing with the impact of the Conservatives' cuts.

In fact, 700 jobs and internationally recognized expertise are in jeopardy in Saint-Hubert, which is in my riding.

The uncertainty surrounding the agency has consequences for the entire aerospace sector. The agency is synonymous with the Canadarm, Julie Payette and Chris Hadfield.

Will the Minister of Industry guarantee that these jobs will be protected?

Aerospace IndustryOral Questions

3 p.m.

Mégantic—L'Érable Québec

Conservative

Christian Paradis ConservativeMinister of Industry and Minister of State (Agriculture)

Mr. Speaker, Canada is a leader in the aerospace sector. For that reason, we asked David Emerson to produce a report to help us better position ourselves in the future of the aerospace industry in Canada and abroad.

It is important to look at the major decisions that have been made, for example the Constellation RADARSAT mission, a major mission that will make our country a leader in cutting-edge satellite technology.

We are also committed to the international space station program until 2020, which has resulted in Chris Hadfield being the commander—

Aerospace IndustryOral Questions

3 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Order.

The hon. member for Thunder Bay—Superior North has the floor.

EmploymentOral Questions

3 p.m.

Independent

Bruce Hyer Independent Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON

Mr. Speaker, last week court documents revealed that mining companies in B.C. rejected qualified Canadian workers in order to hire lower-paid temporary foreign workers. Why has the government changed the rules so that companies can kill jobs for Canadians? How will the Conservatives guarantee that jobs in the Ring of Fire will go to northern Ontarians instead of to temporary foreign workers?

EmploymentOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Haldimand—Norfolk Ontario

Conservative

Diane Finley ConservativeMinister of Human Resources and Skills Development

Mr. Speaker, we firmly believe that Canadians should have first crack at every job in Canada. That is why we were so concerned with the situation there. We were concerned that the process was not followed sufficiently to engage Canadians first and that is why the Minister of Immigration and I are reviewing the entire temporary foreign worker program to make sure that Canadians do get first crack at all the jobs.

Oral QuestionsPoints of Order

3:05 p.m.

NDP

Chris Charlton NDP Hamilton Mountain, ON

Mr. Speaker, during question period, the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development indicated that she had undertaken an analysis before proceeding with EI reforms.

As you can imagine, Mr. Speaker, all of those issues are of huge concern to the thousands of Canadians who do not have access to EI benefits, either in a timely way or not at all. Therefore, I would ask that the minister please table those reports here today.

Oral QuestionsPoints of Order

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

Bob Rae Liberal Toronto Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, we on this side noticed that the Minister of Natural Resources is back in his seat, where he should be. He joins an illustrious club, of which I am also a member.

We noticed the minister heckling a little quietly today. I am sure that he will be in much stronger voice in the days ahead.

The House resumed from February 11 consideration of the motion that Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Safer Witnesses ActGovernment Orders

3:05 p.m.

NDP

Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-51.

For years, the federal witness protection program was strongly criticized, in part because eligibility criteria were too strict, which prevented many witnesses from benefiting from it. The program was also poorly coordinated with other federal initiatives.

Even though this system was implemented under the Liberals in 1996, the Conservatives also did not try to address the criticisms by improving it. Since then, the system has not been working well. In 2012, only 30 of the 108 applications reviewed were accepted.

It must be recognized that several attempts were made to reform the system and to correct the flaws of the Witness Protection Program Act. A private member's bill dealing more specifically with family violence was debated in 1999 and supported by the NDP. The Liberal government of the day wanted at all cost to prevent that bill from becoming law. Moreover, fundamental issues relating to program eligibility were not examined, nor issues relating to coordination and funding.

It is often difficult for police forces to find witnesses to testify, because these people are not adequately protected. That was the case with the killings at a block party on Danzig Street, in Toronto, where the police department had a very hard time convincing witnesses to come forward.

That is why, in November 2012, the NDP member for Trinity—Spadina asked for more federal support to ensure that the program can meet its ambitious goals.

In the case of the Air India bombing, even the judge admitted that he was unable to provide the necessary protection to witnesses. One of the witnesses had been assassinated in 1998, thus making his sworn affidavit made to the RCMP in 1995 inadmissible in court. During the 2007 investigation, other witnesses did not want to testify, because they feared for their safety. That was understandable, since they could not get adequate protection.

Bill C-51, which we are discussing here, largely addresses these concerns. It expands eligibility criteria for the witness protection program to include members of street gangs, for example. In addition, federal departments and agencies that have a security or defence mandate may propose witnesses for admission to the program. It also extends the emergency protection period and eliminates problems that arose in coordinating with provincial programs.

Provincial programs are essential to our system, but the present act does not adequately acknowledge that fact. That is why Ontario and Alberta insisted that the witness protection program be restructured at the national level to provide greater recognition for what was already being done.

Bill C-51 also addresses those concerns. It provides for the designation of a provincial or municipal witness protection program so that certain provisions of the Witness Protection Program Act apply.

Bill C-51 also authorizes the RCMP to coordinate the activities of federal departments to facilitate a change of identity for persons admitted to the program.

I will be frank: I have one fear about this bill. I am concerned about the fact that funding for the witness protection program is not addressed in Bill C-51.

This kind of act is popular. No one is opposed to greater protection for the people who make it possible for us to fight crime every day. However, Bill C-51 does not provide enough details on funding that would be granted for the new measures to be implemented.

Why did the government not consider that before introducing this bill in the House? This is really something that concerns us on this side of the House.

However, having discussed the matter with them, I must acknowledge that Bill C-51 enjoys strong support among the general public and first-line workers.

Many people engaged in the fight against organized crime say this bill is absolutely essential. Expanding the program will help fight street gangs, in particular. As we know, street gangs are particularly violent and quick to use intimidation to prevent their members from going to prison. Those who decide to testify against them are very often in danger.

The same phenomenon occurs in south Asian communities. We will recall that several witnesses in the Air India affair were attacked. Those witnesses were not eligible for the protection program. Why? Simply because matters of national security are not eligible for the program.

A third issue would finally be addressed by this bill, and that is coordination between the federal and provincial governments. The provinces, as hon. members know, have been calling for a review of the witness protection program for a very long time. Their main complaint was that coordination was lacking. They have programs that encroach on the federal program in some instances. Consequently, witnesses are sometimes caught in a bureaucratic mess that completely jeopardizes their safety.

Those are three shortcomings that will be corrected by Bill C-51. Members of street gangs who want to make amends will be able to testify against their former cronies without fear of reprisals. People who are called to testify in cases involving national security will also be better protected, and the provinces will finally know where they stand.

Before I move on to my next point, I would like to raise a question that I have. A little earlier, I spoke about the Air India case. Clearly, Bill C-51 greatly improves the witness protection program for such cases. However, the process for accessing the program will still be too obscure, even after the changes made by the bill. The accountability process is still insufficient as well. The government is aware of the problem since it has already admitted that such is the case. I am therefore wondering why it has not taken the opportunity presented by this bill to resolve the problem once and for all.

In summary, I think that the measures included in Bill C-51 are a step in the right direction and will bring about very positive results. However, the bill is still flawed. When an investigation pertains to a crime that involves drugs or falls under federal jurisdiction, the RCMP takes over the case. Yet, the federal police force passes on the cost of witness protection to local police departments, which often do not have the budget to cover it.

I would like to quote the RCMP website, where it states:

There are instances when the costs of witness protection may impede investigations, particularly for smaller law enforcement agencies.

This shows that this prohibitive cost is a hindrance to establishing a truly effective system. As I was saying a few moments ago, this bill sweeps the issue of funding under the rug. That is a major concern for me.

Before I continue, I would like to ask my colleagues from the other parties a few questions. Since 2007, the NDP has been asking for changes to be made to the witness protection program. It took six years for the Conservatives to finally respond to our request. During that time, we repeated our request again and again. Why did it take so long for the government to take action? As I explained, no additional funds are included in this bill. Why is the government changing the rules without providing adequate funding? These are vital questions that require clear and specific answers. Can the government confirm that it will provide adequate funding for the measures set out in its bill? Can the government guarantee that the witness protection program will receive adequate funding, particularly in the long term?

I also have a few thoughts I would like to share with my Liberal Party colleagues. The Liberals are claiming today that the program needs a major overhaul.

That is all well and good and, frankly, I share their point of view. The Liberals were in power for several years before the arrival of the current government. They even had a majority in the House. Why did they not take advantage of the many opportunities they had to carry out this reform? The many criticisms levelled against the program date back to when the Liberals had their majority. They had the power to change things at the time, but unfortunately they chose to do nothing.

There is something else that raises eyebrows. Today, they are proposing amendments to Bill C-51 that they do not consider generous enough, but they do not specify exactly what should be done. Empty rhetoric is fine and dandy, but before taking a stand, there needs to be some substance. I invite them, therefore, to immediately disclose the details of their proposals.

Let me take a moment to go over the ins and outs of this bill. It is my opinion that this legislation is extremely important to the witness protection system. These things must not be taken lightly. This is a question of life or death. The bill will have major ramifications, so we need to take the time to go over it carefully.

Before going any further, I repeat that I am glad that the government has finally decided to address this issue. I am happy to see that the government has heeded the demands that my party and I have been making for years. The simple act of broadening access to the program is already an excellent decision.

As I said, it is nevertheless important that sufficient funds be allocated to the program, otherwise—and this would be regrettable—these wonderful initiatives will not come to fruition. The government’s intentions are good, but it needs to put its money where its mouth is.

The NDP has always been committed to building safer communities. One key way of doing this is by improving the witness protection program. Doing this will respond to an urgent demand being made by police officers across the country.

That is why, despite my reservations, I support the adoption at second reading of Bill C-51. I will do so on behalf of all the people, organizations and associations that share these very same concerns. When we work together, we can achieve tangible results. Bill C-51 could prove a very good example of this.

I am thinking in particular of the provinces that have long been calling for the adoption of a bill of this kind. I am also thinking of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police that recently called on the government to support it in its fight against organized crime. The RCMP has also argued for an enhanced psychological evaluation of beneficiaries, which this bill will allow.

Police officers whose job it is to fight street gangs are particularly enthusiastic about this bill. There is also Justice O’Connor’s report, which in the wake of the Air India attack, issued recommendations along the lines of what the bill proposes.

It is quite evident that all the organizations involved in the fight against organized crime support the adoption of this bill. It comforts me to know that this is a good initiative, despite its faults.

Overall, Bill C-51 is a step in the right direction in the long march in the fight against crime. The bill is a good initiative from this government and, in all honesty, I am quite pleased to support it. I do hope, however, that my colleagues from all parties will take note of my criticisms. This is not an instance where we should be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, as the saying goes. Rather, we should pause for a moment and think about everything that can be done to ensure that the protection program performs optimally.

These brave men and women who appear in the witness box exhibit courage at all times. They make our society a safer, more welcoming place. In so doing, they often take enormous risks. Bill C-51 will provide better protection for them, but we can also do more.

I therefore take this opportunity to appeal to my colleagues. We have already taken a step in the right direction with Bill C-51, but perhaps we should go a little further.

As I mentioned, Bill C-51 contains some promising measures that have been approved by police officers across the country, particularly for the fight against street gangs, which is extremely important in my riding, Alfred-Pellan.

Part of the riding is mainly agricultural, but Alfred-Pellan is in fact very close to Montreal Island. So we have highly urbanized centres throughout the agricultural area, and that yields quite an eclectic mix.

All the police officers in Laval try to make our streets and our community as safe as possible. We New Democrats are committed to working with all those players to build safer communities.

The witness protection program is reassuring for the people who live in my neighbourhood or who are caught up in street gangs. There are unfortunately a lot of them on Laval Island. Because of this program, people know that they have a chance to pull through. At the same time, it provides police forces with additional tools to fight street gangs.

I am talking about tools because I see this as a big toolbox that we can offer our police forces and our justice system in order to fight crime. It really is necessary to work with these tools and to use them as much as possible. Bill C-51 is one of those tools.

Unfortunately, I would also like to criticize my colleagues opposite. They are doing something good with Bill C-51, but they have also done some more regrettable things. For example, the Conservatives recently announced that they would stop funding the police recruitment program. A budget of $400 million was set aside for the police recruitment fund, and they decided not to renew it in 2013.

We in Quebec have benefited from that budget. We received approximately $92.5 million over five years to establish joint forces and to combat street gangs. It was an additional tool for fighting street gangs in Quebec. In the very first year, there were more property seizures and fewer street gang crimes and murders.

There were tangible results as of the very first year. The $92.5 million budget granted to Quebec over five years made it possible to build those squads. The municipalities are working together. There is a major team effort among various cities such as Gatineau, Montreal, Laval, the north shore, the south shore and Quebec City. Everyone works together. Sherbrooke is also involved and is benefiting from the joint forces program. Everyone benefits from it. It is a very good thing.

It is sad to see that this tool is to be taken from our toolbox. We had funding for these joint forces in our toolbox. Bill C-51 adds an important tool, plugging gaps in the Witness Protection Program Act, and some extremely important things, but does not provide any funding.

I can see all the good intentions behind this bill, but I hope the federal government will pony up and allocate a significant budget to this bill so that the municipalities and provinces do not have to absorb the cost. The public safety committee is studying economic parameters for police services. Police forces across Canada are already struggling to manage their funding in the most efficient way possible. We must not give them an additional burden.

This is our opportunity not to do that. I would ask my colleagues opposite to ensure that the funding will be there in the next budget. I honestly hope it will be, because I have the extreme pleasure today of rising with them to support Bill C-51.

Safer Witnesses ActGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Portage—Lisgar Manitoba

Conservative

Candice Bergen ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her comments and the fact that her party will be supporting this legislation.

I am a little confused though, because when I look at the bill I see it as making administrative changes primarily. It gives the provinces what they have asked for, to be able to designate their program as federal, which will actually save them time, energy and certainly monetary resources. As well, it would expand their criteria, which need to be protected as far as information is concerned, and lengthens the time of emergency protection for people under the witness protection program.

The NDP members talked a lot yesterday, and I am assuming they will today, about the costs. They somehow keep thinking there will be a huge ballooning in the number of people entering the witness protection program. Have they done research on this? I am just wondering, because I have not seen anything to that effect.

Can the hon. member tell me where she is getting these numbers? We have not seen any of those numbers, and I dare say that it is not a good idea to just make assumptions when it comes to important legislation.

Safer Witnesses ActGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

NDP

Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for her question.

I did in fact mention it briefly at the beginning of my speech. I gave an example from 2012 about the percentage of cases considered and accepted. That goes with the funding here, however.

I do not want anyone to be alarmist and say that there will be ballooning or anything like that. It is important to mention that. All we are asking is that this bill be supported by adequate funding.

The government has probably done fairly extensive research to find out how much it could cost. I know that my colleague has heard various witnesses testifying before the committee. We just have to ensure that we have the resources and the money to pay for changes brought about by Bill C-51, which is seemingly going to work very well. Nevertheless, the resources must be there.

During the committee study now under way, we have seen that police forces are already struggling. We must not give them more to cope with. We must not place an additional financial burden on the provinces and municipalities. The costs must be borne here.

Safer Witnesses ActGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, we all need to understand very clearly that Bill C-51, the witness protection program and its enhancement via the bill, will have an impact in our communities.

The member referred to a tool belt. Yes, our police services across Canada have all sorts of tools they can use, and this is just but one of those tools, in co-operation with crown attorneys and others, they will be able to have access to.

I do believe that it is fair to assume that there will be an increase in demand for the program. Would the member not agree that it is a safe assumption to make and that there needs to be co-operation among the different levels of government on how they will best be able to meet that particular demand for resources, because I hope that we can avoid some duplication that way?

Safer Witnesses ActGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

NDP

Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for his question.

I am not suggesting that people applying to the witness protection program are going to rush the doors, or anything like that. What we are asking for here is to have the means of paying for what we are asking for, the resources to get what we want.

We must ensure that the cost is not passed on to the provinces or the municipalities; the government is already doing enough of that. We must not burden them once again with something like that, by offering nice things that in the end cannot be put in place, because the means to do so are not there.

I will therefore say to my colleague that all I am expecting is that there will be something for the witness protection program in the next budget, which the Conservative government is to present in the coming weeks. I really am expecting it. Quite honestly, I shall be extremely disappointed if there is nothing for the witness protection program or for the joint forces that combat street gangs across Canada.

Safer Witnesses ActGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

NDP

Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety said. I was quite surprised to hear her ask us for a cost analysis. I thought that was the government's job.

One thing seems to have escaped the parliamentary secretary. She truly has not done her homework if she believes that broadening the definition of a witness eligible for the program and extending by an additional 90 days the period during which emergency protection can be granted, as stated in the bill, will not result in any additional costs.

Does my colleague believe we should invest new funds given that the number of eligible witnesses will increase and that the period during which emergency protection can be granted will be extended by 90 days?

Safer Witnesses ActGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

NDP

Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Sherbrooke for his important observation.

We try to be good managers. Every member of the House strives to manage public funds as efficiently and effectively as possible. That is the parliamentary secretary and the Minister of Public Safety's overriding duty. I do hope they fulfilled this duty when they drafted Bill C-51. If they neglected to undertake a feasibility study and a financial analysis of the measures included in their bill, I do believe members on this side of the House will be quite disappointed, more so if it turns out they have not yet given any thought to the matter. I hope they have at least begun the process. I do believe I speak for all my colleagues on this issue.

I sincerely hope that new money will be earmarked for this in the next budget. Even if demand stays the same year after year, the cost of the witness protection program is sure to increase.

We need to be good managers. The Conservatives remind us daily that they reign supreme in that regard. I can only hope that they will walk the walk and increase the program's funding in the next budget.

Safer Witnesses ActGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague, who also sits on the public safety committee with me, where she does a very good job in asking the right questions from her perspective. However, I would just like to clarify a couple of things before I ask my question. One of them was prompted by the NDP.

Mr. Speaker, I know that you and I served on the justice committee at one time, but we may also have served on public safety committee together. I recall that we brought in the changes to the witness protection program because there had been rather negative, publicized incidents with that program, resulting in a need for us to make some technical changes to the program. If I remember correctly, some mention was made of the monetary side of the issue during those hearings but that it was secondary to some of the changes that are being proposed in this legislation before the House. Nonetheless, I am glad to hear that the hon. member and her party are going to support this.

In short, I know the history of this, and it is not as much the doing of the NDP as it is a result of a collaborative approach. Therefore, let us try not to take too much party credit for these things and just do the right thing.

Does the hon. member not agree that the current legislation would vastly improve the previous regulatory regime around the witness protection program, and that we should continue to move in the right direction? We do not always get things perfect, but we move in the right direction. Does she believe that this legislation would move in the right direction in protecting people who come into the program?

Safer Witnesses ActGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

The hon. member for Alfred—Pellan has only 30 seconds to answer the question.

Safer Witnesses ActGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

NDP

Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC

It is a pity, Mr. Speaker.

I thank my colleague for her question.

Members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security do not agree on everything, but the work is truly interesting. People have different points of view and that is excellent, as long as discussions are respectful, as they are between members from various parties who sit on our committee.

As I mentioned in my speech, it is only one tool in the toolbox, but we need it to fight crime. My colleague opposite would probably agree. However, that tool alone is not enough to fight crime effectively. We also need to ensure that our police forces have adequate funding. We need to live up to our responsibilities and be very good managers, once and for all.