Dan Harris

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I addressed these issues before when I spoke about such things as ensuring that there were additional resources for witness protection provided to municipal governments, municipal police forces and provincial agencies to beef-up their witness protection programs. Another was to make a change that when the RCMP took over an investigation or witness protection because the crime involved drugs that it would not pass all the costs on to the municipal or provincial governments, but that it would bear the costs itself or help to pay for them.

Bill C-56, another bill that we will be speaking to soon, would make amendments to copyright and counterfeiting, which brings up border issues as well.

The member quite rightly has said that there have been cuts to the Canada Border Services Agency. We are not doing our neighbours, particularly those to the south, any service when the CBSA is no longer tracking outbound shipments of drugs. That is not helping to make their streets safe. Nor is it making our streets safer because we know that when drugs get exported oftenimes the resources, the money gained from those illicit activities comes back to Canada in the form of other drugs, guns and money that goes to organized crime.

Therefore, we should be stopping that drugs from crossing the border as best we can. Cuts to drug-sniffing dogs and front-line services at the Canada Border Services Agency do not make any sense when we are trying to fight crime.

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question.

Just look at the Liberals' last intervention on this issue. A member from Montreal said that they did not really see any problem with the bill. I have to wonder why they did not see any. We found many problems in the bill. We have to wonder if they did the work or if they are in denial about the fact that any problems could exist in a bill they drafted in the 1990s.

We cannot help but wonder why the Liberals are even here. They do not want to debate the bill. They simply want to complain about the cost and the fact that democracy costs money. We, however, are here to ask questions, to point out the problems in the bill and ensure that Canadians know that not everything is perfect.

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his remarks. However, I would like to refute the last statement he made in regard to people always saying they need more money. Time and again tonight, we have heard Conservative members talk about how the officials from the RCMP said they did not need more financing.

I am rising this evening, like everyone else, to speak to Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act. The NDP supports Bill C-51, as it attempts to improve the witness protection program. However, we still have concerns about this bill. We are concerned that the Conservative government has refused to commit any new funding to the system. We are concerned that the Conservatives' requirement that the RCMP and local police departments work within their existing budgets would hinder the potential improvement of the program.

This situation is similar to other legislation we have seen before this House lately; namely, the Conservative government bringing forward legislation that would only partially fix a problem. Why are the Conservatives unwilling or unable to find the courage and political will to develop legislation to the point where it would actually be as effective as it could be? Once again, I find myself supporting legislation that is a half measure. It would in fact help, but would not fully resolve a problem that the government could be resolving.

Another shortcoming of the bill is that it does not include provisions for an independent agency to operate the program as recommended in the Air India inquiry report. The RCMP would continue to be responsible for the program, and this would leave the RCMP in a potential conflict of interest, being the agency both investigating the case and deciding who gets protection.

The federal witness protection program has long been criticized for its narrow eligibility criteria, poor coordination with provincial programs and low number of witnesses actually admitted to the program. Only 30 out of 108 applications considered were accepted in 2012. The blame for that has to go to the original authors of the bill, which would be the previous Liberal government members.

Since the Witness Protection Program Act passed in 1996, the Liberal and Conservative governments have done little to respond to the criticisms of the system. Some bills have been presented in the House of Commons to address small components of the protection program. As an example, Bill C-223 from a Reform member of Parliament in 1999 regarding witness protection in cases of domestic violence, was supported by the NDP and was defeated by the then-Liberal government.

The overarching issues of eligibility, coordination and funding have not yet been addressed. The New Democrats are on record as repeatedly asking the Conservatives to address the three key issues in the witness protection program: expanded criteria eligibility, co-operation with provinces and adequate funding.

In November 2012, the NDP member of Parliament for Trinity—Spadina called for more support for the federal witness protection program, pointing to the difficulty Toronto police faced in convincing witnesses to this past summer's mass shooting at a block party on Danzig Street in Scarborough to come forward. The Danzig shooting is just one of many examples I could point to where witnesses have been reluctant to step forward due to concerns for their own safety.

Bill C-51 proposes a better process to support provincial witness protection programs and would expand the program to other agencies with national security responsibilities. Bill C-51 would expand the eligibility criteria of the witness protection program to include various requests from the RCMP, such as including youth gang members by covering a new group of people who would give assistance to federal departments. Federal departments and agencies with a mandate relating to national security, national defence or public safety would also be able to refer witnesses to this program. It would also extend the period for emergency protection and clear up some technical problems in coordinating with provincial programs.

Provinces such as Ontario and Alberta have been pushing for a national revamp of the witness protection program, including more recognition of their existing programs. Bill C-51 would provide for the designation of a provincial or municipal witness protection program so that certain provisions of the act would apply to such a program. It also would authorize the Commissioner of the RCMP to coordinate at the request of an official of a designated provincial or municipal program the activities of federal departments, agencies and services in order to facilitate a change of identity for persons admitted to the designated program.

Bill C-51 includes enough improvements to warrant our support through third reading, though concerns about funding have been reiterated multiple times in committee and over and over again tonight, and there are still no answers from the government.

Expanding eligibility for the witness protection program is a generally popular policy. Those working to combat youth gangs feel allowing those seeking to leave gangs access to the program would be an important addition to the tools they need. This issue retains a high profile in the South Asian community due to the attacks on witnesses during the Air India inquiry, where witnesses were not eligible for the program as it currently excludes witnesses in national security cases.

The provinces have long been calling for better coordination between federal and provincial programs. Now, of course, in terms of coordination between federal and provincial programs, we know that is a weakness of the current government, when we look at the Prime Minister who has refused to meet with the first ministers as a group over the seven years the Conservatives have been in power.

We are also disappointed that the bill did not include more recommendations from the Air India inquiry, such as a more transparent and accountable process for admissions into the program. Even the government itself identified this as a serious problem, and yet it failed to address it in the bill.

Overall, Bill C-51 is a positive step, but unfortunately we do not see the Conservatives providing the resources to make it really count for communities. We want to see them provide local police departments with the support necessary to make sure witnesses come forward in gang situations, for example. The Conservative government is not acknowledging the high cost borne by local police departments. There are also provincial witness protection programs, but if the crime is federal in nature or involves drugs, the RCMP take over and then charges local police departments the full cost, something many local departments cannot afford, particularly in small communities.

The RCMP's own website states, “There are instances when the costs of witness protection may impede investigations, particularly for smaller law enforcement agencies”. I have not heard one member of the government speak to that issue here tonight.

While the NDP has been calling for changes to the witness protection program since 2007, it is just now that the Conservative government is responding to our concerns, as well as many stakeholder concerns.

The NDP would like to believe the Conservative government is committed to improving the witness protection program but without the necessary funding for the RCMP to carry out these changes, we fear the improvements that are needed will not necessarily materialize.

Speaking of resourcing, several witnesses and the RCMP at committee said that they in fact do believe that they have the resources to take care of their share of the burden. However, as I mentioned previously in my speech, local law enforcement agencies and provincial law enforcement agencies are going to end up bearing many of the costs that are associated with changes in the witness protection program.

We have seen this kind of approach time and time again with the Conservatives' crime agenda. They make changes to legislation that are going to impact provincial and municipal budgets without providing any of the funding to absorb the costs. What ends up happening is an insidious form of downloading. Instead of the costs of the federal changes being borne by the federal government, they end up being borne by the provinces and municipalities, which are already straining to a much greater extent than the federal government is.

It is very unfortunate to see this kind of approach continuing. Back in the 1990s, the Liberal government downloaded billions of dollars on the provinces, and then the provinces, like mine of Ontario where we had the Mike Harris government, proceeded to download provincial costs, like social services and welfare programs, onto municipalities without actually giving them the funds to address the issues.

It is sad to see here in 2013 that we are in fact seeing the same kinds of things happening.

While the NDP is supporting the bill, once again we are seeing a bill that we do not think addresses all the issues that could be addressed in the bill.

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, at several points tonight, reference has been made to RCMP comments made at committee, saying that it would have enough resources to bring in these changes to the witness protection program.

However, as we know, oftentimes when cases are made, it falls to provincial or, in some cases, municipal programs to actually pay for the witness protection. Of course, they are not going to have enough resources.

While the RCMP may have enough resources, provincial and municipal police forces and governments may not. I just want to ask the member why that was not necessarily taken into consideration in bringing this bill forward.

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the member referred to the lack of or inability to bring forward permanent funding to help this program move forward and not putting forward the recommendation on establishing national standards. That would touch on provincial jurisdictions.

How hard did the government actually try to work with the provinces to see if there was a deal that could be reached to ensure there would national standards across the entire country?

[Language Skills Act, May 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier for her work at the Standing Committee on Official Languages and for her impassioned speech here today.

I have the honour of rising today to support Bill C-419 introduced by my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent.

I had a rather unusual youth. I am a Franco-Ontarian born in Toronto. My father's family is anglophone and has lived in Scarborough for over 90 years, while my mother comes from a francophone family from Sherbrooke and Montreal. When I was young, living in Toronto, I was very fortunate to get my education at the Petit Chaperon Rouge francophone daycare, the Georges-Étienne Cartier Catholic elementary school and the Bishop de Charbonnel Catholic high school. I understand what it means to be part of a linguistic minority.

I was also lucky because my anglophone father, David Harris, studied in Montreal so he could learn French. He has now been teaching French to young anglophones in Scarborough for 25 years. Linguistic duality is very important for me and my family.

Bill C-419 is intended to make a positive change by ensuring that future officers of Parliament work in both official languages from the time they are appointed, so that Canadians receive services in the official language of their choice.

It is indeed my privilege to rise this evening to speak to a very important and critical bill, Bill C-419, an act respecting language skills.

As a fluently bilingual franco-Ontarian with deep familial roots in Quebec, my support for the bill is partly technical and partly personal. I have lived my whole life with the linguistic duality of Canada, and understand the importance of protecting our traditional language rights.

When I was a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages after being elected in 2011, I had the distinct honour of working with Mr. Graham Fraser, the Commissioner for Official Languages here in Canada. I developed a strong respect for Mr. Fraser in his view about official languages. His testimony in particular about the bill at committee was very important and provided a very important summary of the bill. He said:

Bill C-419, which was put forward by the New Democratic MP for Louis-Saint-Laurent, is to the point and unequivocal. Its purpose is to ensure that persons whose appointment requires the approval by resolution of the Senate, House of Commons, or both Houses of Parliament, can understand and express themselves clearly in both official languages without the aid of an interpreter from the moment they are appointed. It is an important bill for the future of Canada's linguistic duality. I therefore support it unconditionally.

The bill is a response to the controversy caused by the Conservative appointment of a unilingual Auditor General in November 2011. While the notice of vacancy clearly indicated that proficiency in both official languages was an essential requirement to the position, the Conservative government sadly ignored this.

Given the protection of language rights embedded in the Constitution and the long history of custom and tradition, it is very unfortunate and disappointing that this type of bill is even necessary. However, the appointment of the unilingual Auditor General for Canada seemed to indicate the Conservative government's willingness to ignore our rights and traditions and roll back our official language rights.

We cannot let this happen. As parliamentarians we must do everything we can to protect our language rights when they are threatened. For that reason I thank in particular the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent for bringing the bill forward and for getting support from all parties to ensure that kind of situation never happens again.

The bill helped tremendously in that effort. The bill of the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent clearly seeks to clarify the linguistic requirements for officers of Parliament to ensure that this type of situation does not happen again. It is a question of respecting the linguistic rights of Canadians and the members who represent them.

Officers of Parliament must be able to communicate with members of the Senate and the House of Commons as well as Canadians in the official language of their choice.

The bill, when adopted, would ensure that future holders of the ten following positions should understand both French and English without the assistance of an interpreter, and be able to express themselves clearly in both official languages when they take office.

It recognized that fluency in both official languages is essential for anyone holding the following positions. Unfortunately, as my colleague from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier mentioned, there were some changes at committee that added a bit of nuance or a lack of clarity in the bill.

The 10 positions that we are speaking of as officers of Parliament are: the Auditor General of Canada; the Chief Electoral Officer; the Commissioner of Official Languages for Canada; the Privacy Commissioner; the Information Commissioner; the Senate Ethics Officer; the Conflicts of Interest and Ethics Commissioner; the Commissioner of Lobbying; the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner; and the President of the Public Service Commission.

Each of the above offices was created under legislation that specified, among other things, the terms of employment and the nature of the office's relationship with Parliament.

In my opinion, all of the positions I have just mentioned are officers of parliament. This is important, because officers of Parliament must work closely with Parliament and must interact with parliamentarians on a daily basis. It is essential that these officers can work with members in both official languages and must therefore be proficient in both official languages at the time of their employment.

Why must officers be bilingual at the time of their employment? First, we have the Constitution, which stipulates that French and English are the official languages of Canada. Second, French and English have equal status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of Parliament. Third, parliamentarians have the right to use either French or English during debates and work in Parliament.

I want to take a moment to express the joy and pride that I have being a member of the NDP caucus, with so many of our members being fluently bilingual and those who are unilingual are making tremendous efforts to learn Canada's other official language so they are better able to do their jobs and interact with their colleagues and other people in Parliament. I am incredibly proud of the number of MPs who are working on that day in and day out. Almost every day when I pass by the lobby, I can see two or three of our members working on that other official language to gain the skills to be better parliamentarians.

Again, this bill only became necessary following the appointment of a unilingual auditor general. Shortly after the announcement, the NDP filed a complaint with the Commissioner of Official Languages for Canada.

In June 2012, the commissioner in his final report about his investigation concluded that the position of auditor general should have been filled by a candidate who was proficient in both official languages. For the commissioner under the Official Languages Act, the Office of the Auditor General, as well as the Auditor General himself, is required to provide services in both official languages as a public figure of a government institution which responds to Parliament.

He also concluded that the Privy Council Office, which manages Governor-in-Council appointments, failed to comply with its obligations under the Official Languages Act.

According to the commissioner, “Historically, the appointment process for officers of Parliament was administered by the Senior Appointments Secretariat at the Privy Council Office. The process does not contain precise language proficiency provisions for incumbents of these positions. It is when the position becomes vacant and a recruitment strategy put in place with specific selection criteria that linguistic requirements are determined”.

In the case of the Auditor General, the requirements did state that the auditor general should be proficient in both of Canada's official languages.

Respect for Canada's two official languages has always been a priority for the NDP. Bill C-419 is consistent with this priority. We want all MPs to give their support to Bill C-419 so it soon becomes law. Proficiency in both official languages at the time of appointment must be recognized as essential, particularly for the 10 offices targeted in the bill.

With the adoption of Bill C-419, we are taking the first step in ensuring that all future officers of Parliament are bilingual and then we can move on to other aspects, like ensuring that Supreme Court of Canada justices are bilingual so they can hear court cases in both official languages without the need of interpretation.

I believe everyone who ever aspires to those high positions and roles should take it upon themselves to learn the other of Canada's official languages, if not already bilingual, so they can apply for these positions and take on the roles that we have in the institutions of Parliament, the Supreme Court and elsewhere to ensure that Canada's linguistic duality is not only respected, but enriched through those additional appointments of bilingual officers of Parliament.

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, May 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the minister asked why we are not debating the bill. What we are left is debating this time allocation motion. Again, it is the 40th one.

We want to debate the bill in committee and bring forward amendments. The Conservatives do not want to do that. They accuse us of delaying the bill. The Conservatives have a majority in the committee. They decide the witnesses. They decide how long it is going to take. They control the agenda. They are the ones who have delayed for seven years.

Then, when we bring many reasoned amendments forward to the committee, the Conservatives ignore them because they do not want to hear from the opposition. They do not want to hear from Canadians. Of course they bring up a list of people who are supporting the bill. All the Conservatives have done is throw them a bone. At this point, after this long, they will take what they can get. What they could have had is far more, if the government had actually listened to the NDP, had taken our amendments into consideration and added them to the bill.

That would have certainly made for a better bill that we could be passing. It would have a greater economic impact that would help more Canadians than what the government is doing.

I want to ask the minister a question. Why did they not do that?

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, May 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is inexplicable to me why the government chooses to abandon the regions at a time when we should work to develop regional economies, especially those that survive primarily on seasonal industries. There is more work and economic building to create jobs in those areas so people do not have to think about leaving or worry about having to travel 100 kilometres away so they can get jobs and not be kicked off of EI, and other things.

We on this side would like to see rail development in Canada and infrastructure built in a way that will ensure Canadians' prosperity for years to come.

I apologize to the member for Peterborough for not having a chance to get to his question.

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, May 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I will apologize to you and the House, of course. I like to answer questions that are asked of me. It is a lesson the government would hopefully learn by 2:15 today in question period.

The member for Winnipeg North talked about why we are here debating this bill. I would like to take him back to the root cause of the entire issue, which was when the Liberal government in 1995 privatized CN and did not put any rules and regulations in place to protect shippers from the problems that exist now. We can trace that all the way back to 1995. Then the Liberals were in power for another 11 years after that fact and never got off their butts to fix it.

The member mentioned the deputy leader, the member for Wascana, who was in cabinet during that entire period. Therefore, I would like to ask him if perhaps he ever brought those concerns up with his cabinet colleagues and the prime minister at the time to actually deal with the problems shippers were facing then, as they are now, many years later?

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, May 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, what is a curse and a disease is a government that thinks it is okay to lose complete track of $3 billion and not have any shame about that fact.

What is a travesty is a government that thinks that the unelected, unaccountable and entitled Senate should be sitting in decision of the bills made by the duly elected people of Canada who represent Canadians. The Conservatives obfuscate and deny; they block and they talk about how honourable these people are, when they are milking the taxpayers for millions of dollars, when they are submitting improper claims and then saying they were confused by the difficult one-page form. Well, if they cannot fill in a one-page form, they should not be here.