Dave MacKenzie

[Electronic Petitions, June 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to take part in today's debate on Motion No. 428 on electronic petitions, sponsored by the member for Burnaby—Douglas.

Petitions play a fundamental and important role in our parliamentary system. Each day, members table petitions on behalf of citizens from across the country. In total, over 2,000 petitions are tabled each year on issues that concern Canadians. Motion No. 428 would require the procedure and House affairs committee to study and recommend changes to the Standing Orders to implement a new system of electronic petitions. Some jurisdictions in Canada and abroad have recently taken this step, and I will focus my remarks on the lessons from their experiences.

Before doing so, I want to take issue with a particular aspect of Motion No. 428 that should concern all of us, which is that the motion prescribes a resolution to a study the committee has not conducted. Rather than asking the procedure and House affairs committee to undertake an examination of our petitions system, the motion dictates to the committee that it must recommend changes to the Standing Orders to implement an electronic petitions system. In other words, the motion would require that the committee report lead to the implementation of an electronic petitions system for the House. I find that an affront to the members of the committee, and more fundamentally, to the principle that committees are masters of their own affairs. Instead, the committee should have the ability to review the effectiveness of our petitions system under its review of the Standing Orders and decide on its own terms whether changes are needed.

Most other jurisdictions have a petitions system similar to the one we use in the House. That said, some jurisdictions have recently adopted an electronic online petitions system. As my friend indicated, in Canada, the National Assembly of Quebec and the Northwest Territories have set up limited online systems to complement their paper-based systems. Their focus was primarily on giving citizens the option to assess and sign a petition electronically. While such an approach, on the surface, seems straightforward, there would be a need to closely examine questions of cost, particularly with regard to measures needed to verify signatures and prevent fraudulent petitions.

Looking abroad, in 2011, the United Kingdom House of Commons established an electronic petitions system, including provisions whereby petitions with at least 100,000 signatures can be debated in the House or in Westminster Hall, a parallel chamber to the House. The electronic petitions system differs from the written petitions system in that, first, the role of individual members is reduced to being able to debate only items with at least 100,000 signatures. Second, the electronic petitions website is administered by their leader of the House of Commons.

In 2012, there were 25 hours of debate in the chambers on various electronic petitions with at least 100,000 signatures. That is the total number to date. Examples of topics debated include the elimination of welfare benefits for convicted 2011 London rioters, heart surgery at a local hospital and the beer duty escalator. That is not an escalator that goes from floor to floor but a system implemented to increase the price of beer.

Public commentators have noted that changes to the system in the United Kingdom have turned petitions into a popularity contest, with a chance to debate issues whether they are serious or frivolous. The rules in this system have enabled well-organized special interest groups to force their issues onto the parliamentary agenda. For example, recently, a “no state funeral for Margaret Thatcher” electronic petition reached over 30,000 signatures.

South of our border, a “We the People” electronic petitions system, established by the White House in the United States, whereby petitions with at least 100,000 signatures are publicly recognized, has led to high-profile petitions on whether Texas should secede or whether President Obama should be impeached. U.S. commentators have questioned the usefulness of this system and have suggested that it has a negative impact on citizen engagement.

Our current rules allow members to table over 2,000 petitions each year on a wide range of issues of concern to Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Most jurisdictions share the same approach we have with respect to petitions. The jury is still out on the long-term effect of electronic petitions. However, the experience of the United Kingdom and the United States indicates that electronic petitions can have negative consequences for citizen engagement and parliamentary operations and can empower special interest groups to advance their issues.

That is why I am going to oppose Motion No. 428, and I call on all members to do likewise.

I would like to add that, pursuant to Standing Order 103(3)(a)(iii) and a February 17, 2012 House order, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has begun a study on the standing orders. The committee could be asked to include our petitions rules in its review of the effectiveness of the standing orders. I would contend this is a more appropriate avenue for consideration of the issue.

[Electronic Petitions, June 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my friend across the aisle, and I understand his passion for this, but I have a question.The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which is established by Standing Orders of the House of Commons, is responsible for procedural and administrative matters, including the review of the Standing Orders. This motion appears to lift the matter of the tabling of petitions away from the context of the rest of the Standing Orders, which the committee reviews, and is very prescriptive in how the committee should study the matter of an e-petition system.

Why is the motion so prescriptive as opposed to respecting the independence and expertise of the committee to review the Standing Orders as it sees fit and to explore all evidence and possibilities that may be relevant?

[Committees of the House, June 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Orders 104 and 114, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 60th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership of committees of the House and I should like to move concurrence at this time.

[175th Anniversary of Baseball, June 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to recognize the Beachville District Museum, in my riding of Oxford, as it commemorates the 175th anniversary of the first recorded baseball game in North America last weekend.

I had the honour of throwing the first ball for the opening ceremonies, which, I might add, was a real hit.

Long thought to be a sport invented in the United States, Brian Chip Martin explains in his new book, Baseball's Creation Myth: Adam Ford, Abner Graves and the Cooperstown Story, that baseball can actually be traced back to a young boy named Adam Ford. On June 4, 1838, Adam sat and watched a group of men play baseball in a pasture in Beachville, Ontario. In 1886, Adam, now a doctor, wrote to the magazine Sporting Life explaining the game and its rules. From there, baseball evolved into the game we know and love today.

There were several exciting events that celebrated the anniversary of this great sport, and I would like to congratulate all those involved who made this momentous anniversary one to remember.

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, there will be a lot of discussion about who may or may not go into the program. He talks about someone who may be responsible for a crime, but that is one of the issues that the witness protection program has do deal with in one way or another.

Many of these people are the people who have been in the middle of the organized crime unit, drug unit or whatever it might be. However, we have to have them as witnesses, so the program provides that protection for them to be used as witnesses.

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, some of the provinces have their own programs, which operate somewhat independently from the federal program and yet in conjunction with it. They are fairly seamless. They operate well and they provide the protection to witnesses that all of the programs are intended to do.

I heard numbers here a few minutes ago about how only so many people were admitted into the program. That may not have anything to do with the resources that are available. They may be folks who, for whatever reason, decide that when they understand what is involved and no longer wish to go into the program.

There has not been an issue about a lack of resources hindering the program itself. We are always cognizant that there are never enough resources to do all the things that we would like to do.

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I come from a community with a smaller police agency than many of the large communities have.

This particular program is actually one that assists us in our resources. It means that the RCMP will handle the witness protection. We are not able to do that with a smaller community and smaller police agency. This program, which is funded by the federal government and administered by the RCMP, is a great tool for police agencies across the country.

Police agencies are always concerned about resources, as they should be. There is never enough in any circumstance, but this particular program is one that I think will go a long way to providing that opportunity for smaller departments to have opportunities to deal with witness protection in conjunction with the RCMP.

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour today to rise to add my voice in support of Bill C-51. As my colleague is leaving the room, I would like to remind her that we support the Charbonneau inquiry and truthfulness at that inquiry looking into the corruption in Quebec in the construction trades.

Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act, a strong federal witness protection program is critical to helping our law enforcement and justice systems work effectively. Over the years, the federal witness protection program has frequently proven itself to be a useful and important tool for effectively combatting crime, particularly organized crime.

However, the Witness Protection Program Act has not been substantially changed since it first came into effect in 1996. During that time there have been enormous changes in the nature of organized crime. It has adapted to become more transnational and pervasive. Organized crime groups are increasing in sophistication and becoming adept at using new cybertechnologies to avoid detection and arrest. These groups are known to be exceedingly secretive and difficult to infiltrate, often posing unique challenges for law enforcement officials.

Meanwhile, crimes committed by organized crime networks present a serious threat to the safety of our communities and are of great concern to police and to Canadians.

Many organized crime networks are involved with the illicit drug trade, a lucrative business that has been growing significantly. For instance, according to Statistics Canada, cocaine trafficking, production and distribution in Canada has grown nearly 30% over the last decade.

Bill C-51 is a practical and comprehensive piece of legislation that effectively addresses the need to modernize the witness protection program. It would amend the Witness Protection Program Act to improve the effectiveness and security of the federal witness protection program and make it more responsive to the needs of law enforcement from across Canada.

The bill was designed to do four main things: improve the process to obtain secure identity changes for witnesses from provinces and territories that have designated programs; broaden prohibitions against the disclosure of information; expand admissions for national security, national defence and public safety sources; and extend the amount of time emergency protection may be provided.

From day one, this government has been quite clear that keeping all Canadians and Canadian communities safe is one of our top priorities. We have taken strong action to address this priority by providing law enforcement officials with the tools they need to do their jobs more effectively. This government has provided law enforcement officials with more resources.

We have enacted legislation to stiffen sentences and to increase the accountability of offenders. We have taken steps to modernize Canada's national police force. We have enhanced the ability of all law enforcement officials to keep Canadians safe. Bill C-51 further builds on our track record and would go a long way to enhancing our collective efforts to combat organized crime. Not one of us here today would argue against the critical role that witness protection plays in the criminal justice system.

Most of us know that for many cases, law enforcement officials have had to rely on the co-operation of individuals formerly involved with organized crime organizations in order to combat their activities or to successfully prosecute ringleaders. In other cases, law enforcement has relied on the testimony of key eyewitnesses. These were individuals who agreed to help law enforcement or provide testimony in criminal matters with the end goal of removing criminals from our streets and making our communities safer.

In many cases, these individuals often had inside knowledge about organized crime syndicates or the illicit drug trade because they themselves were involved with these elements. The information they provided to authorities was often invaluable, but sharing it with law enforcement officials could often also place their lives at risk. Witnesses are all too aware of the risk and they fear not only for their own safety, but for the safety of their family and loved ones.

That is why witness protection programs in Canada and around the world offer protection, including new identities, for certain individuals whose testimony or co-operation can be so vital to the success of law enforcement operations. I believe most Canadians understand that.

In order to give our police and courts the best chance to apprehend and convict offenders, we need individuals to feel confident and safe in coming forward to help with investigations. In fact, protecting witnesses is vital to our justice system. Witness protection is recognized around the world as one of the most important tools that law enforcement has at its disposal to combat criminal activity. In the case of organized crime in particular, these witnesses are often the key component to achieving convictions.

The safer witnesses bill contains several changes to the Witness Protection Program Act that would help better protect informants and witnesses. Together, these proposed changes would strengthen the current Witness Protection Program Act, making the federal program more effective and secure for both the witnesses and those who provide protection, because this is really the crux of this program, to keep those involved and their information safe and secure.

As I said at the outset, a strong federal witness protection program is critical to helping our law enforcement and justice systems work effectively. We must take steps to ensure that individuals who decide to become informants or to testify against criminal organizations do not face intimidation or danger. This is why our government is committed to strengthening our federal program and to ensuring a stronger, more streamlined connection with designated provincial programs.

In order to address the threat of organized crime and drugs in our communities, it is critical that informants and witnesses collaborate with law enforcement. Therefore, it is vital that we continue to support an effective federal witness protection program and make it more responsive to the needs of law enforcement, while ensuring the safety of the program participants.

We believe very strongly that Bill C-51 does just this, and the response we have received from stakeholders and parliamentarians only increases our confidence in this legislation. Strong witness protection programs are invaluable to investigations and court proceedings. I believe we are on the right track with this legislation. The proposed amendments would modernize the act that is key in our collective fight against serious and organized crime, in collaboration with provinces and territories. They would enhance protection provided to key witnesses and those involved in administering witness protection programs across Canada.

The changes our government is proposing also respond to many of the needs of provincial and territorial governments. They respond to the needs of law enforcement officials and other stakeholders involved in the criminal justice system. They respond to the needs of Canadians from coast to coast to coast who wish to see our government continue to build safe communities for everyone.

I therefore encourage all hon. members to support Bill C-51 and help us keep our witnesses and all Canadians safe.

[Foreign Affairs, May 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, since 1947 Canadians have been proud that the International Civil Aviation Organization has been headquartered in the world-class city of Montreal. It provides immense economic benefits to the greater region, including over 1,000 jobs and more than $1 million each year.

Earlier this month, a last-minute bid was made to move the International Civil Aviation Organization from Montreal. On May 3, our government announced the launch of team Montreal and promised to fight tooth and nail to ensure that the ICAO remains where it is.

Would the fine Minister of State for Small Business and Tourism please update the House on the result of our government's efforts?

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, May 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we not only have a Toyota plant in my riding, we have a General Motors CAMI plant in my riding.

Both of those funds are essential to the Canadian auto industry as we move forward. We compete around the world, but we also compete with our American neighbours. Keeping the Canadian auto industry strong is important to ridings, not just for the auto plants but for all the supplier industries across Ontario that supply these plants. Our government recognizes the importance of manufacturing, and certainly, my riding is a beneficiary of those things.