John Rafferty

[Conservative Party of Canada, February 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, since Conservatives have come to office, there have been over 27,000 jobs lost in Ontario's forestry sector. Across the land, we are witnessing a slow erosion of seasonal industries.

Instead of respect or sympathy for those thrown out of work, Conservatives attack. They give quotas to Service Canada staff, while sending out EI inspectors to the homes of out-of-work Canadians. They should stop treating EI recipients like criminals and start catching Conservatives who break the rules.

They do not even need inspectors. All they need to do is ask at the next Conservative caucus meeting, “Will all those who have collected $40,000 in housing allowances they were not entitled to please raise their hand?” or “Who actually lives in the province they represent?” It will be like everybody has to go to the bathroom at the same time.

Thankfully, Canadians have the NDP. While Conservatives stand to defend Senate entitlements, the NDP will continue to proudly stand up, day after day, to defend Canadian taxpayers.

[Business of Supply, February 14th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, as my neighbour in an adjacent riding, I know the member is genuinely concerned about the plight of aboriginal people in Canada. In his speech he talked about foundational items for dealing with the issue at hand today. As he knows, one of the main foundational items is the Indian Act. I wonder if he would stand and let us know a couple of things: how he feels about the Indian Act, what he thinks should be done and, in particular, its relevance to the issue we are talking about today. How would changes to the Indian Act look going forward?

[Safer Witnesses Act, February 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, my friend across the way tries really hard, but he is often confused. That was a good example of a confusing question. The parliamentary secretary was concerned about making assumptions, and yet that member was making assumptions. We are doing quite well and moving ahead with resource development in northern Ontario, thanks very much. I do not really know what the member is talking about.

We talk about money and resources, because we want to make sure that changes happen and that they happen for the benefit of all Canadians, and also so we can all work together in the House. People in my riding are constantly asking me why we do not work together in the House, why we are not trying to bring forward the best legislation possible. I am standing in this debate to say to the other side that I listen. Let us make this work. Let us make this the best possible legislation, but let us be transparent about it. Let us talk about the things in this legislation about which we are concerned.

[Safer Witnesses Act, February 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, that was a good question. Personally I like it when a bill comes forward that we can support, at least at second reading. I like it when we can get a bill to committee where we can talk about things and pinpoint one or two particular issues of great concern if we want a program to work well. If the government is going to introduce a bill, if it is going to change some legislation, then it has to make sure it will be successful or there is no sense in bringing it forward in the first place.

If I do have the opportunity, I would like to ask the government a simple question, like one we would hear in question period. Is the government going to invest, yes or no?

[Safer Witnesses Act, February 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure there was a question there, but I would like to continue along the vein that the parliamentary secretary outlined.

The Conservatives have been in government for almost seven years, and in that time we have heard repeated calls from the RCMP and the provinces for change. It has taken a long time to bring some of these changes forward, and I am glad to see these changes.

As far as costs are concerned, let me just quote something from the RCMP website if I may. “There are instances when the costs of witness protection may impede investigations, particularly for smaller law enforcement agencies”, and yet the Minister of Public Safety said it needs to do this within its existing budget. The reason I brought up the whole idea of costs in my part of the debate is that it seems to be a big concern.

[Safer Witnesses Act, February 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the bill today and to let the members opposite know that I will be supporting it, at least at second reading. It is an important bill. I have some reservations, which I will speak to in a moment, but I will also speak to some of the good things in the bill and why we need to get it to committee for discussion.

First, the NDP has long called for the government to enter the witness protection program and to ensure the safety of all Canadians who are in potential danger. Since 2007, the NDP has specifically called for better coordination of the federal and provincial programs and better overall funding for the program. Our demands were repeated in 2009 and again late last year by our member for Trinity—Spadina. If I have time, I will speak to that.

I certainly support Bill C-51 and the government's efforts to improve the witness protection program. There is a bit of history there, which I will also talk about in a moment. For people who are following the debate in the House and those who may be watching at home, we have heard about costing. Money has become a point of debate, and I would also like to bring it up at the risk of having a couple of questions from the members opposite, particularly from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety.

The parliament secretary has said that the government refuses to commit to any new funding. She also mentioned there were 30 Canadians in that program in the last year, but that only represents about a quarter of the people who actually applied to get into the program. That would indicate to me that there were probably more than 30 last year who should have been in the program, and the police forces could have used the program to a better end by including more people in the program.

It seems to me that saying there is no new funding for the program means that it would come from elsewhere. I suppose $400 million a year from the Senate would be helpful to expand the program, but that is another whole debate that perhaps I will not get into right now. However, we are concerned that this Conservative requirement that the RCMP and local police departments work within their existing budgets will hinder the program and hinder a bill of legislative changes that are good.

Bill C-51 would expand the eligibility criteria of the witness protection program to include gang members as well as witnesses who are recommended by CSIS and the Department of Defence. This is a good expansion of services, but how would the money situation be sorted out when there is no new funding for it?

One of the glaring things in the bill, which I hoped would have been addressed, is provisions for an independent agency. My friend from Winnipeg mentioned an independent agency to operate the program in one of his questions. This was recommended in the Air India report.

The RCMP would continue to be responsible for the program. That leaves the RCMP in a potential conflict of interest by being both the agency that is investigating and also the organization that decides who gets protection. There are some conflicts. I do not think they cannot be worked out, but just to make the government aware, these are some issues in the bill that we will be bringing up and talking about during the public safety committee and with the witnesses we see there.

To recap, New Democrats are pleased to see that the government is listening to NDP requests to expand the witness protection program. It is a little late in coming. There has been some give-and-take over the last number of years. If the Conservatives want to ensure the success of this new expanded witness protection program, they are going to have to commit to some funding. The NDP has always been committed to safer communities and one way to do that is through the witness protection program. It keeps our streets safe by giving police services the extra tools that they require to fight street gangs, for example.

The Witness Protection Program Act was first put forward in 1996 but unfortunately governments of the days in between have really done nothing to respond to the criticisms of the system. Overall, it is a positive step but we need to see if the Conservatives are going to provide the resources that really count for communities. In my riding of Thunder Bay—Rainy River, we have seen services cut. We have seen Service Canada cut to the absolute bone. Lots of jobs have been lost in Service Canada. We have seen our veterans office closed. We have seen immigration close. I do not know if the government has a good track record in terms of making sure that the resources are there to make these programs work, so naturally there is a concern about Bill C-51.

The government front benches are mostly Mike Harris throwbacks from the earlier Ontario years. That is in fact what the Conservatives did in Ontario. Downloading became the order of the day and Ontario is still trying to recover from that. I am concerned that is the direction the government might be going in.

For the folks at home, let me talk about Bill C-51 and some of the good things that are there. It proposes a better process to support provincial witness protection programs and expands the program to include 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, including such people as gang members, and covering a whole new group of people who give assistance to federal departments. The federal departments and agencies with a mandate relating to national security, national defence and public safety would also be able to refer witnesses to the program. These are good things. 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, for example, have been pushing for a national revamp of the witness protection program for some time, including more recognition of their existing programs. Bill C-51 provides for the designation of a provincial or municipal witness protection program so that certain provisions of the act apply to such programs. That is also a good thing. It also authorizes 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 into the designated program.

Lots of Canadians of course would think of witness protection in American media, movies, television shows and so on. We have quite a different system here. It is certainly not as widespread or as widely used. I am concerned when so many people apply for the program and police services give value to the people who are applying, and only a few, a third or a quarter of them, are accepted into the program. I can only assume that is because of the limited financial resources that are available.

I welcome questions from my hon. colleagues and perhaps we can flesh this out a bit more.

[Employment Insurance, February 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, when Canadians lose their jobs, they trust that their government will help them, their industries and their communities. Instead what they get is a government that sends dispatches from wood-panelled offices in Ottawa telling Service Canada employees to meet EI denial quotas and to treat EI applicants as criminals.

When we asked the minister why Conservatives were reducing EI, the minister responded, “Once again, the NDP is protecting the bad guys”.

The NDP is proud to protect the unemployed. While Conservatives see EI as wasteful spending, they are happy to defend their alleged senator over how many houses he has and how much he is ripping off Canadian taxpayers. They call the EI system lucrative while defending, tooth and nail, the entitlements of Conservative senators.

Here is a common sense message to help the Prime Minister recalibrate. He should stop defending his unaccountable buddies in the Senate and start helping Canadians who cannot find work.

[The Environment, December 4th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the rivers and lakes in my region of northern Ontario are tourist magnets and an integral part of the local tourism market, and the Conservatives are stripping their protections.

On top of hampering that economy, the Conservatives are also yanking protection from tourist-rich lakes surrounding Sioux Lookout and the historically significant Albany River in the riding of Kenora, the Boundary Waters, the Seine River, all bodies of water where people, boats and ships navigate.

Why does northern Ontario not deserve the same protections as millionaires in Muskoka, and why is no one on that side speaking up?

[Thunder Bay Multiplex, November 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the residents, mayor and Thunder Bay city council for deciding to move on to phase 3 of the Thunder Bay multi-purpose events centre project.

The Thunder Bay multiplex will be an important economic development tool for the city. However, before our multiplex can host top-level junior hockey, national curling events, concerts and large-scale conventions, it must be built. Construction and operation of the multiplex will generate $150 million in economic benefits during its construction and $22 million in annual economic benefits to the residents and businesses of the city once it is built.

As it enters phase 3 of the project, the City of Thunder Bay is looking for partners. It sounds like a perfect project for the federal government to partner in. I hope when the request for partnership arrives that the Conservative government will look at the project, see its merits and become a full funding partner in this important and exciting project in northwestern Ontario.

[First Nations Financial Transparency Act, November 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I tried to listen attentively to what the member had to say. I wonder if he would like to comment on what I believe to be the real problem here.

The real problem is that if one goes to a regional office of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs Canada, there is nobody there. They have all been fired. There are a few people, but they are not taking responsibility for anything. They will not see anybody. They will not talk to any first nation people. They will not sign anything that needs to be signed. No one is taking any responsibility. If a band member has an issue, he is not getting any help from the government.