Linda Duncan

[Petitions, May 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling a number of petitions.

The first petition is signed by people who are concerned about cluster munitions. Canada has signed, along with 110 nations, to ban cluster munitions, and Bill S-10 provides significant loopholes and exceptions.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to amend the bill to close the loopholes and specify Canada's international obligations under the convention.

[Kristina Norstrom, May 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is with profound sadness that I rise today to observe the tragic loss on May 29 of Alberta wildlife biologist Kristina Norstrom, killed in an accident in northern Alberta.

The Alberta public service and scientific community have lost a friend and respected colleague. Sadly, helicopter pilot Bryce Campbell was also killed. Also on board was fellow biologist and colleague Simon Slater, currently recovering in hospital from serious injuries.

This tragedy occurred when the helicopter crashed south of Wood Buffalo National Park in northern Alberta. The biologists were tracking threatened woodland caribou populations.

Kristina worked as a wildlife biologist stationed out of Athabasca and was engaged in tracking caribou. I am told she was an extremely dedicated and confident professional who truly made a difference in wildlife conservation and protection. She was well respected by her colleagues and will be deeply missed.

The dedicated work of our wildlife biologists, scientists and support staff all too often places them in perilous situations. It is important that we recognize and value that sacrifice made on all our behalf and for the species they seek to protect.

Our thoughts and prayers go out to their families during this difficult time.

[Employment, May 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for the information she has provided. Unfortunately, she has not really answered the question of what specific mechanism the government will use to ensure people have greater access to apprenticeships where there are federal contracts. I think I can say on behalf of the building trades that they would prefer the third option, that it actually becomes a requirement for all bidding on federal contracts, including housing. They look forward to getting clarification from the government that it is actually going to start imposing that mandatory requirement.

In follow-up to the discussion about the jobs and the controversy about advertising a program that does not exist yet, they are pleased that there is some consultation with appropriate partners, but there is still nothing with the provinces and territories.

The specific question is this. If and when this program actually arrives and everybody is cost sharing, what trades will be included, and in what regions of Canada?

[Employment, May 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the parliamentary secretary staying around, given the late hour. I will try to be concise. This is an area of interest to her in her role as parliamentary secretary.

This is a follow-up from a question I put to the minister on April 16. My question related to the hiring of temporary foreign workers and issues raised by those who work in the skilled trades and the concerns of the trades and construction workers that the government needed a wake-up call. They had stated to me that the real barrier to skilled workers is a lack of paid apprenticeships. The Canadian Apprenticeship Forum had reported that fewer than 50% of employers who were hiring skilled workers were enabling them to take part in apprenticeships.

I put that question to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and found the answer a little unsatisfactory. Indeed, she reiterated some of the programs the government had offered in previous years, starting back in 2006, yet we continue to not have sufficient numbers of apprenticeships provided.

I followed up with the skilled trades and construction workers associations, the Alberta Federation of Labour and other organizations. They have continued to raise concerns with me that the federal government is not taking enough action to facilitate apprenticeships. Why is that important? It is important that our workers get their ticket so that they can be paid according to their skill level. The problem has been that a lot of major employers prefer to bring in skilled temporary foreign workers, because they do not want to slow down their work and spend the resources and so forth to provide apprenticeships to Canadian workers.

I was assured today that the federal government is holding some discussions with the building trades association, and it is encouraged that the federal government might be moving forward in pursuing some kind of support or activity to enable apprenticeships, but here is the problem.

I should first point out that the federal government is the largest purchaser of construction activity in Canada. Therefore, it could be a real model for other employers that it is useful to invest in apprenticeships or could encourage or direct that there be apprenticeships. Human Resources and Skills Development Canada has met with the building trades and has proposed three options, only one of which is amenable to the building trades.

First is to simply educate the contractors that it would be a good idea if they had a certain percentage of apprenticeships.

Second, the government is suggesting that corporate bidders might want to offer apprenticeships.

The third option is the one the building trades clearly want, and that is that the government require all bidders on federal construction jobs to require a specified percentage of apprenticeship positions and that they report on that work.

Very clearly, there is one option the government could pursue. It would set an example for other employers in Canada and provide good opportunities for Canadian workers.

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member both for the fabulous speech he gave this evening and for his question. He sets the bar high in this place.

I too remain troubled. Very clearly, the government is saying that the intention is to expand the witness protection program and enable the various police forces to bring more witnesses into that program. I do not know how police forces are going to do that. I know that police forces are stretched in most jurisdictions. They are stretched even in my province, which is supposedly financially stable but is also suffering from a deficit.

The priority is that people are demanding more police boots on the ground. I do not see a lot of people coming forward and saying that the priority should be witness protection, yet the police forces themselves know that in order to win these cases, they need these kinds of programs and greater access.

We have $3.1 billion missing for the anti-terrorism program. Perhaps if we could find that, it could go into expanding the witness protection program.

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy serving on the OGGO committee with the hon. member. We are working on a very interesting report, which I hope comes forward before we adjourn for the summer.

I am not sure if the member caught what I said when I spoke about the recommendation from the Air India inquiry. I was very clear that the recommendation from that commission was that this body, this independent protection coordinator, would simply help with the handling and the processing and negotiation of the agreement. That person would not actually deliver the protection program. Program delivery would remain with the RCMP or the police authorities, so I do not see any way there could be interference. We could be assured that the office would include people who were fully qualified to deal with these kinds of activities. They could even be former police officers, who could be seconded into the program. However, it would be stand-alone.

In a lot of cases and a lot of communities, people do not trust the police. They may have had bad incidents and experiences and so forth. In this case, it might be really useful for the person to be seen clearly as not being an enforcement officer and to work with the witness and encourage him or her to come forward.

On the second point, about funding, I suggest that most police forces would say that they could always use additional funding.

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, contrary to the apparent perspective of some in this place, I think it is actually worthwhile to debate these bills. Each one of us learns a lot more by hearing the perspectives of the other side. I am grateful for the opportunity, despite the late hour, to participate in this debate.

At the outset, I would like to say stricter sentencing provisions without effective investigative powers, resources and timely judicial processes are empty. I would bring attention to the failure of the government to take timely action in the appointment of judges, including in my jurisdiction, as raised by the Attorney General of Alberta, and the failure to fill that vacuum by providing sufficient aboriginal police, as first nations are calling for. That certainly would help with the situation of gang action and in helping to bring witnesses forward.

I am rising in support of Bill C-51, an act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act. There are many measures that are worthwhile. It is good that after many years the government is finally moving forward to improve and enhance the program, which, by the way, the Conservatives did not invent. It has been around for quite some time, but to their credit, finally, after seven years, they are coming forward to actually improve it.

We support the fact that it would expand the eligibility criteria in certain circumstances to expand access in the case of witnesses dealing with crimes related to street gangs and certainly for witnesses recommended by CSIS and National Defence. As I understand it and as outlined by the government members, there would be improved efficiency and coordination with provincial and municipal police forces to achieve more effective access to the program by those authorities. I am hoping that is the case, regardless of the fact that there is no additional funding.

These are important changes that the New Democrats have been calling for as improvements for quite some time, particularly to fight street gangs and organized crime. I bring to the attention of the Speaker that the New Democrat member for Trinity—Spadina called for this exact reform some time back, specifically in relation to the mass shootings in Toronto. I know that we and everyone certainly support her efforts to have some increased measures to deal with these kinds of activities and to respond to the increasing concern over terrorism. In that case, people may be even all the more nervous about stepping forward and serving as a witness or providing testimony or evidence to the authorities.

The bill would expand access to more individuals seeking to deal with gangs, although I would have to add that I wanted to put this question to a number of the members here who are participating in the special task force on missing and murdered aboriginal women. I am not convinced that the measures we are debating today are sufficient to address the complex issue in aboriginal communities of witnesses coming forward. That would be something that is probably worth pursuing.

The federal witness protection program has long been criticized for its narrow eligibility criteria, for its poor coordination with provincial programs and for the low numbers of witnesses admitted to the program. Apparently only 30 of the 108 applications that were considered were accepted in 2012. I am not sure that the committee heard all of the detail for why that was, but on the basis of some of the testimony from police authorities, certainly part of it is a lack of access to funding. I am surprised, given the government's enthusiasm for ensuring that these cases come to trial with solid evidence and testimony from witnesses, that it would not also want to address this funding shortage issue.

One of the things that particularly bewilders us is that the Prime Minister commended the report from the Air India commission. One of the strong recommendations from the Air India inquiry, and apparently the only one related to the federal witness protection program, was to appoint a national security witness protection coordinator.

The government has chosen to disregard that recommendation. There do not appear to be really clear arguments for why it would turn down that position.

My understanding of the recommendation is that the coordinator would not provide the actual physical protection. The national security witness protection coordinator's mandate would include such things as ensuring consistency in the handling of sources and resolving disputes between agencies that may arise in negotiation or implementation of a protection agreement. The coordinator would also provide confidential support for protectees, including psychological and legal advice so that they could decide whether they wanted to sign the protection agreement. The coordinator would also provide for independent and confidential arbitration of disputes and act as an advocate for witnesses.

That all seems very clear and obvious, because in many cases the very reason for the existence of this witness protection program is that witnesses are reluctant to come forward. There could be many reasons. They could be terrified. They might be nervous of police authorities. It seems perfectly logical that a non-police body would work with those individuals and would be less intimidating.

The government's decision remains a puzzle to us. It had the opportunity to also include that recommendation. Hopefully in future it will also bring that one forward.

One of the key problems that has been raised by my colleagues in this place is the refusal by the government to admit that the program is inadequately funded. As has been stated many times in the House, only 30 of 108 applications considered were accepted in 2012.

A great number of witnesses came before committee, many of whom spoke to exactly this issue. One was Commissioner Micki Ruth, a member of the policing and justice committee of the Canadian Association of Police Boards. Micki Ruth said:

Like many issues facing government today, funding is one of the biggest and toughest ones to find solutions for. The problems identified back in 2007 with the adequacy of funding for the current witness protection are not addressed in Bill C-51. Unfortunately, we see problems with the ability of municipality police services to adequately access witness protection because they lack the resources. ... CAPB has a duty to its members to ensure that legislation passed by the government does not result in a downloading of additional costs to the municipal police services....

This is the very concern. We have heard member after member defending the position that there is no need for further funding, but in most cases they are citing the RCMP. The problem is that the downloading occurs to the municipal or provincial police authorities.

That concern was also raised by the British Columbia Ministry of Justice through Clayton J.D. Pecknold, who is the assistant deputy minister and director of police services, policing and security programs branch, as well as Dr. Alok Mukherjee, the president of the Canadian Association of Police Boards. Those are citizen boards and commissions representing a broad spectrum of society.

Dr. Alok Mukherjee said:

Without the availability of sufficient funding, our ability to take advantage of the program will be limited. In places like Toronto, that's a big problem because, as you know, we're dealing with serious violent crimes and often rely on witnesses from the community, not informants....

Very serious concerns are being raised.

When we go to the very purpose of this legislation and program, which is to encourage witnesses who may otherwise feel intimidated to come forward, we have to scratch our heads and ask why the program would not be fully funded, particularly when we are dealing with incidents of terrorism.

We will remain puzzled. We support the initiatives that the government has brought forward in the bill, but we will continue to pursue, on behalf of those agencies and the public and those who might be compelled and approached to testify, the availability of funding to support them to testify.

As I mentioned at the outset, in the case of aboriginal or isolated communities there may have to be additional measures, because it may be a bit harder to address the fact that individuals will be picked up and relocated or that they may not even speak English or French and would be quite intimidated by being removed from their community.

I look forward to further discussions on this matter within Parliament.

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the comments by the hon. member and his colleague from Okanagan—Shuswap and I have to say that both members actually made the case for the very recommendation by the commission that looked into the Air India incident.

My understanding is that there was only one recommendation for amendments to the federal witness protection program made by the commission: to create the national security witness protection coordinator. Why? It was because a number of witnesses in the Air India inquiry refused to testify because they did not feel they were going to be adequately protected. This protection coordinator's mandate would include providing confidential support, psychological and legal advice, independent confidential arbitration of disputes and acting as an advocate for witnesses.

The member said that the government has made comprehensive amendments and yet it chose not to implement the single amendment recommended by the commission. I wonder if he could speak to that.

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to hear my colleague across speak. I miss being at committee with him. He was a fabulous chair.

However, I noticed that my hon. friend did not fully quote the representative from the British Columbia ministry of justice, who also advised the committee that he would be watching carefully to ensure the program was appropriately funded and that they had a voice in the level of funding. He said that from this perspective, the program would not be effective and efficiently administered unless it was adequately funded and the costs were not downloaded to municipalities.

Could the member speak to that?

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that is troubling to the official opposition is the fact that the government has not adopted the recommendations of the Air India commission, and I believe the member mentioned this.

The commission recommended the creation of a new position, the national security witness protection coordinator, to be independent of the police and prosecution and be a person who inspires public confidence and has experience in criminal justice, national security and witness protection matters.

I wonder if the member could speak to that and to why we support that recommendation.