Philip Toone

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, May 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, in addition to eliminating the technician positions, in June the CBC will cancel the program Mer et Monde, one of few regional radio broadcasts. Moreover, CBC television has simply stopped broadcasting in my region of Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

The Conservatives' $115-million cuts to the CBC compromise the quality of information and the cultural offer in an area already weakened by job losses. The people in my region feel abandoned as a result of the cuts to the CBC.

What will the Conservative government tell them?

[Conservative Government of Canada, May 31st, 2013]

After the Prime Minister's now famous response, “I do not understand the question”, to the Leader of the NDP, the Conservatives changed their tactics yesterday to avoid answering any questions about the Duffy case.

Yesterday, they did not even pretend that they did not understand our simple questions. They instead used the old Conservative tactic: in case of doubt, resort to intimidation or insults.

They went so far that artists who were this year's winners of the Governor General's Award and who were present for question period, left in disgust because of the insults hurled their way by none other than the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

Canadians deserve better than a government that hurls insults at people when it is mired in scandals. They deserve a transparent and honest NDP government.

In the meantime, we wonder who the Conservatives will insult today.

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. I think that we need to seriously consider Micki Ruth's comments. In committee we repeatedly heard that a lot of witnesses were very worried because the bill did not do enough.

I want to get back to the issue of funding. The bill does not provide for the funding that will be needed if the House decides to pass it.

I also want to point out that Micki Ruth, from the Canadian Association of Police Boards, was not the only one who expressed this point of view. Alok Mukherjee had this to say about Toronto:

Our conclusion has been that there needs to be more funding available than currently is the case. Without the availability of sufficient funding, our ability to take advantage of the program will be limited.

We have to ask ourselves: if we pass a bill and the people who are supposed to benefit from it cannot because there are not enough resources, then does the bill truly respond to a need? The bill ought to be improved, but at least it is a step in the right direction.

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very important point. The bill actually addresses this issue in significant ways. It is very important, if we are to address the issue of gangs, gang warfare and terrorist organizations, to know that these people are under a lot of pressure not to come forward and testify. They are under a lot of pressure not to come to the police to assist and become informants, essentially.

We also have the problem of informants, working in very difficult circumstances, who need all the support we can possibly afford them. It is very important that the bill addresses those issues, and I think the bill is actually taking steps in the right direction.

I would like to underline especially the fact that the emergency protection criteria in the bill have been extended. That is an important step as well. We have gone from a 90-day period for people to consider whether they are prepared to enter witness protection to now, in emergency situations, having 180 days, which is a significant improvement to the bill.

That is what the Liberal Party brought forward so many years ago that needed a lot of--

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for recognizing me. I may be the last to speak about this bill tonight.

I listened attentively to the previous speaker, the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca, and I thought the beginning of his discourse was quite interesting. The last part of it I think it may have been the late hour and he may have forgot that the bill we were debating was Bill C-51, an act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act, not the bill that supports bus industries in the country. I am not exactly sure where he was going. Be that as it may, it is quite important that members try to avoid being dragged under the bus, so let us try to focus on the bill at hand.

The bill has a number of elements that are quite appropriate. There are three key issues.

We expand eligibility criteria for informants and witnesses, an absolutely critical element. We found in the past that there were a number of people who wished to have admission to this program and were simply refused access. We heard over the course of the debate on the bill that we currently had over 800 people who were under the witness protection program, but this year only 30 were accepted. That is out of a total of 108 who made an application.

The proposed bill will increase access to the witness protection program, and that is an important step, 30 is simply unacceptable. We need to go further. We have to continue to expand this program. The bill will go a long way to doing that, but the problem is the bill will also increase costs. I know the members from the government side seem to think that this is not an important issue, but I guarantee the municipalities and provinces are getting very tired of having to fund the mandates that are being passed, in record speed, in the House of Commons. We are not having proper time to debate these issues. I would like to remind the House that time allocation was forced on this bill after only two speakers at second reading. That has to be a record.

We need time to look at the costs that these programs will bring forward and we need to talk to the provinces and the municipalities on how we can partner with them to pay for those costs.

I want to raise a couple of quotes that were mentioned today.

First, I want to start with the minister, who made it very clear that he did not seem to care much about costs. According to the minister:

It is important to note that it is not anticipated that there would be any need for additional funding to accommodate this change. The program is currently funded by the RCMP from existing operational resources, and that will remain the same under Bill C-51.

That is wonderful, except the problem with that is we know a lot of the costs are downloaded onto the municipalities and the provinces. Micki Ruth, from the Canadian Association of Police Boards, talked about how when it had a difficulty and it had to search the services of the RCMP, the costs of this program were downloaded. As Micki Ruth indicated at the committee level, currently when a municipality did make use of a provincial witness protection program and the crime was federal in nature or involves drugs, then the RCMP would take over and would charge the local police services the full cost, which is an expense that many services cannot afford.

Even the RCMP has acknowledged that increased costs of this nature can impede an investigation. This is a serious problem. We are bringing forward changes which are going to increase costs to those who can least afford it. The government has to think about the repercussions of its actions, and it so heck-bent on bringing changes forward in record time that we are not having the proper debate on how we are going to deal with the costs that are downloaded.

Nevertheless, we do have a lot of important issues that are going to be addressed in the bill. Again, the expanded criteria eligibility is very important. Co-operation with the provinces in designating legislation, which is going to be reflected in federal legislation, is very important, as are the funding criteria and all of these things we need to be move forward with. The bill could do with a little improvement, but it is a good step in the right direction.

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for a very interesting speech. He raised a number of points that deserve special consideration.

I would like to come back to the issue of funding, because a number of government members mentioned that, while the committee was studying this bill, the vast majority of witnesses supported the government's view that additional funding is not necessary.

That is not surprising, given that the committee has a Conservative majority. The majority of witnesses endorse the opinion of the majority of the committee's members. It is not very surprising that this opinion was aired many times in committee. That said, a number of witnesses also raised the fact that funding could pose a problem for municipalities.

In the United States, there is often talk of unfunded mandates. That is somewhat similar to what we are seeing here. We want to improve the system, but it will cost a lot to do so. We want to increase the number of witnesses that can access the program. Clearly, there will be significant costs associated with that.

I really want to understand how the government intends to fund this program, instead of always trying to offload the costs to the provinces and municipalities. Will the government take financial responsibility for its own bills?

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre's speech. He raised some very interesting points.

I would like to know what he thinks about the testimony that Alok Mukherjee gave in committee on March 19 of this year.

He is the President of the Canadian Association of Police Boards. He stated:

Our conclusion has been that there needs to be more funding available than currently is the case. Without the availability of sufficient funding, our ability to take advantage of the program will be limited.

What are your comments on that?

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague’s speech. I am somewhat surprised that he exceeded the time limit for debating this bill and that he spoke of members who have problems with ethics. I think the Conservatives have a lot to think about on that score. I hope that he will talk to his colleagues to see if perhaps they might step down before being removed from office, since he himself hinted that he might be in danger.

As for the bill now before the House, I would like to get his comments. He talked about supporting police forces across the country. According to the RCMP website, small police forces would have a great deal of difficulty implementing this bill. Even though it has considerable merit, the funds are just simply not there.

The RCMP says that funds are needed, but that they are not available for small police forces.

How will it resolve this problem?

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's speech, and I really appreciated it. She raised a number of very relevant points.

I would like her to speak more about the lack of transparency in the selection process and in deciding who is eligible for the program.

Could she point out some of the flaws? How could the process be improved?

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's intervention was quite informative and well researched. However, there are points that I still think need to be addressed.

The member did mention that last year there were 30 more people admitted into the program, for a total of over 800 people, but last year alone over 100 people applied. One of the points of this bill is to increase admissions into the program. How does she juggle the fact that there would be stable funding and increased admissions? How do we square that peg?