House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 43% of the vote.
Safer Witnesses Act May 30th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
I would like to remind him that the Conservative government has been in power for almost seven years. During that time, the RCMP and the provinces have asked several times for changes to the witness protection program.
My question is simple: Why did they wait so long before making concrete proposals?
Safer Witnesses Act May 30th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her speech.
I wonder if she could comment on the testimony given in committee by Alok Mukherjee, president of the Canadian Association of Police Boards, on March 19, 2013. I will read a short excerpt from his speech:
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. 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 and others but witnesses from the community. Their needs may not be significant, as was mentioned. All they may need is a little bit of protection, but that requires that sufficient funding be available for us to be able to do it. That, for us, is a problem.
Safer Witnesses Act May 30th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question.
The Air India Commission recommended that there be more transparency and greater accountability. As one of my colleagues said in an earlier speech, there is often an underlying conflict of interest. The RCMP often wears two hats: it conducts investigations and it provides witness protection services. To promote greater accountability, the government must heed the Air India Commission's recommendation.
Safer Witnesses Act May 30th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question, which as always is very pertinent.
In the case of Air India, the commissioner lamented the fact that the RCMP had a problem with accountability. However, there is also the problem of funding, or should I say underfunding. The RCMP delivers the witness protection program, but passes the bill for it on to the municipalities, which are already overwhelmed.
In my riding, there are about 40 small municipalities. I know that they work very hard to balance their budgets and they are unable to do so because of this kind of thing.
In addition, because my riding borders on Vermont, I know that a pilot project is being carried out to replace border services officers with automated crossings.
This is not something that is going to solve the crime problem in Quebec and in Canada.
Safer Witnesses Act May 30th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak about Bill C-51, something that I am genuinely concerned about.
This bill contains measures that have long been called for by the NDP. It proposes a better process to support provincial witness protection programs. It applies the program to other agencies with responsibilities for national security. The bill will broaden the eligibility criteria for the protection program to include repentant members of street gangs who are willing to testify against others in their gang.
Federal departments and agencies that have a national security and public safety mandate may also suggest witnesses for the program. The bill will extend the emergency protection period and will eliminate a number of technical problems relating to the coordination of provincial programs. It is a necessary bill, and one that addresses flaws that were identified a long time ago.
The NDP has been demanding the expansion of witness eligibility for protection programs for nearly two decades now.
In 1996, this House passed the Witness Protection Program Act. In 1999, the NDP voted for Bill C-223 to broaden witness protection in cases of domestic violence. This bill was overturned by the then Liberal majority.
Since then, the fundamental issues of eligibility, coordination and funding have never been dealt with by Canada’s successive governments.
Since 2007, members of the NDP have been calling for changes to be made to the witness protection program. It has taken the Conservatives six years to finally respond to our requests.
The issue is real, however. Close relatives and the various stakeholders have said for a long time now that the program must be expanded. In May 2010, the RCMP submitted a report to the Minister of Public Safety in which it asked that the witness protection program be strengthened.
As we know, in order to fight back against investigations into their activities, street gangs have no qualms about intimidating the families of witnesses. They want to stop witnesses from speaking out against them. Street gangs are very violent and quick to use intimidation to avoid going to jail.
Members of street gangs are afraid of speaking out against their accomplices, because they know they will not be protected. However, in cases involving street gangs, the best witnesses are gang members themselves. Members of street gangs who want to get out of crime and are willing to testify against their associates must be allowed into the witness protection program.
My colleagues have pointed this out on a number of occasions this year. I repeat it again this evening. In 2012, only 30 of the 108 applications for protection were accepted. The program served only 30% of those who were asking for help.
Bill C-51 will solve this particular issue, because it raises the level of protection for witnesses and informants who assist our police officers, in addition to expanding the use of these information sources. We will be able to fight directly against street gangs, which are becoming ever more common in Canada’s suburbs.
That is not all. If the Conservatives really want to improve the witness protection program, they must also commit the money for it to happen. It is fine to talk about protecting victims in order to appeal to voters, but the government needs to walk the walk.
I would like to remind the House that it costs $300,000 to protect each witness. If the definition of “witness” is expanded, as Bill C-51 aims to do, we will be sticking taxpayers with a bigger bill.
We support the bill, but we condemn the fact that the Conservative government has refused to commit additional funding.
Once again, it will be up to the municipalities and police forces to absorb the higher costs. They already have tight budgets. The commissioner of the Canadian Association of Police Boards said this on March 7:
...sometimes the cost of protecting witnesses hinders the investigations, especially for small law enforcement agencies that have a tight budget.
She also said this:
[The government must] ensure that legislation passed...does not result in a downloading of additional costs to the municipal police services that we represent.
The government cut nearly $190 million from the RCMP and more than $140 million from the Canada Border Services Agency. Investigations into drugs and crime in areas of federal jurisdiction are handled by the RCMP. However, the RCMP bills local police forces for the cost of protecting witnesses even though the local forces often cannot afford it.
Recently, the Conservatives announced that they would no longer fund recruiting programs for local police forces. A $400 million envelope was earmarked for the police officers recruitment fund, but the Conservatives decided not to renew it for 2013. That is appalling. These cuts will impact how effective Bill C-51 can be.
I commend the intention behind this bill. However, I hope that the federal government will allocate a significant budget to this bill and not make the municipalities and provinces cover the cost. The government is certainly not short on money: it gives $1.2 billion a year to the oil sands industry and forked out $70 million to celebrate the war of 1812. I want to remind the government that it has a responsibility to ensure that its laws do not increase the burden on the provinces.
In closing, although I am not happy about the lack of funding, I think that strengthening the witness protection program will improve public safety. After so many years, we are pleased that the government is finally making the changes that we have been calling for.
I therefore support Bill C-51 at third reading so that it can be passed. I support it on behalf of all the people, agencies and associations that want this bill passed. I am supporting this bill so that those who want to blow the whistle and testify can do so without fearing for their safety and that of their families. Bill C-51 will allow them to be better protected. I also hope that the government will increase the budget so that the municipalities will not have to foot the bill.
The NDP is once again building safer communities by giving the police more tools to help them fight street gangs and organized crime.
Safer Witnesses Act May 30th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his speech.
I would remind him that the RCMP has already spoken about underfunding of the witness protection program, but I am not going to talk about that.
I will talk about the recommendation that came out of the Air India inquiry, which recommended that there be more accountability and transparency around admission to the witness protection program.
My question is simple: why is the government not committed to increasing the transparency of this program?
An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (prize fights) May 30th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, like many Canadians, I have some reservations about this kind of sport. The glorified violence in combat sports, such as boxing or extreme fighting, has a social cost.
In addition, it is not a hot topic in Canadian law, even though the popularity of prize fighting is on the rise and it occasionally has an impact on the health and safety of our athletes.
Prize fights are illegal in Canada, but the context has changed. It is our duty as legislators to look into the issues that have an impact on Canada’s ever-evolving society.
We study and examine the issues and we make suggestions about the best way to remedy these problems with appropriate bills. Bill S-209 aims at making the necessary changes to the definition of “prize fight” and the associated exceptions to reflect the reality of combat sports today.
The bill contains provisions aimed at decreasing the risk of head injury and concussion. It also broadens the exceptions to the definition of prize fight to legalize Olympic combat sports such as boxing, fencing, Greco-Roman and freestyle wrestling, and judo, as well as mixed martial arts, a combat sport that appeared about 20 years ago and is rapidly growing both in Canada and around the world. Mixed martial arts is generally defined as a combat sport in which a number of different fighting techniques are permitted and used.
We are supporting this bill at third reading for the following reasons: Bill S-209 will update the definition of “prize fight” and the exceptions to it set out in the Criminal Code; and it will give the provinces and designated monitoring bodies a clear legal framework for holding sport contests.
Tom Wright, Director of Operations for UFC Canada, has commented on this issue, and I quote: “We are now regulated either provincially or municipally in seven of our 10 provinces and the three territories. We are regulated in 46 of the 48 states…. [B]ecause of section 83(2) of the Criminal Code there is this ambiguity—a lack of clarity—as it relates to the definition of prizefighting.”
Under the current definition of “prize fight” in section 83 of the Criminal Code, only boxing is permitted and only under certain circumstances. This definition was drafted in 1934 and does not reflect the current reality and state of combat sports.
The establishment of a clear legal framework throughout the country would help the provinces better regulate this growing sport. It would ultimately be up to the provinces to decide whether this type of sporting event should be permitted or not within their province. Regulating mixed martial arts would be an area of provincial jurisdiction.
Bill S-209 will strengthen the power of the provinces to regulate this kind of fight, something that is still illegal at the federal level.
It is important to note that, unlike contact sports such as hockey and football, combative sports are regulated by third parties, such as the provinces or medical specialists, and not by the sport itself. The licensing considerations are strictly controlled by the province or the authority it designates for this purpose.
We want to allow provincial and municipal governments to act in harmony with their counterparts because right now every province operates in isolation to some extent.
A number of provinces, including Quebec, already have clear regulations. Prize fighting events are held in Quebec as the regulations are already in place, and these events are very popular. However, this is not the case in all provinces. The Criminal Code must be amended to get rid of these grey areas.
Across the country the situation is as follows: Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and Nova Scotia have regulations that legalize mixed martial arts within the province. British Columbia, Alberta, New Brunswick and the three territories delegate responsibility for prize fights to the municipalities. Finally, discussions are under way in British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Prince Edward Island to adopt regulations that are similar to those in Quebec.
Canadians, whether they are athletes or fans, are full participants in the emergence of this sport. Canadian mixed martial arts fighters are among the best in the world. One of them is Georges St-Pierre, the UFC champion from Montreal. He is probably the best-known athlete in the sport. He once said he was not fighting to be a champion, but to leave a legacy.
This is exactly what Bill S-209 will do. If there are some mixed martial artists watching our debate this evening, I would like to congratulate the athletes and their coaches, families and friends who are working hard to protect the health and safety of the athletes who practise the sport.
Mixed martial arts matches in Canada draw record crowds and have a substantial economic impact on the provinces and cities that welcome them. We want to allow this sport to benefit from a clear and up-to-date legal framework at the federal level so that the provinces can enforce their own regulations, for properly controlling the sport and protecting the health and safety of the athletes.
Volunteerism May 30th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, the city of Magog's 28th volunteer gala was held in my riding on May 25, and it was attended by 625 people representing 79 organizations.
We are proud to have such a large number of dedicated volunteers. Areas as diverse as sport, family support and the environment benefit from the contributions of volunteers, who are an essential part of the fabric of every community.
As the MP for Brome—Missisquoi, I would like to thank them for their dedication and the excellent work they do.
Brome—Missisquoi is a vibrant region thanks to the efforts of volunteers. I am proud to represent them in the House of Commons.
I would also like to draw members' attention to the presence of Jean Pierre Lefebvre, a filmmaker and resident of Brome—Missisquoi who has received the Governor General's Performing Arts Award.
Once again, congratulations and thank you.
Safer Witnesses Act May 23rd, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.
I understand that the witness protection program deserves appropriate funding. My colleague agrees with that. However, if I understood correctly, the bill is not sufficiently generous.
What specific amendments would my colleague suggest?
Safer Witnesses Act May 23rd, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Pontiac for his very fine speech.
The Liberals have every right to criticize the Conservative government, because it has not done enough with Bill C-51. However, with respect to eligibility and lack of funding, why did the Liberals not respond to criticism of the witness protection program when they were in power and had the chance? In other words, why do they continue to say one thing and do another?