Pierre-Luc Dusseault

[Petitions, February 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition from a number of people in Regina, Saskatchewan. The petition they sent to me is calling for a housing strategy for Canada.

I am very proud to present it on their behalf in support of this strategy, which the government should put in place to ensure that everyone has access to affordable, decent and quality housing.

[Employment Insurance, February 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, last Saturday, I marched through the streets of Sherbrooke, alongside my constituents, to protest the employment insurance reform.

I made a speech and congratulated them on having the guts to take to the street to denounce this direct attack on our workers. The Conservatives are a threat to my region's economy.

This government wants to label the unemployed as good or bad. It is not as though they chose to lose their jobs; that is the reality, the up-and-down nature of seasonal work. This systematic labelling will erode seasonal industries and drive wages down.

I have a message for all Canadians. We need you if we are going to beat this reform. We will win the employment insurance fight today, and I can assure you that we will win the war in 2015, when we form the first NDP government in Canadian history.

Together, we shall succeed.

[Business of Supply, February 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to ask a question.

Mention was made of the gas tax, a measure that is now permanent. We supported that decision. My colleague, the member for Trinity—Spadina, asked a question earlier, but did not get an answer. Therefore, I will put the same question to the member opposite.

The tax is set at 10%, with 5% flowing back to municipalities. What is the government doing with the other 5%? Could it not give the full 10% to municipalities?

[Safer Witnesses Act, February 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

I totally agree with its premise, namely the NDP's commitment to make our communities safer for all Canadians.

The member also asked about something he found on the RCMP's website. It is undoubtedly true that the cost of witness protection sometimes impedes the work of local and provincial police forces. It is appalling to learn that some organizations charged with protecting our communities are unable to adequately protect witnesses.

Whenever a witness refuses to co-operate with police, investigators or a judge for fear of reprisals, law enforcement may be unable to obtain the necessary information to lay criminal charges.

It is very important that every witness feel safe and free to supply information without fear.

[Safer Witnesses Act, February 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her question.

In my speech, I may have forgotten to mention a change that affects designated programs. It is an important component of Bill C-51, which modifies the Witness Protection Program Act.

The bill allows for better information sharing with designated provincial and municipal programs.

Obviously, this was difficult recently. Because of bureaucracy, information was not always shared as it should have been. In some cases, this kept witness protection agencies from acting effectively. It interfered with procedures.

The bill creates a better alignment with provincial and municipal agencies, so that information can be shared while remaining well protected.

If I remember correctly, all these changes applied to section 11 and the subsequent sections, 11.1 to 11.3. All the processes are being greatly simplified and harmonized, to eliminate the red tape agencies were faced with previously.

[Safer Witnesses Act, February 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be speaking in the House today about Bill C-51. I was also pleased to read the Witness Protection Program Act and Bill C-51, which would make substantial changes to the Witness Protection Program Act, or at least to many of its sections.

Before I begin, I would like to remind those who are watching of the proposed changes in this bill. It is important that I do this before I explain my position.

As I mentioned earlier, broadening the definition of “witness” is a fairly important point. The definition has been changed in the relevant part of the bill. Federal security and defence organizations and services have been added to section (a) of the definition of witness. This is a technical point and I ask those watching at home to forgive me if it is difficult to follow, given that they do not have the current act in their hands.

There is another interesting change that has not been mentioned very often. In the current act, a witness's acquaintance can be protected. For example, a witness's child can also be protected. Under the current bill, someone who knows someone who knows the witness can be protected. That is another small but meaningful change. There are many types of people who could be protected. Again, that is an example of how the definition of witness has been broadened. We assume that these changes will mean that more witnesses will be able to access the program.

Another important change that I mentioned earlier when I asked a question has to do with the possible 90-day extension.

Currently, subsection 6(2) reads as follows:

Notwithstanding subsection (1), the Commissioner may, in a case of emergency, and for not more than ninety days, provide protection to a person who has not entered into a protection agreement.

In this bill, a very important phrase has been added at the end of this subsection. If an agreement has not been signed after the first 90 days, there is a possibility of extending the protection for another 90 days. So it is possible for a witness who has not yet signed an agreement with a protection agency to receive extended emergency protection. That could lead to extra costs for witness protection agencies.

Another interesting point is that, following section 8, the bill adds section 8.1, which concerns the termination of protection. This affords more clarity on how the commissioner may terminate the protection of a witness and also how the witness may request termination of protection. This whole aspect is thus clearer.

A change is also made to section 10, which requires the commissioner to provide the reasons why he refuses to admit a witness to the protection program. The commissioner will now be required to inform several persons whom he was not previously required to inform. Decision making with regard to the program is thus more transparent.

The title "Protection of Identity" will now read "Protection of Information". This will harmonize the protection of personal information under our current federal system. It will also harmonize this entire aspect with provincial legislation. Several consequential changes to section 11 will bring the legislation in line with all the known programs in certain Canadian provinces already doing this work.

In short, these are the major changes made to the Witness Protection Program Act. Now I would like to discuss our position on those changes. As my colleagues have already mentioned, we will support Bill C-51 at second reading. The NDP has been asking the government to make these kinds of changes for a long time. We have asked it to expand witness eligibility for protection programs to guarantee the safety of all Canadians who may be in danger.

The NDP has been insistently calling for better coordination of federal and provincial programs and improved overall program funding since 2007.

That leads me to an important point: funding. I referred to this earlier when I put a question to my colleague from Alfred-Pellan.

We may assume that costs will increase once we understand the amendments that have been made, such as expanding the definition of "witness" and possibly extending emergency protection by 90 days.

According to the statistics, it cost $9 million to protect 30 witnesses in 2012. We are talking about an average cost of approximately $300,000 per witness. By expanding the definition of "witness" in this way, adding a few witnesses will be enough to generate additional costs. It is important to mention that fact. It is also important to realize that these changes could result in costs. I hope the government has conducted an impact study on the costs that would be generated by this bill, to ensure that the necessary changes are made to the budget by allocating a little more money for this purpose, because we must also consider the broader duties that will fall to the witness protection agencies.

Although the NDP supports Bill C-51 because its aim is to improve the witness protection program, it deplores the fact that the Conservative government has so far refused to add additional funding to the system.

On the issue of funding, it is important for the government to realize that costs are likely to increase, as I said earlier. If that is true, then perhaps we need to allow some time for witness protection agencies to adjust to their added workload. If we disregard the capabilities of the RCMP or provincial and municipal agencies, then this bill will not amount to anything.

In the words of my colleague, the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, the proof of the bill is in the funding. Bill C-51 will move forward if the government commits the necessary funds. Otherwise, this initiative will fail.

Speaking of crime, each time the subject comes up for discussion, I like to point out to the government that the NDP has a broader view of crime in general. We made that clear during recent parliamentary sittings. The government always accuses us of being on the wrong side, whereas we know very well that our approach is very different. That is why we sometimes oppose government bills. Their approach is based more on punishment than on prevention. Our party’s broad position on crime is that crimes should be prevented before they are committed. As part of our broader vision of the fight against crime, it is equally important that resources be put in place to prevent crime.

I like to refer to comments made earlier by members in the House. Before we address the House, it is important to understand our colleagues’ position. Therefore, I would like to repeat what my colleague, the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, said yesterday:

Most criminals do not sit at home thumbing through the Criminal Code to see which offence to commit based on the length of the sentence.

This is a rather strong statement to the effect that a criminal will not look up the length of the sentence before committing a crime. We are not going to prevent crime by imposing lengthy sentences. What we need are crime prevention programs at the front end.

That is all I will say about the subject of crime in general. Each time the subject arises, I like to remind the government of our position so that one day it might share our vision.

In conclusion, since my time is up, I will say again that the NDP will be supporting this bill. We are hopeful that some worthwhile amendments will be made when the bill is studied in committee and that it will be improved as much as possible.

[Safer Witnesses Act, February 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety said. I was quite surprised to hear her ask us for a cost analysis. I thought that was the government's job.

One thing seems to have escaped the parliamentary secretary. She truly has not done her homework if she believes that broadening the definition of a witness eligible for the program and extending by an additional 90 days the period during which emergency protection can be granted, as stated in the bill, will not result in any additional costs.

Does my colleague believe we should invest new funds given that the number of eligible witnesses will increase and that the period during which emergency protection can be granted will be extended by 90 days?

[Petitions, February 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and pleasure to present a petition signed by over 125 residents of Sherbrooke who are opposed to the cuts that are being made to the funding awarded to Development and Peace.

This petition was presented to me a few weeks ago in Sherbrooke by the organization itself and by the Archbishop of Sherbrooke, Msg. Luc Cyr.

The 125 signatories to the petition are calling on the minister to provide this organization with the funding it needs to continue to do the work that has earned it much praise for many years now.

I hope that the government will listen to reason and support Development and Peace.

[Employment Insurance, February 1st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, in my riding, 60 employees of the Sherbrooke Best Buy lost their jobs yesterday when the store closed its doors without notice.

The closure of this store shows that, despite what the Conservatives would have us believe, Canada's economy is stagnant, and good jobs are hard to find and keep. That is precisely why our social safety net exists: to help people like the struggling Sherbrooke Best Buy workers.

Since the Conservatives are unable to create conditions that foster economic growth and job creation, will they at least stop ransacking employment insurance?

[Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, January 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to put a question to my colleague, who as usual has made an excellent speech. I will ask her a more general question, one that I have previously asked in connection with other bills.

The Conservatives are in the habit of introducing bills in reaction to specific situations in time, bills that will subsequently have an impact on all citizens or on the entire group of persons concerned.

In my colleague's opinion, is the right approach for us, as legislators, to amend or introduce new legislation in reaction to specific cases? This is what has happened. Should we not instead promote bills that address broader problems and not simply one, two or four specific cases?

I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that. I do not want to have to state my view, but I would like to hear what she has to say on that subject.