Rick Norlock

[Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act, June 13th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I guess I should start by saying that I have been a member of the public safety committee for approximately seven years now. We are looking into the economics of policing. I wonder if the hon. member is aware that there has actually been a significant increase in first nations policing over the last several years. As a matter of fact, it is somewhere close to 30%. Also, I wonder if the hon. member is familiar with some of the statistics surrounding first nations policing.

Having served in the north of Ontario, I understand completely that there is a difference in policing in those remote communities and that the cost of providing policing is significantly higher than that of almost any other police department in Canada.

If the hon. member wants to tell Canadians the facts, she might want to revisit the fact that we have not cut back on first nations policing. As a matter of fact, the federal government has increased its commitment by somewhere in the vicinity of $600 million.

The hon. member might want to consider rephrasing some of the information she has just given to the country.

[Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act, June 13th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the Minister of Justice speaking on this.

I would like to address the suggestion that this issue has not been debated. Having been on the public safety committee for the last seven years and having been on the justice committee, I know these committees have studied this subject of contraband tobacco and have heard from countless witnesses. If members in this House stand to say we have not studied it enough, they are exactly, 100% wrong.

We know that contraband cigarettes are now being sold to our children, in schoolyards, at about 5¢ apiece. We know that the Ontario provincial police and other police agencies have made huge seizures of contraband cigarettes, actually tractor-trailer loads. We have, in this country, stepped up our enforcement. However, we need additional tools for the law enforcement agencies to be able to do their jobs. They have been asking us for this.

I wonder if the minister would talk about those issues.

[Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, June 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my friend across the way very closely and to the other member who just questioned her with regard to partnerships. Having lived in northern Ontario, I know communities that are many thousands or at least many hundreds of miles apart cannot partner. I am thinking of the city of Timmins partnering with some of the first nations territories along the James and Hudson Bay coast, working with them on minor hockey and other enterprises.

To be specific, the member may want to expand on this notion. Many first nations territories do not have any experience with fresh water chlorination plants that are designed to do just what this legislation is designed to do. Those communities would benefit from people who do the work and come from communities where they have been doing this for decades, such as my hometown.

Could the member expand on that and could she further expand on the need for the proper training of people who run those plants? That is one of the most important parts of this whole enterprise. I have experienced that along the James and Hudson Bay coast with a first nations community where, because the chlorination plant was not properly run, the water ended up in a crisis. Could she expand—

[Status of Women, June 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the community training and development centre, in conjunction with the Community Employment Resource Partnership Northumberland and the Status of Women Canada, have designed an initiative for the women of Northumberland County. The WISE By Plan initiative allows rural women to enhance their economic security.

Approximately 200 women provided their feedback requesting local, accessible and easily understood training in job search strategies and in financial literacy. The response includes a series of videos featuring local job search stories. Within each video experts will provide leadership and guidance to job seekers. In addition, an online virtual coaching tool will be implemented to assist job seekers in developing personal career action plans.

This $296,000 project is just one more example of how our Conservative government is improving the lives of rural women in Northumberland—Quinte West and in Canada.

[The Economy, May 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, while we are working hard in Parliament to implement Canada's economic action plan and its job-creating measures like the Canada job grant and our new infrastructure plan, the NDP seems only interested in opposing these pro-growth and job-creating measures. While Canada has seen more than 900,000 net new jobs created since the end of the recession, the NDP wants to kill jobs with reckless spending and higher taxes.

Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance please update the House on the state of Canada's economy?

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we all know that funding for municipal police forces generally comes from municipal funds, and sometimes the provinces assist in that endeavour. However, essentially, provinces and municipalities handle the funding of their own police forces. For those provinces with RCMP, that agreement is pursuant to an agreement they have with the federal government.

There is something more important to police officers in this piece of legislation, and that is the protection of the people it is designed to protect and the protection of the handlers, who are generally police officers. This better protects the information they need to have.

Mr. Tom Stamatakis, president of the Canadian Police Association, articulated that very well. He said that the association strongly recommended its adoption. He said that it would be a benefit to law enforcement communities across Canada who are tasked with that information. He went on to say that it would also help protect the men and women he represents. That protection is a responsibility of his association and the government, because there are over 50,000 police officers in this country, and we want to make sure that at night they go home to their families.

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, how wrong the member is. He says that the RCMP has already stated that it needs additional funding. I can quote one of the witnesses before the committee, as I have been a member of that committee for seven years. Todd Shean, Assistant Commissioner of federal and international operations of the RCMP, said:

[W]ith the changes this bill brings about, the RCMP is comfortable that we have the resources within our existing resources to run an effective witness protection program.

I have several other quotes that reflect similar sentiments.

The member talks about accountability and clarity. Had he been listening, that is what Bill C-51 actually does. The RCMP has increased its ability to protect information and has increased its ability to work with witness protection programs in those provinces and with those police departments that already have them. That was the purpose of it. I was on the committee when we did the initial study in 2007 and the report in 2008. It actually addressed these very concerns.

The member has asked a question that is being dealt with right in this piece of legislation, and I think he needs to refresh himself on some of the matters that came up in that report.

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to join in this debate on the legislation our government has introduced to modernize and strengthen Canada's federal witness protection program.

I have listened with a great deal of interest to several hon. members who have spoken, some eloquently, about the need for Bill C-51 and about our government's ongoing efforts to combat organized crime. The message we have heard from right across the country is that the witness protection program continues to be an effective tool for law enforcement to combat terrorism and organized crime.

We continue to see the benefit of the program as an important initiative in support of national priorities, including the dismantling of organized crime groups in this country. We have also heard about the need for reforms, given the changing nature of organized crime groups and terrorist organizations.

Our government has undertaken extensive consultations with our stakeholders in provinces and territories as well as with law enforcement representatives. With Bill C-51, we are addressing these calls for reform and are moving ahead with strengthening our federal witness protection program.

I would like to briefly outline some of the ways our government is responding.

Some hon. members will know that the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security conducted a review of Canada's witness protection program through 2007 and issued a final report in March 2008. That committee heard from experts from the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada as well as from representatives from the RCMP, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Department of Justice and the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP.

The standing committee's final report made some keen observations about the federal witness protection program and made a number of recommendations. What the report noted is that, and I quote directly from the report itself:

[A]ll witness protection measures, whether at the municipal, provincial, territorial and federal level, are indispensable in the fight against crime....

One reason for this is, again in the words of the report:

[C]riminal organizations have, in the majority of cases, “many ways of gathering information” on their accusers. Traditional investigative methods are rarely effective in infiltrating these types of organizations because of their secret nature. Law enforcement agencies must, therefore, use informers and/or human sources who themselves are often members of the criminal organizations under investigation....

At the time, the standing committee noted the need for an effective federal witness protection program. It also identified several areas where the program could be enhanced.

I am very pleased to note that Bill C-51 supports in principle many of the standing committee's recommendations as well as other calls for reform from stakeholders from other levels of government.

The report from the standing committee noted in particular, and again I quote directly from the report, that:

[The organization] responsible for federal witness protection can enter into agreements directly with provincial and territorial governments...to accelerate the processing of witness protection files.

Bill C-51 supports the underlying intent of this committee recommendation, which mirrors a concern expressed by some provincial and territorial governments.

Bill C-51 would improve the interaction between the federal and provincial witness protection programs. This in turn will help accelerate and streamline the process of obtaining secure identity changes for provincial witnesses within designated programs.

Today, any provincial witness requiring a secure identity change must first be temporarily admitted into the federal witness protection program before the RCMP will assist in obtaining the federal documents required for that secure change of identity. Bill C-51 would change this by introducing a regime whereby provincial witness protection programs can be designated so that secure identity changes can be obtained without having to temporarily admit a provincial protectee into the federal program.

Bill C-51 would also enhance the security of both the federal and designated provincial witness protection programs.

First, it would broaden and clarify the federal Witness Protection Program Act's current prohibitions against disclosure of information.

Second, Bill C-51 would extend the prohibitions against disclosure of information to include individuals in designated provincial witness protection programs. This is significant, as provincial legislative prohibitions against the disclosure of information for individuals in provincial witness protection programs can only be enforced within that respective provincial jurisdiction. In other words, there may be limitations on provincial legislation applying a prohibition on witness information outside its jurisdiction. Bill C-51 would extend the prohibition across jurisdictions so that information is protected across Canada. Without this change, the provinces would have to rely on their own legislation, which is, of course, limited to within their borders.

Bill C-51 also extends and expands prohibitions against disclosure of information about the federal and designated programs.

The Standing committee on Public Safety and National Security also recommended in 2008 that psychological assessments of all candidates over the age of 18 be conducted prior to their admission to the program and that potential candidates should be automatically offered the assistance of legal counsel. I am very pleased to note that the RCMP has already begun to engage psychologists to conduct assessments of candidates as well as to offer counselling both to candidates and to protectees already in the program. In fact, the RCMP is implementing a wide range of other administrative changes to the federal witness protection program to enhance its effectiveness.

Today, the RCMP is taking steps to separate admission decisions from investigations by changing its internal reporting structures. It is also establishing memoranda of understanding with federal partners to enhance the secure administration, transmission and storage of protected information.

As well, the RCMP is introducing program enhancements within existing resource levels, including the use of risk management principles regarding admission decisions and protectee management practices; enhanced training for protectee handlers; and database development to better manage information about protectees.

The administrative changes the RCMP is implementing, in conjunction with the provisions within Bill C-51, would strengthen, modernize and streamline witness protection processes across Canada. They would enhance the capacity of the federal witness protection program to make consistent and fair decisions about the safety of witnesses and sources.

In addition to the changes I have mentioned, Bill C-51 would allow federal institutions with a national security, national defence or public safety mandate to make referrals of their sources to the RCMP for possible admission into the federal witness protection program. Such organizations include the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. This provision within Bill C-51, as well as improved and culturally sensitive training now being provided to individuals involved in the delivery of the federal witness protection program, will largely respond to an Air India inquiry recommendations related to the program.

For all of the reasons I have mentioned, I am pleased to support Bill C-51, and I encourage all hon. members to join me.

I am now prepared to take any questions that may be offered.

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, just to reiterate, the hon. member is quite correct.

I have been on the public safety and national security committee for a good seven years now in three different Parliaments. The member is quite right, police forces and provinces have been consulted, and they prefer to maintain their appropriate jurisdiction because provinces are responsible for policing.

Any time the federal government works in conjunction with them, of course they say they would like more money. There is never enough. I have been around this place for seven years, and I could probably count on one hand the times when people said they had enough money or did not want more.

This is a question for most police forces, that some changes were needed to the witness protection program. The committee heard from those various players in policing, including police associations, who lauded these improvements to the Witness Protection Act. Indeed, that is probably why the opposition is saying that they are reluctantly going along with this, because it has been universally accepted as the right thing to do.

I wonder if the member could comment further.

[The Canadian Museum of History Act, May 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I can answer the question. There would be roughly 50,000 square feet renovated in the public space, roughly half of which is currently permanent. The member is correct. There are areas of the museum that would remain as they are. In deference to the member from the Northwest Territories, I can assure him that one of those areas is to remain the First Peoples Hall. The others are the very popular Canadian Children's Museum and the IMAX theatre. We are all very much aware of the IMAX theatre, that great Canadian invention.

There would be a $25-million, one-time investment that would allow for renovations and changes to the current hall. These are very important moves. The investment would be funded from within the existing budget of Heritage Canada, at no additional cost to the taxpayers. It also would allow the Canadian Museum of Civilization to begin a transformation that would be completed in time for Canada's 150th anniversary.

I hope that is the answer the member needed. Those are assurances that there would be some permanency to some existing parts and some changes as we begin to concentrate on the history of this great country of ours.