Bill C-51 (Historical)

Safer Witnesses Act

An Act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act

This enactment amends the Witness Protection Program Act to, among other things,
(a) provide for the designation of a provincial or municipal witness protection program so that certain provisions of that Act apply to such a program;
(b) authorize the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to coordinate, at the request of an official of a designated provincial or municipal program, the activities of federal departments, agencies and services in order to facilitate a change of identity for persons admitted to the designated program;
(c) add prohibitions on the disclosure of information relating to persons admitted to designated provincial and municipal programs, to the means and methods by which witnesses are protected and to persons who provide or assist in providing protection;
(d) specify the circumstances under which disclosure of protected information is nevertheless permitted;
(e) exempt a person from any liability or other punishment for stating that they do not provide or assist in providing protection to witnesses or that they do not know that a person is protected under a witness protection program;
(f) expand the categories of witnesses who may be admitted to the federal Witness Protection Program to include persons who assist federal departments, agencies or services that have a national security, national defence or public safety mandate and who may require protection as a result;
(g) allow witnesses in the federal Witness Protection Program to end their protection voluntarily;
(h) extend the period during which protection may, in an emergency, be provided to a person who has not been admitted to the federal Witness Protection Program; and
(i) make a consequential amendment to another Act.

Safer Witnesses Act

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I had come to the end.

I spoke at length about the commission of inquiry into the Air India events. This was really one of the key events that gave rise to the bill now being considered, even though it took a long time for the various governments to act and ensure that witnesses were safer and better protected.

I repeatedly said that the bill, which is likely to become law, requires resources to be properly implemented. These concerns were raised by the RCMP and others, but downplayed by other police services. This is why I want the government to be aware of the importance of providing these resources.

I would also like to raise the issue of street gangs because it has not really been discussed within the context of Bill C-51. Offences that are related to drugs or street gangs should be dealt with by local police forces. However, since they are drug-related offences, they are sent to the RCMP.

The RCMP can make decisions about witnesses needing protection because it is an area of federal jurisdiction. However, the costs are borne by local police forces. There is no guarantee that local police forces will have adequate resources to ensure that witnesses are protected in a secure manner.

As well, when we talk about the need to protect witnesses, we need to remember that in 2012, of the 108 candidates eligible for the witness protection program, only about 30 were admitted to it. In addition to the criteria that were used to determine if the witness protection program should be used, there was also the issue of resources.

I want the government to really take this issue seriously and ensure that resources will be made available to the right people—the RCMP, for one—but I also want it to create a special fund for the witness protection program. I would also like government members to start addressing this issue when responding to questions.

We will not let it go. We will continue to ask these questions when Conservative members speak to this bill. However, as I said, because there has been significant progress in this situation, which was untenable, we will vote in favour of this bill. Our support is contingent on having the resources put in place to ensure that the bill is properly implemented.

[For continuation of proceedings see Part B]

[Continuation of proceedings from Part A]

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, be read the third time and passed.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise here to debate Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act.

As many of my colleagues have mentioned, we will support this bill at third reading, but not without reservations, because a number of the questions we raised in committee at second reading remain unanswered.

We see enough progress in this bill to support it. However, it would be nice if the government members, especially those who are making speeches, would answer our questions at third reading. I will come back to this.

The government is relying more and more on the principle of disclosure to obtain information in order to enforce its laws properly. Whether in relation to its tax policies, public health or the criminal justice system, the general public is a valuable ally in helping the government anticipate and manage crisis situations.

The people who witness a wrongdoing play a key role in reporting, solving or preventing an offence or a crime. These people live in the constant fear of reprisal and feel that disclosing what they know will turn their lives upside down. They must be treated with respect, since they are risking a lot to protect others.

That is why this bill has been generally well received. It will better address the needs of these people who often reluctantly become involved in investigations related to national security.

This is somewhat of a delayed reaction from the Conservatives, since the bill was designed in 1985 to address some concerns raised by the Commission of Inquiry into the Investigation of the Bombing of Air India Flight 182. I would like to quote one of the commission's findings:

A failure to provide adequate protection for witnesses threatens their safety and, sometimes, their lives. It discourages others from helping intelligence or police agencies. In the end, poorly designed witness protection measures can rob the justice system of crucial assistance.

Better late than never, though. We are happy that the government has listened to our calls to expand the witness protection program.

The ability to protect witnesses was one of the main reasons—one of them—the Air India investigation was mishandled. It was certainly mishandled. One witness, Tara Singh Hayer, the publisher of the Times of India, a newspaper in British Columbia, was assassinated. This meant that the statement he gave under oath to the RCMP seven years earlier, in 1995, was deemed inadmissible. Other witnesses refused to participate in the investigation in 2007 because they feared for their safety. I do not blame them.

At the time, Justice Major admitted that he was not able to give witnesses the protection they needed. The authorities must understand the importance of these people and the magnitude of what they are doing. Chapter 8 of the commission's report stated:

Witness protection also involves developing a “culture of security” within the institutions that reflects an awareness of the real risks to those who assist the authorities in guarding against terrorism.

A number of recent events have focused attention on the serious problem of information sharing between the various organizations involved in national security activities, including the RCMP, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, various departments and provincial and local police forces.

This problem was mentioned in the Air India commission report:

The processes and procedures by which decisions are made as to what information should be passed exchanged between the intelligence and law enforcement communities are seriously flawed and require substantial revision.

This problem still exists and is the reason behind this bill's objectives. Witnesses must be guaranteed protection so that information can be gathered and a crisis or crime prevented or managed. The sharing of that information amongst the various intelligence and security forces and governments transcends the whole issue of national security.

In the case of Air India, for example, some testimony was called into question, and various authorities had the different pieces of evidence or testimony in their possession. The commission concluded that:

Government agencies were in possession of significant pieces of information that, taken together, would have led a competent analyst to conclude that Flight 182 was at high risk of being bombed by known Sikh terrorists in June 1985.

The handling of sources and sharing of information is a key element, one that is central to the objective of this bill. Yet, no consideration is given to it in this bill, despite reports such as the Air India commission report, which is more than 20 years old, I might add.

I would like to quote some of the commission's other findings concerning the sharing of information. It is worth quoting them because they are at the heart of the problem that this bill will resolve, albeit quite imperfectly. Here are some excerpts from the commission's report:

The institutional arrangements and practices of information-gathering agencies were wholly deficient in terms of internal and external sharing of information, as well as analysis.

CSIS failed to include important information, such as the Duncan Blast, in the threat assessments it provided to the RCMP and Transport Canada.

The RCMP wasted resources creating a threat assessment structure parallel to CSIS'. The RCMP structure was itself ineffective—it failed to identify, report, and share threat information.

I have some more excerpts from the commission report:

The RCMP failed to transmit the June 1st Telex, warning about the possibility of bombing with time-delayed devices in June 1985, to either CSIS or to Transport Canada.

Excessive secrecy in information sharing prevented any one agency from obtaining all necessary information to assess the threat. Excessive secrecy also prevented those on the frontlines from obtaining information necessary to put in place security measures responsive to the threat.

There was a lack of cooperation and communication within the RCMP and between RCMP, Transport Canada and airlines in relation to airport security.

I will go on with some more excerpts:

Although Air India was operating under an elevated threat level, CP Air (the airline upon which the bomb was loaded in Vancouver) was not informed of this fact and was operating under normal security protocols.

On June 22, 1985, the security level in force at Pearson and Mirabel airports called for the use of an RCMP explosives detection dog (EDD). That weekend, however, all RCMP EDD teams were in Vancouver for training, leaving the Toronto airport without any coverage.

I will close with some other excerpts from the same report:

CSIS often failed to disclose promptly to the RCMP information relevant to the criminal investigation, particularly information from human sources, or it disclosed information without sufficient detail or in a manner that prevented the RCMP from using the information.

CSIS was mesmerized by the mantra that “CSIS doesn’t collect evidence,” and used it to justify the destruction of raw material and information. CSIS erased the tapes that caught coded conversations possibly related to the planning of the bombing, and CSIS investigators destroyed their notes that recorded the information CSIS sources provided in relation to the Air India bombing. Both of these actions compromised the prosecution’s evidentiary position at trial.

The RCMP failed to appropriately protect sources and witnesses.

And finally:

The RCMP, at times, failed to take threats against Tara Singh Hayer seriously.

This sharing of information must occur between the federal and the provincial levels, since many provinces have their own witness protection programs.

Greater collaboration between the two levels of government would not only ensure better service to witnesses and sources, but also provide for more effective management of the intelligence services. Bill C-51 now under discussion would address this issue, but only partly.

From now on, more individuals will be eligible for the program. The bill also provides for recognition of provincial programs in place—meaning that some provisions of the act will apply to these programs. The bill also authorizes the Commissioner of the RCMP to work with the appropriate federal and provincial departments and agencies to facilitate the change of identity of persons admitted to the program. This is great news, as witnesses and sources will not have to submit a second application to the federal program to be eligible. Indeed, their files may simply be transferred between programs.

Despite this important addition, a problem remains. Where a provincial protection program is in place, local police forces may have to cover the costs of the investigation even when that investigation is federal in nature and the RCMP is involved. That is one of our major concerns about this bill. We agree with the spirit of the bill but, if the resources are not available, it will be extremely difficult to move in the right direction. The government is trying to reassure us, but we have still not received clear answers to the many questions that have been asked, particularly those asked by the official opposition.

It is not surprising that, although “the costs of witness protection may impede investigations, particularly for smaller law enforcement agencies”—and that is a direct quote from the RCMP website—Bill C-51 does not provide for any new funding for the program. This issue is not addressed in the bill.

When the bill was introduced in December 2012, the Minister of Public Safety said, “[o]ur Government is committed to keeping our streets and communities safe. An effective and reliable witness protection program is valuable in the fight against crime, especially organized crime and terrorism”.

We also want citizens to feel safe. Still, I really do not see how the government can claim that the bill will be another instrument to accomplish this, since the program will be expanded but the resources will remain the same. If the Conservatives really want to improve the witness protection program, they must commit more funding in order to achieve their goals.

The opposition has asked many questions of various government spokespeople. We keep coming back to the question of resources. The answers we are getting are not really answers. The government says we should trust it. Apparently, the Canadian Police Association told the government that it has sufficient resources. Nevertheless, local police forces say they do not have the resources they need. The RCMP's website says, and I repeat the quote, “There are instances when the costs of witness protection may impede investigations, particularly for smaller law enforcement agencies.” That is what the RCMP says.

Unfortunately, the government has not allocated additional resources that might make it possible to respond to the RCMP's concern. There may be some former police officers and police chiefs among the Conservative MPs, but that alone does not address the basic question: if there are not enough resources to enforce Bill C-51's provisions and improvements, how can the situation get better? We would like an answer to this question or at least an assurance that the government members will agree to commit more resources if necessary as Bill C-51 is implemented.

Another element I have already mentioned and which is worth repeating concerns the Air India inquiry's recommendations. We have said several times that few of the recommendations in the commission's report have been implemented. One of the primary recommendations from the inquiry was that the process for entering the program be transparent and subject to more rigorous accountability. Bill C-51, which we are currently studying, skips right over that issue.

I hope the government will give us answers to our questions later. That is why we are having this debate.

We all agree, and all parties in the House have already indicated that they would vote in favour of Bill C-51 at third reading, because it is an improvement over the current situation. Still, we would like the government to take our concerns seriously and do something about them.

Having an eligibility process that is more transparent, rigorous and accountable should also be a concern for the government.

We have still heard no answers even though the questions have been repeated over and over. We will continue to debate Bill C-51 this evening. We will continue to ask questions until we get answers from the government.

I have a question that is rather significant. It is possible to have the best intentions in the world and want to improve the situation. However, we are now in a context where the government is making cuts to various services, such as the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Unfortunately that has very negative consequences.

The issue of witness protection and keeping witnesses safe should be taken seriously because these people have often put their lives in danger in order to do their civic duty.

I do not want to see the government strutting about in public, in front of the media, saying that it is taking care of witness safety, that it is looking after victims, and using that as a non-partisan issue when, really, these provisions will have no teeth because there is no money behind them. Money is crucial. In this bill, it is essential to give police forces the resources they need.

We want a commitment, here and now, on these additional resources. If it is not here and now, we would like to have it by the end of the debate.

I eagerly await the questions I will be asked in about an hour, after private members' business.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to add my voice in support of Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act. As we have heard from my hon. colleagues, the bill would make important amendments to the witness protection program, which first came into effect in 1996. Before that time, Canada offered witness protection services to those who could provide critical information during a police investigation and court proceedings. However, it was practised on an informal basis. The 1996 act introduced more formality into the process.

As with many laws that have been on the books for a while, the original act is now in need of amendments to reflect our changing environment and to strengthen the protection provided to witnesses, as well as to those who protect them.

As we have heard in the House and at committee, the proposed legislation contains recommendations that have come from a few sources. They include the 2008 report by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, the 2010 Commission of Inquiry into the Investigation of the Bombing of Air India Flight 182, and stakeholder consultations with the federal departments and agencies, the provinces and law enforcement agencies.

I would like to focus my remarks today on a couple of areas of proposed changes within the bill, which directly address the concerns we heard from our provincial stakeholders.

There are witness protection programs in five provinces, namely Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec. The federal program differs from the provincial ones in some areas. Typically, the provincial programs are aimed at victims of violence who need support before and during a trial, which could include accompanying the witness to trial, temporary relocation or limited financial support. They have their own administrative criteria and are designed to meet the needs of their own law enforcement agencies.

The decision whether to refer a witness for possible admission into the federal program or provincial program rests with the individual police forces dealing with criminal investigations. They make their decisions on a case by case basis, depending on cost, threat level and the length of time the protection is needed. For complex federal cases, provinces may choose to refer their witnesses for consideration of admission into the federal program.

One of the loudest calls we have had from our provincial counterparts is the need to streamline the current process for obtaining secure identity changes for their protectees. The concern among the provinces is that the RCMP can currently only assist federal protectees for the purpose of obtaining the federal documents required for secure identity changes. What this means is that the provinces must temporarily admit their protectees into the federal witness protection program to allow the RCMP to assist in this process.

Many of our provincial stakeholders have asked that we change the current system, which they have told us can result in time consuming paperwork and delays. We agree. When we are talking about protecting individuals from potentially life-threatening risks, we cannot afford delays in processing their secure identity changes. We also agree that improving federal and provincial collaboration will help us move ahead with a more seamless witness protection service across the board.

As such, under Bill C-51, we propose to streamline this process through a new framework that will allow for provincial programs to be officially designated as witness protection programs. The designation process will work as follows.

First, a provincial authority responsible for the program, such as the attorney general, would make a request to the Minister of Public Safety who, once satisfied that the program has the capacity to protect its witnesses and its information, may recommend to the Governor-in-Council to designate the program. Once the program has been designated, the provincial official will be able to send a request to the RCMP for assistance in obtaining the federal documents required for a secure identity change for a provincial witness without having to first admit the witness into the federal program. Designation would only need to occur once.

I would note that we have also heard calls to remove the RCMP from the process completely so the provinces can request the secure identity documents directly from the federal departments. However, we believe it is more prudent and safer to keep the RCMP as the single point of contact for all document requests of this nature. There are many benefits to keeping the RCMP as a single point of contact. It helps ensure efficiency and enhances the security of the information and the safety of all those involved in the process. For these reasons, Bill C-51 would retain the RCMP as a liaison between the provincial and federal programs for the process of secured identity change.

A second area of change that directly addresses concerns of many of our provincial stakeholders relates to expanding the prohibitions of this program. As it currently stands, the Witness Protection Program Act only protects information about federal protectees. This is a legitimate concern raised by our provincial stakeholders and one which we have addressed in Bill C-51.

Under the proposed changes, the prohibitions of disclosure would be extended to include information about the witnesses, their designated witness protection program, as well as those who provide protection to these witnesses. This prohibition will apply across Canada. I should note these measures have been strongly supported by organizations that represent front-line police officers.

In addition, exceptions to the prohibitions of disclosure would also be clarified, allowing authorities at both the federal and provincial levels to fulfill their mandates, while still being mindful of the need to ensure the safety of protected persons.

At the federal level, this authority is the RCMP commissioner, while at the provincial level it is the official in charge of the designated program. For example, federal agencies will be able to share information about those protected persons who are also offenders being considered for release. At both levels, authorities would have the power to disclose information about protected persons if it was essential for the administration of justice, including if a serious offence were about to be committed.

It is clear that the Witness Protection Program Act is in need of amendments on a number of fronts. Bill C-51 is practical and comprehensive legislation that would do just that.

The provincial programs are a vital part of our network of witness protection in Canada and we are pleased that this bill has received positive response from the attorney generals of Saskatchewan and B.C. as well as the Canadian Police Association.

I am also pleased to hear today in the House that for a change the opposition parties have openly said that they will support the bill.

This legislation sends a clear signal that we are on the right track. I therefore encourage all hon. members to continue their support of the good measures this government brings from time to time.

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Calgary Northeast, this afternoon.

I am very pleased to have this opportunity to join the debate on Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act. As several of my hon. colleagues have mentioned, the legislation before us today would help to strengthen Canada's federal witness protection program in a number of very important ways.

I would like to focus my remarks on how Bill C-51 would help to better align federal and provincial witness protection in order to offer a more efficient process to secure new identities as well as enhanced and expanded prohibitions against the disclosure of protectee and program information.

One key to fully understanding the significance of the legislation before us is to understand how witness protection has evolved in Canada and how it operates today. I would like to first briefly talk about this and then direct my attention to how Bill C-51 would achieve the benefits I have just mentioned.

Witness protection has existed in one form or another in Canada for quite a number of years. Law enforcement has long recognized that witnesses would be much more willing to come forward and co-operate in investigations or prosecutions of crime, including of organized crime groups, if they could, in effect, disappear and thereby avoid dangerous repercussions from violent and often lawless organized crime members.

Lots of movies have picked up on this idea, and witness protection has become something of a household word, even though most people do not really understand or know how it works.

Originally, federal witness protection in Canada was an informal set of arrangements without any formalized structure or procedures to define how it should operate. It became more formalized in the 1980s when the RCMP put in place a series of internal guidelines and protocols. That was followed by the introduction, as we have heard today, of legislation in 1996 to provide, among other things, a clear definition of admission criteria for witnesses and a more public and accountable structure for the management of the program.

Provincial governments, however, are responsible for the administration of justice, and so many have more recently established their own witness security programs. Provincial programs now exist in Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Provincially operated witness protection programs provide protective measures ranging from short-term protection to witness management activities to full-fledged relocation and identity changes.

However, only the federal program is legislatively mandated to provide a national protection service to all law enforcement agencies in Canada as well as to international courts and tribunals. As well, federal documents required for secure identity changes are today only provided through the federal program, which is administered by the RCMP.

At the present time, we have a witness protection regime in Canada in which two jurisdictions share a common goal: protecting key witnesses who can assist in our collective efforts to combat organized crime. The programs to accomplish this might, in some cases, be complementary, while many others do not always operate as seamlessly as they should.

A good example is in regard to security identity changes in cases where a provincial Attorney General decides to place an individual in a provincial witness protection program. The way to obtain a complete and secure identity change in this circumstance is for the individual in question to be temporarily admitted to the federal witness protection program, where the RCMP will assist him or her with obtaining federal documents. Some provinces have argued that this process can lead to delays.

Bill C-51 would remove the need to temporarily admit individuals from a provincial program into the federal program, thereby allowing the federal and provincial witness protection programs to function more seamlessly. The bill would establish a process whereby provincial, territorial and municipal witness protection programs could be designated.

On an operational level, this would involve having the provincial authority responsible for the program provide an attestation to the Minister of Public Safety, assuring that the program had the necessary capacity to protect its information.

As well, Bill C-51 would broaden the current prohibition against the disclosure of information for individuals under the federal witness protection program and would expand the scope to include individuals under designated provincial programs.

Today, the Witness Protection Program Act prohibits the disclosure of information about the location or change of identity of a federal protectee or former federal protectee. Bill C-51 will broaden the prohibition of disclosure to include the identity and role of persons who provide or assist in providing protection, any means or method of protection that could endanger protectees and the integrity of witness protection programs, and protectees from designated provincial programs.

The current federal witness protection program has served the criminal justice system well. Today there are nearly 800 individuals under this program. In 2011-12 alone, the RCMP considered a total of 108 cases for admission to the federal witness protection program. Thirty protectees were admitted to the program, of which 27 were granted a secure name change. The RCMP also provided assistance to other Canadian law enforcement agencies over the same year, as provided under the existing witness protection program.

The fact that the witness protection program is serving the criminal justice system well does not mean that there is no room for improvement. The Witness Protection Program Act has not been substantially changed since 1996, despite the increasingly sophisticated and global nature of organized crime.

Ongoing consultations with provincial and territorial stakeholders have also helped to highlight some areas where stronger provisions are needed, including those I have mentioned today. I am very pleased to note that some provincial jurisdictions, as well as law enforcement organizations, have already offered public support for Bill C-51.

Bill C-51 addresses the need for modernization and enhanced information protection and integration with provincial programs.

Bill C-51 introduces reforms to the present witness protection environment that would build on our collective efforts to combat organized crime as well as terrorist organizations, and in that way, help us all continue to build safer streets and communities for everyone.

I will therefore be supporting Bill C-51, and I join my colleagues in the government in encouraging all hon. members to do the same.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thought that I had made it quite clear. Given our history on the witness protection program, it is very clear that not only did we create the program, we continue to support the program.

In regard to Bill C-51 at second reading, I said that the Liberal Party would be voting in favour of the bill. We will continue to vote in favour of the bill because we see it as yet another tool that can be used by law enforcement agencies, in particular our RCMP, along with other things. It is a valuable tool, and if it is used appropriately, there should be less crime on our streets and more convictions of individuals or groups who have committed crimes in our communities.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what my colleague from the Liberals has said. It is obvious that everyone recognizes that there was and is a need to improve the witness protection program. Since the Witness Protection Program Act passed in 1996, both the Liberal and the Conservative governments have done very little to respond to the criticism of the system. Here we have a program that is supposed to help protect people, but there need to be improvements and there is still a lack of funding.

Bills have been presented in the House of Commons to address small components of the protection program. For example, Bill C-223, from a Reform MP in 1999, dealt with witness protection in cases of domestic violence. It was supported by the NDP but was defeated by the Liberal government.

The overarching issues of eligibility, coordination and funding have not been addressed. The Liberals criticized the program when they were in government, and now they criticize the Conservative government as well for not doing enough in Bill C-51. I want to know why the criticism of eligibility and underfunding was not an issue they addressed when they were in government. They had 13 years to do it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to talk about this bill before. I want to make an important thing fairly clear and it goes back to when I was first elected in the by-election. We need to think of the witness protection program as a tool to be used by our law enforcement agencies and our prosecutors that will ultimately make our streets safer.

I want to do what I can as an individual member of Parliament and as an advocate for the Liberal Party to make sure that we move forward on issues relating to crime prevention. This legislation is an initiative that not only deals with crimes, but it also goes a long way in preventing crimes from taking place in the first place.

During that by-election period, all three major political parties incorporated crime and safety into our election campaigns in a very real and tangible way. I suggested when I arrived in Ottawa that the crime and safety file would be one of the most important issues for me to deal with. With respect to this particular issue, I would be a strong voice on the floor of the House of Commons in Ottawa to express what is happening not only in Winnipeg North but the broader community of Manitoba and indeed from coast to coast to coast where there are many similarities in terms of issues that cause criminal behaviour.

I want to focus if I may for the next couple of minutes on the issue of gangs. Gangs do perpetrate many of the crimes that are occurring in Winnipeg on a daily basis. I do not want to be seen as being negative about the community I represent; it is quite the opposite. I feel very passionate about Winnipeg North. It has a great deal of rich cultural heritage. It provides all sorts of economic and social opportunities for everyone who lives there and in the broader community.

Government is not doing enough to prevent crimes from taking place on the streets. There is a sense that we need to do more. We need to work with the different levels of government when it comes to dealing with crime in order to have any impact.

Bill C-51 is a good example of how co-operation and determination can see good legislation ultimately pass. I have indicated before and I will reinforce it again that the Liberal Party supports this legislation. We want to see the bill pass in a relatively quick fashion, and to do that we just need to focus some attention on one aspect of the bill.

This legislation would enable Crowns and, in particular, our police agencies, to infiltrate gangs. It would assist us in minimizing the negative activities that are being committed in many different communities throughout our country.

It saddens me to drive around and see the result of the young children who are involved in prostitution or drug sales, or in addictions such as drugs or gambling. The negative impact it has on all of our communities is profound.

One of the ways we can deal with these important issues is to enable our police officers to infiltrate the different gang organizations.

To give a sense of to what degree it has become a problem, when I was first elected into the Manitoba legislature in the late eighties, and through the nineties, there was marginal, if any, real debate on gang activity in Manitoba. It was not until maybe the late nineties that we started to see some signs of it. Then at the turn of the century it really started to pick up. Nothing has come out with the impact of making a strong difference in the local community. The problem I see is if governments do not recognize that they need to start working together in a more co-operative fashion, the issues will continue to get worse.

When we think in terms of numbers, for instance, what used to be four to ten gangs in Winnipeg are now literally dozens of gangs varying in the type of violence or destruction they cause. Not all gangs are the same, but there is a certain amount of criminal activity occurring within most of those gangs. What we have seen over the last number of years is a dramatic increase not only in the number of gangs but also in the number of individual gang members. I remember sitting on the justice committee of the Manitoba legislature when we were trying to get a sense of just how many gang members there were in Winnipeg. Even though we could not be provided hard numbers because it was felt that was of a confidential nature, we were able to get a better sense. If memory serves me correctly, that better sense is somewhere just under 3,000. We know it is well into the thousands, but we could not get a tangible number.

Over the last number of years we have seen the number of people involved in gangs continue to increase. I appreciate the member for Saint Boniface, who was a north end police officer. She did a phenomenal job in dealing with the issue, of wanting to come to grips with it and help. I am sure she can sympathize when she drives around and sees the amount of gang graffiti that is out there. As best we can, we try to marginalize that. We know that when something gets tagged we have to get rid of it as soon as possible or it starts to really blossom and become an eyesore for our community.

I believe there is so much more that we could and should be doing. When I look at Bill C-51, I see a bill that does provide some hope for us. When we take a look at the origins, and here is a bit of a history on this, I would say that it came up in 1996. I believe it was former prime minister Jean Chrétien who formalized it. When I say formalized it, there has always been some form of witness protection program, but it was more of an informal type of thing. The legislation was actually enacted in 1996. At the time, people could sense the value of the program and what that program would be doing.

Back in 1996, I do not believe the authors of the legislation really had an understanding of the explosion of gang membership that was coming, in particular with our younger generations getting engaged in gangs.

At the end of the day, we are seeing is an expansion of scope, to a certain degree, in terms of who can be brought in as witnesses under the program. There is a general feeling among law enforcement agencies that with the amendments, at least in part, it is going to allow for additional discretion to deal with gangs.

I see that a positive thing. That is why I wanted to emphasize, in the best way that I could, just how serious a problem gang activity is today in Canada, and in a very indirect fashion to say that we need to give more attention to the issues of gangs, gang violence and the different types of gang activities in our communities across Canada.

This message is not only for members of the House of Commons. It is also important that this message be given to different law enforcement agencies, our court system and so forth. The message is that there is a great deal of concern in our population about what we can do to deal with the issue of gangs in our communities. I wanted to highlight that point before I got under way on some other comments.

On the bill itself, members will know I am somewhat sensitive in terms of the process, and maybe it is because of my capacity as the deputy House leader for the Liberal Party. At the end of the day we would like to have seen a process that would allow all members who wished to do so to participate in the debate.

The bill itself, in first reading, came back in late last year, just before the House rose for the Christmas break. The Christmas break does not mean holidays; it quite often means that members will be doing more of their work in their constituencies.

February 12 was when it came back to the House for second reading. It passed relatively quickly, and then it was fast-tracked, to a certain degree, through the committee stage. Now we have it here today.

At each stage, there was general support for the legislation, and there was good reason for that support. It goes back to when former prime minister Jean Chrétien introduced the legislation back in 1996.

People understand that serious crimes take place. Quite often in order to be able to bring justice to a criminal act, there is a need to tap into individuals who would put their lives or their family members' lives at risk if they get engaged.

Most people realize that we have some sort of witness protection program, but they may not know the details. I suspect most might think there is one national program, and if someone is in the program, that is it. In fact, there is a national program, there are provincial programs and there are even some more local municipal-type programs. There is a great deal of variance among them.

In order to ensure more consistency, more accountability and more transparency, it was felt that it would be best to bring in legislation to formalize it in a more tangible way.

It was brought in through the RCMP, an institution that is world-renowned for what it has done in the past, is doing today and will continue to do into the future. It has an excellent reputation.

We were given this opportunity in legislation to try to put into place better standards and some sort of guidelines, if I could put it that way.

If we look at the bill, we will see that clause 7 talks about some of the factors that should be considered prior to determining whether a witness should even be permitted into the program. It makes reference to risks to witnesses, danger to the community, the nature of the inquiry, the importance of witnesses, the value of information, evidence to be given by witnesses, the likelihood that witnesses could adjust to the program, cost, alternate methods of protection and other factors that the commissioner might see as relevant. It almost like a catch-all. These are the types of things that were put into the act in its original form.

Bill C-51 would expand that to include such things such as national security matters or national interests. Over the last eight or 10 years, the threat of terrorism has continued to exist in a very real and tangible way, so it only seems natural that there would be legislation that would attempt to deal with it. The former prime minister brought in the original legislation, so it is only natural that the Liberal Party of Canada would support making changes that would make it even better legislation, and that is what we are seeing.

Liberals have some concerns, of course. If we look at the budgets, we see a couple of interesting numbers that I would like to throw out. I read in one newspaper article that there was a briefing note that showed the 2009-10 budget was about $7.5 million. The annual report indicated that the budget had grown to $9.1 million in 2011-12, which demonstrates that there is an increase in the program.

The commissioner is required to produce annual reports, and the 2011-12 annual report showed that 108 individuals were considered for admission to the program during that period. Of those, 30 were accepted, of whom 26 came from RCMP investigations while four were admitted on behalf of Canadian law enforcement agencies. The total cost of the program, including RCMP and public servant compensation, totalled $9.1 million. It is an effective tool, and I would argue that it could be an exceptionally cost-efficient tool. If we effectively administer and use the program to meet its potential, it could prevent a lot of crimes from taking place.

I would like more co-operation to exist among the different administrations of the different levels of programs. We are starting to see that in Bill C-51. It is another good reason to support it.

It would also expand the temporary emergency protection from 90 days to 180 days. If people are in the program, it does not necessarily mean that they are in it forever. Quite often, it is just during a trial or while going through court proceedings. There is a much smaller percentage of people who need to change their identities, relocate their families, and so forth.

I appreciate the opportunity to address Bill C-51 today.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege and honour to rise in the House this afternoon to share the speaking time with my hon. colleague from Edmonton Centre, my birthplace. I know it is well looked after by the hon. member, with his 30-plus years with the air force, and now serving this constituency as a member of Parliament.

It is a pleasure to speak specifically to Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, something that I know is vitally important for effective law enforcement right across Canada. It is of great interest to my constituents of Kelowna—Lake Country and many, if not all, members' constituents. They understand the bill's important role in helping to combat organized crime.

I suspect there are few individuals who have not at least heard of “witness protection”, whether it is a favourite CSI television show, or through high-profile court cases in which someone is offered protection in exchange for his or her testimony. We do not normally hear many details about how the program operates or about the people who are admitted into it. That is how it is supposed to work. Nonetheless, I believe all Canadians understand how important it is to have effective witness protection programs to combat organized crime.

Therefore, I appreciate this opportunity to join in the debate on our government's legislation, which would help to modernize and strengthen the federal witness protection program in Canada, while also making it more effective and secure.

The current Witness Protection Program Act, which we have heard from previous speakers, and my hon. colleague from Edmonton Centre, is about 17 years old and has not been substantially modified since it came into force. That does not mean we need to have a radical overhaul or alter the act in a major way, but we need to make some changes to modernize it. It is important that we have the proper tools in place to help us build safe neighbourhoods across Canada by keeping up with the changing nature of crime and criminal or terrorist organizations.

As members know, organized crime groups were certainly prevalent in 1996 when the current act took effect. However, their operations, their tactics and their make-up have changed significantly, and I think we would all agree on that.

Globalization has facilitated the diversification of organized crime groups and in many ways has allowed them to become involved in many more types of activities, serious activities that they are scheming together on across our country and around the world. The Internet has allowed many of these criminal organizations to avoid capture and detection in ways that seemed unimaginable when the Witness Protection Program Act came into force.

The Internet also provides organized crime groups with more ways to find people than before. This is certainly a big concern for individuals in witness protection, as well as for those who administer these programs. Looking after the safety of our witnesses is a key. All these changes make witness protection both more urgent and more difficult to perform. Reforms are therefore needed.

I would like to note that the changes proposed under Bill C-51 are the result of extensive consultations with the provinces, and we believe we are on the right track. I have the privilege of serving the great constituency of Kelowna—Lake Country in the province of British Columbia. The Hon. Shirley Bond is the minister of justice and attorney general of British Columbia. We do not know what her portfolio will be after the recent May 14 election. However, when she was the minister she said:

In the fight against crime, protecting witnesses effectively is essential. We look forward to reviewing the amendments and working constructively with our Federal counterparts to ensure that any changes minimize the risk to witnesses.

As members can see, we have consulted with our partners in the provinces and we believe that we are on the right track.

We were very pleased to see support from provincial attorneys general and from police officers from across the country, including the head of the Canadian Police Association, who said in a recent news article:

The Canadian Police Association strongly believes that this proposed legislation will enhance the safety and security of front-line law enforcement personnel who are engaged in protective duties...

Bill C-51 would first and foremost improve the interaction of the federal witness protection program with provincial witness protection programs. We are working in partnership to complement each other. At the moment, someone in a provincial program can only obtain a secure identity change if he or she is temporarily admitted into the federal witness protection program. This can result in delays in obtaining a new identity. It can also result in a number of issues for the RCMP, which administers the federal program.

Bill C-51 proposes to remedy this situation by establishing a process whereby provincial programs can become designated witness protection programs. Once again, the provincial programs would work together with the federal program and become a designated witness protection program.

A province would request this designation from the Minister of Public Safety, at which time the provincial authority would provide assurances of the program's capacity to protect both its witnesses and its information. It is important that it protects both the information and the witnesses. Once the program is established and designated upon the request of that program, the RCMP would be obliged to help in obtaining federal identity documents for a provincial witness without any need for him or her to be transferred temporarily into the federal program. That is one of the big changes.

In addition to being easier, the new system is also designed to be more efficient and more secure. Security and efficiency are other complementary assets of the new reform program. Under the designation regime proposed by Bill C-51, requests for federal identity change documents would be submitted by a provincial official from a designated provincial witness protection program to the RCMP, thereby limiting the number of individuals involved in the process and making the system more secure.

Bill C-51 also proposes to enhance the security of witness protection regimes in Canada by both enhancing and extending the current prohibitions against the disclosure of information concerning an individual in a designated witness protection program. The current federal Witness Protection Act prohibits the disclosure of information by individuals within the federal program. Section 11(1) of the act says "no person shall knowingly disclose, directly or indirectly, information about the location or a change of identity of a protectee or former protectee".

Bill C-51 would strengthen this prohibition in a number of important ways. Let me expand a bit on that.

Bill C-51 would not only prohibit the disclosure of information about individuals in the federal program, it would also prohibit the disclosure of information about how the program itself operates, as well as about those individuals who provide or assist in providing protection for witnesses. Both of these prohibitions would also extend to individuals in designated provincial programs. Such prohibitions against the disclosure of information currently exist only within the legislation of the particular provincial jurisdiction, not across jurisdictions. That is another big contributing factor to enhancing the existing legislation.

As we can see, Bill C-51 would also clarify the prohibition with respect to what and how information is being disclosed. Clarity is very important. As I mentioned earlier, Section 11(1) of the current act contains the phrase "no person shall knowingly disclose, directly or indirectly, information about the location or a change of identity of a protectee or former protectee". The phrase "directly or indirectly" was considered to be unclear. Bill C-51 proposes amendments to ensure that the prohibitions will clearly apply to cases where a person discloses information in a range of ways.

Let me share a few examples. It would include telling someone what a protected person's name is, leaving information about the protected person unguarded, telling someone where a protected person lives and revealing unique characteristics about the person that could, for example, identify a specific housing market that results in someone deducing the city to which the person has been relocated. Bill C-51 would prohibit all of the above disclosures by specifying that no one could disclose any information, either directly or indirectly, that would reveal the location or change of identity of a protected person or the information from which the location or change of identity could be inferred.

Finally, among other improvements, Bill C-51 would expand referrals for admissions to the federal witness protection program to sources assisting federal security, national defence or public safety organizations, such as the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. By extending referrals to this category of witnesses, we are also addressing one of the commitments under the Government of Canada's Air India inquiry action plan released in 2010.

The act has not been substantially changed since it came into force, despite the constantly changing nature of organized crime and calls for reform. The safer witness act would help to strengthen the current federal witness protection program, a program that, as I mentioned, is often vital to effectively combat crime, particularly organized crime.

Like my colleague from Edmonton Centre, I encourage all hon. members in the House to follow the example I would encourage on our side. I know that there was support at committee. Hopefully the House will support Bill C-51 and see it move forward to provide the tools for our men and women serving across the country and our witnesses as well.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to lend my support to Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act.

At the outset, I will point out that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Kelowna—Lake Country.

Without question, the federal witness protection program continues to serve Canadians well. However, there is no denying that there have been sweeping changes in the landscape since the Witness Protection Program Act was first passed 17 years ago. At the same time, various stakeholders have made constructive suggestions for improving the program. For all these reasons, the time has come to bring Canada's witness protection program into the 21st century both for the sake of protectees, as well as the ones who protect them.

Having carefully reviewed Bill C-51 and as a member of the public safety committee, I am confident the safer witnesses act would make federal witness protection programs more effective and more secure.

Before highlighting the proposed amendments, let me reflect on the rationale for the changes. There are three main catalysts for this bill: the evolving nature of crime and technology, the recommendations of several key reports and the needs of our stakeholders. I will address each in turn.

The revolution in information technology, which continues unabated, has been an double-edged sword. On the one hand, the law enforcement community has new tools to track down criminals. On the other hand, organized crime can now track down, intimidate and threaten witnesses more easily. Canada's witness protection program needs greater flexibility to keep one step ahead of the criminals. In other words, we need to better protect and secure information about witnesses, programs and the administrators of those programs. Bill C-51 addresses those concerns.

Against this backdrop, we must also acknowledge that two major reports have recommended changes to how we protect our witnesses. In March 2008, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security made several important recommendations to enhance the witness protection program. In its response, the government committed to consult with affected stakeholders and the bill we are discussing today is informed by those wide-ranging views.

Members may recall the Commission of Inquiry into the Investigation of the Bombing of Air India Flight 182 also recommended changes to the witness protection program. The Government of Canada responded, and I am pleased to note the safer witnesses act reflects priorities in the government's Air India action plan.

The third major catalyst, which is connected to these reports, is the evolving needs of our stakeholders, including the provinces and territories and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. In particular, there has been a resounding call for improved interaction between and among different levels of government.

I am pleased to say the safer witnesses act has provisions to enhance communication between federal departments and between federal, provincial and territorial governments. On that note, let me review the main elements of the bill, beginning with how it would streamline management of the witness protection program.

Members may be aware of differences between the federal program and programs that exist in Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Essentially, the federal program, which is run by the RCMP, provides long-term protection for witnesses. This could involve moving a family to another location and changing the identities of its members.

Provincial programs are often generally focused on more short-term protection. This could include making sure that witnesses are safe and secure before they testify in a major trial. However, there are times when the provinces need support from the RCMP. Unfortunately, there are also times when that support gets bogged down by bureaucracy. For example, sometimes provinces must obtain new identities for the protectees. To do so, the provinces must currently enrol them in the federal program. This process can take time and when lives are at stake, obviously time counts.

To address this problem, Bill C-51 would change this process. Ultimately, once designated, provincial programs could deal directly with the RCMP for secure identity changes without transferring protectees into the federal program. The proposed amendments would enhance interactions between and among federal agencies and departments. Now, when the RCMP needs help with an identity change for a provincial protectee, federal departments would be duty bound to co-operate.

The second major set of amendments in this bill concerns disclosure of information. Currently, the act prohibits only the disclosure of information about the location and identity of federal protectees. Bill C-51 would broaden the scope of protection to include sensitive information about how the program is run and about those who administer the program.

Moreover, in response to concerns by stakeholders, the bill would extend these prohibitions to designated provincial programs. Bill C-51 would also clear up vague wording in the current act about the nature of direct and indirect disclosure. It would prohibit, for example, revealing anything about protectees that could even indirectly identify them, such as medical conditions or distinguishing marks.

This government strongly believes that protectees have a right to know when their new identities might be compromised. That is why the proposed amendments will broaden the government's duty to notify witnesses about any relevant disclosure.

At the same time, the bill reserves the right to a full notification if the disclosure might compromise national security. There is always a need to balance the rights of protectees and the needs of the public. In certain parts of the existing legislation, however, the pendulum swings too far away from the protectees.

For that reason, Bill C-51 would specify the RCMP Commissioner must have reasonable grounds to believe national security or defence was at risk before he or she could disclose a protectees identity.

At the same time, the proposed legislation would authorize the commissioner to disclose information if it would better protect witnesses in both federal and provincial programs.

Disclosure would also be allowed if protected persons gave their consent, if they had already disclosed their real identities themselves or acted in a way that revealed their identities.

This brings me to the question of what happens if a protectee no longer wishes to be protected. Currently, only the commissioner may end protection for witnesses in the federal program. Bill C-51 proposes a change that would allow protectees to voluntarily terminate their involvement. Not only would this protect the rights of protectees to leave, it would also protect the integrity of the program. If a protectee no longer follows the rules, it jeopardizes the entire program, including the lives of its administrators. These witnesses are very different and we must try to accommodate them as best we can.

As I mentioned earlier, we must recognize that witnesses may need protection from a terrorist rather than a simple criminal. For that reason, the bill proposes to open the witness protection program to referrals from federal institutions with a Public Safety, National Defence or National Security mandate.

Bill C-51 is a thoughtful and comprehensive approach to bring the federal witness protection program into the new millennia. It has been well received by many provincial jurisdictions as well as by law enforcement communities, and takes into consideration the needs of other concerned groups.

Let me quote from Tom Stamatakis, who is the President of the Canadian Police Association:

The Canadian Police Association strongly believes that this proposed legislation will enhance the safety and security of front-line law enforcement personnel who are engaged in protective duties. Unfortunately, the disclosure of identifying details can present a real danger to police personnel themselves as well as their families, and we appreciate the steps being taken today by the government of Canada to address those concerns. On behalf of the over 50,000 law enforcement personnel that we represent across Canada, we ask that Parliament quickly move to adopt this Bill.

The NDP and Liberals have supported this legislation at every stage. No amendments were proposed. Bill C-51 was studied at five public safety committee meetings, and this is the fourth day that Bill C-51 has been debated in the House.

It is time to get on with it. I would urge all hon. members to join me in giving Bill C-51 their full and unconditional support.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, be read the third time and passed.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, now that we have been sitting for a week under our Conservative government's plans for a harder-working, productive and orderly House of Commons, I would remind all hon. members of what we have been able to achieve since just Victoria Day.

Bill C-48, the technical tax amendments act, 2012, was passed at report stage and third reading. Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act, was passed at second reading. Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act, was passed at report stage and we started third reading debate, which we will finish tonight. Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act was passed at report stage and, just moments ago, at third reading. Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act, was passed at second reading. Bill C-60, the economic action plan 2013 act, No. 1, was reported back from committee yesterday.

Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, was passed at report stage and we started third reading debate. Bill S-6, the first nations elections act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act, which was reported back to the House this morning by the hard-working and fast running member for Peace River, has completed committee. Bill S-10, the prohibiting cluster munitions act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-13, the port state measures agreement implementation act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-14, the fighting foreign corruption act, was debated at second reading.

We will build on this record of accomplishment over the coming week.

This afternoon, as I mentioned, we will finish the second reading debate on Bill C-51. After that, we will start the second reading debate on Bill C-56, Combating Counterfeit Products Act.

Tomorrow morning, we will start report stage on Bill C-60, now that the hard-working Standing Committee on Finance has brought the bill back to us. After I conclude this statement, Mr. Speaker, I will have additional submissions for your consideration on yesterday's point of order.

After question period tomorrow, we will get a start on the second reading debate on Bill S-15, Expansion and Conservation of Canada’s National Parks Act. I am optimistic that we would not need much more time, at a future sitting, to finish that debate.

On Monday, before question period, we will debate Bill S-17, Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2013, at second reading. In the afternoon, we will hopefully finish report stage consideration of Bill C-60, followed by Bill S-2 at third reading.

On Tuesday, we will return to Bill S-2 if necessary. After that, I hope we could use the time to pass a few of the other bills that I mentioned earlier, as well as the forthcoming bill on the Yale First Nation Final Agreement.

Wednesday, June 5 shall be the eighth allotted day of the supply cycle. That means we will discuss an NDP motion up until about 6:30 p.m. This will be followed by a debate on the main estimates. Then we will pass to two appropriations acts.

Next Thursday, I would like to return back to Bill C-60, our budget implementation legislation, so we can quickly pass that important bill for the Canadian economy.

Third Reading

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand to speak on Bill C-51 and to speak in support of the bill at third reading on behalf of the official opposition, the New Democratic Party.

The NDP has long called for the government to expand the eligibility of witnesses to enter protection programs to ensure the safety of all Canadians in potential danger and, more important, to secure the participation and obligation of citizens of this country to co-operate and participate in the justice system. Since 2007, the New Democrats have specifically called for better coordination of federal and provincial programs and better overall funding for the witness protection program.

Contrary to what I hear from the Conservative side of the House, effective crime prevention and crime interdiction measures require resources; appropriate funding, not just spin, not just talk, not just rhetoric, but actually public resources put behind those words. New Democrats have long understood that connection. Our demands were repeated in 2009 and, again, by the NDP member of Parliament for Trinity—Spadina, in November last year.

Bill C-51 would expand the eligibility criteria of the witness protection program to include witnesses recommended by CSIS and National Defence. This is a positive development.

It would also extend the period for emergency protection and clear up some technical problems that have plagued witness protection programs, with respect to federal-provincial relations.

I think we should say that these are laudable achievements and the government deserves credit for bringing these forward.

Having said that, while the NDP supports Bill C-51 as it attempts to improve the witness protection program, we are concerned that the Conservative government has refused to commit any new funding for the system. We are concerned that the Conservatives' requirement that the RCMP and local police departments work within their existing budgets would hinder the improvement of the program.

I will pause here just to bring to all Canadians' attention the testimony that we heard before the public safety committee. We learned that the RCMP would administer the witness protection program at the request of municipal and provincial police forces and the RCMP would then bill them for those services.

So, while the RCMP does not perhaps need more resources to implement the provisions of the bill, local municipal and provincial police forces do need more resources because if they want to access the provisions of this program, they have to pay for them and the RCMP would bill them accordingly. We heard that from municipal police forces across this country.

The bill also would not include provisions for any independent agency to operate the program, as recommended by Justice Major in the Air India inquiry report.

The RCMP would continue to be responsible for the program. This would leave the RCMP in a precarious situation and a potential conflict of interest as they are often the agency both investigating the case and deciding who may or may not get protection.

As we have heard on all sides of this House, often the people who are requiring witness protection are people who have engaged in criminal acts themselves. They are often the subject of investigation at the same time they are co-operating with police in the prosecution of crimes. And so, New Democrats believe that potential conflict should be addressed. Unfortunately, it has not been in the bill.

While some RCMP and public safety department witnesses at committee said that they did not see funding the program as an issue, once again, it was clear from other witnesses that funding is in fact a real problem for municipalities and police forces and that Bill C-51 would place an even heavier burden on them through downloaded costs.

I would like to now summarize a few key points.

While the Conservatives are late to respond to this growing issue, New Democrats are pleased to see the government listening to our requests to expand the witness program and the requests of police forces and provinces across this country.

Second, we want to emphasize that if the Conservatives truly want to improve the witness protection program, they must be prepared to commit funding and the resources to ensure that would happen.

New Democrats are committed to building safer communities. One way to do that would be through improved witness protection programs that would keep our streets safe by giving police the tools that they need to fight street gangs and organized crime.

I want to address the background of the bill. The federal witness protection program has long been criticized for its narrow eligibility criteria, for poor coordination with provincial programs and low numbers of witnesses actually admitted to the program.

Here are the real numbers. In 2012, only 30 out of 108 applications considered for witness protection were accepted. That is less than a third. Since the witness program passed in 1996, both the Liberal and Conservative governments have done little to respond to the criticisms of the system. While some bills have been presented in the House of Commons to address small components of the protection program, the overarching issues of eligibility, coordination and funding have not been addressed.

The NDP is on record repeatedly asking the government to address the three key issues in the witness protection program, that is, expanded criteria eligibility, co-operation with provinces and adequate funding. As late as last year we called for these very things in the House and we pointed to the difficulty that Toronto police were facing at that time in convincing witnesses to come forward in response to the summer's mass shooting at a block party on Danzig Street.

Similarly, in Vancouver, the city I am privileged to represent, organized crime and criminal gangs have long been a problem. Effective, efficient, accessible witness protection programs will be a key component in giving our British Columbia police forces the tools they need to apprehend those who are responsible for serious crime in our communities.

Mr. Speaker, I see you rising--

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to indicate that I will be sharing my time with my wonderful colleague from Vancouver Kingsway.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-51, the purpose of which is to better protect witnesses who help the police in the fight against organized crime and terrorism.

For some time, the federal witness protection program has been criticized for its overly strict eligibility criteria, its poor coordination with federal programs and the low number of witnesses admitted to the program. Only 30 of the 108 applications examined were approved in 2012.

The NDP has been asking the government for years to broaden witness eligibility for protection programs in order to guarantee the safety of all Canadians at risk. The NDP has been insistently calling for better coordination of federal and provincial programs and improved overall program funding since 2007.

Although the Conservatives have taken their time in addressing this growing problem, we are pleased that the government has finally listened to our requests to expand the witness protection program.

That is why we are going to support the safer witnesses act. One consequence of this bill is that it will allow federal departments and agencies with a mandate related to national security, national defence and public safety to use this investigative tool.

Bill C-51 also proposes extending the amount of time for which emergency protection can be provided to witnesses while they are working with the police or testifying in court.

Finally, the bill also seeks to further limit the public dissemination of information that could compromise the safety of witnesses and informants. Some of these measures were recommended in 2010 by a House of Commons committee that examined the problems with the investigation and legal proceedings related to the 1985 Air India attack.

The Canadian Press obtained a detailed document from the RCMP dated May 2010 on the reform of the witness protection program. In that document, the RCMP indicates that, regardless of whether the provinces choose to go with their own program, the RCMP must still ensure that the witness protection program is able to better respond to current challenges, such as street gangs and violence. The RCMP also proposed broadening the program eligibility criteria in order to make it easier for potential witnesses to qualify.

The NDP believes that Bill C-51 does very little with regard to some changes that need to be made to the witness protection program. The NDP will continue to push the government to address a host of concerns. Bill C-51 is a step in the right direction.

However, the witness protection program, run by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, costs around $9 million a year. Even though more people could be eligible under the proposed changes, the RCMP will not receive any additional funding.

Although the NDP supports Bill C-51, it deplores the fact that the Conservative government has refused to allocate additional funding. We are also concerned that the Conservatives' requirement that the RCMP and local police services work within their existing budgets will prevent the program from improving. If the Conservatives really, truly, sincerely want to improve the witness protection program, they should also commit the money to make that happen.

Here is what Commissioner Micki Ruth, from the Canadian Association of Police Boards, had to say when she appeared before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security:

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 program 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.

Although we support the idea behind Bill C-51, we must ensure that the legislative measures being passed by the government do not burden municipal police services with additional costs.

In our opinion, the bill will not be effective unless the problem of adequate funding for the witness protection program is resolved.

We on this side of the House are also disappointed that this bill does not contain more of the recommendations from the Air India investigation, namely a more transparent and accountable eligibility process.

What is more, the bill contains no provisions allowing for an independent organization to administer the program, as recommended in the Air India investigation report. The RCMP will continue to bear the responsibility for the program, which will eventually place it in a conflict of interest, because it will be both the investigating body and the one to decide who benefits from protection.

We also hope that the government truly intends to work with the provinces in order to facilitate the administrative process for changing the identity of individuals in the witness protection program. In late 2009 and early 2010, the government consulted the provinces and territories about this program. A number of them expressed concerns. However, now that the Conservative government has a majority, it thinks it can do whatever it wants and, unfortunately, it does not often listen to its provincial counterparts.

Many provinces have their own witness protection programs, but they often provide only short-term assistance. What is more, they need to co-operate with the RCMP to get new identity documents for witnesses. That is why the NDP will keep pushing the federal government to continue working with the RCMP and the provinces to provide funding for the witness protection program so that local police forces can continue their important work.

The NDP is committed to building safer communities. One way of doing this is to improve the witness protection program to ensure that our streets are safe and to provide police forces with additional tools to combat street gangs and organized crime. Need we remind the government of all the spending scandals?

Three billion dollars earmarked for the fight against terrorism is missing. If the government had invested all that money in a program like this, things would be different now. We could perhaps move forward and assure our local police forces that the federal government supports them, not just in word but in deed, by providing them with funding. Perhaps that is the problem, because this government does not seem to understand the importance of adequate funding for this program.

That is what I have been trying to say throughout my speech. The people and experts actually doing the work are saying that Bill C-51 will allow us to move forward but that, unfortunately, the funding is not there. That is too bad.

To conclude my speech on this bill, I would like to talk about the police forces in my beautiful riding of Quebec City. The city is very safe and is a great place to live. That is likely because community groups, such as Pech, which provides support and housing assistance, are doing such great work.

Pech also works with the Quebec City police service, which attends every event. That is what social and community involvement looks like. That is the kind of support they expect from the federal government. Many positive initiatives start at the grassroots level and are run by people who work on the front lines—police, volunteers and people working in community organizations, for example—and who tell us what they need.

It is our duty, at the federal level, to respond to the needs they express and see how we can help them. This bill is one example, but the funding needs to be there. Otherwise, it may completely miss the mark.

The government could end up implementing legislative measures without adequate funding.

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I was reading about the bill, and Bill C-51 is clearly a very important bill, I found a quote from Tom Stamatakis, president of the Canadian Police Association and I would like to read it. He said:

The Canadian Police Association strongly believes that this proposed legislation will enhance the safety and security of front-line law enforcement personnel who are engaged in protective duties...Unfortunately, the disclosure of identifying details can present a real danger to police personnel themselves as well as their families, and we appreciate the steps being taken today by the government of Canada to address those concerns.

Would my colleague comment on this and whether he sees any further detail in this that he would share with the House?