Safer Witnesses Act

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

This bill was last introduced in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session, which ended in September 2013.

Sponsor

Vic Toews  Conservative

Status

This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.

Summary

This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament often publishes better independent summaries.

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.

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

Votes

June 3, 2013 Passed That the Bill be now read a third time and do pass.
May 30, 2013 Passed That, in relation to Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the third reading stage of the Bill; and that, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration of the third reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
May 23, 2013 Passed That Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, be concurred in at report stage.
Feb. 12, 2013 Passed That the Bill be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

March 5th, 2013 / 8:50 a.m.
See context

A/Commr Todd G. Shean Assistant Commissioner, Federal and International Operations, Royal Canadian Mounted Police

Good morning, Mr. Chair.

I wish to thank the committee for providing me with this opportunity to participate in your discussions on Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act.

The RCMP recognizes the important step forward that this bill represents in promoting a more complete and effective federal witness protection program.

Significant elements of the bill include the recognition of provincial witness protection programs and the provision to those programs of the same protections the federal program enjoys relative to protectees, former protectees, and sensitive information relative to how the program operates.

Further, the legislation acknowledges the potential risks that may be directed toward those responsible for providing protection, be they personnel assigned to the witness protection function or perhaps public servants who assist in the identity change process.

Another key element is that provincial programs will no longer be required to enter their protectees into the federal program to obtain federal identity documents. This promotes the independence of the provincial programs to more effectively administer their programs, and equally as important, diminishes risk to the federal program by no longer having to admit persons into the federal program solely to facilitate the name change process. This process left the federal program vulnerable as the program had limited, if any, input relative to the protective measures offered a provincial protectee while awaiting the referred documentation.

As a result of the designation regime, the RCMP will deal directly with the designated official for the provincial witness protection program. As a result, the RCMP will no longer be addressing protection issues with a number of law enforcement agencies within a province, but will deal exclusively with the offices of the designated provincial official or officials as designated by the province. This will promote efficiencies in services provided to the provinces and will further enhance the security of both the federal and the provincial programs.

This legislation, in concert with sweeping operational changes being introduced to the federal program, responds to the recommendations emanating from both this committee's report in 2008, relative to the federal witness protection program, and the Air India commission report of 2010. In fact, program changes currently being introduced eclipse the referred recommendations in a number of areas and ensure that the federal program remains well positioned to provide continued elevated levels of service.

Much has been said in the past about the importance of ensuring that the decision-making processes relative to program entry are made independently of investigative decision-making interests. The new entry process for the federal program responds to this criticism and ensures that those responsible for witness protection decision-making operate independently from investigative interests. This has required a significant shift in structure within national headquarters and divisions and the new admission protocols will be in place nationally by May 2013.

The RCMP has introduced a series of specialized and secure protocols developed specifically for the witness protection function, which is unique to witness protection in this country. We have also developed standard operating procedures relative to the enhanced program orientation processes, and we have begun to initiate a more robust outreach process designed to better respond to the needs of protectees who may be struggling with program adaptation.

RCMP witness protection officers are now the benefactors of the most progressive and comprehensive witness protection training in Canada, and by the end of the next fiscal year, we anticipate having five full-time psychologists working exclusively for the federal program. Further, we anticipate the rollout of an enhanced data bank system designed specifically for the federal program. This new system will allow better tracking of individual witness protection cases, it will allow us to better monitor the services we provide to partners and stakeholders, and it will promote program accountability and transparency through the immediate access to program data and statistics.

We have initiated research projects into the witness protection function and are developing workshops to better study the impact of witness protection from a variety of cultural perspectives, and particularly the challenges of witness protection for First Nations persons who may be considered for program entry.

The RCMP has also held meetings with representatives of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP in an effort to ensure that the CPC has full insight into the functioning of the program, the challenges associated with the program administration, and the complaint process. It is anticipated that this interaction will continue in an effort to ensure that the services provided by the CPC to Canadians relative to witness protection will be addressed in a timely, appropriate, and transparent manner. With the implementation of all of the aforementioned, the federal witness protection program will be well positioned to continue to be one of the most professional and effective witness protection programs in the world.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I look forward to answering any questions you may have.

Merci.

March 5th, 2013 / 8:45 a.m.
See context

Trevor Bhupsingh Director General, Law Enforcement and Border Strategies Directorate, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and committee members, for the invitation and the opportunity to speak again about the proposed legislation that's before us today. The legislation speaks to the modernization of Canada's federal witness protection program.

It is well recognized that an effective and reliable witness protection program is valuable in the fight against crime, especially against organized crime and terrorism.

In Canada, witness protection programs exist at both the federal and provincial levels. Federally, the Witness Protection Program is legislated by the Witness Protection Program Act and is administered by the RCMP. In recent years, the provinces have also started to establish their own witness protection programs.

While some provincial programs tend to focus on witness management, the federal program handles more serious cases that can require relocation and often a secure change of identity. Provincial programs often provide time-limited protection, usually leading up to, or during, a trial, whereas the federal program considers its protectees to be in the program for life. Only the federal program is legislatively mandated to provide national protection services to all law enforcement agencies in Canada, as well as to international courts and tribunals.

Public Safety Canada wants to ensure that our police continue to have the appropriate tools in place to build safe neighbourhoods across Canada by keeping up with the changing nature of crime, as well as with criminal or terrorist organizations.

Through Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act, we are looking to amend the Witness Protection Program Act to improve the effectiveness and security of the federal witness protection program, and to make it more responsive to the needs of law enforcement across Canada.

As you may be aware, the current Witness Protection Program Act was first legislated in 1996, but it has not been substantially modified since it came into force. That's over 25 years. The amendments proposed in Bill C-51 are intended to address the recommendations brought forward by this committee in 2008, as well as the Air India commission of inquiry in 2010.

In follow-up to the SECU report, in 2008 Public Safety Canada and the RCMP undertook countrywide consultations with federal, provincial, and territorial partners to hear their views on how to improve the federal witness protection program, as well as their perspectives on the SECU recommendations.

These provided amendments will also respond to what we heard regarding how to improve the witness protection program in Canada. The proposed legislative mechanisms and amendments in Bill C-51 are intended to improve interaction between the federal and provincial witness protection programs. Specifically, they will improve the process to obtain a secure identity change for witnesses from the provinces and territories through a designation process. Once designated, a provincial program can request that the RCMP assist in the provision of secure identity changes to designated provincial programs, without transferring their protectees into the federal program, which is currently the practice.

Bill C-51 will also broaden prohibitions against the disclosure of information, beyond the name and the location of a federal protectee, to now include designated provincial protectee information about both the federal and provincial programs and those who administer these programs. This is consistent with provincial requests to strength the disclosure prohibitions, so that information about their witnesses is protected throughout Canada.

In response to Air India, the bill will also expand the agencies that can refer individuals to the program to now include any federal agency with a mandate related to national security, national defence, or public safety sources. Referrals can now be made by such agencies as CSIS or the Department of National Defence.

Bill C-51 will also improve the federal program administration by permitting voluntary termination from the program and extending emergency protection from the current 90 days to a maximum of 180 days. These amendments will address operational issues regarding the administration of the federal program.

In addition to the legislative amendments, the RCMP is also undertaking a number of administrative and programmatic improvements to address concerns raised in the past. One important improvement is a change in the RCMP reporting structure to separate admission decisions from investigations, thereby ensuring objectivity in the decision-making process. The RCMP is also taking additional measures to enhance the federal program by incorporating psychological assessments of candidates and counselling for protectees and their families, offering the services of legal counsel to all candidates being considered for admission into the federal program, enhancing training for witness handlers and administrators of the program, and also creating a database that would better inform program design.

To summarize, Canada's federal witness protection program is an invaluable tool that helps our police infiltrate the world of organized crime and gather vital information to reduce and disrupt the illegal drug trade.

The Safer Witnesses Act will encourage a more streamlined approach to witness protection between the federal and provincial or territorial governments, as well as between the RCMP and other federal institutions with a mandate related to national security or national defence.

It will ensure that the federal witness protection program is more effective and secure, for both the witnesses and for those who provide protection to these witnesses.

The proposed changes outlined in Bill C-51 will go a long way toward improving the federal program and to make it an effective tool for law enforcement in the global fight against organized crime and terrorism.

Thank you.

March 5th, 2013 / 8:45 a.m.
See context

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

Good morning, everyone, and welcome to our Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. This is meeting number 74. Today is Tuesday, March 5, 2013.

This morning we are continuing our study of Bill C-51 to amend Canada's Witness Protection Program Act.

Appearing before us today, from the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, we have a number of returning guests. First, we have Trevor Bhupsingh. He is the director general of the law enforcement and border strategies directorate. As well, we welcome back Julie Mugford, director of research and national coordination in the organized crime division.

Also, from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we have Assistant Commissioner Todd Shean, of federal and international operations; and Inspector Greg Bowen, the officer in charge of witness protection operations.

I invite the Department of Public Safety to open this morning and to make some brief remarks.

As well, the RCMP has a statement. I haven't been given one yet, but if you do have one, I invite you to give me one now. Then we'll move into the first round of questions.

Thank you.

February 28th, 2013 / 10:40 a.m.
See context

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

Thank you very much, Minister.

And thank you, Mr. Rafferty.

I would just like to ask one quick question; I think I had permission from our parliamentary secretary on that.

I want to thank you first of all for moving with Bill C-51.

Mr. Norlock is getting ready to ask a question. Mr. Norlock is the only member on this committee who was on the committee in 2008 when the committee issued the report on the review of the witness protection program. So some of the changes that are happening in this bill are straight out of the good hard work of Mr. Norlock and the committee back then.

I would ask one question, and I thank you for clarifying on the street gangs. I think the word that was missing a bit was “youth”—youth street gangs. You clarified that. The definition of “person” that falls under this is “any person”. Anyone can fall into the witness protection plan.

One of the criteria in the witness protection program, when you consider whether they would be available, is the likelihood of the witnesses being able to adjust to the program, having regard to the witnesses' maturity. I don't know if the deputy commissioner would.... Is there difficulty for young people to prove the maturity they would need in such a program? That was one question.

I wonder if, Minister, you would have any examples as to a rate of recidivism? Are you aware of any recidivism of prior offenders who may be in the program?

These are two questions that came out of Mr. Norlock's committee report.

February 28th, 2013 / 10:40 a.m.
See context

NDP

John Rafferty NDP Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON

My question is specifically about first nations, and I think we can expect with this bill that perhaps there will be more first nations activity in terms of witness protection and so on. There are serious problems among first nations in terms of gangs and so on. So there may be an increased use of that.

Part of the problem, of course—and I'm sure you've heard this many times, Minister—is that first nations police services are woefully underfunded. They do the best they can with the resources they have.

I wonder if you would like to perhaps make a comment about moving forward over the next couple of years and what you have in mind. I don't expect you to jump the gun, but with Bill C-51 there should be increased usage of that among first nations, I would expect, in terms of northern Ontario, for example. They need more money, Minister.

February 28th, 2013 / 10:35 a.m.
See context

NDP

John Rafferty NDP Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON

I have a further question to that, and I don't think we got an adequate answer last time. Bill C-51 will undoubtedly encourage more people to come forward. That's good, and we're certainly supportive of that.

Let us just say that there may not be exponential numbers coming forward, but there is an increase. You will have a certain bar. You don't want to keep moving the bar higher because you don't have any money, and there are people who are worthy of and interested in being in the program. Will you have the opportunity to borrow from other programs, for example, to make sure that all the people who need and require witness protection will be able to get it?

February 28th, 2013 / 10:10 a.m.
See context

Conservative

Parm Gill Conservative Brampton—Springdale, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I also want to thank you, Minister, and your officials for being here this morning with us on this important topic.

Minister, does Bill C-51 respond to recommendations made in the Air India inquiry? Can you talk about that, please?

February 28th, 2013 / 10:05 a.m.
See context

Conservative

Vic Toews Conservative Provencher, MB

Maybe I could just put on the record, Mr. Garrison, that if there are police who presently have any hesitation about bringing forward individuals in street gangs who want protection or witnesses who are the victims of street gangs, our policy remains the same, whether Bill C-51 is passed or not. Obviously we want it passed for other reasons, but I want to clear up that misapprehension. If there are some administrative restrictions that have been made mistakenly, I would only say that the people should contact my officials to get the matter straightened out.

February 28th, 2013 / 10:05 a.m.
See context

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

Certainly Bill C-51 changes and broadens the definition of who can be included. I guess this would be good news, then, because we had that impression from talking to municipal chiefs and the Canadian Police Association.

February 28th, 2013 / 10 a.m.
See context

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thanks to the minister and officials for being here today.

We on this side of the House are very glad to see Bill C-51 before the committee.

Also, of course, we have committed to expediting its passage through the House. We believe it's important legislation. It's something we've been interested in since the time of the Air India inquiry, in which the inability to protect witnesses in national security matters became very obvious.

We are also very glad to see the definition expanded so that it might be useable in protection of witnesses to combat street gangs. We know this has been a very big concern of municipal police forces.

The provincial coordination and assistance program is very positive. I think one matter that has not received enough public attention is the additional protections to those working in the program. We know that organized crime, in an attempt to break the witness protection program, has a temptation to pick on those who administer it, so we think this is a very important provision for protecting the police who work in this program.

The parliamentary secretary has read some of my notes this morning, obviously, and has used them for her presentation. We have heard from municipal police forces that there will be some additional demand on the program if they are going to use the program to combat street gangs, which they weren't able to do before. We had one very specific instance, Chief McGrogan from Medicine Hat, who appeared before the committee and expressed his concern about costs for municipalities of witness protection programs.

I have some personal experience with this as a police board member and as a city councillor. I'm going to save the minister some time, because he usually responds to me by talking about my record as a police board member and a councillor. I'm going to save him a little time in his response on this by pointing out that when I served on the police board and as a councillor, each and every year the police received additional resources, and each and every year I supported the vote and voted for additional resources for the police. I don't know where his confusion about my record comes from, because it's a very clear public record. So I'll save him time this morning by making that response.

I really want to come back to this: the minister has said there will be no additional resources for the RCMP, and we take it in good faith that the RCMP can manage the program, but our question about resources is really at the municipal level. Municipalities face downloading in policing costs of all kinds. The parliamentary secretary made reference to the statement on the RCMP website that there sometimes is a reluctance on the part of municipal police forces to use the witness protection program because if it's for a federal prosecution they will be billed back the full costs.

I would like to have your comments on this issue, concerning resources.

February 28th, 2013 / 9:55 a.m.
See context

Conservative

Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, Assistant Commissioner, and officials for being here.

I want to get right into the issue of cost. What we have found with the opposition, and it's kind of interesting...there's a bit of a pattern. The NDP support this particular bill, yet they were constantly talking about the fact that they think we need to put more money into the program. Interestingly enough, they don't support Bill C-42, for example, but they want more money for it. Even when the commissioner said we don't need more money and the independent chair of the complaints commission said we don't need more money, the NDP just want to keep throwing more money where it's actually not needed.

Can you please tell us very clearly, or the assistant commissioner could tell us, is there more money required when and if Bill C-51 passes?

February 28th, 2013 / 9:45 a.m.
See context

Provencher Manitoba

Conservative

Vic Toews ConservativeMinister of Public Safety

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, committee members, for the invitation to appear before this committee to assist you with your deliberations on Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act.

As indicated, I have senior officials with me from both Public Safety and from the RCMP.

The safer witnesses act will help to strengthen the current federal witness protection program, a program that is often vital to effectively combatting crime, and in particular organized crime. Bill C-51 will first and foremost improve the interaction of the federal witness protection plan with provincial witness protection programs. At the moment, someone in a provincial program obtains federal documents required for a secure identity change only if he or she is temporarily admitted into the federal program. This process can result in delays in obtaining a new identity.

Bill C-51 proposes to remedy the situation by establishing a process whereby the provincial programs can become designated witness protection programs. 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. Once a program is designated, and upon the request of the program, the RCMP would be obliged to help in obtaining federal identity documents for a provincial witness requiring a secure identity change without any need for him or her to be temporarily admitted into the federal program. This new system will cut red tape and make the process more efficient and indeed more secure.

Currently, each law enforcement agency submits its requests for federal identity change documents to the RCMP. Under the designation regime proposed by the bill, the provincial official from a designated provincial witness protection program would request federal documents on behalf of the law enforcement agencies. This process would limit the number of individuals involved in the process.

The bill would also enhance the security of witness protection regimes in Canada by both enhancing and broadening the current prohibitions against the disclosure of information. The current federal Witness Protection Program Act prohibits the disclosure of information about individuals within the program. Section 11 of the current 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 will strengthen this prohibition in a number of very important ways. It will not only prohibit the disclosure of information about people who are in the federal program, it will also prohibit the disclosure of sensitive information about how the program itself operates, as well as about those individuals and front-line officers who actually provide or assist in providing protection for the witnesses. So it's those who are administering and working with the protectee who are also protected now.

This legislation, in particular this portion, has received very strong support. Tom Stamatakis, the president of the Canadian Police Association, has stated that the Canadian Police Association appreciates the steps being taken by the Government of Canada to protect front-line officers. He went on to say, “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.”

Mr. Chair, I can't say I disagree. Both of the prohibitions I mentioned earlier will also extend to designated provincial programs. That is, disclosure of information about witnesses, people who provide protection, and sensitive information about the programs themselves, will be prohibited. Such prohibitions against the disclosure of information currently exist only within the legislation of a particular provincial jurisdiction, so they don't apply across jurisdictions. Bill C-51 will also clarify the prohibition with respect to what and how information is being disclosed.

As I've mentioned, section 11 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. The bill proposes amendments to ensure that the prohibitions will clearly apply to cases where a person discloses information in a range of ways. Some examples include telling someone what a protected person's name is and telling someone where a protected person lives.

Bill C-51 will prohibit all of the above disclosures by specifying that no one shall disclose any information, either directly or indirectly, that reveals the location or change of identity of a protected person or the information from which the location or change of identity may be inferred.

Among other improvements, Bill C-51 will expand referrals for admissions to the federal witness protection program to sources assisting federal security, national defence, or public safety organizations such as National Defence and CSIS. 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 current federal witness protection program has served the criminal justice system well. Today there are approximately 800 individuals under the protection of this program. In 2011-12 alone, the RCMP considered a total of 108 cases for admission into the federal witness protection program. Thirty protectees were admitted to the program, of which 27 were granted a secure name change. The number of admissions fluctuates from year to year, depending upon factors such as the number of cases being investigated or the number of people in a witness's family.

During this same time, the RCMP also provided assistance to other Canadian law enforcement agencies, as provided for under the existing Witness Protection Program Act. The fact that the federal witness protection program is serving the criminal justice system well does not mean there's no room for improvement.

The Witness Protection Program Act has not been substantially changed since 1996, despite the increasingly sophisticated, evolving, 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 that I've mentioned today.

I must mention that this legislation has been well received by police chiefs, front-line officers, and the provinces.

Mr. Chair, before I close, I'm aware of some concerns with regard to the need for funding to accommodate the expansion of organizations that may refer witnesses for consideration of admission into the program, and I want to take a moment to address those concerns.

It is important to note that it is not anticipated that there would be any need for additional funding to accommodate this change. The program is currently funded by the RCMP from existing operational resources, and that will remain the same under Bill C-51. I would like to point out that there are seven criteria the RCMP use to assess whether to place an individual into the program. The cost of the protection is only one consideration.

The commissioner of the RCMP is required by statute to consider the risk to the witnesses, the danger to the community if a person were to be admitted into the program, the nature of the inquiry and the importance of the witness in the matter, the value of the information or evidence to be given by the witness, the likelihood the witness can adjust to the program, the cost of maintaining a witness in the program, alternate methods of protection, and other factors deemed by the commissioner to be relevant. The RCMP will continue to be required to take each of these factors into consideration under Bill C-51.

I've also referenced the fact that many people were applying to get into the program, but only 30 were admitted last year. I'd like to point out that there is no application process. The law enforcement agencies and international courts and tribunals refer individuals to the RCMP for consideration of admission, and each case is reviewed based on the seven criteria I have mentioned.

The truth is that very few people, if any, actually want or apply to be admitted into the witness protection program. It is a tool of last resort to keep them safe in exchange for their testimony. It imposes significant restrictions on their movements, lifestyle, and associations. That said, the witness protection program is a vitally important tool in our ongoing efforts to combat organized crime groups.

The bill addresses the need for modernization as well as enhanced information protection and integration with provincial programs. The bill introduces reforms to the present witness protection environment that will build on our collective efforts to battle organized crime as well as terrorist organizations, and in that way it helps all of us to continue to build safer streets and communities for everyone.

I ask that both opposition parties work with us to move forward this important piece of legislation.

Thank you very much.

February 28th, 2013 / 9:45 a.m.
See context

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

Welcome back, everyone, to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. We are going to continue with our second hour.

This morning we are commencing our study of Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act.

Our first witness is the Honourable Vic Toews, Minister of Public Safety and National Security. Accompanying the minister from Public Safety Canada is Trevor Bhupsingh, director general of the law enforcement and border strategies division. From the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we have Assistant Commissioner Todd Shean, federal and international operations.

Again, Minister, we thank you for coming to committee. You've appeared here a number of times at our request. Thank you for your availability this morning. We would invite you to make your opening statements in regard to this new bill the committee will be looking into. We welcome your comments.

Safer Witnesses ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2013 / 5:05 p.m.
See context

NDP

Anne Minh-Thu Quach NDP Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Manicouagan.

Bill C-51 concerns the witness protection program. It is a vital element in the fight against organized crime and, increasingly, crime involving street gangs. It offers significant benefits for the public. The co-operation of key witnesses means valuable support for law enforcement agencies and helps to enhance the safety of Canadian communities.

Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, makes long-awaited changes, and we are glad it was introduced. The NDP has in fact been calling for these new legislative measures for a very long time. My colleague from Trinity—Spadina also called for more support for the federal witness protection program in 2012. She pointed to the difficulty experienced by the Toronto Police Service in persuading witnesses to the killing that took place at a neighbourhood party on Danzig Street to come forward.

The NDP is committed to building safer communities, and one way of doing this is to improve the witness protection program, bringing peace to our neighbourhoods and giving the police additional tools to enable them to combat street gangs.

The NDP has repeatedly asked the government to broaden witness eligibility for protection programs in order to guarantee the safety of all Canadians at risk. In 2011-12, the federal witness protection program accepted only 30 out of 108 candidates, at a cost of just over $9 million.

Bill C-51 would thus broaden the eligibility criteria for the witness protection program to include street gang members, as well as witnesses recommended by CSIS and the Department of National Defence.

Federal departments and agencies whose mandate involves national security, national defence or public safety will also be able to refer witnesses to the program. Those working to combat street gangs believe that providing access to the program for gang members who wish to leave will represent an important addition to the tools they need.

Although the Conservatives have taken their time in acting, we are pleased that the government has listened to our requests to expand the witness protection program. Since 2007, the NDP has been strongly urging better coordination of the federal and provincial programs.

Provinces like Ontario and Alberta have pressed for the restructuring of the witness protection program at the national level, in particular by requesting better recognition of the programs in operation. A number of provinces run their own witness protection programs, which in many cases provide short-term assistance only.

Moreover, obtaining new federal identity documents for program participants requires co-operation from the RCMP. Bill C-51 provides for the designation of a provincial or municipal witness protection program, as a result of which some provisions of the legislation will apply to such a program. At the request of the designated official of the applicable provincial or municipal program, it also authorizes the RCMP commissioner to coordinate the activities of federal departments, agencies and services in order to facilitate a change of identity for a designated program protectee.

Lastly, the bill proposes extending the period of emergency protection available to a witness from 90 to 180 days, which is substantial.

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. This bill attempts to address these shortcomings, and although the NDP supports the bill, we believe that the government failed to include a number of measures that would have led to genuine reform of the witness protection program.

Here are a couple of examples. To begin with, we are dismayed that the Conservative government refused to inject new money into the system. If the Conservatives really want to improve the witness protection program, they need to allocate funds so that these measures can be implemented. Moreover, insufficient funding could compromise the positive results that would stem from enhancing the process of supporting provincial programs. The Conservative government does not acknowledge the significant costs incurred by local police forces.

There are provincial witness protection programs, but if the crime is a federal offence, or if it is drug-related, the RCMP is responsible for the file even though the local police forces have to foot the bill, which many cannot afford to do.

For example, in my riding, Beauharnois—Salaberry, which is on the U.S. border, in one particular place there is a lot of drug and weapons trafficking. In fact, there was a report in the Quebec media on the problem in 2011.

The Minister of Public Safety was even asked to go to Dundee, a municipality in my riding, where people, especially farmers, receive a lot of threats. They get offered money and do not really have any choice but to accept. They are afraid to report what is going on and they talk about it with their municipal council.

In winter, the traffickers move about over the lake. In the summer, they go into the fields and destroy crops. It is very difficult to do anything about it because the RCMP do not have enough money.

Furthermore, a border crossing in Franklin was closed in 2010. So there are fewer officers on patrol, which only makes surveillance more difficult. The RCMP said as much on its website:

There are instances when the costs of witness protection may impede investigations, particularly for smaller law enforcement agencies.

Yet, the Minister of Public Safety stated that the RCMP and local police services must make do with their current budgets. How does the Conservative government intend to improve the witness protection program, and make people safer, when the RCMP has already made it known that it does not receive adequate funding?

In order to improve the safety of communities, local police forces must receive the support they need to recruit witnesses regarding matters involving street gangs or drug and weapons trafficking.

The NDP is also dismayed by the fact that the government did not adopt a number of important recommendations from the investigative report on the Air India affair. In his report, Justice O'Connor stressed the need to create an arm's-length organization responsible for the witness protection program in order to make it more transparent. He also recommended that an independent advisory panel be created to play the role of watchdog and increase accountability.

Since this bill makes no changes in this regard, the RCMP will continue to assume responsibility for the program, which exposes it to a potential conflict of interest given that it is responsible for both conducting investigations and deciding who will receive protection.

The Air India Commission is not the only body to have highlighted the need for an overhaul of the witness protection program. In 2008, a committee of the House of Commons also recommended that the program be transferred to an independent organization.

Why is the Conservative government refusing to commit to making the program more transparent? The RCMP has also called for the establishment of an independent advisory panel in order to provide greater transparency.

Although the Conservatives took their time introducing this bill, we in the NDP are glad that the government is listening to our call to expand the witness protection program. However, it has not gone unnoticed that Bill C-51 does very little in terms of the changes that are required.

Some of the government's decisions, including the decision to not provide additional funding to the RCMP and local police forces, jeopardize the improvements that Bill C-51 would make to the program.

I urge the Conservative government to provide police forces with the resources they need in order to properly run this program, which is so important for the safety of our communities. I also call on the government to do everything in its power to increase the transparency of the program.

On our side of the House, we will continue to push the government to address the legitimate concerns of a number of stakeholders, including the RCMP and local communities.

Safer Witnesses ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2013 / 5:05 p.m.
See context

NDP

Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON

Mr. Speaker, my understanding of the proposed changes is that, because human trafficking with an international ring would be a federal issue, it would be something the RCMP would investigate. If someone is seeking protection, my understanding is that the RCMP investigates because it is a federal jurisdiction.

The changes with Bill C-51 would actually improve the eligibility criteria to allow more people who seek protection to see that protection made available to them.