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.

Opposition Motion—Terrorism

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Of course, we do not always agree. We have had some rigorous debates in recent years, not just between him and me, but between our two parties as well.

One thing is clear, the NDP has consistently opposed the draconian measures in that legislation. We firmly believe that, with more resources for our men and women in uniform and our police forces and a robust counter-radicalization strategy, the laws that existed before Bill C-51 was passed in the previous Parliament would have been sufficient. We just need the resources to enforce them. That is why we made those requests when opposing the two bills, namely Bill C-51 in the 41st Parliament and Bill C-59 in this Parliament.

On another note, I must say that, as a progressive, it is very discouraging to see the approach the Liberals are taking. They said that they would support the bill, but that we should not worry, because they would resolve all the problems with it when they took office.

In my opinion, the final result shows that Bill C-59 falls far short of resolving the problems.

Opposition Motion—ISIS Fighters Returning to Canada

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my questions to the parliamentary secretary, it goes without saying that we condemn the terrorist and violent acts committed by ISIS as well as by neo-Nazi groups, for example; we are disgusted by them.

Not only should all forms of terrorism be condemned, but we also find that our measures provide sufficient evidence to lay criminal charges. The parties all agree on that.

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the fantastic interpreters here in the House, it is worth repeating in both official languages that we find any violence committed by any terrorist group, whether it is ISIS or neo-Nazis, to be abhorrent and something we denounce. Insofar as we have the evidence required to go ahead with criminal proceedings and press charges, it should absolutely be done. That is not something up for debate, no matter which party is in power. On that, I certainly agree with the parliamentary secretary.

The sad part about trying to politicize a situation that is obviously very worrisome for all Canadians, as it pertains to their safety and security, is that when it comes to radicalization we have to ask ourselves what is the best way to address it. I heard the Conservatives say that this is not about people who are in the process of being radicalized, but about those who already were and have now returned.

With that in mind, it is very important to remember that the problem does not lie with our legislation or political will; in fact, we are talking about the justice system and not a political decision. It is about adapting to the standards of proof.

The way evidence is admitted in court is extremely important when we look at this particular issue of foreign fighters returning to Canada, in particular in what way intelligence gathered can be admissible as evidence in court. Even experts have had a hard time grappling with how we can lay charges with that evidence. That is something we acknowledge the government needs to look at and work on. It is certainly something that could help law enforcement press charges when they may be required.

When we are looking at pressing charges, it is not just what evidence is admissible. It is also the question of even laying terrorism charges, which is something we did not see in the previous Parliament under the previous government and that we have now seen twice under the current government. It is complicated, because as experts have said, often terrorism charges do not relate to the violence in and of itself, which usually falls under another part of the Criminal Code. Terrorism charges usually relate to the planning of said violence, which makes it very difficult, especially when we fall into the trap, as with this motion, of targeting specific groups.

I will explain why. Members will recall the horrible massacre in Moncton. By all accounts, this man committed a terrorist act. In fact, he confirmed that he wanted to attack the RCMP because it supported a government he thought was corrupt. I do not think this can be described as anything other than a terrorist act, and yet no one calls it that.

The attack at the Métropolis against a newly elected Quebec premier could also be considered a terrorist act.

However, in both of these cases, no terrorism-related criminal charges were laid. Criminal charges were obviously laid, but these charges fell under other parts of the Criminal Code.

This is a very important point, because it shows how difficult it is to judge motives and to define terrorism. This is unfortunately extremely complicated, and we need to work on that.

I also think it is important to trust the men and women who work for our national security agencies and police forces—in the case, the RCMP. It goes without saying that if they collect enough evidence, we can, and should, be confident that they will file criminal charges. The problem is how to obtain this evidence and whether the evidence is admissible. There is no point laying criminal charges if the person ends up being released because of a lack of evidence. This may be annoying, but this is the reality of our legal system, and we must respect that. This is exactly what terrorists want to attack. If we cannot respect this pillar of our democracy, we are doomed. This is very important here.

The other point is the question of resources, which is extremely important and which we raised over the course of the debate on what was Bill C-51 in the previous Parliament.

We can change the law. We can make the strictest laws possible. We can say we are going to throw everyone in jail and throw away the key, but if the men and women in uniform do not have the human and financial resources to do the work, the law is useless. That is a key issue here.

The commissioner of the RCMP has said that the focus on radical Islam has taken away from other investigations at a time when we are seeing a rise in hate crimes, a rise in anti-Semitism, which are also forms of radical violence and are, in some cases, forms of radical terrorism.

It is important to keep in mind that it is not always a legal issue. It is sometimes the political will to provide the appropriate resources to the national security agencies and police bodies, something that, unfortunately, certainly was not done in the last Parliament, and there is more work to be done in the current Parliament. That is important to keep in mind if we actually want the RCMP, among others, to have the resources to do the work they need to do to keep Canadians safe.

Getting back to the subject of radicalization, which is at the heart of today's motion, I asked the sponsor why the Conservatives have been so intent on disparaging anti-radicalization efforts. I was told that this is not about being for or against radicalization, but right after his speech, his colleague spent at least five minutes sneering at anti-radicalization efforts. That makes absolutely no sense.

During the last Parliament, nothing of substance was done to fight radicalization. Although I frequently disagree with the public safety minister's stance on issues, I am pleased to see that something is finally being done at the community level to fight radicalization through a centre set up to fund local projects. The Conservatives scoffed at those projects in their motion, as did their critics in their speeches on the subject. That is a shame.

If we really want to keep our communities safe, we have to fight radicalization and make sure people do not leave in the first place. Extremist groups such as Islamic State and far-right groups such as neo-Nazis often exploit young people with mental health problems. We need to help those young people not because they should be treated as victims but to ensure public safety, which requires a concerted, community-wide approach.

I asked the parliamentary secretary a question about what is being done in prisons.

I overheard a comments from a Conservative that we are saying to not put them in jail, because they are going to be radicalized there. That is not what we are saying. We are saying that we cannot do one without the other. The experts all say that one of the worst places for being radicalized is in prison. If there are criminal charges brought and people are found guilty, certainly no one is debating whether they should be in prison. The issue is that when they are in prison, we need to make sure that the programs are there to get to the root of that radicalization that is taking hold and leading them to be a threat to national security and public safety. That is what is at stake here. If we just want to incarcerate and forget about it, to see no evil and hear no evil, those people, if they ever get out, will have slipped through the cracks and will not only be people society has not come in aid of but will be people who will pose a threat to public safety. If the objective here is to protect public safety, then let us make sure we are cutting the evil that is radicalization off at the root, and that means providing the proper programs.

As I said, I recognize the efforts the government has made to begin working with and funding best practices in some of those efforts, but more needs to be done. Again, prisons are one example. I appreciate the openness the parliamentary secretary has shown to recognizing that this is an issue and to working on it, but more needs to be done.

Let us move on to the matter of counter-radicalization, which is something else that is of great concern to me. What are we talking about? Some people go abroad and are labelled as “fighters”. In some cases, they do not commit any acts of violence, which is why it is so important to have evidence. In fact, sometimes these people are victims. Some of them are taken over there by their families. They are vulnerable people who quickly realize after arriving that they have made a mistake, and who then come back to Canada without committing any acts of violence.

Will some of these individuals be criminally prosecuted? Of course, but evidence is needed. Rather than heckling and shouting “yes”, we must understand the nuances of the situation. We have to understand that our system is a system of law. I am not talking about rights and freedoms. I am talking about a system of law, the rule of law. It is important to understand that simply making a list of people and sending them all to prison is not an effective approach to public safety. We have to have evidence, and we have to understand the challenges associated with that evidence, challenges that experts have told us about.

The Conservative member is heckling me by shouting “yes, we have to do it”. If we move forward with these criminal charges, we need to make sure that they will result in prison sentences. Rather than blaming the government and engaging in a senseless dialogue by claiming that some people in the House are seeking to jeopardize the safety of Canadians, we need to understand that there is work to do to ensure that the national security agencies and police forces that have the evidence they need to successfully prosecute will do so. Everyone would be pleased if that happened, because it would help keep Canadians safe.

Let us engage in a positive dialogue. That is the approach that we are advocating today. It is no secret that I disagree with the approach of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, but one thing is certain and leaves no room for debate: we want keep to Canadians safe and ensure public safety.

In that context, when we are looking at such an important issue as this one, to engage in dog-whistle politics and use expressions like “welcomed with open arms” and to throw things out about reading poetry, to denigrate counter-radicalization efforts, does a disservice to the men and women doing the serious work of making sure Canadians are safe, does a disservice to this House where we all believe in the importance of ensuring Canadians' safety, and does a disservice to the real efforts and debate that need to happen over the proper way of dealing with the situation.

As part of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security's review of Canada's national security framework, we travelled for one week, stopping in five cities in five days. We stopped in Montreal, where we had the opportunity to visit the Centre for the Prevention of Radicalization Leading to Violence. This centre is one of a kind in North America. It is so unique that it receives calls from families in New York who are worried about the possible radicalization of a friend, a family member, or even a child in some cases.

We sat down with the team at the centre and had a nuanced discussion. It was clear that these people fully understood that in many cases, the RCMP and our national security agencies have a role to play and a job to do if they are to catch those who pose a threat to public safety and security.

The collaboration between our police forces and national security agencies has been outstanding. They have also made an effort to reach out to the community and to concerned families and individuals. This work did not focus on any community more than another. An attack like the one committed at the Islamic cultural centre in Quebec City is just as troubling as an attack like the one that took place in Edmonton. Both are equally troubling, and the centre acknowledges that.

The people who fight against radicalization fully understand what we are saying today in the House. Yes, we need to consider prosecution. Yes, we need to make sure that anyone we can press charges against is actually prosecuted. However, we must also recognize that simply acknowledging one facet of an extremely complicated and important issue does not diminish the need to hold this debate and offer concrete solutions. Not only would concrete solutions help us ensure public safety, but they would also keep youth from falling through the cracks and possibly save them from the scourge of radicalization.

In closing I want to say, as I have said several times in my speech, that the minister and I certainly have our differences, and it is no secret in this place, but there is one thing to which we will always commit, and that is working together to ensure the safety of Canadians, no matter what the partisan issue is.

To do that, there is a lot that needs to be done. I have mentioned some of it: getting terrorism charges right, getting the peace bond process right, getting the evidentiary process right with regard to intelligence gathering. These are all challenges that we have in getting the counter-radicalization efforts right.

The government has taken some good steps. We think we can do more, including doing it in federal prisons, and making sure that, in some instances where there are best practices, there is more robust federal leadership despite the importance of supporting those grassroots efforts.

Those are all things on which we are ready to work with the government. It is part of the reason why it is so disappointing to hear the kind of hyperbole we hear today. When it comes to ensuring public safety, there are important measures that need to be taken. It is not about stoking and fanning the flames of fear, but rather about standing in this place and having the courage to take on these important challenges that we face, and that all experts agree are challenging but are at the core of the mandate we have as parliamentarians.

I am very happy to say that the NDP is committed to working with the government on all the points that I mentioned.

No proposal, whether Bill C-51, introduced during the last Parliament, or Bill C-59, should ever implement more draconian public safety legislation at the expense of rights and freedoms. However, that does not preclude concrete efforts from being made, for instance, providing more resources to the RCMP and other national security agencies and strengthening our counter-radicalization efforts. We have to do what we can to truly put an end to this scourge instead of simply focusing on one aspect of the issue and moving on.

There is still a lot of work to be done. Let us set aside this kind of rhetoric and ensure that we are doing our job properly because that is what Canadians expect from us.

[Jesse Schooff, As an Individual]

Hello, my name is Jesse Schooff. I'm a blogger. I volunteer with OpenMedia and I've also worked as the IT manager of a small company for the last decade.

I'm here today because I'm troubled by many aspects of the anti-terrorism act of 2016, which we call Bill C-51. But the main reason I'm here today to speak is because as an IT professional I'm concerned, and in some ways terrified, by some of the language in the online Canadian security consultations, which I know are not directly related to this committee. But the question was: How can law enforcement and national security agencies reduce the effectiveness of encryption for individuals and organizations involved in crime or threats to the security of Canada, yet not limit the beneficial uses of encryption to those not involved in illegal activities?

The short answer is you can't. The long answer would require more time than would be polite for me to take today, but I can explain by way of analogy. A few years ago the Transportation Security Administration in the United Stated decided that they needed to be able to open passengers' luggage at will without cutting off and thus destroying their luggage locks. The TSA partnered with lock and luggage manufacturers and worked with them to create a TSA master key that could open any lock. It wasn't long before someone created a 3-D printable model of the TSA master key that could be downloaded, distributed on the Internet, and printed, allowing anyone, including criminals, to open any TSA-approved lock.

When we talk about weakening encryption or creating a back door that only the good guys can access, what we're really talking about is deliberately putting bugs into our software. Any IT security expert or computer scientist will tell you that when there's a bug in software, hackers work hard to find that bug and exploit it. Encryption is not just a feature that makes it safe for us to use our credit card on eBay or that keeps racy instant messages private, encryption keeps our data infrastructure safe from hackers, criminals, and even terrorists. Encryption is the brick and mortar that allows enterprise IT to exist.

If government weakens or backdoors encryption, I can say without hyperbole that we put the entirety of our technology infrastructure at serious risk.

Thank you for your time.

[Professor Reg Whitaker, Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Victoria and Distinguished Research Professor (Emeritus), York University, As an Individual]

I would certainly like to add my voice to applauding the initiative of opening up national security to wider public participation as with these committee hearings. It's certainly a contrast to the way in which Bill C-51 was carried through the last Parliament. A better-educated public is crucial to democratic decision-making, as is the enhanced role of Parliament as we see put forward in Bill C-22.

However, public consultation can be diffuse and unfocused, while the key agencies of government have their own sharply focused agendas, which are relentlessly pressed on governments of any political stripe. I see already evidence in the green paper and in Bill C-22 of this process at work. The agencies are acting as a kind of heavy anchor pulling in one direction, while counter-pressures from outside are much weaker.

I'm not saying there's anything inherently nefarious in this kind of bureaucratic behaviour. I'm assuming that the bureaucrats are trying to do the job they're assigned to the best of their abilities, but on the issue of the powers that they are granted and the protections in terms of privilege and secrecy for their operations, there is a clear public interest in limiting the agencies' capacity to act without accountability to the public and to Parliament, and as well, in limiting the scope of their powers to conform to the rule of law.

The agencies certainly have legitimate concerns about reforms. I think there have been some unrealistic concepts of accountability and oversight that have been put out there, such as the idea that there should be oversight of ongoing operations in real time, whether by a parliamentary committee or whatever, which would be unworkable and undesirable. However, the provision of extraordinary and unreasonable powers, even though the agencies have no apparent intention of actually using them at this time but might prefer to keep them in the back drawer, as it were, just in case, should not be tolerated, nor should excessive limitations on external oversight review just to make the bureaucrats' lives a little easier.

In the interest of time, I want to focus my remarks on one section of Bill C-51, what I consider to be the very worst part of what I would say is a very bad piece of legislation, generally badly conceived, badly drafted, and potentially pernicious in effect. I'm referring to the threat reduction or disruption powers awarded CSIS and the special warrants CSIS might seek for judicial authorization to break the law and violate charter rights. I will also try to touch on the closely related issue of the secret intelligence public evidence problem.

What is wrong with CSIS threat reduction powers? Well, I think, everything, literally. As someone who has co-authored a history of the security service from its late 19th century origins to its present post-9/11 era, from the RCMP to its present incarnation as CSIS, I would say unequivocally that threat reduction in Bill C-51 is dangerous to civil liberties and the rule of law, certainly, but it also threatens to undermine security and effective counter-terrorist law enforcement.

CSIS is a security intelligence agency empowered to collect intelligence on threats to security and advise governments. The RCMP, of course, is the law enforcement agency on national security matters. The security service was taken away from the RCMP in 1984 after the McDonald commission for good reason: the illegal activities in the 1970s, mainly in Quebec against Quebec separatists but also against various left-wing organizations in the rest of the country.

Violations of laws without accountability, no clear lines between violent versus legitimate political groups, the question of control by elected governments, and so on, was precisely what the McDonald commission reacted against, and CSIS was created apart from the RCMP, with no law enforcement powers and a mandate spelling out what it was authorized to do and what it was not authorized to do. All those things flowed from McDonald and we're seeing it threatened with a return back to that era, that scandal-filled era again.

I'll just skip over some of the credits and try to focus on each of the problems with this.

First of all, the special warrants allow law-breaking and charter violations, short only of murder, torture, and rape, to be authorized by a judge. They are not surveillance warrants, which are in effect judicial certifications that these acts are within the law and abide by the charter. Instead, they ask judges to enable law-breaking and unconstitutional acts. This is a radical revision of the role of the judiciary from protectors of the law and constitution to enablers of violations. This is a shocking assault on the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary, now turned into a tool of the executive. I expect most judges, if not all, would be quite appalled by this prospect.

The next point is that the warrant application is entirely secret, with no specified follow-up for the judge granting the warrant to determine if it has been carried out as promised, or what the results are. No reporting is required of warrants granted or turned down—no accountability of any kind.

The decision to seek a warrant—and this is an important point—is at the discretion of CSIS. If they decide that a disruption activity does not require a warrant, there appears to be no fallback accountability as to whether that decision is justified. That is unacceptable.

These threat reduction measures could involve detention, if you read this very carefully—not arrest but detention—and they could involve extraordinary rendition on the international stage. Of course, in the latter case, we could see the potential for somebody who is a Canadian perhaps being rendered to a country where torture is routinely practised.

All of these issues that I've been talking about are problems regarding the rule of law and the rights of citizens, and so on. However, it's also very important to realize that CSIS threat reduction efforts could impede rather than facilitate counterterrorism. This recreates the potential for conflict turf wars with the RCMP, as were tragically shown by the Air India commission. It opens up the possibility that CSIS, protecting its sources as a security and intelligence organization, could imperil convictions in court, and there's the distinct possibility that these activities could contaminate the evidentiary trail.

This brings us to the intelligence evidence conflict that the Air India commission addressed, in which the government did not take up any of the recommendations of the commission to deal with this problem. I can't go into this at any length, and certainly it's a topic best undertaken by lawyers, except to note that threat reduction or disruption activities can be useful, certainly. I'm not making the point that they should never be used. They can be very useful in counterterrorism, so long as they are undertaken with the goal always in mind of securing criminal convictions and putting dangerous terrorists behind bars.

The RCMP already does this, both in its criminal and national security investigations, if you look, for example, at the Toronto 18 case. CSIS does disruption as well, under pre-Bill C-51 law, and that's fine. I don't have any problem with that, so long as it does not interfere with the criminal law process and is rather supportive of the criminal law process.

A general point that I would like to make is that unlike the old Cold War era, the era of terrorism is one in which, given that the terrorist threat is against civilians, ordinary people, the priority must always be given to law enforcement and criminal convictions. CSIS has a role to play, but the notion that they have this role of slowly building a long-term picture of these networks like the old KGB in the Cold War has to be subordinated to law enforcement. The threat reduction powers and special warrants radically undermine this.

The last thing I want to say is that CSIS says it has not applied for any of these special warrants, and that presumably everything it has carried out, we can assume, has not required that kind of special warrant power, like the powers of preventive detention and investigative hearings in the 2001 Anti-terrorism Act, which were so controversial that time limits were put on them. They were actually allowed to lapse at one point and then were reinstituted by the former government, yet in all that process, they've never been used.

Are we seeing a repeat of the same kind of phenomenon?

In both cases, if they have never been used, why exactly are they needed? In the case of the threat reduction powers, perhaps CSIS had these foisted on them unwillingly by the government. In that case, then, we really ought to get rid of them. Or it may be another example of the unending pressure on governments to keep up powers that they might need “just in case”. That's a very bad case for keeping a bad law on the books to be potentially abused by less responsible people in the future.

Combating Counterfeit Products Act

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, here we are again, debating another bill that was put under time allocation, which is 44 or 45 times now.

The irony in this instance is that the government could have had an agreement with the opposition to speed the debate of this bill so that we would be using less time in the House than it took to bring in the time allocation motion, vote on it and then provide a full day of debate, because we in the NDP do want to see this bill go back to committee, where it can be approved. Therefore, we will be supporting it at second reading.

Again, we had time allocation brought in before the Minister of Industry, the person presenting the bill, had even spoken to it. We did not have one full speech in this House. There was a speech by the member for Simcoe—Grey, who spent half of her speech laughing at jokes being told to her by other caucus members. We did not have one full speech before time allocation was brought in.

I would say humbly that this is not democracy. This is not how Parliament is supposed to work. We are supposed to have the opportunity to have full debates in the House on the various issues that are brought forward.

Bill C-56, an act to amend the Copyright Act and the Trade-marks Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, which is now otherwise titled the “combating counterfeit products act”, is an important issue. It is my honour to rise today to present the lead-off speech on Bill C-56 for the NDP and the official opposition.

Normally our industry critic, the member for LaSalle—Émard, would be leading off on second reading comments on this bill. Our critic had planned to give her remarks on Friday when this bill was supposed to come up for debate; however, because of time allocation and the government playing games, we are here Wednesday evening instead, again preventing certain members of Parliament from participating in this debate in the way that they would like to.

In their rush to introduce yet more record-breaking time allocation motions—as I said, we are at 46 now—the Conservatives rescheduled all the House business this week.

As the NDP's deputy industry critic, it is indeed my privilege to address this bill on behalf of the official opposition. This is a bill the NDP takes very seriously, as opposed to the Conservative government, it would appear, because this bill was presented originally in March. It did not come up for debate until the end of May. Recommendations for this bill were made in a committee report in 2007, again in 2009, and then there were more recommendations from the industry committee in an intellectual property study that was done earlier this year. It has taken the government a very long time to start bringing these forward for implementation.

We have yet to have a whole speech by the Minister of Industry on this bill. Even then, if it was not going to be the minister, we would have thought that maybe it would be the parliamentary secretary, the member for Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, but that was not the case.

When the government presents a bill, it is supposed to justify why it is bringing that bill forward. It has yet to do that and has already implemented time allocation.

Instead of a full presentation by the government, what we had was the parliamentary secretary for human resources and skills development getting up and presenting a very short speech on this bill. In her speech she spent a lot of the time laughing and did not seem to be taking the bill seriously. It was so bad that the Speaker had to interrupt and ask if she was able to continue.

I mention all this because it seems to speak to the Conservative government's contempt for Parliament and to its continual practice of introducing legislation that can never be properly implemented because its budget cuts make it impossible.

There are many clichés we would use, but the Conservatives keep putting forth pieces of legislation that are either empty shells or just cherry-picked from among the many recommendations that we need to implement to have solid pieces of legislation. They put forth rules and regulations that perhaps cannot be enforced, because those budget cuts mean that no one will be there to enforce them.

Recent examples include Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act, which the Conservatives put forward without the funding in place to make many of its provisions actually meaningful. Another one, Bill C-54 would make changes to how we would deal with people deemed not criminally responsible, however, it would download the responsibility for mental health care onto the very provinces, which are having their health care budgets slashed again by the Conservative government.

Bill C-56 is another example of the Conservatives playing the shell game they so like to play. It is legislation that on one hand imposes some good rules and on the other hand, through the budget, cuts the jobs of those who are supposed to be enforcing these new rules. I will come back to that point later in my remarks.

Let me say upfront, again, that the NDP will support the bill at second reading so it can be sent back to committee and, we hope, fixed to maximum its impact. However, it would indeed be a first at our committee, if we actually saw recommendations and amendments that we brought forward voted on and passed by the Conservatives on the committee. That would be groundbreaking.

The bill dealing with counterfeiting and copyright infringement is important for both Canadian businesses and consumers, especially where counterfeit goods may put the health and safety of Canadians at risk. We will support the bill so it can go back to committee for further study and we want to ensure we maintain the necessary balance on copyright and trademarks.

For instance, the bill would give ex officio powers to our border officers, which the NDP has been calling for since 2007. However, it is very difficult to see how this will be implemented when, last year, the Conservatives slashed $143 million in funding to CBSA, which further reduced front-line officers and harmed our ability to monitor our borders.

CBSA expects to lose several hundred front-line officers by 2015. It is also important to note that in the past the government repeatedly has refused to take a balanced approach to copyright. The NDP believes that intellectual property requires an approach that strikes a balance between the interests of rights holders and the interest of users and consumers.

I will now take a few minutes to explain some of the details of the bill.

Bill C-56, the combating counterfeit products act, would amend both the Copyright Act and the Trademark Act. Its purpose is to strengthen enforcement of copyright and trademark rights and to curtail commercial activity involving infringing copies or counterfeit trademarks.

The proposed bill will add two new criminal offences under the Copyright Act for possession and exportation of infringing copies and creates offences for selling or offering counterfeit goods on a commercial scale. It creates a prohibition against importing or exporting infringing copies and counterfeit goods and introduces some balance to that prohibition by creating two exceptions: first, for personal use, items that are in one's possession or baggage; or second, items in transit. It also, as I said, grants new ex officio powers to border officials to detain infringing copies or counterfeit goods, a significant policy shift. Until now, border officials required a warrant before seizing infringing copies or goods at the border.

It also grants new ex officio powers to the Minister of Public Safety and border officials to share information on detained goods with the right holders so they can actually see what is being brought in and take measures themselves to combat that counterfeit and trademark infringement.

That is important, because the businesses do a great job of trying to protect their own products. Seeing what is coming into the country illegally and what products are counterfeited can give them ideas about how to combat that counterfeiting better for themselves.

The proposed bill widens the scope of what can be trademarked to the features found in the broad definition of sign, including colour, shapes, scents and tastes. Measuring the problem in counterfeit goods and copies in Canada and its corresponding impact on the economy is difficult.

The New Democrats, nevertheless, support dealing with counterfeiting, especially where health and safety concerns are at stake. As I have mentioned, it remains unclear to me and many others how the CBSA could implement these enforcement measures in the face of the cuts from budget 2012.

The United States and many industry groups have long called for border measures on counterfeiting. It remains important to continue to be vigilant to ensure that intellectual property laws balance the rights and interests of rights holders with those of consumers and users.

The government has long been aware of the difficulties in measuring the scale of counterfeiting for copies and goods in Canada, a challenge that was identified in a 1998 OECD report on “The Economic Impact of Counterfeiting”. One of the difficulties results from the clandestine nature of counterfeiting. Much of the data is estimated and based on actual seizures, which is anecdotal or comes from industry itself, in which case the collection methods may vary or be unavailable to assess.

In 2007, the industry committee report on counterfeiting recommended that the government establish a reporting system that would track investigations, charges and seizures for infringing copies and counterfeit goods as a means of collecting data.

A recent Industry Canada report published this year notes that, “It is difficult to obtain a precise estimate of the market for counterfeit or pirated products in Canada”. Why? Because, again, the government has delayed bringing this legislation forward. Even now that it has, the Conservatives have not put provisions into the bill to implement those measures I just spoke of so we can start collecting more robust data to more accurately determine the economic impacts of counterfeit and trademark infringement in Canada.

As I said, much of the information in Canada comes from statistics about actual seizures. Industry Canada notes that the retail value of counterfeit goods seized by the RCMP increased from $7.6 million in 2005 to $38 million in 2012.

In 2009, the OECD estimated that the international trade in counterfeit goods and infringing copies could be valued at up to $250 billion U.S. It is a mind-boggling number that there would be that many counterfeit and trademark infringed goods travelling around the world. Law-abiding companies are losing out on much of that revenue.

The same study also reiterated previous calls for better information. We know anecdotally that counterfeit products can pose risks to the health and safety of consumers, whether we are talking about counterfeit electrical components or unsanitary stuffing in goose-down jackets.

I mention unsanitary stuffing in goose-down jackets because when we were at committee, many different Canadian businesses and organizations presented before the committee. One such company was Canada Goose, which is certainly a Canadian success story. However, representatives of Canada Goose brought with them some counterfeit Canada Goose jackets they had collected. The things contained within those counterfeit jackets would make one's toes curl. There were things like feces in the lining, feathers that were not properly treated and sanitized before being stuffed in the jackets. Certainly they were not goose down or coyote fur. Many different animals were being used.

Unfortunately, it was very difficult, on the surface, to detect these jackets as being counterfeit. When we put a real Canada Goose jacket next to a counterfeit jacket, they looked identical. It was not until we took a microscope to it or started to pull the jacket apart that we started to see that one of the jackets was indeed counterfeit.

Other representatives that came before the committee were from Hockey Canada. They talked about the last Olympics we had in Canada and about professional sports jerseys. They found, through studies they conducted and at the Olympics, that sometimes in professional sporting events, up to 70% to 75% of the jerseys being worn at the games were counterfeit. Consumers are unwittingly buying illegal and counterfeit products when they try to support their sports teams. At the Olympics in Vancouver, many stops and arrests were made of individuals selling counterfeit Olympic paraphernalia and products.

It is a growing problem because there is a financial incentive there. There is money to be made in counterfeit goods. We certainly have a responsibility to try to stop as much of it at the border as we can. As for the stuff that gets across the border, we have to deal with it here and hold the appropriate people responsible.

In many cases, as I have said, it is very difficult for consumers to detect whether they are buying legitimate products. However, vigilance is also important and people who have any concerns about products they are buying should go to the manufacturers' websites and contact people in law enforcement if they think they have bought something illegal. There are many things people can do to prevent these crimes and, indeed, to ensure the products they are buying are legitimate.

Dealing with counterfeiting is important to both Canadian businesses and consumers. It is especially important where counterfeit goods put the health and safety of Canadians at risk. Yet again it remains unclear how the enforcement regime being proposed by Bill C-56 will be resourced. This bill would add significant new responsibilities to the duties of border officials during a time of significant budget reductions.

In budget 2012, the Conservatives imposed $143 million in cuts to CBSA, reducing front-line officers and further reducing our ability to monitor the borders. This is interesting. This year's CBSA report on plans and priorities alone indicates a loss of 549 full-time employees between now and 2015. At a time when there is more trade, goods and people crossing the border, we will be cutting front-line officers? It makes absolutely no sense.

Under Bill C-56, customs officers would be asked to make highly complicated assessments on whether goods entering or exiting the country infringed on any copyright or trademark rights. Such an assessment for infringing copyright would include, for example, consideration of whether any of the exceptions under the Copyright Act would apply, something with which the courts often struggle. The New Democrats want the CBSA to be adequately funded to implement this bill without compromising the other responsibilities of protecting Canadians and our borders from things like drugs, guns and other threats.

The United States has lobbied for stronger enforcement measures in Canada for counterfeit and pirated goods for many years. In the 2012 special 301 watch report, the office of the U.S. trade representative stated that the U.S. “continues to urge Canada to strengthen its border enforcement efforts, including by providing customs officials with ex officio authority to take action against the importation, exportation, and transshipment of pirated or counterfeit goods”.

In its June 2012 report on counterfeiting in the Canadian market, the Canadian Intellectual Property Council, a sub-group of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, identified counterfeiting as a barrier to competitiveness and specifically recommended that customs officials have ex officio powers, that Canadian law be amended to bring criminal and civil sanctions for counterfeiting and piracy and that enforcement officials be encouraged to seek strong remedies for infringements.

It bears saying that many of the requests the United States made are, indeed, in this bill. Providing ex officio powers to the CBSA in order to track, monitor and confiscate copyright and trademark infringed goods are terribly important to our long-term safety.

In its recently tabled report, “Intellectual Property Regime in Canada”, the committee recommended border measures that we supported, including providing appropriate ex officio powers to customs officials, civil and criminal remedies for trademark infringement and counterfeiting, allowing customs officials to share information with rights holders regarding suspected goods. All members of the committee agreed that consumers acting non-wilfully should not be subject to excessive fines.

The New Democrats on the committee, of which I am one, filed a dissenting opinion that called on the government to also consult with consumer groups, as well as industry groups, in an effort to combat counterfeiting and piracy, that border officials receive appropriate authority to do their work while respecting civil liberties and due process and that the CBSA be adequately funded to combat counterfeiting without compromising its other important responsibilities to protect Canadians and defend our borders.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do want to start by reviewing what our House has accomplished over the preceding five days since I last answered the Thursday question.

Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act, was passed at third reading. Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act, was passed at third reading. Bill C-63 and Bill C-64, the appropriations laws, passed at all stages last night as part of the last supply day of the spring cycle.

Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, has been debated some more at third reading. Bill C-60, the economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1, was passed at report stage. Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act, was passed at report stage, was debated at third reading, and debate will continue.

Bill S-14, the fighting foreign corruption act, was passed at second reading. Bill C-56, combating counterfeit products act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-17, the tax conventions implementation act, 2013, was debated at second reading.

On Bill C-62, the Yale First Nation final agreement act, we adopted a ways and means motion, introduced the bill, passed it at second reading and it has since passed at committee. I anticipate we will be getting a report from the committee shortly.

Bill S-16, the tackling contraband tobacco act, was given first reading yesterday after arriving from the Senate. Bill C-65, the respect for communities act, was introduced this morning.

Substantive reports from four standing committees were adopted by the House.

On the private members' business front, the House witnessed three bills getting third reading, one being passed at report stage, two being reported back from committee and one was just passed at second reading and sent to a committee.

Last night was the replenishment of private members' business, with 15 hon. members bringing forward their ideas, which I am sure we will vigorously debate.

The House will continue to deliver results for Canadians over the next week. Today, we will finish the third reading debate on Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act. Then we will turn our collective attention to Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, at second reading, followed by Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, at third reading.

Tomorrow we will have the third reading debate on Bill C-60, the economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1. The final vote on this very important job creation and economic growth bill will be on Monday after question period.

Before we rise for the weekend, we hope to start second reading debate on Bill C-61, the offshore health and safety act.

On Monday, we will complete the debates on Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, and Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act.

Today and next week, I would like to see us tackle the bills left on the order paper, with priority going to any bills coming back from committee.

As for the sequencing of the debates, I am certainly open to hearing the constructive proposals of my opposition counterparts on passing Bill S-6, the First Nations Elections Act, at second reading; Bill S-10, the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, at second reading; Bill S-12, the Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act, at second reading; Bill S-13, the Port State Measures Agreement Implementation Act, at second reading; Bill S-16, at second reading; Bill S-17, at second reading; Bill C-57, the Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, at second reading; Bill C-61, at second reading; and Bill C-65, at second reading.

Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to having another list of accomplishments to share with you, and all honourable members, this time next Thursday.

Suffice it to say, we are being productive, hard-working and orderly in delivering on the commitments we have made to Canadians.

There having been discussions among the parties that it will receive unanimous consent, I would like to propose a motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of this House, the member for Peace River be now permitted to table the Report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development in relation to Bill C-62, An Act to give effect to the Yale First Nation Final Agreement and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Safer Witnesses Act

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Pursuant to an order made on Wednesday, May 22, 2012, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the third reading stage of Bill C-51.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from May 30 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.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for recognizing me. I may be the last to speak about this bill tonight.

I listened attentively to the previous speaker, the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca, and I thought the beginning of his discourse was quite interesting. The last part of it I think it may have been the late hour and he may have forgot that the bill we were debating was Bill C-51, an act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act, not the bill that supports bus industries in the country. I am not exactly sure where he was going. Be that as it may, it is quite important that members try to avoid being dragged under the bus, so let us try to focus on the bill at hand.

The bill has a number of elements that are quite appropriate. There are three key issues.

We expand eligibility criteria for informants and witnesses, an absolutely critical element. We found in the past that there were a number of people who wished to have admission to this program and were simply refused access. We heard over the course of the debate on the bill that we currently had over 800 people who were under the witness protection program, but this year only 30 were accepted. That is out of a total of 108 who made an application.

The proposed bill will increase access to the witness protection program, and that is an important step, 30 is simply unacceptable. We need to go further. We have to continue to expand this program. The bill will go a long way to doing that, but the problem is the bill will also increase costs. I know the members from the government side seem to think that this is not an important issue, but I guarantee the municipalities and provinces are getting very tired of having to fund the mandates that are being passed, in record speed, in the House of Commons. We are not having proper time to debate these issues. I would like to remind the House that time allocation was forced on this bill after only two speakers at second reading. That has to be a record.

We need time to look at the costs that these programs will bring forward and we need to talk to the provinces and the municipalities on how we can partner with them to pay for those costs.

I want to raise a couple of quotes that were mentioned today.

First, I want to start with the minister, who made it very clear that he did not seem to care much about costs. According to the minister:

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.

That is wonderful, except the problem with that is we know a lot of the costs are downloaded onto the municipalities and the provinces. Micki Ruth, from the Canadian Association of Police Boards, talked about how when it had a difficulty and it had to search the services of the RCMP, the costs of this program were downloaded. As Micki Ruth indicated at the committee level, currently when a municipality did make use of a provincial witness protection program and the crime was federal in nature or involves drugs, then the RCMP would take over and would charge the local police services the full cost, which is an expense that many services cannot afford.

Even the RCMP has acknowledged that increased costs of this nature can impede an investigation. This is a serious problem. We are bringing forward changes which are going to increase costs to those who can least afford it. The government has to think about the repercussions of its actions, and it so heck-bent on bringing changes forward in record time that we are not having the proper debate on how we are going to deal with the costs that are downloaded.

Nevertheless, we do have a lot of important issues that are going to be addressed in the bill. Again, the expanded criteria eligibility is very important. Co-operation with the provinces in designating legislation, which is going to be reflected in federal legislation, is very important, as are the funding criteria and all of these things we need to be move forward with. The bill could do with a little improvement, but it is a good step in the right direction.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend gave an excellent review on Bill C-51. From what I can see, the House is unanimous in planning to pass the bill. However, it is important to point out where we could, without a doubt, see a lack of adequate resources.

I have been surprised to see cuts to Canada Border Services Agency, when we need law enforcement agents there. I have been surprised to see RCMP officers pulled out of airports, such as the one in my riding, which is called the Victoria International Airport,but is actually in Sidney, B.C.

Does the hon. member have any proposals for how we can continue to press for the resources that will be needed to ensure that the witnesses in this program are kept safe?

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his remarks. However, I would like to refute the last statement he made in regard to people always saying they need more money. Time and again tonight, we have heard Conservative members talk about how the officials from the RCMP said they did not need more financing.

I am rising this evening, like everyone else, to speak to Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act. The NDP supports Bill C-51, as it attempts to improve the witness protection program. However, we still have concerns about this bill. We are concerned that the Conservative government has refused to commit any new funding to the system. We are concerned that the Conservatives' requirement that the RCMP and local police departments work within their existing budgets would hinder the potential improvement of the program.

This situation is similar to other legislation we have seen before this House lately; namely, the Conservative government bringing forward legislation that would only partially fix a problem. Why are the Conservatives unwilling or unable to find the courage and political will to develop legislation to the point where it would actually be as effective as it could be? Once again, I find myself supporting legislation that is a half measure. It would in fact help, but would not fully resolve a problem that the government could be resolving.

Another shortcoming of the bill is that it does not include provisions for an independent agency to operate the program as recommended in the Air India inquiry report. The RCMP would continue to be responsible for the program, and this would leave the RCMP in a potential conflict of interest, being the agency both investigating the case and deciding who gets protection.

The federal witness protection program has long been criticized for its narrow eligibility criteria, poor coordination with provincial programs and low number of witnesses actually admitted to the program. Only 30 out of 108 applications considered were accepted in 2012. The blame for that has to go to the original authors of the bill, which would be the previous Liberal government members.

Since the Witness Protection Program Act passed in 1996, the Liberal and Conservative governments have done little to respond to the criticisms of the system. Some bills have been presented in the House of Commons to address small components of the protection program. As an example, Bill C-223 from a Reform member of Parliament in 1999 regarding witness protection in cases of domestic violence, was supported by the NDP and was defeated by the then-Liberal government.

The overarching issues of eligibility, coordination and funding have not yet been addressed. The New Democrats are on record as repeatedly asking the Conservatives to address the three key issues in the witness protection program: expanded criteria eligibility, co-operation with provinces and adequate funding.

In November 2012, the NDP member of Parliament for Trinity—Spadina called for more support for the federal witness protection program, pointing to the difficulty Toronto police faced in convincing witnesses to this past summer's mass shooting at a block party on Danzig Street in Scarborough to come forward. The Danzig shooting is just one of many examples I could point to where witnesses have been reluctant to step forward due to concerns for their own safety.

Bill C-51 proposes a better process to support provincial witness protection programs and would expand the program to other agencies with national security responsibilities. Bill C-51 would expand the eligibility criteria of the witness protection program to include various requests from the RCMP, such as including youth gang members by covering a new group of people who would give assistance to federal departments. Federal departments and agencies with a mandate relating to national security, national defence or public safety would also be able to refer witnesses to this program. It would also extend the period for emergency protection and clear up some technical problems in coordinating with provincial programs.

Provinces such as Ontario and Alberta have been pushing for a national revamp of the witness protection program, including more recognition of their existing programs. Bill C-51 would provide for the designation of a provincial or municipal witness protection program so that certain provisions of the act would apply to such a program. It also would authorize the Commissioner of the RCMP 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.

Bill C-51 includes enough improvements to warrant our support through third reading, though concerns about funding have been reiterated multiple times in committee and over and over again tonight, and there are still no answers from the government.

Expanding eligibility for the witness protection program is a generally popular policy. Those working to combat youth gangs feel allowing those seeking to leave gangs access to the program would be an important addition to the tools they need. This issue retains a high profile in the South Asian community due to the attacks on witnesses during the Air India inquiry, where witnesses were not eligible for the program as it currently excludes witnesses in national security cases.

The provinces have long been calling for better coordination between federal and provincial programs. Now, of course, in terms of coordination between federal and provincial programs, we know that is a weakness of the current government, when we look at the Prime Minister who has refused to meet with the first ministers as a group over the seven years the Conservatives have been in power.

We are also disappointed that the bill did not include more recommendations from the Air India inquiry, such as a more transparent and accountable process for admissions into the program. Even the government itself identified this as a serious problem, and yet it failed to address it in the bill.

Overall, Bill C-51 is a positive step, but unfortunately we do not see the Conservatives providing the resources to make it really count for communities. We want to see them provide local police departments with the support necessary to make sure witnesses come forward in gang situations, for example. The Conservative government is not acknowledging the high cost borne by local police departments. There are also provincial witness protection programs, but if the crime is federal in nature or involves drugs, the RCMP take over and then charges local police departments the full cost, something many local departments cannot afford, particularly in small communities.

The RCMP's own website states, “There are instances when the costs of witness protection may impede investigations, particularly for smaller law enforcement agencies”. I have not heard one member of the government speak to that issue here tonight.

While the NDP has been calling for changes to the witness protection program since 2007, it is just now that the Conservative government is responding to our concerns, as well as many stakeholder concerns.

The NDP would like to believe the Conservative government is committed to improving the witness protection program but without the necessary funding for the RCMP to carry out these changes, we fear the improvements that are needed will not necessarily materialize.

Speaking of resourcing, several witnesses and the RCMP at committee said that they in fact do believe that they have the resources to take care of their share of the burden. However, as I mentioned previously in my speech, local law enforcement agencies and provincial law enforcement agencies are going to end up bearing many of the costs that are associated with changes in the witness protection program.

We have seen this kind of approach time and time again with the Conservatives' crime agenda. They make changes to legislation that are going to impact provincial and municipal budgets without providing any of the funding to absorb the costs. What ends up happening is an insidious form of downloading. Instead of the costs of the federal changes being borne by the federal government, they end up being borne by the provinces and municipalities, which are already straining to a much greater extent than the federal government is.

It is very unfortunate to see this kind of approach continuing. Back in the 1990s, the Liberal government downloaded billions of dollars on the provinces, and then the provinces, like mine of Ontario where we had the Mike Harris government, proceeded to download provincial costs, like social services and welfare programs, onto municipalities without actually giving them the funds to address the issues.

It is sad to see here in 2013 that we are in fact seeing the same kinds of things happening.

While the NDP is supporting the bill, once again we are seeing a bill that we do not think addresses all the issues that could be addressed in the bill.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak about Bill C-51, critical legislation that would ensure our government can continue its work to keep Canadians safe and our communities secure.

Since taking power some seven years ago, our government has been clear. We would move forward with a robust agenda that would lead to safer streets and communities.

We said that we would be a government of action. That is exactly what we are. We have backed up our pledge to Canadians with concrete measures.

For example, we said we would introduce legislation that would bring criminals to justice and would crack down on violent gun crime. We have done this. We have passed into law measures that ensure a label of first degree murder is automatically applied in cases of murders connected to organized crime.

We have brought in legislation that tackles the terrible and violent tragedy of drive-by shootings and other intentional shootings, crimes that involve the reckless disregard for life and safety of others. We have done this while further protecting police and peace officers.

We have passed legislation to eliminate the two-for-one credit that was previously applied to time served and pre-sentence custody.

Thanks to measures passed in the House, those who are found guilty of a crime must now serve the full sentence that truly reflects the severity of the crime.

We have also passed legislation to strengthen the national sex offender registry and to end the practice of automatic accelerated parole for white-collar offenders.

Most notably, our government passed into law the Safer Streets and Communities Act, a comprehensive bill that was a strong stepped forward in helping reduce crime and standing up for victims. It included a wide range of significant law and order issues that extended greater protections to the most vulnerable members of society, as well as victims of terrorism, that further enhanced the ability of our justice system to hold criminals accountable for their actions and that improved the safety and security of all Canadians.

Through this law, we now have laws that better protect children and youth from sexual predators that increase penalties for organized drug crime, end house arrest for serious crimes, protect the public from violent young offenders, eliminate pardons for serious crimes, enshrine in law a number of additional key factors in deciding whether an offender would be granted a transfer back to Canada, increase offender accountability and support victims of crime, support victims of terrorism and protect vulnerable foreign nationals against abuse and exploitation.

Our government has done a lot to help prevent crimes. We have done this by increasing our spending on grants and contribution funds for crime prevention programs.

In 2011 alone, our government funded 138 community-based crime prevention programs through the national crime prevention strategy in which nearly 16,000 at-risk youth participated.

We have also provided an investment of $7.5 million annually to review the youth gang prevention fund, which is helping youth make smart choices and avoid violence and gang-related activities.

Our government also said that we would support our police forces, that we would give them the tools they needed to do their jobs and that we would work toward enhancing the RCMP. Again, we have delivered on this commitment.

Last year, our government was proud to announce that we had reached agreements to renew 20-year policing service agreements with all the provincial and territorial governments policed by the RCMP.

We are also working hard to pass the enhancing RCMP accountability act, which would improve civilian oversight and modernize the HR management of our federal law enforcement agency.

The legislation before us, Bill C-51, would be just one more tool in our tool box to help us fulfill our commitment to Canadians to build safe communities and to protect those who were willing to help bring criminals to justice.

As we have heard, the Witness Protection Program Act has been in place for 17 years. We feel very strongly that now is the time to modernize and update this current legislation. The act was created to ensure a consistent and accountable system of federal witness protection. If we are to continue to protect Canadians who step forward to help law enforcement officials prosecute criminal acts, we must ensure we ease the process and expedite how we protect them.

Our justice system depends upon ensuring that we can keep witnesses safe and protected. It is vital that those who do come forward to make our communities safer are provided protection from terrorists, organized crime or other threats.

In keeping with our government's strong track record of fighting crime and providing safer communities for all Canadians, the Witness Protection Program Act is a prime area where we can continue to deliver our pledge to Canadians.

The changes proposed under Bill C-51 are a result of many years of thoughtful consideration and expert consultation. Our government has consulted with and listened to concerns of our federal, provincial, territorial and municipal partners, as well as law enforcement agencies

Our government has also considered reports such as the 2008 study of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security as well as the recommendations coming out of the 2010 Commission of Inquiry into the Investigation of the Bombing of Air India Flight 182.

The safer witnesses act would allow key witnesses or individuals formerly involved with criminal organizations who now wish to cooperate with law enforcement to receive, if necessary, secure identity changes more quickly and easily.

I also think it is important to clarify that the federal witness protection program is not a program to which individuals apply. Rather, individuals are referred to the program by law enforcement upon referral. A number of criteria outlined in the act are considered in determining if an individual would qualify or benefit from this program.

Bill C-51 would ensure better protection for those individuals the program is designed to help. It would do this by enhancing the program and providing a better service to other witness protection programs. It would also strengthen the current prohibitions against disclosure of information concerning individuals in the federal witness protection program. It would extend these prohibitions to individuals in designated provincial witness programs as well as to those responsible for administering federal and designated witness protection programs. It would also expand admission for national security, national defence and public safety referrals.

By extending this program to these categories of witnesses, we would also fulfill one of the commitments under the Government of Canada's Air India action plan, released in 2010.

In summary, the Witness Protection Program Act has not been substantially changed since it first came into force, despite the constant changing nature of organized crime and calls for the program's reform. The safer witnesses act would help strengthen the current federal program, which is vital to effectively combat crime, particularly organized crime.

Today we call on all members to support this critical piece of legislation.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, people have been beating up a bit on the member for Ottawa South for suggesting we were wasting time and money debating. Nothing is ever a complete waste. There is always some benefit in having debate, even though we all agree that Bill C-51 should pass and we all support the protection of witnesses.

I want to clarify for the member for Brampton West that my own reasons for raising this earlier tonight had nothing to do with wanting to go home, but rather with wanting to have a chance to debate the bills about which we do not agree, such as the omnibus budget bill, Bill C-60, for which we have never had an adequate opportunity to even touch on its various sections. I thought I might clarify that for him.

I completely support this bill. I appreciate that the Conservative majority has brought it forward and I look forward to voting for it and stopping the debates that continue until midnight in this place on matters of which I have no understanding why they are still subject to debate.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say I am pleased the members opposite are going to support our criminal justice reform bill, because that certainly has not been their record in this Parliament. Just the other night they voted against amendments to the not criminally responsible legislation. They did not even want it to go to committee. They voted against it at second reading.

I can understand if they want to vote against it, but they do not even want it to go to committee and be studied. They voted against substantive, well needed reforms in the not criminally responsible legislation. They voted against the Safe Streets and Communities Act, broad sweeping legislation to protect our communities, protect families and protect Canadians. They voted against it, so I am very pleased that they are now indicating they are in support of this legislation. I guess I will grudgingly thank them for that.

Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act is another piece of legislation we are bringing forward to, again, try to make our communities safer. That is something that we, on the Conservative side of the House, think is very important. We think strong communities are safe communities. That might not be the position of the party in the corner.

I understand, as well, there is great support for this legislation. It has support both here in the House and at committee and from stakeholders across the country. This is an issue that should not be partisan, despite the continued catcalls and heckling from the third party in the corner.

Protecting witnesses is a vital component of the justice system. We have to have witnesses who feel they are able to come forward and testify. Why is that? That is because we cannot always just rely on other forms of physical evidence. In many circumstances, when trying to get a conviction, especially in cases of organized crime, we are going to need a witness to come forward. When those witnesses do come forward, they can put themselves at great risk, in some in circumstances. That is why we have to be able to make sure they are going to be safe, because of the broader goal of making sure our communities are safe.

Oftentimes these people may have been involved in organized crime, so they know the insides of what is going on in organized crime. It takes a great, brave person to come forward and testify. We want to help that. We want to make sure they are going to be safe.

There are important updates that we are bringing forward in this legislation, updates to the Witness Protection Program Act, which first came into force in 1996, so it is time to make some amendments and some changes. It would strengthen the protection of witnesses and those who protect them. These recommendations put forward in the legislation have come about as a result of broad consultations, both with law enforcement agencies and with the provinces, and also as a result of reports such as the 2008 report by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security and the report of the 2010 Commission of Inquiry into the Investigation of the Bombing of Air India Flight 182.

I want to talk about a couple of things that are contained within the legislation. I only have 10 minutes. I am not going to be able to cover the entire bill, but I want to highlight a few things that are quite important. First of all, there are five provinces in Canada that have their own similar protection programs: Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.

One of the things this legislation would do is ensure greater efficiencies between the two systems, the federal system and the provincial system. In a case where it is determined that the protectees require security changes, they have to be transferred to the federal program. We have learned from our provincial counterparts that this can be a time-consuming process and not necessarily an efficient process.

One of the key ingredients in this legislation would be greater integration. This greater integration would be between the federal and provincial programs by enabling the provinces to have their respective program designated under the federal act. This designation, authorized by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Minister of Public Safety, would permit the RCMP to work directly with a designated provincial program to obtain and secure federal identity documents for a protectee.

However, it would not stop there. It also would provide help for the RCMP. Under Bill C-51, federal organizations would be required to help the RCMP obtain federal documents required for secure identity changes for witnesses both in the federal program and, of course, in the designated provincial programs I was just describing and talking about. The RCMP would continue to act as a liaison between the federal and provincial programs. This would make sure we have a much more streamlined approach, which is another important aspect.

We would also broaden prohibition disclosures, ensuring the protection of provincial witnesses at both the federal and provincial levels. The amendments would address the call from the provinces to ensure that the witnesses in the programs are protected from disclosure of prohibited information throughout Canada.

The safer witnesses act would broaden the prohibition on disclosing information in several ways. First, it would prohibit the disclosure of information related to individuals who are protected under the federal and designated provincial programs.

Second, it would prohibit the disclosure of any means or method of protection that could endanger the protected individuals or the integrity of the programs themselves. Again, this goes back to making sure we would have witnesses who felt safe and were able to come forward and provide important testimony in important matters that were before the courts, which would help keep our communities safer. This of course would include information about the methods used to provide or support protection and to record or exchange confidential information, as well as data about the location of secure facilities.

Third, it would prohibit the disclosure of any information about the identity or roles of persons who provide or assist in providing protection to the witnesses. That is, of course, providing protection to those who are protecting witnesses, which is an important enhancement as well.

A fourth proposal under Bill C-51 seeks to expand the list of entities that are able to refer individuals to the commissioner of the RCMP for consideration for admission into the federal program. What many of us do not know is that at present, only law enforcement agencies and international criminal tribunals can make these referrals. We would expand the program as well, which would ensure that more witnesses would feel safe and would be able to come forward to give that valuable testimony. Bill C-51 would expand this list to include federal organizations that have a mandate related to national security, defence or public safety, so they could refer witnesses to the federal program. This would include organizations such as the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

Fifth, the safer witnesses act would provide other measures that would allow for voluntary termination from the federal program and extend emergency protection to a maximum of 180 days. That would double the previous limit, which was 90 days. Both of these improvements should address some of the concerns that have been raised by both federal and provincial stakeholders.

This is a practical and comprehensive piece of legislation that would make significant improvements and changes. Collectively, all these amendments would strengthen the current Witness Protection Program Act, making the entire program more secure, more streamlined and better for those who need protection and for those who provide that protection. Provincial programs are integral to Canada's witness protection network, and we are pleased to address many of those concerns in this legislation. It has received a great response in the House, for which we are thankful.

In summary, I would encourage all members to support this legislation. I think we do have support for the legislation. We have raised important issues in the debate tonight. We have certainly heard lots of productive questions from the members of the NDP, asking about certain issues with the program. That is the purpose of debate and that is why we are here.

I am pleased to stand and support this piece of legislation.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House to speak about a bill that is dear to my heart, and that is Bill C-51.

The NDP has said that it will support this bill. Why? For various reasons. First, the bill broadens the eligibility criteria for the witness protection program to include witnesses recommended by the Department of National Defence. It will also extend the period of emergency protection and clear up some of the technical problems that were occurring in relation to coordination with provincial programs. It has been said many times in the past several hours that the program will likely generate additional costs. The members opposite do not seem to believe that. Time will tell.

When it comes to witness protection, in Quebec in particular, there have been clear examples in recent years of why it is absolutely necessary to have witnesses to help target and stop criminal groups. Many police operations would have failed miserably had it not been for the co-operation of informants. Take for example, Opération SharQc, which resulted in the arrest of 115 Hells Angels, thanks to the help of an informant and the protection he was offered by the police. In Quebec, the Sûreté du Québec protects witnesses.

There have also been other arrests, such as those of all of “Mom” Boucher's Nomads, a chapter of Hells Angels. Once again, an informant, “Godasse” Gagné, worked with the police.

Clearly, the witness protection program covers a wide variety of activities. When it comes to terrorism, there is a certain type of witness that needs to be protected. When it comes to organized crime and street gangs, we are not talking about some poor innocent witness. It is important to be clear on that. These are not choirboys. They are people with rap sheets longer than the government's mammoth bill.

Although these witness protection programs have been very effective recently in the fight against organized crime, there have also been some abuses, things the public felt should not have been done. Informant witnesses, under the protection of the police and the government, received large sums of money for their co-operation. Of course, giving up 115 notorious criminals for arrest has its price. One witness was given $3 million. The public saw this as an abuse. There have also been witnesses who received new identities and then went out and committed crimes a few years later. That happened in Quebec, and the public is not okay with those types of abuses.

I would like to point out that the witness protection program is managed by police forces. We know nothing of the agreements between the police and witnesses. The rules are not clear, and there is no transparency.

Tonight, there has been a lot of talk about the need for transparency with these kinds of agreements. Based on what I know about how the program is administered, I can say that, in Quebec, there was no transparency. There was so little transparency that there were abuses involving the public as well as reformed and protected witnesses. They challenged their agreements with police, to the point where they formed an association, the Association des témoins spéciaux du Québec. That shows just how bad things got. These protected witnesses sued the Quebec government for $6 million for breach of contract.

What I am trying to say is that transparency is an issue.

There has been support for the improvements made to the bill. There is support for the fact that Bill C-51 expands the witness protection program to include criminals involved in street gangs. I think that is key to eventually eliminating that scourge.

Members have also said that this bill assumes that the funding currently allocated to the RCMP is sufficient. We do not feel that is the case. In addition, the bill unfortunately does not follow through on the recommendation to create an independent organization to oversee all of the witness protection programs.

It is important to understand that when a police force is dealing with a witness from organized crime who made the first step to access this type of program, there is no proper balance of power between the police and the criminal. A lot of pressure and responsibility is put on the commissioner. The new statute, especially clause 12, indicates that the commissioner must protect the witness' identity, but may also disclose the witness' identity if the commissioner deems it appropriate to do so. In fact, the commissioner becomes judge and master of this program. We know that sometimes he is put in a position of being judge and jury. It does not serve the justice system well for police forces to be judge and jury. We often see this when police forces investigate other police forces. This does not necessarily produce the best results.

An independent agency made up of specialists that are completely independent from the police forces could manage this program effectively, have clear criteria and agreements that are respected and deemed appropriate by the public. When we negotiate agreements with criminals, we must remember that we represent public ethics and power and that we cannot negotiate any old thing. I would say that in this type of program, it is a bit like shaking hands with the devil. We have to be careful. I am not the only one who prefers to have this safeguard in the bill.

I would like to quote from a letter sent to the Minister of Public Safety from the Barreau du Québec.

Under clause 12, the commissioner may disclose confidential information if the protected person consents to the disclosure or has previously made such a disclosure or acted in a manner that results in such a disclosure.

We can agree that if a criminal under witness protection wants to terminate his protection, it is up to him.

Furthermore, the commissioner could disclose that confidential information if he has reasonable grounds to believe that the disclosure is essential for the purposes of the administration of justice; this could be necessary in the context of investigating a serious offence if there is reason to believe that the protected person can provide material information or evidence in relation to, or has been involved in the commission of, the offence; preventing the commission of a serious offence; or finally, establishing the innocence of a person...

The commissioner can lift a witness's protection for about a dozen reasons. This is a very serious decision. This disclosure could put the commissioner in a conflict of interest.

As we have also seen, it is not the role of the commissioner to act as judge and jury. The committee recognizes the importance of this issue, but does not feel it compiled enough information to be able to make an informed decision. In its final report, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security recommended the establishment of an independent body to administer and manage the federal witness protection program.

Furthermore, in the report that followed the Air India tragedy, the commission recommended the creation of an independent body, specifically, a national security witness protection coordinator.

I agree with those recommendations. It would have been better if this bill had included a provision to create an independent body to oversee Canada's witness protection program.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, ensuring that all Canadians have safe communities in which to live has been a priority for our government since taking office. Our government has undertaken numerous initiatives to ensure the safety of Canadians. For example, our government is following through on its commitment to give the RCMP the tools it needs to enhance public confidence and increase accountability to its members and Canadians. This is apparent through our support for Bill C-42, the enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police accountability act. This legislation would enable the RCMP to continue its ongoing transformation toward a strong and vibrant national police force that Canadians will continue to believe in and value.

The enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police accountability act would help the RCMP remain accountable and relevant now and in the future. First, this act would create a modern, independent civilian review and complaints commission for the RCMP which would strengthen civilian oversight. Second, investigations of serious incidents, such as death or serious injury involving RCMP members, would be more transparent and accountable to the public through the implementation of a new framework. Third, the act would modernize processes with respect to discipline, grievance and human resources management for RCMP members, because it would put in place mechanisms to prevent, address and correct performance and conduct issues fairly and in a timely manner. These changes would help address concerns that have been raised by both the Canadian public and RCMP members themselves.

Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act, is another important legislative change that would support the work of our police and ensure that we meet our commitments to Canadians. Witness protection programs offer protection, sometimes including new identities for certain individuals whose testimony or co-operation is vital to the success of law enforcement operations. In Canada, the RCMP administers the federal witness protection program, which was officially established in 1996 with the passage of the Witness Protection Program Act. Through the federal witness protection program, the RCMP can provide emergency protection in the form of permanent relocation and secure identity changes for witnesses under threat.

The legislation governing the federal witness protection program, however, has not been substantially changed since 1996, when it first came into force. This has posed challenges for the RCMP, who must contend with the constantly changing nature of organized crime. The safer witnesses act would help strengthen the current federal witness protection program and thus support the RCMP in effectively combating crime, particularly organized crime. Bill C-51 would also help protect individuals, including RCMP members and other law enforcement officers and civilians involved in administering and delivering witness protection.

Disclosing information about individuals in the federal witness protection program is prohibited by the Witness Protection Program Act. Bill C-51 would expands on this by also prohibiting the disclosure of information about individuals who provide or assist in providing protection for witnesses as well as how the program operates. Under Bill C-51, this prohibition would extend to both the federal and designated provincial programs. Bill C-51 would also positively impact the provision of protection by promoting greater integration between federal and provincial witness protection programs.

Under the current legislation, if an individual in a provincial witness protection program requires a secure identity change, he or she must be temporarily transferred into a federal witness protection program so that the RCMP can obtain the appropriate documents. This may introduce delays in the process. The changes proposed by Bill C-51 would allow provincial and territorial governments to request that their programs be designated under the federal witness protection program act. This one-time designation would mean that the witness in the witness protection program could receive a secure identity change without needing to be admitted into the federal one. These reforms would support the provision of protection at all levels by streamlining the process to obtain secure federal documents for these purposes.

Another change proposed by Bill C-51 responds in part to a recommendation made in the final report of the Air India inquiry. The legislation proposes to expand the categories of witnesses who may be admitted to the 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.

More organizations would also be able to refer candidates. Examples of such organizations are the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the Department of National Defence. Currently, referrals are only accepted from law enforcement and international courts or tribunals.

The RCMP has administered the witness protection program for the last 15 years, during which time it has gained significant experience and insight into factors that make for a successful witness protection program. Bill C-51 would build on this experience and address a number of operational issues that the RCMP has experienced.

For example, Bill C-51 would clarify the process for voluntary termination from the federal program. It would also extend the amount of time emergency protection might be provided to candidates being considered for admission into the federal program. Emergency protection would be increased from the current 90 days to a maximum of 180 days.

In addition to these changes proposed by Bill C-51, the RCMP is currently taking measures to enhance the federal witness protection program, including incorporating psychological assessments of candidates and counselling for protectees and their families, incorporating risk-management principles into the admission process, enhancing training for witness handlers and administrators, creating a database that would better inform program design and, lastly, offering the services of legal counsel to all candidates being considered for admission into the federal program.

The RCMP would also continue to use the existing seven criteria outlined in the act to assess whether to admit an individual into the program, including the risk to the witness, the danger to the community if the 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 information and evidence to be given by a witness, the likelihood that 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.

Our government has been quite clear that one of our top priorities is to keep our streets and communities safe and to support families, as outlined by the Prime Minister. Our plan involves tackling crime, supporting victims' rights and promoting a fair and efficient justice system.

Today, our government builds on the success of the last seven years and would provide the RCMP with the tools it needs to do its job more effectively.

This and other legislation would ensure that we have a fully accountable national police force that will continue to fulfill its role to protect Canadians here at home and abroad.

For that reason, I urge all members to support this legislation and work toward ensuring it is passed in an expeditious manner.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to have an opportunity to speak in the House this evening to this important legislation, Bill C-51, which amends the Witness Protection Program Act and makes other consequential amendments.

This is an important public safety tool, as has been mentioned by a number of members on both sides of the House. It is a tool that enhances the opportunity to prosecute crimes, particularly, crimes that undermine the security of our communities. such as organized crime and gang crime. Where do we need witness protection? We need witness protection when the criminals we are seeking to prosecute are prepared to use further criminal acts to retaliate and to exert violence or other forms of repression on people who co-operate with the authorities to try to make our communities safer.

This really gets at the heart of what we need to do to protect our communities. We see this across the country. We see it in prisons, in the cases of gangs. We see it in our communities as well. We see it in the case of organized criminal organizations, such as the Hells Angels, which have been very active in various parts of the country. We see it in the drug trade, in general. We also we see it in other security-type activities and very significant terrorist measures, such as the actions in the Air India disaster and the need for a strong witness protection program to fully prosecute those guilty of engaging in that enormous frightening terrorist event.

Improvements to the witness protection program have been sought for many years. Since 2007, our party has been calling, specifically, for better coordination of the federal and provincial programs and for better overall funding for the program. These demands were repeated in 2009 and again in 2012. Specifically, the member for Trinity—Spadina was concerned about the inability of the police forces to get witnesses in the bad summer of shootings at the block party on Danzig Street, for example, and the difficulty that the police had in finding witnesses to come forward.

We do support theses measures.

I do not sit on the public safety committee anymore, although I did a few years go. I did sit in one or two of the meetings, listening to some of the witnesses on this program. There were acknowledged significant improvements being made to expand the coverage of the program of eligibility. It is very important for national security that national defence or other public safety departments will be able refer witnesses to the program. It extends the period of emergency protection and clears up some technical problems.

We are very disappointed that the bill does not include more of the recommendations, for example from the Air India inquiry, such as a more transparent and accountable process for admissions to the program. We are also very concerned that local police departments will have the support necessary to ensure that witnesses can come forward in a gang situation, for example.

We have heard again and again tonight that there is a lack of recognition of the high cost borne by local police departments and the concern about the adequacy of funding.

We know what the RCMP officials said at the hearings. They said that they were satisfied they could handle the problem. However, I have a problem with that. The only statistics that have been floating around are from 2012. They noted that out of the 108 individuals who sought the protection and were considered for the program, only 30 were accepted. That is a pretty significant turndown rate.

What was the fallout from that? How many cases did not go to court because there was no protection offered to those witnesses?

We had the Minister of Public Safety himself acknowledging that the cost of the program is one of the criteria used to determine whether someone is accepted. He diminished it as being only one of the seven, but the cost of the program is one of the criteria, and we have two-thirds of them being turned down. We would be increasing the eligibility opportunities, so more people could apply in more circumstances.

We hear from the other side, and we ourselves are concerned, about gangs and other forms of organized criminal activity. What we see from all that is that there is going to be significant pressure on this program to admit more people, and the resources are not going to be there, or the lack of resources could be used, because it is one of the criteria, to turn down people who seek admission to the program.

I am not saying that every person who asks for witness protection is entitled to it. Do not get me wrong. I am not taking some sort of extreme position. I am doing my best to be reasonable with respect to this matter, because what we are seeking is a bill that is going to work. The problem I have, despite the quotes we have heard from the hon. members opposite, and I am not saying they are making them in bad faith, is that they seem to be a bit selective in leaving out the concerns raised by witnesses at the hearings.

I want to emphasize the comments and statements of the Canadian Association of Police Boards. Who are they? We heard from the Canadian Police Association. This is all the police officers in Canada. I do not know if we heard from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. I do not see any quotes from them being raised here.

The police boards are the civilian boards that are appointed by the communities and are responsible for oversight of the policing activities in their areas and the safety of their communities. Obviously, the enforcement is carried out by the police officers themselves, but the police boards are responsible for how these communities operate. We talked about small communities, but they are even in big communities.

The president of the Canadian Association of Police Boards, on March 19 of this year, testified before the committee and said:

Without the availability of sufficient funding, our ability to take advantage of the program will be limited. In places like Toronto, that's a big problem because, as you know, we're dealing with serious violent crimes and often rely on witnesses from the community, not informants and others but witnesses from the community. Their needs may not be significant, as was mentioned. All they may need is a little bit of protection, but that requires that sufficient funding be available for us to be able to do it. That, for us, is a problem.

Elsewhere in testimony, the same individual said:

...our chiefs have said to us that their ability to access fully, proportionate to their need, is not there.

That is in Ontario. We have also had other representations. Andy McGrogan from the Medicine Hat Police Service said that, provincially, they are working on witness protection legislation as well, but right now they are looking at how to absorb these costs. He said:

If you look at a community such as ours, the protection of one witness, if funded through the municipality, has a major impact on our budget. We're watching this legislation and really trying to determine where it's going to unfold at this time.... We totally understand that. How it's going to impact us financially, of course, is our biggest concern.

I have only one minute to complete my remarks, but I want to say that we support this legislation, but we have concerns that we do not have a stand-alone organization, which we have asked for. We do not have adequate funding, which we have asked for, and no commitment to it, and there seems to be a failure to recognize that it is what has to happen.

I would be very pleased to respond to any questions or comments that members opposite, or my colleague, might have.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, the safer witnesses act is intended to help strengthen the current federal witness protection program, a program which could play a better role to effectively combat crime, particularly organized crime.

Let me state at the outset of my remarks that Bill C-51 is the result of consultations with law enforcement agencies and our provincial counterparts. The safer witnesses act will, first and foremost, improve the interaction of the federal witness protection program with provincial witness protection programs.

As it stands presently, an individual in a provincial program obtains several documents required for a secure identity change if he or she is temporarily admitted to the federal witness protection program. As members may be well aware, this process can result in delays in obtaining a new identity.

Bill C-51 proposes a remedy to the situation by establishing a straightforward process in which 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 that program, the RCMP would be obliged to help in obtaining federal identity documents for a provincial witness requiring a secure identity change, without the individual being temporarily admitted into the federal program.

The proposed amendments contained in Bill C-51 enable the program to become more efficient and more secure.

Under the designation regime proposed by Bill C-51, 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, thereby making it more secure.

Among other improvements, Bill C-51 would expand referrals for admissions to the federal witness protection program to sources assisting national security, national defence or public safety organizations, such as the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

Bill C-51 would also enhance the security of all witness protection regimes in Canada by broadening and enhancing the existing prohibitions against the disclosure of information.

Currently, the federal Witness Protection Program Act prohibits the disclosure of information about individuals within the federal 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 would strengthen this prohibition in a number of important ways.

First, 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 operates, as well as about those individuals who actually provide or assist in providing protection for witnesses. Both of these prohibitions would also extend to designated provincial programs; that is, disclosure of information about witnesses, people who provide protection and information about the programs themselves will be prohibited.

Current provincial prohibitions against the disclosure of information currently apply only within the legislation of the particular provincial jurisdiction, not across jurisdictions. Bill C-51 would also clarify the prohibition with respect to what and how information is being disclosed.

As I have stated, section 11 of the current act contains the phrase, “no person shall knowingly disclose, directly or indirectly, information about the locations or a change of identity of a protectee or former protectee”. The phrase “directly or indirectly” was considered to be unclear.

The proposed amendments in Bill C-51 clear up any ambiguity 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, leaving information about the protected person unguarded and telling someone where a protected person lives.

Bill C-51 would 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.

By extending referrals to this category of witnesses, we are also delivering on one of our 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 hundreds of individuals under the protection of the program.

In 2011-2012 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' family.

During the same time, the RCMP also provided assistance to other Canadian law enforcement agencies under the existing Witness Protection Program Act. The Witness Protection Program Act has not been substantially changed since 1996. The fact that the federal witness protection program serves the criminal justice system well does not mean that there is no room for improvement.

Ongoing consultations with provinces and law enforcement agencies, among others, have revealed that improvements could be made to adjust to the increasingly sophisticated, evolving and global nature of organized crime. The government's consultations with provinces and territorial stakeholders have also helped to highlight some areas where stronger provisions are needed, which I have mentioned today.

The witness protection program is a vitally important tool in our ongoing efforts to combat organized crime groups.

Bill C-51 addresses the need for modernization, as well as enhanced information protection and integration with provincial programs. Bill C-51 introduces reforms to the present witness protection environment that will 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.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, contrary to the apparent perspective of some in this place, I think it is actually worthwhile to debate these bills. Each one of us learns a lot more by hearing the perspectives of the other side. I am grateful for the opportunity, despite the late hour, to participate in this debate.

At the outset, I would like to say stricter sentencing provisions without effective investigative powers, resources and timely judicial processes are empty. I would bring attention to the failure of the government to take timely action in the appointment of judges, including in my jurisdiction, as raised by the Attorney General of Alberta, and the failure to fill that vacuum by providing sufficient aboriginal police, as first nations are calling for. That certainly would help with the situation of gang action and in helping to bring witnesses forward.

I am rising in support of Bill C-51, an act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act. There are many measures that are worthwhile. It is good that after many years the government is finally moving forward to improve and enhance the program, which, by the way, the Conservatives did not invent. It has been around for quite some time, but to their credit, finally, after seven years, they are coming forward to actually improve it.

We support the fact that it would expand the eligibility criteria in certain circumstances to expand access in the case of witnesses dealing with crimes related to street gangs and certainly for witnesses recommended by CSIS and National Defence. As I understand it and as outlined by the government members, there would be improved efficiency and coordination with provincial and municipal police forces to achieve more effective access to the program by those authorities. I am hoping that is the case, regardless of the fact that there is no additional funding.

These are important changes that the New Democrats have been calling for as improvements for quite some time, particularly to fight street gangs and organized crime. I bring to the attention of the Speaker that the New Democrat member for Trinity—Spadina called for this exact reform some time back, specifically in relation to the mass shootings in Toronto. I know that we and everyone certainly support her efforts to have some increased measures to deal with these kinds of activities and to respond to the increasing concern over terrorism. In that case, people may be even all the more nervous about stepping forward and serving as a witness or providing testimony or evidence to the authorities.

The bill would expand access to more individuals seeking to deal with gangs, although I would have to add that I wanted to put this question to a number of the members here who are participating in the special task force on missing and murdered aboriginal women. I am not convinced that the measures we are debating today are sufficient to address the complex issue in aboriginal communities of witnesses coming forward. That would be something that is probably worth pursuing.

The federal witness protection program has long been criticized for its narrow eligibility criteria, for its poor coordination with provincial programs and for the low numbers of witnesses admitted to the program. Apparently only 30 of the 108 applications that were considered were accepted in 2012. I am not sure that the committee heard all of the detail for why that was, but on the basis of some of the testimony from police authorities, certainly part of it is a lack of access to funding. I am surprised, given the government's enthusiasm for ensuring that these cases come to trial with solid evidence and testimony from witnesses, that it would not also want to address this funding shortage issue.

One of the things that particularly bewilders us is that the Prime Minister commended the report from the Air India commission. One of the strong recommendations from the Air India inquiry, and apparently the only one related to the federal witness protection program, was to appoint a national security witness protection coordinator.

The government has chosen to disregard that recommendation. There do not appear to be really clear arguments for why it would turn down that position.

My understanding of the recommendation is that the coordinator would not provide the actual physical protection. The national security witness protection coordinator's mandate would include such things as ensuring consistency in the handling of sources and resolving disputes between agencies that may arise in negotiation or implementation of a protection agreement. The coordinator would also provide confidential support for protectees, including psychological and legal advice so that they could decide whether they wanted to sign the protection agreement. The coordinator would also provide for independent and confidential arbitration of disputes and act as an advocate for witnesses.

That all seems very clear and obvious, because in many cases the very reason for the existence of this witness protection program is that witnesses are reluctant to come forward. There could be many reasons. They could be terrified. They might be nervous of police authorities. It seems perfectly logical that a non-police body would work with those individuals and would be less intimidating.

The government's decision remains a puzzle to us. It had the opportunity to also include that recommendation. Hopefully in future it will also bring that one forward.

One of the key problems that has been raised by my colleagues in this place is the refusal by the government to admit that the program is inadequately funded. As has been stated many times in the House, only 30 of 108 applications considered were accepted in 2012.

A great number of witnesses came before committee, many of whom spoke to exactly this issue. One was Commissioner Micki Ruth, a member of the policing and justice committee of the Canadian Association of Police Boards. Micki Ruth said:

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 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. ... CAPB has a duty to its members to ensure that legislation passed by the government does not result in a downloading of additional costs to the municipal police services....

This is the very concern. We have heard member after member defending the position that there is no need for further funding, but in most cases they are citing the RCMP. The problem is that the downloading occurs to the municipal or provincial police authorities.

That concern was also raised by the British Columbia Ministry of Justice through Clayton J.D. Pecknold, who is the assistant deputy minister and director of police services, policing and security programs branch, as well as Dr. Alok Mukherjee, the president of the Canadian Association of Police Boards. Those are citizen boards and commissions representing a broad spectrum of society.

Dr. Alok Mukherjee said:

Without the availability of sufficient funding, our ability to take advantage of the program will be limited. In places like Toronto, that's a big problem because, as you know, we're dealing with serious violent crimes and often rely on witnesses from the community, not informants....

Very serious concerns are being raised.

When we go to the very purpose of this legislation and program, which is to encourage witnesses who may otherwise feel intimidated to come forward, we have to scratch our heads and ask why the program would not be fully funded, particularly when we are dealing with incidents of terrorism.

We will remain puzzled. We support the initiatives that the government has brought forward in the bill, but we will continue to pursue, on behalf of those agencies and the public and those who might be compelled and approached to testify, the availability of funding to support them to testify.

As I mentioned at the outset, in the case of aboriginal or isolated communities there may have to be additional measures, because it may be a bit harder to address the fact that individuals will be picked up and relocated or that they may not even speak English or French and would be quite intimidated by being removed from their community.

I look forward to further discussions on this matter within Parliament.

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.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again we find an opportunity to move ahead on a number of initiatives that this government has brought forward since 2006 to help strengthen and encourage the protection not only of our police officers but obviously of those victims and how we protect them. This gives me an opportunity to speak to Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act.

As members know, the act was brought forward in 1996 for the nature of crimes we were dealing with then. However, since that time there has been an incredible amount of change in our society.

In fact, as has been mentioned before, in the drug-dealing business, the production of crack cocaine has increased some 30%. Unfortunately, this affects not only large urban areas but small rural communities and towns like mine as well. Also, in 1996 cyber crime was something that many of us did not know anything about, and in 2013, there may still be those who are not aware of the complexities of cybercrime in this country. Organized crime has become much more prevalent than it has been in past history. As well, on terrorism, we think of those situations that have happened, not potentially but those that have actually been stopped in this country. We would never have thought about that a few years ago, but we hear about it every day on the news. In fact, our members in the armed forces deal with it on a regular basis as they help protect our great nation and others against these terrible atrocities.

Methods of policing these crimes have been modernized in an attempt to keep pace, but what we need to do now is put in place a modernized witness protection program to help keep up with some of the events that are happening in our society.

Law enforcement often relies on the co-operation of individuals to give information and those who are willing to come forward and give evidence against these criminal organizations. Informants are often the key component that makes the difference between talking about it and getting out there and actually making the arrest. As a matter of fact, law enforcement depends on key witnesses. However, key witnesses deal with the fear and issues that come with dealing with organized crime, and we need to make sure those people have the opportunity to come forward without fear, at least without the extended fear they would normally have because they had been a part of something they knew was terribly wrong.

We have an opportunity now to move forward and help guarantee witness safety. We have an opportunity to not only help protect witness identities but strengthen that protection, and for a longer period of time.

In the past our witness program was designed to promote law enforcement by facilitating the protection of those directly or indirectly involved in criminal activities, and it had been an effective tool. In fact, it still is, but it is not as effective as it should be to deal with modern-day events.

As members know, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta have established their own provincial witness protection programs that work independently of the federal program. However, it is becoming increasingly apparent that we need to strengthen the protection given to witnesses and also to those who protect them across the country, and there have been calls for reform of the witness protection program to keep in line with the government's mandate of tackling crime.

Since 2006 we have taken that initiative to tackle crime, protect the innocent and give justice to the victims. We now need to make sure that we give credence to the witnesses who are helping make sure that happens.

As we developed this bill, we took into consideration the recommendations made in the final report of the 2010 Air India inquiry, the 2008 study of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security of the federal witness protection program, as well as the recommendations from consultations we carried out with not only with federal agencies and departments, but also with agencies of the provinces and law enforcement groups at all levels across this country. We have carefully assessed the feedback from these reports and consultations to bring forward a comprehensive bill, which is the one that we have in front of us.

In Bill C-51, we have identified a number of changes to the act that would improve the protection services for informants and witnesses.

The provincial witness protection programs meet the needs of provincial law enforcement agencies and offers a range of protection that can include accompanying a witness to trial, a temporary relocation or limited financial support to the individual. However, they do not have that authority to obtain secure identity changes. In this age of technology, it is becoming so important that when we give them a change of identity it is secure, protected and there for them in their time of need.

One of the measures we would be putting in place with this bill is the streamlining of the process that would allow provincial programs to be designated under this act. We had a number of questions come up about how we would be able to do this in terms of other agencies and the efficiencies in the bill.

Bill C-51 would make it possible for the Attorney General or other provincial authority to request the Minister of Public Safety to recommend to the Governor in Council that a provincial protection program be designated. This would then allow the RCMP to assist with obtaining the federal documents for secure identity change without the witness having to be admitted into the federal program.

Though there have been recommendations to bypass the RCMP and have the provinces request secure identity documents directly from the various federal organizations involved, we believe it is more prudent to maintain a single point of contact for this process. That is all part of the security and the efficiencies built into Bill C-51 in terms of the protection of witnesses.

The RCMP is the organization best suited to act in this capacity and bring continuity, which would ensure efficiency and enhance security. The Commissioner of the RCMP would coordinate at the request of the provinces and we would look to help those who are admitted to the designated program.

I see that I am running out of time. What it really all comes down to is that the amendments, the federal organizations with mandates related to national security, defence or public safety, such as CSIS and the Department of National Defence, may also refer witnesses to this national program. That means that those issues that I talked about earlier with respect to breadth and some of the issues that had not been brought into the witness program in 1966 are here now.

I look forward to the support and the passing of this important bill.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be up here this evening with everyone here. I am standing to support Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act.

This is just another block in the work that has been done by our great and capable Minister of Justice to provide Canadians with justice, law and order with our crime initiative to make our streets and communities safer. Why it is so important is that one of the first callings of government is to provide security and public safety for its citizens. It reminds me of that great quote by Thomas Jefferson. I have mentioned it a few times in the House. It is about what good government is. He says that a government that protects its citizens from harming one another and otherwise leaves them to individual pursuit of enterprise and “does not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.... This is the sum of good government”.

The first issue, of course, is that the government provide law and order and protect its citizens from harming one another. Bill C-51 addresses that part of good government that we are supplying for Canadians.

Bill C-51 would strengthen the witness protection program. The government is demonstrating once again its commitment to building those safe and secure communities for all Canadians.

Before highlighting the main provisions of the bill, let me reflect on how the proposed legislation would be an important tool for fighting serious organized crime.

Since coming into office in 2006, which was the time I was elected, our government has been focused on building safer communities. We have had a larger mandate at every election, because we have been doing that job. Among other actions, we have provided law enforcement officials with the resources to clean up our streets. We have introduced legislation to increase the accountability of offenders, and we have taken steps to modernize the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Strengthening the witness protection program through this bill before the House is a next step in our efforts to combat crime.

Statistics Canada has reported a 30% growth in the trafficking, production and distribution of cocaine in our country in the last 10 years. Such a staggering increase is not a result of small-time and isolated dealers bringing more drugs into our communities. Rather, it reflects a concerted effort by organized crime that is likely global in scope and increasingly difficult to nail down. Organized crime has become adept at harnessing new information technologies, both to carry out cyber crimes and to avoid detection from traditional activities such as drug trafficking. At the same time, they could also be using new technologies to track down potential witnesses to their crimes.

More than ever, the law enforcement community depends on informants willing to infiltrate criminal gangs and gather evidence against them. Understandably, witnesses are often only willing to testify if they are offered protection from threats. That is why Canada's federal witness protection program is so vital in our effort to fight crime and provide Canadians safe streets.

Indeed, in her comments on Bill C-51, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of British Columbia said that in the fight against crime, protecting witnesses is essential.

We must also recognize that the federal witness protection plan is based on legislation that is two decades old. The program has held up well over the last 17 years, but the time has come for this act to get into the 21st century. Only in this way can we deliver the kind of protection witnesses need and deserve, the protection that will help us fight serious and organized crime.

For my part today, I would like to focus on how the bill would streamline relations between the federal program and its provincial counterparts and in doing so, heighten safety for both witnesses and those who protect them.

Currently Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Quebec have their own witness protection programs. Unlike the federal program, which generally is geared to protect witnesses for life through relocation and secure identity changes, provincial programs are typically set up to offer short-term protection.

If the scope of the protection becomes too large for the provincial program, help may be sought from the federal counterpart to obtain a secure identity change. However, this process can be cumbersome and time-consuming, requiring the witness to be temporarily admitted into the federal program.

Imagine the emotional state of a witness in this situation. He or she has co-operated with the authorities to testify against the ringleaders of serious crimes in return for protection before the upcoming trial. Already the witness is experiencing heightened stress that only a few of us could imagine. Now provincial authorities receive new intelligence: the risk for their witnesses are higher than previously believed. A new identity is required, and quickly.

The witness, already stressed, would be thrown into a state of emotional turmoil, first at the news of heightened danger and second at the thought of adopting a new identity and all the upheaval that would bring. Then, having made the difficult decision to join the program, the witness asks if the paperwork is finally complete, and the answer may very well be, “Not yet.”

Witnesses may have their own motivation for co-operating with the authorities, but the bottom line is that their actions may be instrumental in helping law enforcement take criminals off our streets and put them behind bars. Thus, witnesses are an important tool to prevent crime, and the system needs to serve them well.

I am speaking not only of witnesses currently in the system; I am thinking of all the potential witnesses whose testimony could take a bite out of crime in Canada. Before they are willing to co-operate, they need to have the confidence in the management of a witness protection program.

I am pleased to say that Bill C-51 introduces amendments that would help streamline the process to obtain secure identity changes for provincial witnesses. Essentially, it would allow for the designation of a provincial or municipal witness protection program. This designated status means that the witness would no longer have to join the federal program to obtain a secure identity change.

Allow me to highlight several other provisions that would strengthen and streamline the witness protection program for the benefit of the witnesses and those who protect them.

Among other goals, Bill C-51 would do the following: clarify and add provisions on the disclosure of information about protectees, including about how they are protected, and about the persons providing the assistance with that protection; specify under what circumstances disclosure of protected information is nevertheless permitted; expand the category of witnesses who may be admitted to the program to include people who are helping with the investigation of a terrorist act; give protectees in the federal program the right to end their participation voluntarily; and extend the period during which the protection may, in an emergency, be provided to a person who has not been admitted to the witness protection program.

The federal witness protection program is a key weapon in the fight against crime. It gives informants the confidence to put their lives in danger by testifying against organized crime.

For the sake of those witnesses, present and future, and for the safety and security of our communities, I urge all members to join me in supporting the safer witnesses bill.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if my hon. colleague across the way does not like debating things that we all agree on, then maybe she will vote for the next time allocation motion. That way we can go home at 11 o'clock tonight instead of midnight.

In the meantime, I want to tell her what Chief Bill Blair of the Toronto Police Services had to say about Bill C-51. Toronto is in close proximity to my riding of Mississauga South. He said:

In Toronto, we have seen the fear caused by intimidation and the threat of retaliation in gang investigations. Witnesses with valuable information are deterred from coming forward. We support the government's initiative as a valuable step in protecting public safety.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure this evening to speak to the safer witnesses act. As members may know by now, it is a product of extensive input from knowledgeable parties across the country. Indeed, I am pleased to note that the proposed legislation has earned plaudits from several provinces and law enforcement agencies. This positive reaction speaks volumes about the thoroughness and timeliness of Bill C-51.

Members may recall that in March 2008, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security produced a review of the witness protection program. The government responded in July of that year. The review was certainly a key reference document for the policymakers who developed Bill C-51.

For my part in today's debate, I would like to identify how the proposed legislation responds to the review's nine recommendations.

The committee heard from many witnesses who stated unequivocally that the federal witness protection program was an essential tool in the fight against serious crime, organized crime and terrorism. Nevertheless, witnesses had some concerns, including four recommendations to promote greater fairness and efficiency in the management of the program.

First, the committee recommended moving the witness protection program out of the RCMP's hands and into an independent office within the Department of Justice. Through its own consultations, this government confirmed that the RCMP should continue to manage the witness protection program. For one, the justice department simply does not have the expertise to protect witnesses or deliver the programs; it is not what it does. Moreover, simply the physical moving of the administration of the program to justice could create potential security risks.

This government is embracing the intent of this recommendation, which is to ensure objectivity of witness protection matters. The RCMP is developing a reporting structure that separates its investigative and protective functions.

Second, to ensure a good fit between participants and the program, the committee recommended automatic psychological assessments of candidates over the age of 18, including family members. The government concurs that not everyone is a good candidate for the witness protection program. The RCMP now has psychologists who assess candidates and offer counselling to both candidates and protectees. I would stress the word “offer” because the decision to accept counselling belongs to candidates and protectees and is not imposed upon them.

The third recommendation is of a similar nature. The committee proposed to automatically offer legal counsel for candidates during negotiations for entry into the witness protection program. The RCMP continues to offer legal counsel to both candidates and protectees. Again, however, legal counsel is offered rather than imposed.

In its fourth recommendation, to improve fairness and efficiency in the witness protection program, the committee called upon the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, or CPC, to handle complaints from candidates and protectees as required. The government agrees with the intent of this recommendation and, as all hon. members know, we are currently working to pass Bill C-42, the enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police accountability act.

Under that legislation, the CPC would be replaced by a new civilian review and complaints commission. Amendments to the RCMP Act under Bill C-42, would give this new civilian oversight body limited and secure access to information about protectees.

The committee's fifth and sixth recommendations fall under the theme of facilitating access to the witness protection program. The committee called for federal, provincial and territorial ministers for justice and public safety to develop a funding agreement for participation in the witness protection program. It is believed that this recommendation was predicated on a national witness protection program with minimum national standards. Following consultations again, the government did not accept this recommendation. There is no funding in the fiscal framework to support such an agreement.

The sixth recommendation also touches on relationships between and among jurisdictions. It is recommended that the body responsible for the witness protection program enter into agreements with provincial and territorial governments. The goal would be to accelerate the processing of witness protection files.

The government recognizes that in some instances, it can take too long to process secure identity changes for provincial witnesses. That is why it has introduced amendments through Bill C-51 to improve the process, and as such, those proposed agreements are no longer necessary.

The committee's seventh recommendation revolved around establishing minimum standards for the witness protection program. The government considered this idea, but as I indicated earlier, the provinces objected, because the administration of justice falls within their jurisdiction, and national standards were reviewed as an encroachment. Consequently, the government did not accept this recommendation.

The final two recommendations related to promoting transparency within the witness protection program. The committee suggested that independent research into witness protection be permitted and encouraged. I am pleased to say that Public Safety Canada has already undertaken some comparative research. RCMP psychologists may also pursue limited secure research.

While the government agrees on the value of research, it sounds a note of warning. Researchers and risk management experts must take the necessary precautions to maintain the privacy and security of protectees and the program. They must not let their quest for knowledge trump concerns about the release of information.

Finally, the committee recommended more and better information in the annual report of the witness protection program. Since the release of the committee's review, the annual report has, in fact, been enhanced to account more thoroughly for expenses. The Minister of Public Safety reserves the right to request more information at any time, of course.

In summary, the government appreciates the hard work of the standing committee in preparing its review of the witness protection program.

The government consulted stakeholders about nine recommendations and gave them serious consideration in the preparation of Bill C-51. Indeed, most recommendations have found direct or indirect expression in the bill in changes to the RCMP Act or administratively within the federal program.

Through its own extensive consultations, the government believes that it has developed a solid and coherent approach to improving the witness protection program. Given the positive response so far from key stakeholders, I am convinced that Bill C-51 and administrative changes would continue to achieve the intent of the committee's recommendations in the areas of fairness and efficiency, greater access and transparency.

I thus invite all hon. members to join me in supporting Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the committee heard from a number of different witnesses, including the RCMP. The assistant commissioner from the RCMP in charge of federal and international operations said, “As a result of the designation regime” and the way the program is going to work “the RCMP will deal directly with the designated official for the provincial witness protection program”. He said, “This will promote efficiencies in services provided to the provinces and will further enhance the security of both the federal and the provincial program”.

Because of the gains and the efficiencies that are inherent in Bill C-51, there will be a savings that will be able to fund all the concerns that have been raised by the different provincial partners.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on April 5, the Barreau du Québec sent a letter to the Minister of Justice. The letter is easy to find, since it has been made public.

The letter contained recommendations, including an amendment to Bill C-51 in relation to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I will list a few of them.

These questions have to do with the terms for lifting the protection granted to witnesses, the circumstances that allow an individual to maintain that he or someone else has always had the same identity, and the disclosure and communication of confidential information in relation to the witness with the right of the accused to make a full answer in defence, in accordance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Were the Barreau du Québec's recommendations to the Minister of Justice taken into consideration?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to discuss Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act. Witness protection is one of the most important tools law enforcement has at its disposal to combat criminal activity. An effective witness protection program is particularly valuable in the fight against organized crime and terrorism.

Witness protection has been informally available in Canada since the 1970s to protect persons who are deemed to be at risk because they provided assistance to law enforcement or because they provided testimony in criminal matters. The testimony or co-operation of these individuals can be vital to the success of law enforcement operations. In 1996, the Witness Protection Program Act officially established the federal witness protection program in an effort to ensure consistency in protection practices across Canada and, at the same time, to establish greater accountability. While the witness protection program is serving the criminal justice system well, it has not been changed significantly since 1996.

In the last 17 years, crime, and specifically organized crime, has evolved substantially and is now more global than ever in nature. The safer witnesses act, which we are discussing today, would help to further strengthen the federal witness protection program and help to ensure it is appropriate to meet the ever-evolving nature of crime. Administrated by the RCMP, this program provides a gamut of protective measures. These can range from temporary protective services to relocation with a name change.

The RCMP is required by statute to use a number of criteria to assess if an individual should be placed in the program. For example, this includes examining the risk to the witness and taking into consideration the danger to the community if the person were to be admitted into the program. It includes looking into the nature of the inquiry and the importance of the witness in the matter. The criteria also include taking into consideration the value of the information and evidence to be given by the witness and the likelihood the witness can adjust to the program.

In addition, factors such as the cost of maintaining the witness in the program and alternate methods of protection available and other factors deemed to be relevant are all taken into account. Currently, there are approximately 800 protectees in the federal witness protection program, and new persons are admitted into the program every year. Admission numbers fluctuate yearly due to changes such as the number of cases being investigated or the size of the witnesses' families.

Of note, there were more than 100 cases referred for admission into the federal witness protection program in 2011-2012 alone. Of those cases, 30 individuals were accepted into the program, with 23 of these individuals being granted a secure identity change. The difference between the number of referrals and the number accepted in the program is stems from various reasons. Some candidates may decide they are not interested in the program, while others may not meet all the criteria outlined, but rest assured that the individuals requiring protection will receive it.

Provincial governments are responsible for the administration of justice. The Provinces of Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta have established their own witness protection programs, which differ from the federal program. These provincial programs provide a range of valuable services in support of those at risk. The interaction between provincial programs and the federal program, however, has not always been as efficient as it could be. For example, a protectee in a provincial program must now be admitted temporarily to the federal witness protection program in order to obtain the federal documents for a secure identity change. This can sometimes lead to delays in the process of securely obtaining new identities.

Bill C-51 aims to remedy this situation. It proposes to establish a process whereby provincial programs can become designated witness protection programs. The Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Public Safety, would have the authority to make this designation at the request of the provincial authority. It would then no longer be necessary for witnesses to be temporarily admitted to the federal program to obtain federal identity documents for secure identity change.

Moreover, the provincial designation regime proposed in Bill C-51 would further streamline the process for obtaining federal identity documents. This would be achieved through a process whereby the provincial official representing a designated provincial witness protection program would then be the single point of contact for that program. The official can request federal identity documents from the RCMP, which would be the single federal point of contact. A provincial official acting on behalf of all law enforcement agencies within the designated program would limit the number of persons involved in the request to the RCMP, thus streamlining the process. Fewer individuals involved in the process would also ensure that it is more secure.

Another way that Bill C-51 would strengthen the security of witness protection regimes in Canada would be through changes to the current prohibitions against the disclosure of information.

The disclosure of information about the location and change of identity of protectees in the federal witness protection program is prohibited by the Witness Protection Program Act. Bill C-51 proposes to expand on this and prohibits the disclosure of information of individuals who provide or assist in providing protection for witnesses, as well as how the program operates. These prohibitions will also extend to designated provincial programs. This means that the disclosure of information regarding witnesses, the people who provide protection and information about the designated provincial programs themselves will be prohibited.

Bill C-51 also specifies 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. Disclosing information directly could include situations such as telling someone that a protected person's name is whatever. Disclosing information indirectly could include leaving information about the protected person unguarded.

C-51 also seeks to expand the categories of witnesses who may be referred for admission into the federal witness protection program to include persons who assist federal departments, agencies or services that have national security, national defence or public safety mandates and who may require protection as a result.

As chair of the Standing Committee on National Defence, our committee often hears about acts of terrorism, acts of war by a government on its own people, people who witness genocide, acts of war and terrorism. These people often require protection. They could be somebody who is employed by the Department of National Defence or they could be members of the Canadian Armed Forces. They could be fearful for their lives because so many foreign states and the leaders of those states have the ability to implement assassinations. Therefore, these individuals would be intimidated from ever testifying in a court in Canada or in an international court such as the Hague, where it tries so many war crimes.

Expanding the category of witnesses who are eligible also addresses one of this government's commitments under the 2010 Air India inquiry action plan. In terms of funding, the federal witness protection program is currently funded from the RCMP's existing operational resources. That would continue under Bill C-51. Because the system is more efficient, it would not require any extra resources.

In conclusion, Bill C-51 addresses a number of operational issues based on experiences gained in administrating the current program over the past 15 years. It would modernize the Witness Protection Program Act, improve interactions between the federal and provincial witness protection programs and ensure better protection of information.

Bill C-51 responds to many of the needs of provincial and territorial governments and to the needs of law enforcement officials and other stakeholders involved in the criminal justice system.

By building on our efforts to combat organized crime and terrorist activities, Bill C-51 would help us continue to fulfill our commitment to build safer streets and communities for all Canadians.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak about Bill C-51, something that I am genuinely concerned about.

This bill contains measures that have long been called for by the NDP. It proposes a better process to support provincial witness protection programs. It applies the program to other agencies with responsibilities for national security. The bill will broaden the eligibility criteria for the protection program to include repentant members of street gangs who are willing to testify against others in their gang.

Federal departments and agencies that have a national security and public safety mandate may also suggest witnesses for the program. The bill will extend the emergency protection period and will eliminate a number of technical problems relating to the coordination of provincial programs. It is a necessary bill, and one that addresses flaws that were identified a long time ago.

The NDP has been demanding the expansion of witness eligibility for protection programs for nearly two decades now.

In 1996, this House passed the Witness Protection Program Act. In 1999, the NDP voted for Bill C-223 to broaden witness protection in cases of domestic violence. This bill was overturned by the then Liberal majority.

Since then, the fundamental issues of eligibility, coordination and funding have never been dealt with by Canada’s successive governments.

Since 2007, members of the NDP have been calling for changes to be made to the witness protection program. It has taken the Conservatives six years to finally respond to our requests.

The issue is real, however. Close relatives and the various stakeholders have said for a long time now that the program must be expanded. In May 2010, the RCMP submitted a report to the Minister of Public Safety in which it asked that the witness protection program be strengthened.

As we know, in order to fight back against investigations into their activities, street gangs have no qualms about intimidating the families of witnesses. They want to stop witnesses from speaking out against them. Street gangs are very violent and quick to use intimidation to avoid going to jail.

Members of street gangs are afraid of speaking out against their accomplices, because they know they will not be protected. However, in cases involving street gangs, the best witnesses are gang members themselves. Members of street gangs who want to get out of crime and are willing to testify against their associates must be allowed into the witness protection program.

My colleagues have pointed this out on a number of occasions this year. I repeat it again this evening. In 2012, only 30 of the 108 applications for protection were accepted. The program served only 30% of those who were asking for help.

Bill C-51 will solve this particular issue, because it raises the level of protection for witnesses and informants who assist our police officers, in addition to expanding the use of these information sources. We will be able to fight directly against street gangs, which are becoming ever more common in Canada’s suburbs.

That is not all. If the Conservatives really want to improve the witness protection program, they must also commit the money for it to happen. It is fine to talk about protecting victims in order to appeal to voters, but the government needs to walk the walk.

I would like to remind the House that it costs $300,000 to protect each witness. If the definition of “witness” is expanded, as Bill C-51 aims to do, we will be sticking taxpayers with a bigger bill.

We support the bill, but we condemn the fact that the Conservative government has refused to commit additional funding.

Once again, it will be up to the municipalities and police forces to absorb the higher costs. They already have tight budgets. The commissioner of the Canadian Association of Police Boards said this on March 7:

...sometimes the cost of protecting witnesses hinders the investigations, especially for small law enforcement agencies that have a tight budget.

She also said this:

[The government must] ensure that legislation passed...does not result in a downloading of additional costs to the municipal police services that we represent.

The government cut nearly $190 million from the RCMP and more than $140 million from the Canada Border Services Agency. Investigations into drugs and crime in areas of federal jurisdiction are handled by the RCMP. However, the RCMP bills local police forces for the cost of protecting witnesses even though the local forces often cannot afford it.

Recently, the Conservatives announced that they would no longer fund recruiting programs for local police forces. A $400 million envelope was earmarked for the police officers recruitment fund, but the Conservatives decided not to renew it for 2013. That is appalling. These cuts will impact how effective Bill C-51 can be.

I commend the intention behind this bill. However, I hope that the federal government will allocate a significant budget to this bill and not make the municipalities and provinces cover the cost. The government is certainly not short on money: it gives $1.2 billion a year to the oil sands industry and forked out $70 million to celebrate the war of 1812. I want to remind the government that it has a responsibility to ensure that its laws do not increase the burden on the provinces.

In closing, although I am not happy about the lack of funding, I think that strengthening the witness protection program will improve public safety. After so many years, we are pleased that the government is finally making the changes that we have been calling for.

I therefore support Bill C-51 at third reading so that it can be passed. I support it on behalf of all the people, agencies and associations that want this bill passed. I am supporting this bill so that those who want to blow the whistle and testify can do so without fearing for their safety and that of their families. Bill C-51 will allow them to be better protected. I also hope that the government will increase the budget so that the municipalities will not have to foot the bill.

The NDP is once again building safer communities by giving the police more tools to help them fight street gangs and organized crime.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member.

Bill C-51 does not contain any provisions that would allow an independent organization to administer the program in accordance with the recommendations made in the Air India investigation report.

As a result, the RCMP will continue to be responsible for the program, which could put it in a conflict of interest, because it will be both the investigating body and the one to decide who benefits from protection.

Does my hon. colleague have anything to add in that regard? Does he intend to take that recommendation into account?

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to talk on Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act.

I thank all of my colleagues across the House for their interventions, and of course I thank the NDP members for supporting this bill. I think some of their arguments are flawed, but they are supporting it, and that is tremendous.

I would like to share with members why I support Bill C-51 and why my constituents and community organizations in Etobicoke Centre support it. I will also share why I think it represents an important step forward in making the protection of witnesses an effective and relevant program for our country today and for law enforcement in the future.

I have two police divisions in my riding, 22 division and 23 division of the metro Toronto Police Service. I discussed Bill C-51 with Staff Sergeant Doug MacDonald of 22 division today, and he told me something rather interesting. He said that the public are the eyes and ears of the police.

The TV shows on police forensic investigators, and other shows of that type, are often misleading and give the public the wrong perception of how forensic evidence can be linked to a perpetrator. In the course of an hour, the show will depict a major forensic investigation being done, or the police all on their own linking a perpetrator to a particular crime, but that is not always the way it works.

A lot of the forensic evidence is most certainly there, but often the police are not able to take that one further step to definitively link the evidence to the perpetrator, because we are a country of rule of law. Before a person can be charged for a crime, the police have to be absolutely sure they have the right person. Often they may know it in their heart of hearts, but without the public stepping forward, without witnesses coming forward, they have a very difficult time in achieving that. Therefore, this act would be hugely important in solving those cases by giving the confidence to the public and witnesses to step forward and provide the testimony to put serious criminals away and safeguard our streets and communities.

I have to give a shout out to the metro Toronto Police Service. They are outstanding under Chief William Blair. Also, I think this House would like to note that the Toronto Police Service sends 10 officers abroad every year to serve as mentors and police liaisons in very dangerous places around the world, such as Afghanistan, to help bring the rule of law to those people in those lands. I thank the metro Toronto Police Service for doing that.

Our government is committed to ensuring the safety and security of constituents in Etobicoke Centre, but unfortunately violence does occur. In 2011, Toronto had 86 homicide victims. On July 5, 2012, Abdulle Elmi was killed in a hail of gunfire in a quiet street in my riding, and it was believed he was a member of the gang Sic Thugs. Community organizations, not wanting to see any more bloodshed, advocated for strengthened witness protection programs. Our government listened and we have acted.

As we have heard in the interventions during the debate, this bill would make important amendments to the Witness Protection Program Act, which has been in place since 1996. Since then, Canada's witness protection program has served our police services well and has forged many new identities for those who have risked much to see justice through to the end.

However, as time passed, the witness protection program has proven to be in need of fine-tuning. It is a program that serves us well, but it could work better, and my constituents agree with that. It is a program that needs to adapt to our changing environment to better protect those who come forward and those who protect them, and this bill would do just that.

This proposed legislation acts on a number of recommendations that have come forward based on some key and tragic events in our history. Sources include, for example, the 2008 study 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 federal departments and agencies, the provinces and law enforcement agencies.

I would like to focus my time here today on how this proposed legislation would address the concerns that we have heard from federal and provincial stakeholders as well as my own constituents, community organizations and other stakeholders in Etobicoke Centre whom I have spoken to on this important matter, such as Staff Sergeant Doug MacDonald, who, of course, was an operator in all of this.

Bill C-51 would make the witness protection program more balanced and secure by allowing for a more seamless co-operation among law enforcement services and going beyond jurisdictions.

The federal program differs somewhat compared with the programs currently administered in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec. If there is a need for a witness to be referred to the federal program, that decision rests with the particular law enforcement agency dealing with a specific case. That means provinces have jurisdiction over their cases and can select and use their own good judgment in being able to bring these cases to the RCMP, if required.

What is consistent among all programs is they are adaptable, allowing decisions to made, as I said, case by case, factoring all the key information, such as the costs involved, the resources available, the level of threat to the witness, and the time needed to appropriately afford protection and safety to those individuals in need. In, for example, complex federal cases, provinces can decide whether to refer witnesses to federal authorities for admission in the federal witness protection program. One area that has consistently been raised by provincial stakeholders is the need to streamline the current process for obtaining secure identity changes for protectees in provincial programs.

Let me share an example of that, and how the bill would improve how jurisdictions could work together across this country.

When it comes to secure identity changes and federal documents required, we have heard from provinces that the RCMP currently assists only those protectees under federal jurisdiction.

The way this is currently set up means that the provinces must temporarily admit their protectee into the federal witness protection program in order for the RCMP to assist in the process. By doing this, and provincial stakeholders have been very clear on this point, the process can slow down and create time-consuming paperwork and delays that in fact could put lives at risk. What that can also lead to is then a lack of co-operation by witnesses, because it may cause a lack of confidence in the system. People would be afraid and not step forward; crimes would go unsolved. That is an outcome that we do not want.

We can all imagine that when it comes to something as significant as a secure identity change, further delay could cause undue stress and hardship, as I said, for those in need of protection, not to mention those brave individuals on our police forces who are trying very hard to safeguard our communities.

Now, the changes of Bill C-51 would improve federal and provincial collaboration. That is something that has come up time and again this evening. Designated provinces would no longer need to have their witnesses entered into the federal program and would retain decisions on who to protect and how. Bill C-51 would help improve the way jurisdictions work together, with a new framework that would allow for provincial witness protection programs to be officially designated.

This new framework would allow the provincial authority to make a request to the federal Minister of Public Safety. An official designation would then allow the province to ask that the RCMP assist it in obtaining the necessary federal documents required for a secure identity change for a provincial witness. This would eliminate the need to first admit the witness into the federal program.

Furthermore, an official designation would only need to take place that one time. It would streamline the whole process. It would be quicker, it would be safer, it would be faster and we would get convictions.

We have also heard statements by the provinces asking that the RCMP be removed from the process so that the provinces could request secure identity documents directly from federal departments. However, let us remember that these are not always simple cases and witness protection is not a typical program. These cases affect an individual's very identity and his or her personal security. I believe that the RCMP needs to play a central role in this, and a key role in this, and act as a single point of contact in order to protect the operational security of this program.

As they say, too many fingers in the pie and we could ruin that pie.

By doing so, our federal police service would add a level of security that would allow for the efficiency and consistency in cases that can be, and often are, very complex.

Balancing the safety of protectees with the needs of those administering the program is a key feature of Bill C-51. That is why I am here today, to show my support for these important changes.

It also proposes changes to prohibitions on disclosure. Bill C-51 proposes changes for designated programs, such that the prohibitions of disclosure would be extended to provincial witness protection information; the means and methods of provincial witness protection programs; as well as information about those who provide protection. This prohibition would apply across Canada.

I would like to urge all our hon. members to support Bill C-51. This is an act that is in need of change right now because, as all countries do, we have evolved as a nation. We have evolved to the point, especially in our law enforcement, where these changes are required. I think all members of the House have already stated they do support this bill at the end of the day. For those on the opposition benches who may still be troubled by it, I encourage them to support the bill because it would help the people most in need and it would help our law agencies to do their best job.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak to Bill C-51. Fortunately, I have the time to do that, despite the fifth time allocation motion in five days and the thirty-eighth since the beginning of this Parliament.

Since this is my first opportunity to speak to this bill, I want to point out that this morning, the Minister of Public Safety stated that everyone was in agreement on this bill and that since no amendments had been put forward, a debate was pointless. Yet I have been here since early evening and I have been listening to a very interesting discussion on available resources and on the next steps to be taken in the area of witness protection, which is the focus of Bill C-51. This underscores the importance of having a debate to bring these problems to light. Even if these are not settled this time around, at least we will be able to proceed with due diligence in future.

That said, to echo the words of my colleagues, I want to say that the NDP will be supporting this bill since it favours improvements to the witness protection program. Many criticisms have been levelled against the program since it was first introduced in 1996. To finally see the government make some improvements is a positive step, even if it has taken far too long, in our opinion. We will therefore be voting in favour of this bill.

However, as I said, a number of problem areas were discussed this evening. I would like to focus on a few of them.

The first one is very important and may seem rather ironic to some extent, since it concerns witness protection. This bill disregards an important recommendation contained in the report released in the wake of the Air India tragedy. This recommendation focused on the transparency, review and accountability of the program.

It is important because, as I said earlier this evening when I put a question to one of my colleagues, the RCMP oversees the witness protection program, but often it ends up investigating the very same individuals at the same time. Often these persons are also implicated in the crimes in question. Therefore, there is a conflict of interest, so to speak, and that can be a problem.

Therefore, accountability and transparency mechanisms need to be put in place. This is extremely important in order to ensure that the RCMP acts properly. I want to stress that this is not a criticism of the RCMP's work, which is excellent. The members of the RCMP are deserving of our praise, but at the same time, in a society like ours, it is vitally important to have in place mechanisms to ensure transparency.

This is one of the important problems highlighted, particularly since this recommendation was contained in a report drafted in the wake of events having to do with witness protection. There is no reason why the government could not include these mechanisms in this bill. We hope to see this happen in the future.

The other major problem is obviously the issue of resources, which has been noted repeatedly. This is interesting because the Conservative Party member who preceded me said that all the NDP wanted was resources and spending. However, what is funny is that we in fact want to avoid burying the provinces and municipalities under more expenses. We are facilitating co-operation between the RCMP and local and provincial authorities. If we improve co-operation and expand witness protection admission criteria, more people will actually enter the program. Consequently, more spending will be incurred. That seems obvious to me.

The question thus arises as to who will absorb those costs. The RCMP, of course, already has resources, but municipal and provincial authorities will receive more applications and will accept more of them as a result of more flexible criteria, and they will have to cover the necessary costs.

However, municipal and provincial authorities are very concerned. We know they are because that is what we heard in committee. The RCMP is not concerned because it says it has the necessary resources, and that is a good thing.

As for provincial and municipal authorities, as my colleague from Toronto—Danforth said, everything will depend on how the federation is managed, how the government works under collaborative federalism.

I think it is a major problem for the government to introduce a bill when there has been very little consultation, knowing that it will result in additional costs. That is one of the criticisms we want to make.

I will conclude by saying that we support the bill. However, we wanted to point out those two extremely significant deficiencies. However, we hope that we will be able to rectify the situation in future and that this will be a lesson to the government to co-operate more with local authorities so that they can lower their costs and not succumb to the effects of bills that, like this one, are introduced unilaterally.

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak about the importance of Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act, and to express my full support for it.

My constituents in Pickering—Scarborough East are deeply concerned about the worst mass shooting in the history of Toronto, which took place in July last year at the barbecue event on Danzig Street in Scarborough, just barely outside of my riding. It was clearly gang-related, and it ended with two people dead and 23 wounded.

As we are all aware, the bill will make much needed changes to the Witness Protection Program Act to give law enforcement authorities the proper tools to prevent such horrific crimes and to better protect the public.

The act came into effect in 1996 and needs to be updated to keep up with the passing of time. Prior to this, witness protection services were indeed provided to key witnesses, although such protection was not provided on any formal basis. With the passing of the act in 1996, the process was formalized. Clearly, after 17 years, it is time to modernize this important piece of legislation to make it more responsive to law enforcement needs and more effective for those it is designed to protect. Seventeen years ago, there was no Facebook; there was no Twitter.

While we are talking about 17 years, I would like to note that the leader of the NDP stayed silent on a bribery offence by the mayor of Laval for 17 years. I think it is important that he testify at the Charbonneau commission on corruption to tell Canadians what exactly he knew. I, as a professional engineer, would lose my licence if I did not act properly.

Back to the matter at hand, a robust witness protection program is a critical tool in our ongoing efforts to combat organized crime groups and terrorism. Bill C-51 responds to a number of concerns that have been raised by a variety of stakeholders. This government has taken the time to listen to the concerns of these stakeholders and of the provinces to ensure that we are putting forward the soundest legislation possible. I will direct my comments today to the proposed amendments to this bill, which has been developed to alleviate concerns for some of the provinces.

Members may recall that five provinces already have witness protection programs in place. They are Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec. I would note that there are some differences between the federal program and those of the provinces. Witness protection programs at the provincial level have their own criteria for admission. They are tailored in such a way as to respond to the requirements of their particular law enforcement agencies.

Whether a witness is covered under the federal program or under one of those in the provinces is decided by the relevant investigating police force. There are a number of determining factors for admission to the federal program in this regard. In making this decision, police could consider such factors as the estimated cost, the level of threat and the anticipated time for which protection is necessary for the witness. If the witness is involved in a case of a federal nature, a province may also decide that its witness should be referred to the federal program for consideration and possible admission.

The provinces have been unequivocal about their desire for a more straightforward process to procure secure identity changes for their protectees. We have listened to this concern. Clearly, provinces face undue difficulty with the current program, as the RCMP only helps federal protectees obtain the federal documents necessary to secure identity changes. This results in a requirement for the provinces to admit their protectees to the federal program on a short-term basis so that they can have the assistance of the RCMP in the document process. This is an overly laborious process that can result in lengthy holdups. Delays due to the cumbersome paperwork are unacceptable when we are talking about protecting the lives of key witnesses who are supporting key investigations. We have addressed this issue in the bill.

Through this bill, we are also enhancing federal-provincial co-operation. To do so, we are putting in place a new process to ensure that provincial programs can be officially designated following a process that will include a one-time request to the Minister of Public Safety. This is significant in that once a program has been designated, provincial officials will be able to call on the RCMP to acquire the necessary federal documents for a secure identity change for a provincial witness. To be clear, this witness would not have to be admitted first into the federal program, making it a significant improvement over the current system. Furthermore, the designation process would be a one-time request.

I will also take a moment to acknowledge the suggestion by some that the RCMP be completely taken out of this process. It was suggested that provinces should be able to approach federal departments directly to make their request for secure identity documents. We do not agree with this. As a result, the bill would ensure that the RCMP would remain part of this process. Having the RCMP act as the single point of contact minimizes the number of people involved in the process, thereby making the process more secure. We have also listened to the concerns of federal partners in this regard. These partners were of the view that continuing to use the RCMP as a single point of contact was the most prudent course of action.

Another important change we would make to alleviate the concerns of some provinces is with respect to the prohibition of disclosure. In the current Witness Protection Program Act, the prohibition of disclosure of information about the location and change of identity is limited to federal protectees only. It is this government's view that the provincial stakeholders' concerns about this limitation are completely founded. That is why we would broaden the protections to provide for the disclosure of information regarding witnesses to include those in the designated programs I mentioned a few moments ago.

Further, the legislation would clarify exceptions to the disclosure prohibition, all the while ensuring that federal and designated provincial authorities are able to carry out their duties and maintain the protection of witnesses. As an example, both federal and designated provincial authorities would be able to provide information about protectees in many instances when doing so is necessary to prevent a serious offence from occurring.

There is no doubt about the need for the amendments to the Witness Protection Program Act, amendments such as those proposed in Bill C-51. This sound legislation is just one of the many ways in which this government has demonstrated its commitment to providing law enforcement agencies in this country with the tools they need to do their job.

To conclude, I will remind my hon. colleagues that with the passage of this bill, we have an opportunity to see that witnesses in this country feel safe to come forward and assist our law enforcement agencies with some very serious investigations.

I will reiterate that there are no anticipated cost increases with respect to implementing the proposed changes in this bill, as the RCMP has also indicated. An effective and reliable witness protection program is essential to the fight against crime, especially organized crime and terrorism. I therefore call upon all hon. members to support this comprehensive legislation.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to hear the strong support for Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act, from all sides of the House.

As we continue our discussion today of the safer witnesses act, it is important to take a step back and look at where these proposed changes stem from. As hon. members have heard, there have been two major reports in the last four years containing recommendations to enhance the federal witness protection program. The first of these reports was the result of a study conducted by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security in 2008. That committee put forward nine recommendations on how to enhance the federal program.

Since that time, and through our extensive consultations with our federal partners and provincial stakeholders, our government has committed to moving ahead with legislative amendments, administrative changes within the RCMP and the implementation of measures that would enhance the protection of witnesses in the federal program. The 2008 report included a number of good recommendations that have provided momentum for change and, in the case of one recommendation, is directly addressed in our current legislation, Bill C-51.

Today I would like to take a look at those recommendations as I think they add valuable perspective on how we have arrived at today's legislation. The committee's recommendations fell under four thematic areas, the first of which was to promote fair and efficient management of the federal program. Within this theme, our government has supported three of the four recommendations.

First let us look at the one we did not support, the first recommendation. This recommendation called for the creation of an independent office within the Department of Justice that would be entrusted to administer the federal witness protection program. This issue has been raised again recently in committee and it is important to address it again.

In our consultations with the provinces and federal partners, we found that in fact the best option was for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to continue to manage the federal program. As the Minister of Public Safety has commented, the fact is that the Department of Justice does not have the expertise to run a program to protect witnesses and the actual transfer of the program for the department would create potential security risks.

We agreed, however, with the intent of this recommendation, namely that there should be a clear distinction between the investigative and protective functions to ensure the objectivity of witness protection measures. These concerns are being addressed through changes in their reporting structures within the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

I mentioned that our government supported three of the four recommendations under this theme of fair and efficient management. We agreed that psychological assessments and counselling of candidates over the age of 18, as well as their family members, was a critical step in the witness protection process. As such, the RCMP has begun to engage psychologists to conduct assessments and to offer counselling to candidates for the federal program. Once they are admitted into the program, it is the intent that these services will be offered to both protectees and their families.

We support in principle the recommendation that the federal program should offer potential candidates the aid of legal counsel with an appropriate security clearance during the negotiation of the candidate's admission to the program. Indeed, all the candidates considered for the federal program, as well as the protectees under the federal program, are offered the services of legal counsel.

I say our government agreed in principle because we did not support the suggestion that the federal government should cover all legal fees as a regular course of business. Rather, these are made on a case-by-case basis. This is because there are some cases where providing legal counsel could be seen as a conflict of interest as the government itself may become the subject of legal action on the part of candidates or protectees. We believe our approach is an appropriate use of public funds.

Finally, our government also agreed with the recommendation that candidates and protectees of the federal program must have a proper independent body to which they could submit formal complaints about RCMP conduct, as needed. This calls for an enhanced complaints review body is addressed in Bill C-42, legislation our government recently introduced to modernize the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Bill C-42 would create a new civilian review and complaints commission that would have access to all the necessary documents required to effectively review complaints by federal protectees regarding RCMP conduct.

Under a second theme, that of facilitating access to the federal witness protection program, the committee made two recommendations in 2008. The first was to develop a shared funding agreement among the federal, provincial and municipal governments for witness protection. The second was to allow provinces and territories to work directly with federal departments for processing secure identity changes.

For reasons of fiscal restraint and the need to keep the process secure, our government could not support a permanent funding arrangement for provincial programs.

Bill C-51 would improve integration between the provincial and federal witness protection programs, as well as allow designated provincial programs to obtain secure identity changes for their protectees without having to admit them into the federal program.

The third thematic area of recommendation was to establish minimum standards across the board for all Canadian witness protection programs. The federal government has no plans to overstep its jurisdictional boundaries by imposing national standards upon provincial witness protection programs. Furthermore, the provinces themselves have made it clear that they would object to such federal encroachment on their authority. Therefore, we could not support that recommendation.

Finally, the committee's report included two recommendations under the theme of promoting transparency, as much as could be done, considering the confidential nature of the witness protection program. Namely, it recommended that more independent research should be conducted on the effectiveness of the federal witness protection program and that the federal program's annual report should be enhanced to give a clearer picture of how the program works.

Research has already been conducted on the federal program and the RCMP is looking into creating a database that would enhance the federal program.

As to the final recommendation, the annual report was modified and enhanced in 2008 to provide Canadians with a more precise picture of the program.

The safer witnesses act is a strong and effective legislation that addresses many of the recommendations made by the standing committee, as well as issues raised by stakeholders. Strong witness protection programs are invaluable to investigations and court proceedings.

Particularly when we are dealing with gang activity, it is critical that witnesses feel safe coming forward with information. It is also important to consider the safety of our front line law enforcement personnel. Mr. Stamatakis, president of the Canadian Police Association, 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. 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.

Too often, we forget the fact that our men and women who put themselves in harm's way are the ones who are really bearing the brunt of a lot of the things that we ask them to do. It is important that we have these measures in place to protect them.

In speaking about his city's experience, Toronto police chief William Blair said:

—the fear caused by intimidation and the threat of retaliation in gang investigations. Witnesses with valuable information are deterred from coming forward.

As such, Mr. Blair has joined other key stakeholders in supporting this bill as a valuable step in protecting public safety. I ask all hon. members to do the same.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying what I think has been fairly clear in the contributions from colleagues all along, that the NDP will be supporting the bill.

Bill C-51 does some important things, and nobody is going to claim that it does not. In particular, it adds to the categories of folks who might eventually receive witness protection. For example, those who have been assisting agencies in the federal security or defence or safety realms are added, as well as those associated with them: friends, family, et cetera, who may also need protection. There are any number of contexts that we could all refer to and know about that indicate that witness protection, if anything, is a growing need on the law enforcement side of government.

The Air India inquiry was one of the contexts in which we heard that the national security context was a gap in the system. Surely that has to be the case with other forums and other terrorism investigations, which cannot be much different.

The member for Oxford spoke very well about the burgeoning transnational nature of organized crime and how it is becoming more and more sophisticated, which has been a trend line for decades. Law enforcement is always playing catch-up in the role of witnesses to somehow or other get ahead of the game, and the witness protection program must surely be very important there.

One area that is very important to those of us from more concentrated urban areas is the whole question of street gangs and especially youth gangs. How is it that we can actually break the codes of silence, encourage witnesses to come forward, such as in the Danzig shootings that took place in Scarborough not so long ago? Also, how is it that we can use the witness protection program as part of a broader strategy in getting youth out of that environment?

Nobody is contesting that the bill, as far as it goes, is a good bill and deserves to be supported. Nobody is saying that the context is not one that presents a crying need.

That said, working briefly through three themes, I would like to suggest that the bill does not go nearly far enough when it could have, which is the problem. We have had many years of warning. The NDP started in 2007, and we had reports from 2008 on, saying that the system needed to be upgraded. With the upgrading of the system at the level of effectiveness, we have heard all kinds of concerns, including about funding and the need for an independent agency from the RCMP to be involved. We know from the various interventions that have occurred already that those elements really were not addressed, and so it is a lost opportunity. At some level I would like to think of this as sort of a battle between the real and the rhetorical.

We also went through this recently with respect to Bill C-37, the increasing offenders' accountability for victims act, which I was involved with when I was on the justice committee. The NDP also supported this bill, despite considerable concerns we had that it was totally avoiding any federal public support philosophy for victims and instead was trusting in sort of a combination of surcharges that offenders would pay—and many of them would not be in a position to pay—and provincial programs that were a patchwork quilt and often nonexistent across the country. However, the government at that time presented that bill as making a major contribution to support for victims when it was largely devoid of any kind of a federal role with respect to true victim support programs.

However, again, we supported that bill. It was not because we thought it was the greatest bill in the world, but it was because it added something. Although we had some problems at the level of rights protections, we ultimately felt those could be worked out down the line.

This is why I have joined with the mother of a murdered youth from Toronto—Danforth, Joan Howard, whose son Kempton was murdered 10 years ago literally around the corner from my house. He was murdered by handgun. He was a youth worker who contributed in amazing ways to his community. His mother is of the view that we need to focus more on the needs of victims when it comes to the kinds of public support mechanisms that we associate with other causes, which are the kinds of support mechanisms people need, such as psychological support and social service support.

The supports are needed not just for the immediate victims who survived crime, but quite often for their families—maybe even more often, especially when it is violent crime that has taken a life. It is true that provinces jurisdictionally have the responsibility for this, but the specific link to crime means that the kind of victimhood that occurs because of crime is really not taken into account for the most part in most provinces. We get to legislate the Criminal Code and a bunch of other areas of criminal law through other statutes up here, but we kind of back off when it comes to how we deal with the consequences of crime. Somehow, that becomes purely a matter of another jurisdictional level.

At some point, the federal government has to, obviously under an initiative from Parliament, really catch up to other countries that take public victim support programs a lot more seriously than we do, rather than simply downloading costs on offenders and provinces and thinking that somehow or other we have accomplished the task. I see this bill as falling a bit into the same trap. It would do a fair bit that is important, but at the level of making sure the system functions in a way that all witnesses who need protection will be protected—which is a goal that is necessary for making sure all crime that can be prosecuted is prosecuted—then it is a bill that would fall short.

Therefore, I move on to the second thing, which has been emphasized a lot: funding. The government MPs are focusing often on comments coming from government witnesses, including RCMP witnesses, before the committee; basically comments saying that the funding is adequate. I will read an example that has been read, at least in part, by others. This is from assistant commissioner Todd Shean of the RCMP. He said, “We will immediately increase resources. We have increased the resources allocated to our witness protection unit”. And he goes on to say then, “I am confident that we have the means to manage the program effectively”.

What is the problem here? First, he speaks of “...our witness protection unit”. Of course, the RCMP has its own costs, runs its own program and sometimes assumes all the costs because it is an entire RCMP or federal investigation that the witness protection program is latching onto. It is good to know that he is projecting an increase in resources, but there is no reference here, or recognition even, to the provincial or local police force costs associated with witness protection programs. These levels of government, provincial and municipal, and more particularly their police forces, are charged for the costs.

The member for Oxford made it clear to us that of course costs are saved for police forces. I am not saying that is not true, but ultimately when there are costs that are not simply the costs from the fact that there is an overall system that they can tap into, they get billed for it. What we know is that there is already a problem with funding for these levels. In 2007, this was pointed out. We are in 2013, and there was no evidence before the committee that it has changed. There was clear and persuasive testimony before the committee on this, and I will return to some of it as I end.

However, let me first go back to the RCMP. Its own website states, “There are instances when the costs of witness protection may impede investigations, particularly for smaller law enforcement agencies”. What is the second problem with this, apart from the fact that it really probably is only focusing on the RCMP's own costs? The second problem is that none of this is actually a budgetary commitment from the government. It does not indicate anything more than that the RCMP sees increases in resources, and it is no small irony that this is the case when we know that we are in budget season, and that it would not have been a big deal to coordinate this bill with a very clear budget line item indicating that there would be adequate budgetary support for our partners in crime prevention, the provinces and the municipalities. Every million dollars counts; I recognize that. However, a $9-million budget for the last fiscal year for the witness protection program is not exactly a huge budget when we know, from all the testimony before the committee, mostly from police services boards, that there is a need.

I do not think we should end this debate thinking that by having what might be unanimous support for the bill, we have somehow addressed the issue of resources. I would much prefer it if my colleagues across the way would say that the bill does something and is important—we are supporting them on that, let us take that—but let us not throw a cloak over it and pretend we have solved the whole problem.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour today to rise to add my voice in support of Bill C-51. As my colleague is leaving the room, I would like to remind her that we support the Charbonneau inquiry and truthfulness at that inquiry looking into the corruption in Quebec in the construction trades.

Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act, a strong federal witness protection program is critical to helping our law enforcement and justice systems work effectively. Over the years, the federal witness protection program has frequently proven itself to be a useful and important tool for effectively combatting crime, particularly organized crime.

However, the Witness Protection Program Act has not been substantially changed since it first came into effect in 1996. During that time there have been enormous changes in the nature of organized crime. It has adapted to become more transnational and pervasive. Organized crime groups are increasing in sophistication and becoming adept at using new cyber-technologies to avoid detection and arrest. These groups are known to be exceedingly secretive and difficult to infiltrate, often posing unique challenges for law enforcement officials.

Meanwhile, crimes committed by organized crime networks present a serious threat to the safety of our communities and are of great concern to police and to Canadians.

Many organized crime networks are involved with the illicit drug trade, a lucrative business that has been growing significantly. For instance, according to Statistics Canada, cocaine trafficking, production and distribution in Canada has grown nearly 30% over the last decade.

Bill C-51 is a practical and comprehensive piece of legislation that effectively addresses the need to modernize the witness protection program. It would amend the Witness Protection Program Act to improve the effectiveness and security of the federal witness protection program and make it more responsive to the needs of law enforcement from across Canada.

The bill was designed to do four main things: improve the process to obtain secure identity changes for witnesses from provinces and territories that have designated programs; broaden prohibitions against the disclosure of information; expand admissions for national security, national defence and public safety sources; and extend the amount of time emergency protection may be provided.

From day one, this government has been quite clear that keeping all Canadians and Canadian communities safe is one of our top priorities. We have taken strong action to address this priority by providing law enforcement officials with the tools they need to do their jobs more effectively. This government has provided law enforcement officials with more resources.

We have enacted legislation to stiffen sentences and to increase the accountability of offenders. We have taken steps to modernize Canada's national police force. We have enhanced the ability of all law enforcement officials to keep Canadians safe. Bill C-51 further builds on our track record and would go a long way to enhancing our collective efforts to combat organized crime. Not one of us here today would argue against the critical role that witness protection plays in the criminal justice system.

Most of us know that for many cases, law enforcement officials have had to rely on the co-operation of individuals formerly involved with organized crime organizations in order to combat their activities or to successfully prosecute ringleaders. In other cases, law enforcement has relied on the testimony of key eyewitnesses. These were individuals who agreed to help law enforcement or provide testimony in criminal matters with the end goal of removing criminals from our streets and making our communities safer.

In many cases, these individuals often had inside knowledge about organized crime syndicates or the illicit drug trade because they themselves were involved with these elements. The information they provided to authorities was often invaluable, but sharing it with law enforcement officials could often also place their lives at risk. Witnesses are all too aware of the risk and they fear not only for their own safety, but for the safety of their family and loved ones.

That is why witness protection programs in Canada and around the world offer protection, including new identities, for certain individuals whose testimony or co-operation can be so vital to the success of law enforcement operations. I believe most Canadians understand that.

In order to give our police and courts the best chance to apprehend and convict offenders, we need individuals to feel confident and safe in coming forward to help with investigations. In fact, protecting witnesses is vital to our justice system. Witness protection is recognized around the world as one of the most important tools that law enforcement has at its disposal to combat criminal activity. In the case of organized crime in particular, these witnesses are often the key component to achieving convictions.

The safer witnesses bill contains several changes to the Witness Protection Program Act that would help better protect informants and witnesses. Together, these proposed changes would strengthen the current Witness Protection Program Act, making the federal program more effective and secure for both the witnesses and those who provide protection, because this is really the crux of this program, to keep those involved and their information safe and secure.

As I said at the outset, a strong federal witness protection program is critical to helping our law enforcement and justice systems work effectively. We must take steps to ensure that individuals who decide to become informants or to testify against criminal organizations do not face intimidation or danger. This is why our government is committed to strengthening our federal program and to ensuring a stronger, more streamlined connection with designated provincial programs.

In order to address the threat of organized crime and drugs in our communities, it is critical that informants and witnesses collaborate with law enforcement. Therefore, it is vital that we continue to support an effective federal witness protection program and make it more responsive to the needs of law enforcement, while ensuring the safety of the program participants.

We believe very strongly that Bill C-51 does just this, and the response we have received from stakeholders and parliamentarians only increases our confidence in this legislation. Strong witness protection programs are invaluable to investigations and court proceedings. I believe we are on the right track with this legislation. The proposed amendments would modernize the act that is key in our collective fight against serious and organized crime, in collaboration with provinces and territories. They would enhance protection provided to key witnesses and those involved in administering witness protection programs across Canada.

The changes our government is proposing also respond to many of the needs of provincial and territorial governments. They respond to the needs of law enforcement officials and other stakeholders involved in the criminal justice system. They respond to the needs of Canadians from coast to coast to coast who wish to see our government continue to build safe communities for everyone.

I therefore encourage all hon. members to support Bill C-51 and help us keep our witnesses and all Canadians safe.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raised a good point and that is the importance of having a back-and-forth discussion on a bill as important as C-51.

I think it is great that my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île is willing to work with the Conservatives so that they might finally give us an explanation and answer a simple question. The Conservative government has been here for seven years. During that time, the RCMP and the provinces have repeatedly called for changes to the witness protection program.

Why has it taken so long to make proposals? Are the Conservatives finally prepared to invest the necessary federal funding for proper law enforcement? We want more laws, but we also want those laws to be enforced and that is what our police forces want.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-51.

I would like to begin by citing an example of the Conservatives' financial logic. We are talking about programs designed to assist Canadians, whether they be victims, students or others. The Conservatives want to help them.

I have previously risen in the House on several occasions to speak about the Canada summer jobs initiative, which is an excellent job market springboard for students. Unfortunately, the program has not been adjusted for inflation or the increased minimum wage since the Conservatives came to power in 2006. As a result, fewer and fewer students have access to the program and fewer and fewer organizations have the opportunity to offer students work experience. However, the Conservatives say they want to help students and are concerned for their welfare. It would have taken twice as much money to cover all the student applications in my riding of La Pointe-de-l'Île alone.

I understand that the decision to take money and give it to Canadians who really need it is never an easy one for a government. I understand, but that unfortunately means that some students will not have the same opportunities as others and that there will be an unstable supply of jobs offered by organizations.

If I may draw a parallel with criminal justice, exactly the same thing is happening here. For example, the Conservatives introduced very strict criminal justice legislation a few months ago. Those bills provided for minimum sentences, which, as we know, were criticized by all organizations. Yes, it is true: they want to ensure that our streets are safer, and, yes, they will spend money to build prisons and cause delays in the criminal justice system. However, when it comes to trying to catch criminals, they may not have enough money.

What does Bill C-51 do? It enables people to testify, and it helps catch criminals. Am I telling you anything new here today? They invest billions of dollars to build prisons, create delays in the justice system and introduce minimum sentences. They have the money for that. However, when it comes to protecting witnesses and catching criminals, that is another matter.

They want to amend the act, except that they are going to offload the entire burden onto the provinces and local police forces. The Conservative government does not understand the connection between witnesses and criminals. The Conservatives want to catch criminals, but you need witnesses in order to do that. If there are no witnesses, there will be no one to put in prison. As I said, only about 30 of the 108 applications filed were accepted in 2012. We agree that something needs to be done.

We want to support the bill because it contains some very good measures. It implements some of the recommendations made by the court in the Air India affair. However, making a good law is not everything. That is the work of members. Parliament must also allocate the necessary resources to those who enforce the legislation. There too, one would think this is a principle the Conservatives do not really understand. Yes, it is good; we are going to pass Bill C-51, which is a good bill. We are going to support it. However, what will the local police forces do? What will the provinces do? Are we going to leave them with the entire economic burden?

That is what the Conservatives are doing, and we are very afraid.

It is all well and good to have a system that works on paper, but it also has to work in the field.

This program has been around since 1996. Yes, 1996. It is now 2013. I just wanted to point that out. From 1996 to 2013. It seems to me that all the changes needed to make the program a success could have been made long ago.

Unfortunately, it is thanks to our colleague from Trinity—Spadina putting forward bills and asking the government to act that we find ourselves in 2013 debating a suddenly urgent bill until midnight. A tragedy like the Air India tragedy had to happen first and an investigation had to be carried out before the government took any action.

It is a good bill. For example, it will ensure that members of street gangs who want to get out of that life and would like to testify can be protected. The issue of national security will also be covered. All of these recommendations were made by experts.

However, funding is still the main problem. I understand that this is a social choice and a government choice. I would like to be sure Canadians understand that what the Conservatives are proposing to us today is good, but that they will not take the next step for it to be even better. That is the government’s choice.

A political choice involves passing good legislation in Parliament. However, the legislation must also be enforced on the ground.

For instance, on its website, the RCMP acknowledges that there are instances when the costs of witness protection may impede investigations, particularly for smaller law enforcement agencies. They mean local police stations. The RCMP recognizes this problem on its own website. It is a shame that this problem exists.

Why ignore the most important facts? Why ignore everything the police are asking for? They need resources.

I think it is really important to pass this bill. However, resources are also needed on the ground to ensure the bill truly protects witnesses and makes our streets and our communities safer.

We know the government’s line about victims, among others. How can it claim to be protecting victims, if it does not even ensure that the police can arrest criminals thanks to information from witnesses?

As I said, it is a good bill, but it has to be enforced on the ground. I am going to say that ad nauseam, because it remains a choice to be made by the government. It is a government choice, but there is nothing there right now. There is only paper.

The NDP has been asking for these changes since before 2007, but it was not until 2013, at 8 o’clock in the evening, that the Conservatives decided to proceed with the changes.

Once again, one step is being taken, but one more step is needed. People can be sure that the NDP will keep on pressuring the government to make the streets safer for Canadians.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for her presentation tonight on Bill C-51 and for indicating the NDP's support for something that, for six years, we have been pressing for in terms of a stronger justice system. This is not only about a stronger justice system, but also helping to protect the innocent and victims.

Going back to funding, the RCMP has said the resources are there. The federal government makes transfers each year to the provincial governments. We have increased those over our term, and I do not want to get too specific, about 25%. Some of those transfers go to social programs and education and some are general transfers to the provinces. Does she have any sense that the provinces may have the opportunity to use some of those transfers for the protection of victims?

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île.

I am pleased to speak today in support of this bill. The issue is a very important one that the NDP has worked hard on for many years. I know that my fellow New Democrats who were members of previous parliaments often pointed out the need to expand the federal witness protection program.

In fact, ever since this program was created in 1996, the NDP has called for improvements. It has often called upon the government to act and protect the safety of all responsible Canadians who do their duty. I am pleased that the Conservatives have finally listened and that the government has finally decided to act. I might say their hearing is selective, though, because some elements are missing.

The people who need the witness protection program are people taking risks, putting themselves in danger and sometimes putting their very lives in danger, in order to help the police and ensure public safety. They must have access to a robust and effective program that will protect them.

For years we have been calling specifically for better coordination between the federal and provincial programs and better overall funding.

We are not the only ones who have pointed out problems. As I was preparing my speech I came upon quite a few criticisms of the rigid admission standards. Stakeholders have sounded the alarm about poor coordination with the provincial programs and the small number of witnesses admitted to the program.

Before this bill, witnesses in cases involving national security were excluded from the program. Justice O'Connor criticized this exclusion in his 2010 report on the Air India tragedy. The report revealed that a number of witnesses were afraid to divulge important information to the RCMP, fearing for their safety. He recommended broadening the admission criteria to include witnesses in cases involving national security. More than two years after the report, the government woke up and decided to take action.

Even though Bill C-51 is late, we are satisfied with it in general. It proposes a better process for supporting the provincial witness protection programs and applying the program to other organizations responsible for national security, as I mentioned.

The bill will broaden the criteria for admission to the witness protection program by including a new category of individuals who may come forward to help the federal authorities, for instance, street gang members.

Federal departments and agencies with a mandate related to national security, national defence or public safety will also be able to refer witnesses to the program.

The bill will extend the period for emergency protection and clear up some of the technical problems that were occurring in relation to coordination with provincial programs.

However, in order for it to be effective, the bill should also include provisions for an independent agency to administer the program, as recommended in the Air India report.

We were quite surprised that this recommendation was not included in Bill C-51. We see the Conservatives' selective hearing at work here. As a result, the RCMP will continue to be responsible for the program. This may be cause for concern since it could put the RCMP in a conflict of interest since the RCMP would be responsible for investigating the case and deciding who would get protection.

My biggest concern is related to funding. I listened carefully to the speeches given by my colleagues on both sides of the House, and I believe that we all agree on the importance of this bill.

However, I have a hard time understanding the arguments the members opposite are making about funding. How do they think they can expand a program without giving the RCMP and other police forces the money they need? That is not realistic. It seems as though this will prevent more people from participating in the program.

I thought that the bill was at least partly designed to expand access to the program. Will that be possible without the necessary funding?

We are not the only ones who have raised this concern. A number of witnesses addressed this issue when the bill was studied in committee. I want to share a quote from testimony given by Micki Ruth, from the Canadian Association of Police Boards, with my Conservative colleagues:

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.

She went on to say:

Therefore we urge you to appreciate our position that unless the issue of adequate funding is addressed, the legislation will not produce the result that is intended.

If the Conservative government really wants to improve the witness protection program, it must provide the necessary funding. That is obvious considering last year's figures: only 30 of 108 applications were approved in 2012, mainly because of financial constraints. That undermines the program's value enormously. Seventy-eight witnesses were put at risk but did not receive the protection to which they rightly felt they were entitled. I really think that is a problem.

Adequate funding is essential if we want to bring about changes that yield tangible results, particularly as regards street gangs, a new group contemplated by this bill. We cannot tell young people we want to help them leave gangs, use their testimony in court and then leave them without protection. We know that gangs are very difficult to leave and that they can be aggressive toward individuals who decide to stand up to them and change their ways. Gang members are often youth who have made mistakes but are trying to right the wrongs for which they have been charged. We must support them in that effort.

I would also like to emphasize that this bill will help witnesses, but it will also ensure the safety of our communities. The NDP is always searching for intelligent and viable ways to ensure the safety of our communities. One way to achieve that is to improve the witness protection program in order to guarantee the safety of our streets by giving police forces additional tools to assist them in combating street gangs and organized crime.

In closing, I am pleased to see that the Conservatives have finally taken action on this matter and have selectively listened to the NDP's advice. Note, however, that, if the NDP were on the government side—and I can assure you that will be the case in 2015—we would go further. We would be sure to give the RCMP and police forces the financial and legislative tools they need to do their jobs and protect the public.

I will vote in favour of this bill, hoping that it will open the door to an expanded, more accessible program, which is necessary for the sake of national security and our public safety.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

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

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

I have several other quotes that reflect similar sentiments.

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

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

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there have been quite a few questions today about how these changes would be funded. I know that numerous answers from witnesses at the committee have been quoted, and I will repeat those quotes because although the members of the NDP think that costing would be an issue, the witnesses themselves indicated they did not think so.

Also, I want to talk about the fact that the changes we have made would broaden the scope of who can apply, but the Assistant Commissioner, Todd Shean, said that he did not think that would be the case when he was pressed about whether there would be a flood of new applicants into the program. He also indicated that he felt there would be enough resources, even with the broadened scope of Bill C-51 and the changes in it.

I might add that when we talk about the changes in this bill, we are also talking about efficiencies in the program. Because I am not sure if I have heard this quote today, I will quote Mr. Stamatakis, the president of the Canadian Police Association, who talks about the changes. He stated:

I should also note that the parts of this legislation that deal with extending the authority to designated provincial or municipal protection programs and not just the federal program remind me of some of the testimony I recently gave to this committee around the economics of policing and the need for us to adopt and embrace operational efficiencies in order to deliver the best possible community protection at a reasonable cost to the Canadian taxpayer.

He went on to say:

I do believe that this legislation will have an impact on streamlining that work.

Therefore, the concerns of the NDP are not really justified.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for from Northumberland—Quinte West.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak about this legislation before us, which would make important amendments to the Witness Protection Program Act.

I would like to spend my time today taking a look at exactly how witness protection programs work in Canada, as well as who, in fact, is being protected.

Of course, there are things we do not know and cannot know and are not privy to because of the need to keep witnesses protected. The sensitive nature of this type of work means that witness protection programs and the law enforcement agencies with which they are associated are very careful about the information they make public concerning their operations and the methods they use.

However, there are still some things we do know. For instance, at the federal level, the program is legislated by the Witness Protection Program Act and is administered by the RCMP. Several provinces run their own witness protection programs, namely Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.

As we have heard, there are some distinctions between the provincial and federal programs. One example is that the federal program considers its protectees to be in the program for life, but in the provincial systems, protectees may be under the protection of the program for a shorter term, such as leading up to or during a trial.

As well, if a provincial program determines that its protectee needs a secure identity change, he or she must temporarily transfer into the federal program.

Third, only the federal program is mandated to provide national protection services to all Canadian law enforcement agencies as well as to international courts and tribunals.

This is how witness protection programs are structured in Canada.

Who, then, are these witnesses and what determines if they fall into the provincial or federal programs?

According to the Witness Protection Program Act, a witness is defined as:

(a) a person who has given or has agreed to give information or evidence, or participates or has agreed to participate in a matter, relating to an inquiry or the investigation or prosecution of an offence and who may require protection because of risk to the security of the person arising in relation to the inquiry, investigation or prosecution, or

(b) a person who, because of their relationship to or association with a person referred to in paragraph (a), may also require protection for the reasons referred to in that paragraph.

More details about program participants can be found in a report prepared for Public Safety Canada by Dr. Yvon Dandurand in 2010. The report, entitled “A Review of Selected Witness Protection Programs”, gives a clear picture of the type of individual who is referred to the federal witness protection program.

Interestingly, the vast majority of protected persons are not actual victims of crime, as one might imagine. On the whole, they are either criminally involved themselves or have connections to criminal organizations. This is due to the nature of those specific crimes.

One of the defining characteristics of organized crime groups and the gangs that run the illicit drug trade is their closed nature, which makes traditional investigative methods very difficult.

As such, law enforcement often relies on the help it receives from informants, who place themselves at considerable risk to co-operate with the authorities. In order to secure this collaboration, it is critical that we have in place an effective witness protection program that will keep these witnesses and informants safe.

As to the question of which program the witness ends up in, police can refer a person to either the provincial or federal programs, depending upon the complexity of the crime and the jurisdiction.

As stated previously, in some cases associates or family members of the witness are also admitted into the program.

A large number of witnesses in the federal program are former police agents who have infiltrated criminal organizations as part of an investigation. Once they disclose their information, they may be at risk of retaliation by that criminal group or organization.

The number of people admitted into the program each year varies widely, depending upon the law enforcement activities that year and the number of family members who may need protection along with the witnesses. For example, last year there were about 30 new admissions to the federal program, bringing the total number of protectees to approximately 800 individuals.

If the circumstances of the crime and investigation warrant, the individual may need a complete change of identity and location in order to remain safe.

Under the federal program, the RCMP can help the protected person undergo a secure identity change as well as help the person find new employment and housing as needed. Last year, for example, the RCMP helped 27 witnesses to undergo secure identity changes.

As I mentioned earlier, the federal program also assists witnesses from other countries in accordance with international agreements signed with foreign governments.

It is clear that these programs must deliver on their mandates to keep witnesses safe from reprisal for their actions. As such, law enforcement must have access to strong, reliable programs that offer a high level of comfort for those witnesses before they agree to share their information. Bill C-51 contains a wide range of changes that would further strengthen how the provincial and federal programs work, as well as streamline how these two levels interact.

The legislation covers several broad areas of change.

First, it authorizes the Governor in Council to designate provincial programs in order to allow the RCMP to provide secure identity changes to provincial protectees without transferring them into the federal program.

Second, it establishes the RCMP as a liaison for provincial requests for secure identity change documents.

Third, it expands the prohibition on disclosure of information to include provincial protectees, as well as information about both the federal and provincial programs themselves and those who administer them.

Fourth, it broadens exceptions to the prohibition of disclosure of information to permit disclosure in certain circumstances.

Fifth, it broadens the obligation of program authorities to notify the protectee before the prohibited information is disclosed, except in specific circumstances.

Sixth, it facilitates volunteer terminations from the federal program.

Seventh, it extends the maximum time that emergency protection is provided to the witness.

Eighth, it enshrines in law that federal institutions outside of law enforcement agencies, such as those with a mandate related to national defence, security or public safety, may recommend the admission of individuals into the federal program.

The safer witnesses act would encourage a more streamlined approach to witness protection between the provincial and federal governments, as well as between the RCMP and other federal institutions with a mandate related to national security or national defence.

We are pleased to see such strong support for this legislation from the Province of British Columbia and the Province of Saskatchewan, as well as the Canadian Police Association and the Toronto Police Service.

We were also very pleased to see broad support for the proposed changes among witnesses and committee members during a recent committee study of Bill C-51. They believe, as do we, that it would ensure a more effective and more secure federal witness protection program both for the witnesses and for those who provide protection to these witnesses.

Therefore, I encourage all hon. members of the House to support this important legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the question.

In fact, the NDP does support good crime legislation. I believe we began with Bill C-2, immediately after the election, when we suggested working with the Conservatives to quickly pass a bill that would make it easier to hold megatrials for criminal gangs. We are not afraid to support good bills; we are proud to do so.

I understand the evidence that was presented in committee. However, we have to realize that it was somewhat ambiguous.

My colleague mentioned that the RCMP had enough resources. However, this is what it says on the RCMP website:

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

Major police forces across Canada and the associations that represent them believe that the resources are generally available. However, in very specific local situations, there may not be enough resources, and this can compromise the safety and proper protection of witnesses.

The evidence is contradictory, and that is why we are asking for a guarantee from members of the government. They must assure us that, if there are not enough resources, they will be the first ones to fight for additional resources and to ensure that Bill C-51 is in reality a good law.

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

Mr. Speaker, indeed, this does have a serious impact on border communities.

Other matters that come under federal jurisdiction include immigration and terrorism. The issue of the border we share with the United States often comes into question.

For that reason, it is very important to ensure that the progress achieved through Bill C-51—although it should have come a long time ago—is done in a pragmatic way with adequate resources to guarantee the safety of witnesses.

It is clear that this government has no plans to increase the existing budget envelopes allocated to the various police forces responsible for guaranteeing the safety and protection of witnesses. As a result, although this is an important bill, it is merely wishful thinking, since it will be impossible to implement it.

[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?

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to add my voice to the discussion on the safer witnesses act.

It is encouraging to see support for the bill coming from all quarters. We have heard the merits of the legislation and how it would strengthen the federal witness protection program.

Thanks to television and the movies, people in our country often think they know all about what is going on with witness protection programs. The concept seems straightforward. However, when a witness is offered protection in order secure his or her help in investigating and prosecuting a criminal act, sometimes it is just a truly innocent witness to a crime, who has agreed to come forward to help the courts convict the offenders, and sometimes a witness may have formerly been involved in criminal activity, and in fact, it may surprise some people to learn that these are the vast majority of witnesses who require protection.

The range of protection can vary from a secure hotel room during a trial, for example, to a secure identity change. For the more serious cases that require providing witnesses with a secure change of identity to avoid retaliation from criminal organizations, witnesses must leave their communities, friends and jobs and essentially make a complete change in their life circumstances. It is, therefore, critical to have a robust program in place for those witnesses to feel safe in coming forward.

Witness protection is recognized by experts across the globe as one of the most critical tools that law enforcement has to combat terrorism and organized crime. We continue to see the benefit of the witness protection program in supporting national priorities, including the dismantling of organized crime groups here in Canada. Indeed, one of the prime purposes of the federal witness protection program is to enhance public safety by protecting persons who, as a result of providing assistance to law enforcement or providing testimony in criminal matters, are deemed to be at risk.

The federal program is used not only by the RCMP but also by law enforcement agencies across Canada. There are also provisions within the current act to allow for protection of foreign witnesses in cases where they can no longer be protected in their own country.

As we have heard, the Witness Protection Program Act was introduced to improve accountability and consistency in the protection practices at the time, but it is time to modernize that legislation.

The commissioner of the RCMP is the administrator of the program. Certain responsibilities for various processes, such as admission and termination from the program, are delegated to the assistant commissioner of federal and international operations. Furthermore, there are specifically trained witness protection coordinators who operate at arm's length, as we have heard, from investigative teams. This separation helps to ensure that a standardized and objective approach is used when assessing an individual's suitability to become a federal protectee.

There are a number of factors outlined in the act that must be considered to determine if a witness should be entered into the program. These include the degree of risk to the witness, the degree of danger posed to the community, the nature of the inquiry and the importance of the witness, the value of the information or evidence that law enforcement believes would be given by the witness, the likelihood that the witness would be able to adjust to the program, the estimated cost required to protect the witness, consideration of alternate methods of protection and other factors deemed to be relevant to the RCMP commissioner.

It is interesting to note that there is no specific list of offences for which witness protection is offered. In fact, each case is considered on an individual basis depending on the nature of the inquiry and the investigation or the prosecution. If there is a real threat to the life or safety of a witness as a result of his or her involvement with law enforcement or the justice system, a request can be made by the police force of jurisdiction for the witness. In other words, a provincial or municipal police force might decide that a witness needed a secure change of identity. That leads me to the legislation before us.

One of the key benefits of this legislation is to address the need for better streamlining of federal and provincial programs.

Let me turn now to Bill C-51 to examine this and the other proposed improvements to the current Witness Protection Act.

As we have heard in the debate, the legislation would make the federal witness program more effective and secure. It would improve interaction between federal programs and designated provincial and municipal programs. It would better protect those individuals who put their lives on the line to provide testimony against criminal activity.

The changes proposed in the legislation fall within five broad areas. First and foremost, the bill will address the issue I just mentioned. It will promote streamlining between federal and provincial programs by allowing provinces to have their programs designated. A province will make its request to the Minister of Public Safety and then be designated by the Governor-in-Council.

Currently, the only way for the RCMP to provide documents for a secure identity change for provincial or municipal protectees is through a process where the provincial witnesses requiring federal documents for secure identity changes are temporarily admitted into the federal program. This process has been widely panned by provinces as it means their witnesses will have to meet federal criteria to receive federal documents. As well, it can add further red tape and delays to the process. In consultations with the provinces, this government heard that it was cumbersome and inefficient.

The proposed solution is to have these programs designated so provincial witnesses do not have to be transferred into the federal witness protection program in order to receive a secure identity change. Under this framework, once the program is designated, an official can contact the RCMP, which is now required to assist in obtaining secure federal documents for these witnesses. Through this new process the, bill would create a more efficient and secure process for obtaining these documents by identifying a single point of contact, namely, the RCMP.

The next proposed change under Bill C-51 is to put in law an obligation for other federal organizations to help the RCMP in obtaining secure identity changes for these witnesses both in the federal program and the designated provincial programs. The RCMP will act as liaison between the provincial and federal programs.

Let me turn now to the third element of Bill C-51, which relates to the broadening prohibition of disclosures. In other words, the changes would ensure a more robust protection of provincial witnesses and information at both the federal and provincial levels. It would also protect officials involved in the process.

Permit me to delve into this third section a bit more in-depth as a critical part of the legislation. As it stands currently, the Witness Protection Program Act prohibits disclosure of information about location or change of identity of federal protectees only, both those currently in the program and former protectees. The proposed changes will extend the disclosure prohibitions to be broader and include information about those providing protection and how they provide it, as well as information about designated provincial witness programs.

Bill C-51 would do this in a number of ways, including prohibiting the disclosure of information related to the protectees who are under the federal protection designated provincial programs, prohibiting the disclosure of the means and methods of protection information that could endanger the protectees or the programs themselves for both the federal and designated programs and prohibiting disclosure of any information about persons who actually work in the federal or designated provincial programs.

The bill also proposes to amend the language found in the current act. To this end, it will make it clear that any measures apply to situations when a person either directly or indirectly discloses information. Furthermore, Bill C-51 would make it clear in order for a person to be charged with an offence, it must be proven that the person knowingly revealed this information.

Along with these enhancements, the bill would provide for exceptions to when protected information could be disclosed. The wording in the current legislation states that a current or former protectee has the right to disclose information about himself or herself as long as the information does not endanger the lives of other protectees or former protectees and as long as the disclosure of the information is not considered a risk to the integrity of the program itself.

The government proposed to change this wording in two critical ways. First, it would remove the reference to the “integrity of the program”. Second, it would clarify the protectee would be allowed by law to disclose information if it could not lead to “substantial harm” to any other protectee.

Further, the legislation before us outlines a variety of situations in which the Commissioner of the RCMP can disclose prohibited information. As the law reads today, the commissioner can currently disclose prohibited information in situations such as if the protected person has given the consent for the information to be disclosed, or if the current or former protectee has already disclosed the information or has acted in a way that has resulted in the information being disclosed if the RCMP commissioner determines that disclosing the information is essential to the public interest, such as instances where it could prevent a serious crime or have implications for national security or national defence. Finally, if during criminal proceedings, the disclosure is deemed necessary to establish the innocence of a person.

Bill C-51 proposes to change this wording as it relates to the commissioner disclosing prohibited information when it is seen as in the public interest. Under the legislation, the commissioner will only have the authorization to disclose prohibited information when there are reasonable grounds to believe the disclosure is essential for the purposes of the administration of justice.

Bill C-51 also proposes changes regarding disclosure of information for national security purposes. If the bill is passed into law, the commissioner will have the authority to disclose prohibited information if there are reasonable grounds to believe the disclosure is essential for national security or national defence.

Similarly, the legislation has a number of other proposed changes to the disclosure of information as it relates to specific situations. For example, in order to provide protection to federal protectees or allow for a secure change of identity for provincial protectees, the RCMP commissioner will be able to disclose information about both federal and designated program-protected persons. The commissioner will also be able to disclose information about federal and designated program protectees if the protected persons agree to the disclosure or have already disclosed the information themselves. This can include situations when a protectee has revealed his or her change of identity to family or friends.

Furthermore, the bill addresses situations in which the commissioner can disclose prohibited information when he or she believes the disclosure is essential for reasons of the administration of justice, national security, national defence or public safety. In any of these cases, if necessary, the commissioner can disclose information about the federal program itself, the methods and means of protection, as well as about the individuals who provide protection under the program. These measures will work together to provide a strong framework to ensure the information of protectees in designated provincial programs is equally protected.

Let me move on to the fourth main set of changes proposed under the safer witnesses act. The bill proposes to expand which organizations can refer individuals for consideration for admission to the federal witness protection program. As the law reads today, the only organizations that can refer an individual to the federal program are law enforcement agencies and international criminal tribunals.

Under Bill C-51, all federal organizations with a mandate related to national security, defence or public safety would be able to refer witnesses to the federal program. For example, CSIS and the Department of National Defence would now be authorized to refer individuals to the program.

Finally, Bill C-51 contains a number of measures that would improve the current program by allowing individuals to voluntarily leave the federal program by extending emergency protection from the current 90 days up to a maximum of 180 days.

In summary, the changes detailed within the safer witnesses act will do a number of things. They will help make the federal program more effective and secure for both the witness and those who provide protection. They will streamline the interaction between provincial, municipal and federal programs. They will more clearly define when prohibited information must be safeguarded and when it may be needed to disclose for reasons of national or public security. In short, these changes will enhance the effectiveness and security of the witness protection system in Canada, ensuring it remains a critical law enforcement and criminal justice tool well into the future.

I hope all my colleagues on the other side of the House will support this common sense legislation to keep our streets and communities safe.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, given the topics before the House this week, I think duplication in general is a topic about which I would love to speak.

We have another House that seems to duplicate what we do and spends a lot of public money in its duplication, and perhaps even misspends public money in its duplication.

However, that is not the question from the hon. member, and I do think that one of the positives of Bill C-51 is that, by allowing a designation of provincial programs as recognized witness protection programs, it would eliminate a lot of the back and forth and to and fro between the two programs and eliminate the possibility—and the member is quite right that it might endanger the safety of witnesses. However, it would make a much more efficient use of resources. I think that is one of the positives of Bill C-51.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to speak on this bill today, and with a lot of relief, in that the government seems to be in an even greater rush to pass this bill and has trampled right over our co-operation in this case.

I want to review the timing that we are dealing with. This legislation was introduced on December 11, 2012, just before the Christmas break, so unfortunately it could not be dealt with at second reading until we came back.

It was dealt with at second reading on February 12, 2013. Then it was sent to committee. At committee, the government moved a motion suggesting that we should deal with the committee and hear our witnesses within four weeks.

We in the NDP agreed to that motion. We accepted a motion to limit our time in committee and to bring this back to the House in a timely fashion, so it came back here on March 26.

The first day of debate was less than a week ago. What we intended to do on this side of the House was to point out our concerns about the bill, but not to hold up this bill unnecessarily.

What we got was two speakers on the bill before the government decided it was time for time allocation. No one had threatened to put up every single member on the opposition side to speak, but we did have members who wished to speak on the bill.

I did hear some of the minister's comments on the imposition of time allocation, and I frankly cannot understand them. He was saying that we did not move any amendments at committee and that therefore we must have nothing to say.

At committee, we agreed to a number of witnesses so that we could bring this bill back in good time, have the debate and pass it in a timely fashion. In a way, what I heard the minister saying is that when we try to co-operate on the bill, he is going to punish us for that as well by restricting debate in the House. The comments from the Minister of Public Safety were nonsensical.

The member for Crowfoot, the chair of the public safety committee, acknowledged in his very good speech that we worked together in committee to talk about the problems with the bill but that we had agreed that the bill had taken too long to get here. The NDP has been calling for action on the witness protection program since 2007.

We agreed not to go into an extensive process of disagreement over amendments and call a lot of other witnesses. We agreed to get this back here because we on this side of the House do believe that there are improvements in this bill sufficient to allow it to proceed.

It is hard for me to understand how the minister could say we have nothing to say when he has not heard us yet. It is one of those odd comments: “The opposition must have nothing to say about this bill; therefore, we will not let them speak.”

Before the session this morning, I was very privileged to speak to a group of young, very politically active gay students, organized by Jer's Vision. There were two members of Parliament there, and we were explaining to them that we would have to leave and come to the House in order to discuss and vote on a motion.

They asked what the motion was, and I have to say it was embarrassing to say to these students who are very involved in learning about politics and democracy that we were going to vote on cutting off debate for the 38th time.

The response from those students was, “But is it not your job as a representative to go there and speak? How can they suggest you should not have the right to go there and speak? Is it not your job to bring up criticism to the government? How can they say you should not have the opportunity to do that?”

It was clear that even those who are very new to the political process seem to have a basic understanding of what we are doing here in debates in the House of Commons, which is representing our constituents and bringing forward alternative points of view. It is not always about the technicalities of a piece of legislation. It is not always about amendments.

We heard the member for Newton—North Delta talking about the concerns in her riding, both with the Air India tragedy and with youth gangs and youth violence. She has a very important perspective to bring forward on this bill. It is not about amending the bill; it is about getting the public to understand the importance of the bill and the fact that on this side of the House we think there are further things we could do in this area.

Bill C-51 is not the be-all and end-all for witness protection; it is the beginning of some reforms that we need to make.

Again, it is very difficult to face, 38 times, a government that seems addicted to shortcuts. We have seen how taking those shortcuts has got the government into trouble on other things. Examples are the chief of staff to the Prime Minister and the Senate. It is not always a good idea to adopt the shortcuts.

However, here we are again. To me, that is what closure is, an attempt to shortcut the process and shortcut democracy. The government is saying, “We have a majority. We know what is best. We are just going to do it anyway, so you on the opposition side should be quiet, get out of the way and let us go.” The government does this even when we are co-operating to get the bill through this House of Commons in the best form possible.

It does not make any sense to me.

I do not mean to belittle or diminish the importance of the word “addiction”, because I know many people in our society have severe addiction problems, but it does seem like an addiction when it happens 38 times, 5 times in one week, and this week it even happened twice in one day. It seems like a solution in search of a problem. Everything that comes up has that same solution.

I have heard other members use that old adage, that when all one has is a hammer everything looks like a nail. However, it is not true in this House that the only thing the government has is closure. The Conservatives could actually come in and engage in debates and represent their constituents, and we could still get the public's business done in good time. So I am very disappointed that we have time allocation on this.

As the critic, I was travelling with the public safety committee last week. I almost did not get a chance to speak to the bill, and I am supposed to be the NDP's spokesperson on it. Only two speakers spoke. We had less than an hour and a half of debate in this chamber before time allocation was used again, for the 38th time.

Turning to the substance of the bill, I will talk first about why the NDP is supporting this bill, and then I will talk about what we see as the deficiencies in the bill.

First, as many members have noted, probably the easiest thing to understand is that the witness protection program, as it exists, has very narrow criteria for its admission, and it left out the important areas of national security. In an age when we are faced with the threat of terrorism and we are trying to combat that threat, being unable to offer witness protection to those in national security matters is an important gap in our legislation. Therefore, we on this side do support Bill C-51 because it would take that important step to allow the Department of National Defence and CSIS to recommend people to the witness protection program. This may be a very useful tool for those investigating and prosecuting terrorism cases. The other area in which I believe the criteria would be expanded is that it would explicitly allow the use of witness protection for those involved with gangs. Some members on the other side insist that this was always possible, but it certainly was not explicit. This legislation would provide that reassurance that we can use the witness protection program, which may be essential in cracking some gang activity.

The second aspect which is very positive and which has received much less attention is that it would provide better protection for those staff who are involved in the witness protection program in providing things like new identities. In particular, if witness protection is used, as it often is, in the case of organized crime, if members of organized crime are trying to find out what has happened to that witness, they may attempt, and have attempted, to learn who provided the new documents, and then place pressure on that public servant or that public servant's family in order to get access to the new name that was provided to someone and find out where he or she is. Therefore, this bill very clearly would provide additional protection to those other staff members outside the police who often facilitate the witness protection program, and that would be a very important improvement.

Third, one of the things we in the NDP have always been calling for is better co-operation and coordination of witness protection with the provinces. This bill would make it very clear and would remove some of those legal hurdles that made it difficult for the provinces to make use of witness protection. In particular, it made it difficult for those who, at the provincial level, wanted to use witness protection to get new documents quickly for those who needed a new identity for their protection. This bill would do a very good job in setting up the ability to designate provincial programs and would remove a lot of that red tape for co-operation between the two programs.

The fourth reason that I believe this bill is worth supporting is that it would extend the period provided for emergency protection for those who may need witness protection. This a formal program where people are assessed and their lives are completely reorganized. However, quite often there is an intervening period before they are formally in the program, when people may not even have yet given their testimony, when they need this protection. That originally was 90 days but it would now be 180 days. Given the delays in our justice system, it is very important that we expand the ability to have this emergency protection.

Why is the NDP providing support to a bill that it does not think is perfect? I have given four reasons at this point. They are the expanded criteria, the broader protection of staff working in witness protection, better coordination and the extended emergency period. We think that is enough to proceed with this bill and on that basis, we did agree to expedite the bill. We co-operated at committee and said yes, we can make our points in five meetings of the committee and we will do that.

However, we did not expect, in return for that co-operation, to have our ability to comment on the bill cut off at third reading through time allocation. If I had been dealing directly with the minister, I would have said it was a case of bad faith. However, I was dealing with the parliamentary secretary and the committee chair. I think they entered into that co-operation on good faith and they may, in fact, be as surprised as I am to find that time allocation was needed for a bill on which the opposition was co-operating.

What do we think is remaining that could have been in this bill? There are two things that I want to focus on. One of those was raised by the member for Newton—North Delta, and that was the recommendations of the Air India inquiry. At the end of the inquiry, Mr. Justice Major pointed to the very obvious thing that had happened, which was that one of his key witnesses in the inquiry had been assassinated. He was killed. Obviously, he could have been able to make use of the witness protection program, although knowing Mr. Hayer as I did, he was a very brave individual and I doubt he would have gone into the witness protection program. He had been threatened many times. He had also actually been physically harmed many times before he was eventually killed.

However, there were other witnesses, as Mr. Justice Major said, who would have gone into the witness protection program had it been available. This bill took that first step by expanding the criteria. What it did not do, which Mr. Justice Major recommended, was establish an independent authority, perhaps in the Ministry of Justice, but somewhere outside the RCMP, to determine the eligibility for entry into the witness protection program.

If we think for a minute, most people can figure out the problem here. The RCMP is doing the investigating of these cases. At the same time, it is the group that decides whether a person gets into the witness protection program. It creates an obvious conflict of interest when the investigators can dangle or hold out the acceptance or rejection from the witness protection program in front of the witness. Therefore, Mr. Justice Major's recommendation was that there be some independent agency within government, but not within the RCMP, that would make those decisions on witness protection. It did not have to be some completely separate agency.

We did not move amendments in that case, as we said, to expedite the bill, but also for a second reason. The RCMP recognized the spirit of that recommendation and it has now separated the decision of witness protection from the investigators. It is not a perfect solution, and we will see how it works, but going forward, the investigators will not make the decisions on the investigations. There will be a separate office within the RCMP Commissioner's office, which will make the decisions on acceptance into witness protection.

It is a step forward, but on this side, we think that when someone as distinguished as Mr. Justice Major makes a recommendation in a very critical area, we probably should have pursued it.

There are several other things that I could talk about, but I will only focus on a second one. That is the question of funding. This is not a budget bill, so we are not saying on the question of funding that the bill should have allocated x dollars to the witness protection program. However, I want to quote from the minister's statement when he introduced the bill, because it did raise a very big red flag. He said:

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.

That would be okay, except that it ignores one very large problem, which is that he is only talking about the witness protection program operated by the RCMP. When any other police force in the country uses the witness protection program, it is billed back for the entire cost of the program. If the provincial police in Quebec or Ontario or a municipal police force uses the witness protection program, it is going to get a bill.

Therefore, the witnesses we heard before committee were the RCMP's, saying that they did not have a problem with the budget and that they have never denied anyone using this program. However, we had some other witnesses, who the government ignored. I want to take a bit of time to mention one of those: the RCMP.

The RCMP website states, “There are instances when the costs of witness protection may impede investigations, particularly for smaller law enforcement agencies.” The minister said that we have no problem with funding. The RCMP states that while it does not, other police forces do have problems with funding of the witness protection program.

We had a very persuasive witness who is the vice-chair of the Halifax Board of Police Commissioners. Her name is Micki Ruth. I want to take a moment to tell members what she had to say about this funding question. It is an extensive quote. I do not normally read extensive quotes in my speeches, but this is worth listening to.

Commissioner Ruth stated:

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 [forces] to adequately access witness protection because they lack the resources.

I want to emphasize that while we [the Canadian Association of Police Boards] support the intent of Bill C-51, CAPB has a duty to its members to ensure that legislation passed by the government does not result in a downloading of additional costs to the municipal police services that we represent. This is an important element of our work on the economics of policing, a subject with which you are already very familiar.

Therefore we urge you to appreciate our position that unless the issue of adequate funding is addressed, the legislation will not produce the result that is intended.

That important testimony that we heard at committee contradicts what the minister had to say when he introduced the legislation. It draws attention to the fact that not just small police forces but police forces in Halifax, Toronto or Victoria, my own community, do often face this tough question. Could they make progress in a very serious investigation by using the witness protection program? We would need a big bill. Can they really afford to take on organized crime and gang crime in their community if they would get several hundred thousand dollars billed back? There is no mistake about it. The witness protection program is not a one-time cost. It is an ongoing cost for those police departments. They do not just get one bill. As long as those witnesses are in witness protection, they will get bills for any of the costs associated with that. The initial costs are high and the ongoing costs are lower. Nevertheless, it is something they have to think about when making a decision on what kind of crimes they can successfully investigate in their community.

When the minister, in imposing time allocation, said that we had nothing to say, I am afraid what he meant was that he was afraid of what we might say if we had the chance to debate the bill.

The minister said at committee that no concerns were raised. With due respect, the minister was not present at all the committee sessions and seems to have a faulty memory because when he did appear at committee we did ask him about these concerns. These concerns were raised at committee. Therefore, if he does not have a faulty memory, then perhaps he has a selective memory about what happened in committee with respect to this bill.

It is frustrating for the opposition when we say to the government that we are prepared to work with it and try to get a bill through in an expeditious manner to then have the minister stand up in the House and say that somehow we are dragging our feet and that we are ragging the puck on the bill when what we want to do is make the public aware of the issues that remain outstanding.

We will be supporting the bill and will work to move it through Parliament, not instantly and not without debate but in an expeditious manner. The bill will have been passed in very few months. Had the government introduced it earlier in the term it would already be enacted. However, for some reason, even though it was aware of the concerns from 2007, it only brought the legislation forward just before the Christmas break of 2012. Therefore, if anyone is responsible for delays in getting this bill passed and getting these important improvements made to the witness protection program, unfortunately it is the government that will have to take responsibility for that.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to chair a committee that really wants to accomplish some things. I give credit to both the NDP and Liberal members on this committee, as well as the government members. We worked well.

To be quite frank, there are times in committee, as here, that politics may want to be played, but there has to come a time, especially at committee, when we say we want to accomplish something. I do not know the constituency of the Liberal member who sits on the committee, but the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca and others on the committee worked together with the government on this bill.

We heard from some very good witnesses. We heard different individuals ask us to move this bill forward as quickly as possible. We heard from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Assistant Commissioner Todd Shean. We also heard from Sergeant Abraham Townsend, who said, “On behalf of those I represent, I wish to thank the government for advancing Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act, which will in turn advance the public safety interests of all Canadians”. He said he wanted to thank “the government” for advancing Bill C-51, but I think we can look back and say he wanted to thank Parliament for advancing it, because we are moving it through quickly, and all of those involved in this very important legislation understand the importance of doing that.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all those who have spoken to the bill.

I have the privilege of chairing the public safety and national security committee. Our committee did the study and research on Bill C-51, which is why I am pleased to rise today and speak to the safer witness act.

If members would indulge me for a moment, I would like to paint a picture of what I believe most Canadians, indeed most people across North America, think the witness protection program is about and how it works. For that, we can thank Hollywood with the movies it puts out, TV shows, reality shows, cop shows and shows about crime. To a certain degree, the image of witness protection has almost been glamorized.

For example, in a typical movie, the underappreciated subordinates in some gangs or crime rings decide they will step away from their gangs and go to the police to spill the beans about the gangs' criminal undertakings and talk about the bosses of the crime rings. The movie shows the informants receiving false IDs and law enforcement taking them to new cities where they begin new lives as a different people. They are given new jobs and acquaintances who hopefully will become their friends, and that is where they now live their new lives.

Being a Hollywood movie, their real identities are eventually discovered by the old crime gangs and they pull out all the stops to silence them before they get to trial. Indeed, if they do get to trial and spill the beans, then the gang finds them and they get some payback for the testimony they gave against their former colleagues.

Thankfully, that is not reality. Quite frankly, the Hollywood version is oversimplified. It certainly makes for a good movie, but it is not the way the witness plan works.

In real life, being part of a witness protection program does not mean a life of bodyguards stationed outside one's door or home, or being drawn into wild action scenes such as being followed while running down the street, avoiding gunshots and, thankfully getting back to the safe hiding place. That is not the way it is. However, this is not to say that protecting witnesses is not important or dangerous. After all, there is a reason why witnesses need protection and the police understand that. I think Canadians also understand it.

These individuals have generally agreed to help law enforcement or provide testimony on criminal matters with the end goal of removing criminal elements from the streets and making our communities safer. The inside knowledge they have agreed to provide to authorities may be invaluable, but could place their lives at risk.

Witness protection is recognized around the world as one of the most important tools that law enforcement may use and should at least have at its disposal to combat criminal activity. If we cannot provide adequate protection in our country to those individuals who agree to come forward, despite the danger they face, we lose a very critical source of information in getting to the bottom of the criminal charges and crime.

In the case of organized crime in particular, these witnesses are often the key components in achieving convictions. To ensure a fair and effective response to organized crime, terrorism and other serious crimes, government and police agencies must provide protection to informants and witnesses who can face intimidation, violence, reprisals and indeed, the loss of their own lives. Offering protection to these informants and witnesses allows law enforcement to obtain and sustain their collaboration. For this reason, we must ensure that we have the best system in place to protect these individuals.

Here in Canada, we have two separate witness protection programs. We have the programs run by the provinces and the federal witness protection program. While informal witness protection has been practised since 1970 in Canada, the federal witness protection program was officially established only in 1996. It is administered by our national police force, the RCMP. The provincial programs, found in Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan, typically provide shorter-term protection and could include relocating the person temporarily or providing limited financial support.

In cases where provincial protectees require secure identity changes, they must be transferred to the federal program. At the federal level, the Witness Protection Program Act provides a range of emergency protections to witnesses under threat, from temporary protection to permanent relocation to, in some cases, complete identity changes.

As members have heard over the last several years, extensive consultations and studies of the federal witness protection program indicated a clear need to modernize the current legislation and to improve how the federal and provincial programs intersect. The safer witnesses act contains a number of amendments to the Witness Protection Program Act that do just that. They fall within five broad areas.

First, the bill would enable the provinces to have their respective programs designated under the federal act, thereby allowing their witnesses to receive secure identity changes without having to be admitted into the federal program. This measure would cut back on duplication. It would mean that they could continue without beginning the program and then having to move to the federal program. They would now be part of their own provincial plans.

In stakeholder consultations, some provinces indicated that having to transfer their protectees to the federal program for identity changes can be cumbersome and time-consuming. Bill C-51 addresses these calls for change. Any time we have duplication and cumbersome, time-consuming regulations for an act, it costs money. The provinces have recognized this and have asked for this part of the enablement to be done through the provincial program.

Second, the federal organization would be required to help the RCMP obtain secure identity changes for witnesses in both the federal program and designated provincial programs. It would give the federal organizations or departments the requirement that they will help provide these for the provincial plans. The RCMP would continue to act as the liaison between the provincial and federal programs.

Third, Bill C-51 would broaden the prohibition against disclosure, ensuring the protection of provincial witnesses and information about both the federal and provincial programs. This measure addresses calls by the provinces, again, to ensure that witnesses in their programs are protected from the disclosure of prohibited information throughout Canada.

Fourth, the legislation proposes changes that would expand which entities could refer individuals to the federal program. Currently, only law enforcement agencies and the international criminal tribunals can make referrals to the witness protection program.

Under Bill C-51, it would be broadened to include other organizations, such as national security, defence and public safety organizations. They would be able to refer witnesses to the federal program. When we heard witnesses, all parties said that it should not just be the RCMP. Indeed, in some cases, it needs to be the Department of National Defence or CSIS that steps forward. We are just broadening the groups that can refer to this program.

Fifth, the bill addresses a number of other concerns from federal and provincial stakeholders, such as allowing for voluntary termination from the federal program and extending emergency protection to a maximum of 180 days. I think it is currently 90 days. This says that in this day and age, temporary emergency protection timelines may have to be doubled.

Together, the proposed changes would serve to strengthen the current Witness Protection Program Act, making the federal program more effective and secure for both the witnesses and for those who provide the protection.

The crux of the program is to keep those involved and their information safe and secure. Our committee was taken with this. As we heard this morning, already five meetings have been held, because there is a need to extend protection.

Mr. Speaker, I know that the parliamentary secretary, in her speech, highlighted these points, but as this is a matter of importance to front-line police officers and witnesses, I would like to turn your attention to the proposed changes to disclosure prohibitions.

Currently, the act prohibits the disclosure of information about such things as the location or change of identity of a current or former federal protectee. A concern was brought forward that these disclosures be extended to include information about provincial witnesses and about the provincial witness programs and those they protect.

The safer witnesses act addresses this concern with changes that broaden the prohibition on disclosing information in a number of areas. First, and maybe most important, it prohibits the disclosure of information related to the individuals who are protected under the designated provincial program.

Second, it prohibits disclosure of any means or methods of protection that could endanger the protected individuals or the integrity of the programs themselves. This includes information about the methods used to provide protection or support. It also includes information about the methods used to record or exchange confidential information as well as data about the location of secure facilities.

Third, it prohibits the disclosure of any information on the identity or role of persons who provide or assist in providing protection to the witnesses. Not only is the witness going to be protected, but the person who organizes providing the secure identity and location and so on will be protected. This would broaden the prohibition to include not being able to disclose information about those involved in changing identities.

Further, the bill clarifies language in the current act to ensure that these measures apply to situations in which a person directly or indirectly discloses information. The bill also specifies that one must knowingly reveal this information for it to be an offence. Mens rea applies. It has to be willing disclosure. That would become prohibited.

Bill C-51 includes changes that would further strengthen the legislation in this regard. For example, as stated in the current act, the protectee or former protectee can disclose information about him or herself, as long as it does not endanger the life of another protectee or former protectee and does not compromise the integrity of the program itself.

Under Bill C-51, this wording would be changed to remove the reference to the integrity of the program and would clarify that the protected person could disclose information if it would not lead to substantial harm to another protected person.

The current act also allows for disclosure of prohibited information by the RCMP commissioner for a variety of reasons, such as if the protected person gives his or her consent or if the protectee or former protectee has already disclosed the information or acted in a manner that resulted in the disclosure. If the disclosure is essential to the public interest for a purpose such as investigations or for the prevention of a serious crime, national security or national defence, the Commissioner of the RCMP may be able to disclose it. Most people understand that in those cases, under certain conditions, the RCMP commissioner may have the ability to disclose if that disclosure is going to protect our society. In criminal proceedings where the disclosure is necessary to establish the innocence of a person, again, the RCMP commissioner may be able to disclose under certain conditions.

Under the safer witness act, the wording would be changed as it relates to the RCMP commissioner disclosing prohibited information for the “public interest”. As such, under Bill C-51, he or she could only disclose this information when it was essential to the administration of justice. I think all parties recognize that reasonable grounds include disclosure to uphold justice.

Furthermore, we propose to change the wording for national security purposes. Under Bill C-51, the commissioner could disclose prohibited information if he or she had “reasonable grounds to believe that the disclosure is essential for...security or national defence”.

Along the same vein, Bill C-51 contains several proposed changes that would authorize the RCMP commissioner to disclose information in specific situations. For example, he or she should disclose information about both federal and designated program protected persons for the purpose of providing assistance to federal or provincial protectees in need of secure identity changes. The commissioner would also be able to disclose information about federal and designated program protectees in situations where a protected person either agreed to the disclosure or had previously disclosed information. For example, the protected person may have revealed his or her change of identity to family or friends.

According to the bill, the commissioner would be authorized to disclose information about the actual federal program and methods of protection and about the role of a person who provided protection under the program. This would only be done when the commissioner felt there were reasonable grounds to believe that the disclosure was critical for the administration of justice or for national security, national defence or public safety.

Other changes relate to the disclosure of information about protectees under the provincial designated programs and to issues related to the disclosure of information by an official of a designated provincial program. The RCMP commissioner does have some leeway here if it is for the protection of Canadian citizens.

This is a good overview of those elements in Bill C-51 that relate to safeguarding and disclosing information that could compromise the safety of protected witnesses.

To recap, the bill would broaden the prohibition on the disclosure of information beyond name and location of federal protectees to include protected persons in the designated provincial programs. It would also extend disclosure prohibitions to include information about all witness protection programs and the people who administer them. The bill would also provide exceptions to the disclosure of information to permit disclosure in certain circumstances, such as when it is in the interest of justice or public safety.

As I said at the outset, individuals who decide to become informants and to testify against crime organizations can face intimidation and danger. In his 2010 report entitled “A Review of Selected Witness Protection Programs”, Dr. Yvon Dandurand noted that the overwhelming majority of witnesses enrolled in witness protection programs are either involved in criminal activity or are somehow connected with criminal elements.

I see that my time is up. I thank all other parties for working with us on this. It was a good time going through this at committee. We appreciate the support of the House for the bill.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to rise and speak in support of Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act.

Before I get going with my speech today, I want to recognize the stellar work done by my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, the critic for public safety. He is such an impressive member of Parliament and does incredible hard work out in his riding, but also right here. When it has come to public safety, he has been on the job, working with the government where he can or where they let us, and then being the best advocate he can be to build strong, safe communities right across Canada.

That is our primary aim and our goal. We are committed as a caucus to building strong, safe communities right across this country for everyone. It was for that reason, when time allocation was moved at committee, that our committee members on this bill actually co-operated. To hear them being smacked in the House today was a bit rich. It seems that when we try to co-operate we get smacked around anyway. That is really unfortunate, when we have a parliamentarian who works incredibly hard to build bridges and work together with others to put forward the public safety agenda. Also, I do not know if it is coincidence, but I notice that out of all the times for the witnesses, the NDP witnesses were left to the end, right before the report was written.

Once again, I fail to understand why these games get played in this Parliament. It is to that end that I find it quite astounding that here we are again today, moments before I started to speak, having to vote on another time allocation motion, number 38, and number 5 within a week. We really have to wonder what the Conservatives have to hide. What do they have against parliamentary democracy? What do they have against parliamentarians from right across this country, from every single party? I am talking about all parliamentarians. What do they have against parliamentarians' right to represent their communities and speak to legislation? That is a key concern.

If I were not sitting in these hallowed halls of Parliament, and I were outside trying to teach people about parliamentary democracy, this would be a classic case of a government that is trying to shut down the democratic processes. It gives me great concern. What kind of a model are we setting for our youth? What are we saying to them? That our Parliament is not where people go to parler, not where they go to speak and debate and discuss issues, but that Parliament is now a place where a majority can use a hammer to silence the voices of members of Parliament. That is a shame, and a damning comment on the current government at this time.

However, getting into the piece of legislation before us, once again we are here to talk to a bill that we support. Because we support it, we are still very concerned about MPs I know on this side of the House who want to speak to this issue and raise concerns from their riding. They want to share with other members of Parliament how constituents in their riding feel about this legislation and how this is a step in the right direction, but more needs to be done. Once again, what we have is the hammer being used by a majority government to silence duly elected members of Parliament.

It is no surprise that even on this bill the Conservatives are late to the game. The NDP has been working on this file for years. We have been one of the critics of the eligibility criteria for witness protection, the poor coordination with provincial programs and the low numbers of witnesses admitted into the program. As an example, in 2012, out of 108 applications considered only 30 were accepted. That is what we need to debate, discuss and address.

The witness protection program was passed in 1996. Both the Liberal and Conservative governments have done little to respond to the criticisms of the system and the program. Some bills have been presented in the House of Commons and the NDP has supported them, especially those in 1999 relating to domestic violence. However, the Liberal government helped to defeat them.

Therefore, what has yet to be addressed is the overarching issues of eligibility, coordination and funding. The NDP is on record of repeatedly asking the government to address the three key issues I have identified. I am not making that up.

In November 2012, the NDP member of Parliament for Trinity—Spadina called for more support for the federal witness protection program, pointing to the difficulty the Toronto police faced in convincing witnesses to the shooting that summer at a block party on Danzig Street to come forward, because without protection people are scared. They are scared for themselves and their families. We really need to address these issues.

We are pleased to see that this legislation, Bill C-51, does expand the eligibility criteria for the witness protection program to include witnesses recommended by CSIS and the Department of National Defence. It would also extend the period of emergency protection and clear up some technical problems with respect to coordinating with provincial programs. That coordination does not go far enough. There is far more that could be done.

When we look back on our history, there is a lot we can learn. It pains me every time I bring up the Air India disaster, one of the worst terrorist acts to take place against Canadians. Thousands of families were impacted and are still finding it very difficult to come to terms with the fact that the people responsible for that tragedy and heinous act of terrorism are still out there. I can still remember the artistic portrayal and a poem written about the bodies and body parts that were discovered. Whole families were wiped out. A husband lost not only his wife but both his children. A brother lost his sister and her whole family. There are many such stories and many of those constituents live in my riding. Recently, I had the privilege of meeting one of the victims of that tragedy at a committee meeting. The words he said really haunt me even now. He said that it hurts today as though it were yesterday and that the biggest hurt of all was that the country he lives in has still not been able to mete out justice. Finding and punishing the people who did that heinous crime will not bring back those who have passed away. However, it will give people some peace. That story has a direct link to the witness protection program.

After that tragedy, people were very unwilling to come forward and be witnesses. Even those who gave testimony then withdrew it. As a result, we have very little resolution, despite a very intense inquiry with pages and pages of recommendations.

One of the most hurtful things for those surviving members, and for us as Canadians, is that many of the recommendations from that inquiry, which I have heard both the government and others parties say were laudable, are not part of this report. We are very sorry that they are not here, but in order to expedite this particular piece of legislation and to get this part through where we have at least some expansion of the criteria, we co-operated. However, it was with a heavy heart that we did so.

I look back at Mr. Tara Hayer, a distinguished gentleman who lived in my riding and who was shot. He was shot because he gave an affidavit and was willing to be a witness in the Air India trial. We can imagine that after his tragic murder, there was an even further reluctance for anybody in the community to speak up. It is because of this that we have to have this expansion of criteria and a way to extend emergency protection, even if it is not everything we were looking for.

The key thing here is that it is easy for us to pass bills that look good on paper. We get moved by emotions at times and we can pass bills for those reasons as well, but one of the things that I have learned is that unless we provide the resources, it is very difficult to see how the already stretched authorities will be able to fulfill this new mandate.

We have an amazing RCMP and it will do whatever it is asked to do with the resources it is given. This is not a criticism of our RCMP. It is a criticism of us as parliamentarians, who have not built additional resources into the bill or the budget because we are expanding the criteria and we are expanding a certain level of co-operation with the provinces. We have to make sure that we do not download more of these costs onto the provinces, which I would say are already stretched.

We as a party are very committed to building safer communities. One way to do that is through an improved witness protection program and improving its criteria. The other way is to give the police additional tools to fight street gangs and organized crime. This is a huge issue in my riding and many ridings across the country. One of the key things we need if we want to get into prevention and proactive programs is to ensure that our front-line service providers have the tools they need. If they do not have the tools they need, we know that there are some serious struggles to be had.

There have been validators of our position and the RCMP. In late 2009 and early 2010, the federal government actually consulted the provinces and territories on the program and a number of provinces expressed concerns. Several provinces have their own witness protection program, but they often only provide short-term assistance. There is a need out there. Allowing street gang witnesses into the protection program has been a long-standing recommendation of those working to combat street gangs, in addition to a recent RCMP request to the government. The RCMP has also advocated for intensive psychological examination of potential protectees.

To finish off, we are going to support this bill. We are very strong supporters of strong, safe communities. To that end, we are expediting this piece of legislation through the House.

The House resumed from May 23 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.

Bill C-51—Time Allocation

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as this is not a discussion on Bill C-51 but on yet another time allocation, I have been doing research.

I cannot find any time in the history of the Parliament of Canada when time allocation was used as it was this week, twice in one day. The government is setting a new record, not only for time allocation in general but for the number of times in one week that time allocation has been used on bills in the history of the Parliament of Canada.

I wonder if that is a record of which the hon. minister is proud.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I accept your response in regard to the almost exclusive number of questions, but I would ask that they remain relevant.

What we are debating is time allocation on Bill C-51. On one hand, the NDP wants to talk about certain methods of moving it through when they want to expedite it and, on the other hand, now we are hearing about everything other than Bill C-51.

If we are going to have questions, then they should be questions in regard to the debate and to the bill we are discussing.

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

moved:

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 at 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.

Bill C-51—Notice of Motion for Time Allocation

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

Mr. Speaker, I must advise that an agreement has not been reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) concerning the proceedings at third reading of Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at that stage.

Safer Witnesses Act

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to start, I would like to read an excerpt from the Library of Parliament's legislative summary of Bill C-51. I think that this excerpt provides a good summary of the purpose of the federal witness protection program.

Protecting witnesses against intimidation, violence or retaliation is crucial to maintaining the rule of law. The experts agree that without effective measures to protect vulnerable witnesses and their families, many would be reluctant to cooperate with the authorities.

The federal witness protection program is a key tool in the fight against organized crime. When a person testifies about the activities of a group with which he was once associated, some members of that group may hold it against him. The program is therefore an effective tool in the fight against organized crime.

I would also like to commend the police and peace officers who work in the witness protection program. They do extremely dangerous and difficult work. These police officers often have to live a shadowy existence and lead parallel lives. A witness told us that he sometimes had to rent an apartment for himself because he could not work from his own home where his family lived. He had to stay away from his family to do his work. We must therefore commend these peace officers who are doing a great service for Canadians and our society.

This bill will allow us to expand the witness protection program and make it more effective in the fight against terrorism. It does not seem as though anyone mentioned this in the speeches that I heard. To date, witnesses of terrorist acts or potential terrorist acts do not benefit from the protection offered by this program. We therefore expanded the scope of the program, which is a good thing.

It is important that the federal witness protection program be as efficient as possible in terms of streamlining and expediting the process of admission to the program.

Some provinces and municipalities also operate witness protection programs, so it is not just the federal RCMP. These provincial and municipal programs must co-operate with the federal government in order to have witnesses' identities changed, for example. Those programs would have to deal with Passport Canada and perhaps Human Resources and Skills Development Canada to get social insurance numbers changed and so on and so forth.

Up until this point, the problem has been that if a provincial program identified a witness it wanted protected, it would have to not only accept that the individual should be protected, meaning that the person would essentially be applying to the provincial or municipal program, but that if the person was admitted, the provincial or municipal program would then have to go to the RCMP and ask for admission to the federal witness protection program. Only once the admission was accepted would the paperwork get done that would allow the person to assume a new identity and a new personal history, if one may put it that way.

As a result of this bill, that would not be the case anymore. There would be designated provincial and municipal witness protection programs, and once the witness would be accepted in that designated program, that witness would not have to apply to the RCMP federal program. He or she would simply be able to get the paperwork done by having been admitted to the provincial and municipal program. This is a step forward. This is a step toward making the system more timely, because in these matters we know that time is of the essence.

Speaking of time, the bill would also extend the period during which a potential candidate for the witness protection program can receive emergency protection. It is a very difficult decision to decide to go into the witness protection program. It requires a lot of thought and consultation with family members and so on. Up until now, candidates for witness protection could get some kind of witness protection for 90 days while they made up their mind about whether they wanted to go through with this major step. Now, as a result of Bill C-51, people would have the possibility of a 90-day extension, which would take the emergency protection to a maximum of 180 days. That is a very practical change.

As I said before, the bill modernizes witness protection to assist in the fight against terrorism. The fight against terrorism is an ongoing process of updating the relevant public security tools at our disposal in order to adapt them to the needs of this not-so-new yet ever-evolving challenge.

Witness protection is one area where changes were recommended most notably by the report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Investigation of the Bombing of Air India Flight 182. The commission found that the federal witness protection program “is not fully attuned to the needs of sources and witnesses in terrorism investigations and prosecutions”. The report concluded that CSIS, for example, should have access to programs to protect vulnerable witnesses and sources. The report also concluded that the federal witness protection program is too rigid and is based on the assumption that most sources and witnesses have criminal backgrounds.

In a terrorism case, it would be very likely that a witness would not have a criminal background and as a result would not be admissible to the program and would therefore essentially be discouraged from handing over information that could stop a terrorist incident. It is very important that the concept of witness protection be broadened to include not necessarily people who were involved in a crime but people who were witnesses to, say, a terrorist plot. That was the recommendation by the Commission of Inquiry into the Investigation of the Bombing of Air India Flight 182. That was the second recommendation.

It is interesting to point out that the bill passed a report stage vote 200 and some votes to none. It obviously is clear that all parties in the House support strengthening the witness protection program.

I should also mention that there were no amendments adopted at committee. That says something as well. It says that this is a non-controversial bill, that it is more of an administrative or procedural enhancement kind of bill. It was quite obvious what needed to be done, and it has been done.

Again, this points to the fact that this is really a technical matter, and I am not sure that it really warrants the kind of partisan debate that we have witnessed so far this afternoon, but so be it.

There are other changes that have been recommended to the witness protection program that are not in the bill, but that we were told the government would implement outside of the bill. There are three particular improvements that have been recommended to the witness protection program: one, separating investigations and decisions about admission to the federal witness protection program; two, offering legal counsel to those negotiating entry into the program; and three, offering psychological assessments to program candidates.

In 2008, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security recommended that a clear operational distinction be made between the investigations and prosecutions function of law enforcement on the one hand, and the decision-making function for admitting a candidate to the federal witness protection program on the other, making “it plain [to the candidate for witness protection] that protection is not a reward for cooperating with the authorities”.

Until now, basically it was the same group within the RCMP that was providing protection, but also making the decision about whether the witness should be admitted to the program. One can understand that would put certain individuals in the RCMP in a bit of a contradictory situation or a potential conflict of interest situation. Therefore, it was recommended by the House of Commons committee in 2008 that a separate department be created to make the decision about whether somebody should be admitted to the witness protection program, separate from the RCMP whose main function and concern would be to provide protection. That was not done. A separate agency was not created, but we got assurances from the minister and the government that these two functions would from now on be separate within the RCMP, and that is a very good thing.

The second item was not in the bill but it is germane obviously to the witness protection program going forward. Negotiating entry into the program is a complex matter, as is negotiating a contract with the RCMP for witness protection. Therefore, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, in 2008, recommended offering candidates the aid of legal counsel during the signing of protection contracts to increase the likelihood of fair and equitable negotiations. Again that is not in the law, but something the government has committed to do.

On the third item, as I mentioned, entering a witness protection program is not an easy decision. It is not easy to live the rest of one's days under a new name, identity and personal history. In recognition of these pressures, which can lead some people who enter the federal witness protection program to voluntarily terminate their participation in the program down the road, the government would now apparently be offering candidates for the program psychological assessments to determine if they are likely to remain in a program over the long term. This would be a very constructive change and new way of doing things that would reduce the likelihood that someone would enter the program and then leave it. It is worth noting that the provision of psychological assessments was a recommendation of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security when it did its review of the witness protection program in 2008.

There has been talk about how the program may need additional funding. It is true, the RCMP did say that lack of funding would never lead them to refuse a candidate for witness protection and I believe that. However, the funding issue is not really about that. It is a little more complex and it bears mentioning.

We did have one witness who came to the committee and spoke to the funding issue. Micki Ruth, of the Canadian Association of Police Boards, appearing before the committee, highlighted the fact that the RCMP can charge back to municipal police forces the costs of witness protection. To quote Ms. Ruth:

Currently, when a municipality does make use of a provincial witness protection program and the crime is federal in nature or involves drugs, then the RCMP takes over and charges the local police services the full cost, which is an expense that many services cannot afford.

We know this, and it was mentioned previously by the hon. member from Portage la Prairie, that the committee on public safety is conducting a study on the rising costs of policing in order to determine how we can contain those costs. We can see that police forces around the country are cash strapped. It would be a concern to them that they would bring someone into the federal witness protection program because the crime involves a federal crime and then find that they are going to have to pay for putting that person into the witness protection program. That might discourage a local police force from pursuing the option of seeking the co-operation of a witness under the understanding that that person would enter the witness protection program. Cost becomes a factor.

It is not right to say that cost is not at all a factor in the matter of witness protection. In fact, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, in 2012, also noted that one of the difficulties associated with the federal witness protection program is a lack of resources. It recommended that the federal government allocate dedicated resources to managing the federal witness protection program. We have three reports that have been recommending changes to the witness protection program.

Regarding the comments from the member for Pontiac that it is so obvious that there were improvements to be made in the legislation and wondering why these improvements were not made right away, that is not how it works in the House. We have to study the situation and that can take time. Out of those studies that call witnesses to appear and provide expert opinion we develop recommendations for change. That is what has happened with witness protection.

There have been three committees that provided input into what kinds of changes are needed to the program: the House of Commons public safety committee in 2008, the committee on justice and human rights in 2012, and the Major inquiry in the Air India bombing. These changes are rooted in careful study and that is what makes it a good bill. That is probably why there is no dissent on the bill. Everyone here today voted for it at report stage.

There are some issues that I would have liked to touch on if I had had more time. There is probably a need for the government to look at another aspect of witness protection, which is not the witness protection program narrowly defined. In other words, there are some people who do not want to go into the program, who do not need to go into the program, but they need to testify and they are going to be intimidated. We need to find better ways to allow people to testify in court proceedings where their anonymity can be ensured. This is something the government needs to look at.

There are ways that anonymity can be partially protected. People can testify on closed-circuit television, behind a screen and with their voice changed through synthesizing processes, but we are told that more needs to be done to really make sure that criminal elements do not discover who these people are who are testifying.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech. He dealt with a number of issues.

I would like to ask him a question. One recommendation that came from the Air India inquiry involved establishing a more transparent and more accountable eligibility process. Simply put, Bill C-51 does not include any provisions in that regard.

What can our colleague tell us about the government's refusal to really commit to making the program more transparent?

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague from Pontiac on his excellent speech.

Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, would amend and update the witness protection program. Many people familiar with the system have been saying for a long time that it needs to be expanded and modernized.

On the other hand, the task is not an easy one, given the enormous changes that have occurred in computer espionage technology and the inexhaustible ways of obtaining information about people today. Just think of how many times a scandal has come to light where information was obtained more or less legally or a document containing information was lost. Similar things can happen when the time comes to protect witnesses in extremely important trials like the Air India trial.

We must not forget that criminal organizations are highly skilled at making arrangements to infiltrate various government and public agencies. Once again, how many times have we heard about a person who obtained information or managed to get their hands on a hard drive or CD containing encrypted information?

In the course of the fiscal year ending in March 2012, the federal witness protection program accepted only 30 applications out of 108, at a cost of just over $9 million. That is only 30% or 40% of applicants.

Once again, families and various players in the system have been saying for a long time that the program needs to be expanded because there are trials under way that cannot be completed because of a shortage of information and evidence.

For instance, in Quebec, evidence against criminal gangs is difficult to obtain because there are so many friends and family members. It is extremely difficult. As its short title indicates, the bill therefore redefines several provisions to make witnesses safer.

For example, it provides for the designation of a provincial or municipal witness protection program. It authorizes the RCMP commissioner to coordinate, at the request of an official of a 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.

This is extremely important, because when someone's identity is changed or a witness is assigned to a location, the municipality and province in question are responsible for that person and also for that person’s protection.

The bill adds prohibitions on the disclosure of information relating to persons admitted to provincial and municipal programs, to the means and methods by which witnesses are protected and to persons who provide or assist in providing protection.

Even RCMP and Quebec provincial police officers have told us that they or members of their family involved in the program are at risk. The program therefore needs to be broadened to ensure that everyone is protected.

The bill will also specify the circumstances under which disclosure of certain protected information is permitted. It exempts 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 the program. It also expands the category of witnesses who may be admitted to the federal witness protection program to include persons who assist federal departments, agencies or services. This is extremely important.

It allows witnesses in the witness protection program to end their protection voluntarily. The testimony suggests that people sometimes ask to end their protection. They say everything is okay, that there is no problem. However, there were still some reservations about that.

The reverse is also being proposed, namely to extend the period during which protection may, in an emergency, be provided to a person who has not been admitted to the federal program or who would like to put an end to it in a situation where the federal program comes to an end. Finally, it also proposes to make a consequential amendment to another act, namely the Access to Information Act.

Bill C-51 proposes a better process to support provincial witness protection programs and expands the program to other agencies with national security responsibilities. This could mean a department, a municipality or an agency. They really need the support.

The bill will expand the protection program eligibility criteria by including street gang members and by accepting a new group of people who assist federal departments. Federal departments and agencies with a mandate related to national security, national defence or public safety would also be able to refer witnesses to the program.

The bill would extend the period for emergency protection, as I was saying, and clear up some of the technical problems that were occurring in relation to coordination with provincial programs. This is extremely important, because the lack of coordination between the stakeholders at the provincial, federal and municipal levels, especially in large municipalities such as Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver, was causing serious problems.

There are also a few other changes, but there is one in particular that I find worth mentioning, specifically the change to the definition of “protection”. This definition would be replaced by the following in clause 3 of the bill:

...protection may include relocation, accommodation and change of identity [which is quite legitimate] as well as counselling and financial support for those or any other purposes in order to ensure the security of a person or to facilitate the person’s re-establishment or becoming self-sufficient.

This is extremely important. When you change someone's identity or place them in the protection program, at some point they will have to integrate into society and resume living their lives. This paragraph alone may have more financial implications than one might think.

What about loved ones? This is not clearly defined. It is one of the questions that remain to be answered. The loved ones of witnesses in the protection program are not clearly defined, if they are defined at all. Are they the immediate family, or more distant relatives? Are the gang members still considered loved ones? There is no way to be sure.

If the Conservatives truly want to improve the witness protection program, they should commit the money needed to implement the measure. They should also truly want to protect everyone involved in the program, including the officers, as I already mentioned. Officers have told me that when they participate in witness protection programs, their loved ones can sometimes be in danger. That is important to keep in mind.

Bill C-51 makes enough positive changes that we will support it at third reading. I think that everyone, regardless of their political affiliation, agrees with expanding eligibility for the witness protection program.

Authorities who work on combatting street gangs say that it would be an improvement and would help them do their job if gang members who are trying to leave that lifestyle could have access to the program.

However, there is one thing we must never forget. People are what matter to the NDP. Everything we do, we do for the people of Canada. We are committed to building safer communities and neighbourhoods for seniors and the general public, so that everyone feels comfortable being out and about in this country.

We can also improve the witness protection program by bringing peace and justice to our neighbourhoods. We can do so by giving federal, provincial and municipal police forces the additional tools they need to combat street gangs and organized crime groups, which are becoming increasingly better equipped in terms of technology and information, as I mentioned.

The government has cut nearly $190 million from the RCMP and over $140 million from the Canada Border Services Agency. The government will not create a free and peaceful Canada by making cuts to our police forces and to public safety.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Pontiac for his very fine speech.

The Liberals have every right to criticize the Conservative government, because it has not done enough with Bill C-51. However, with respect to eligibility and lack of funding, why did the Liberals not respond to criticism of the witness protection program when they were in power and had the chance? In other words, why do they continue to say one thing and do another?

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Compton—Stanstead who works very hard to serve his constituents.

I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-51 at third reading. This bill contains measures that have been long called for by the NDP. Among other things, it will: expand the eligibility criteria for informants and witnesses; extend the duration of emergency protection; and speed up the process for obtaining new pieces of identification. Those are all good things.

The Witness Protection Program Act, passed in 1996, sorely needed to be strengthened. In fact, we have been insistently calling for better coordination of federal and provincial programs and improved overall program funding since 2007.

Even though we support the bill because we believe that it will further improve the program, we still deplore the fact that the Conservative government refused to provide additional funding for the program, knowing that the announced changes may well increase the number of beneficiaries, which will certainly increase the financial burden on municipalities and police services, because of the downloading of costs.

At the committee hearings, some witnesses expressed their fears in this regard. On March 7, 2013, a commissioner with the Canadian Association of Police Boards said:

...we see problems with the ability of municipality police services to adequately access witness protection because they lack the resources... I want to emphasize that, while we support the intent of Bill C-51, CAPB has a duty to its members to ensure that legislation passed by the government does not result in a downloading of additional costs to the municipal police services that we represent.

It is important to provide the resources needed to implement our changes. When a new piece of legislation has an impact on criminal justice, we must always look at the costs and budgetary implications. Our police officers look after the well-being of Canadians every day by protecting them without their even realizing it. It is our duty to give them the tools they need to do their jobs. I need to say this.

To combat organized crime, it is obviously necessary to update and modernize our laws. That is what Bill C-51 does. Doing undercover work in the underworld is complicated, time-consuming and dangerous. The police need informers and informants if they are to infiltrate criminal organizations.

Bill C-51 improves protection for witnesses and informants who help the police, and it also improves the ability to make use of these sources of information. This is important. We want those who combat street gangs to know that giving gang members who want to leave the gang access to the program will be an important additional tool to help them eliminate the problem.

Organized crime is growing with alarming speed in Canada, particularly in Quebec, where my riding is located.

Through this support, the NDP is committed to building safer communities. One way of doing this is to improve the witness protection program to ensure that our constituents can live in safe neighbourhoods and cities and to provide the various police forces with additional tools to combat street gangs and organized crime. It might also provide added protection for our police officers.

Needless to say, the more information is available to the police, the better they will be able to do their jobs and the better they will be protected.

The federal witness protection program has long been criticized because of its strict eligibility criteria, its poor coordination with federal programs and the small number of witnesses admitted to the program. Furthermore, only 30 of the 108 applications examined were approved in 2012.

Since the Witness Protection Program Act was passed in 1996, the Liberal and Conservative governments have done very little to respond to criticism of the system, even though a number of bills have been introduced in the House of Commons to deal with some parts of the protection program, including the protection of witnesses in cases of family violence, which was supported by the NDP, but rejected by the Liberal government of the day. The basic issues of eligibility, coordination and funding have never been addressed.

That is why this bill is essentially positive. We hope that the Conservatives will offer the support that local police organizations need to ensure that witnesses will come forward in matters such as street gangs. The safety and welfare of the whole population is at stake. The more informants feel that they are protected, the more likely they will be to come forward and work with the police. We will give these people a real chance to change their lives and contribute to the well-being of their families and the community by attempting, through the information they provide, to rein in and perhaps even eliminate street gangs.

The government is responsible for giving people the tools they need to achieve their full potential. However, we need to be able to act upon our convictions. I want to reiterate that additional funds would have enabled municipal police forces to do more. I nevertheless maintain that the witness protection program is often an essential tool for encouraging people to work with the police.

We recognize that the bill is proposing significant improvements and a better process for supporting provincial witness protection programs. The bill would broaden the scope of the program to include national security agencies. That is another good thing.

Our view is that strengthening the witness protection program will improve public safety and help the various police forces to combat violence. It is therefore because of my desire for change that I endorse Bill C-51 and give my full support to all the police officers in my riding who help to make the towns and cities in Pontiac safer.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise and speak in support of Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act.

At the onset, I was going to thank the opposition members because up until this point they have been supporting this very important piece of legislation. However, it is very disappointing to see the games that we have just witnessed and their delay tactics in trying to stop this important piece of legislation from being advanced.

It is important that witnesses be protected. It is important that police officers and front-line officers be protected. That is why we have brought forward this legislation, and it is very disappointing and troubling to see the opposition members delay this important legislation as they have been doing.

Strengthening our federal witness protection program should not be a partisan issue. Rather, it is an issue of public safety and effective justice.

In general, we are all in agreement on the critical role that witness protection plays in our criminal justice system. I believe that most Canadians understand that in order to give our police and courts the best chance to apprehend and convict offenders, we need individuals to feel confident in moving forward to help with investigations. In fact, protecting witnesses is vital to our justice system. These are individuals who have agreed to help law enforcement or provide testimony in criminal matters. Their input and help is vital.

The end goal is to remove criminals from our streets and indeed make our communities safer. In many cases, these individuals have inside knowledge about organized crime syndicates or the illicit drug trade because they themselves are involved in these elements. The information that they have agreed to provide to authorities may be invaluable, and it could place their lives at risk.

Witness protection is recognized around the world as an important tool that law enforcement agencies have at their disposal to combat criminal activity. In the case of organized crime in particular, these witnesses are often the key component to achieving convictions. To ensure a fair and effective response to organized crime, terrorism and other serious crimes, government and police agencies must provide protection to informants and witnesses who could face intimidation, violence or reprisals. The safer witnesses act contains a number of proposed changes to the Witness Protection Program Act that would do just this.

These changes fall within five broad areas, and I will speak on those areas.

First, the bill would promote greater integration between the provincial and federal programs by enabling the provinces to have their respective programs designated under the federal act. There would be some very positive benefits to the provinces' programs with these changes, but chief among those benefits is that the provincial protectees would be able to receive a secure identity change without having to be admitted to the federal program. As members know, under the current system, provincial witness protection programs provide a range of services on a case by case basis, including short-term protection and limited financial support. In cases where it is determined that provincial protectees require secure identity changes, they must be transferred into the federal program. That is the way the process works now. This can cause delays. It can be very difficult for these individuals to get the documentation they need and it can take a very long time.

As we consulted with stakeholders, these problems were identified and it was deemed necessary to make these changes that are proposed in Bill C-51 to address this concern. Stakeholders from the provinces indicated that the requirement to transfer their protectees to the federal program for secure identity changes was cumbersome and time consuming. With Bill C-51, we would address this concern. We would do that by allowing the Minister of Public Safety to designate a provincial program, thereby allowing the RCMP to work directly with that designated program to help obtain secure federal identity documents for a protectee. Again this would eliminate a lot of red tape and process, and instead ensure that these individuals who are under the witness protection program receive the identity documents that they need in a timely manner. We would also provide a more efficient and secure process for obtaining these documents by identifying a single point of contact for each designated provincial witness protection program, again eliminating red tape and redundancy, making the process proceed in a more timely manner.

The second change under Bill C-51 relates to secure identity changes as well. Federal organizations would be required to help the RCMP obtain secure identity changes for witnesses in both the federal program and in designated provincial programs.

To ensure a streamlined process, the RCMP would continue to act as a liaison between the provincial and federal programs. Again, it would be a better and more streamlined way to get the important identity documents that witnesses who are under the protection program require.

Third, Bill C-51 would broaden prohibition disclosures, ensuring protection of provincial witnesses and information at both the federal and provincial levels. Again, it is a very important change that has been needed. We heard about it at committee many times in consultation with stakeholders. We heard that broadening the prohibitions of information that could be released was an important part of the witness program that had to be changed. This change addresses calls by the provinces to ensure that witnesses in their programs are protected from disclosure of prohibited information throughout Canada. I will speak more to this important change in a moment, because it really is a very critical part of the bill.

The fourth change proposed under the safer witnesses act is to expand which entities are able to refer individuals to the commissioner of the RCMP to be considered for admission into the federal program. Currently, only law enforcement agencies and international criminal tribunals can make such referrals. Bill C-51 would allow federal organizations that have a mandate related to national security, defence, or public safety to refer witnesses to the federal program. These organizations may include CSIS and the Department of National Defence. This was a recommendation that came out of the Air India enquiry and the recommendation that who would be allowed or considered for this program be expanded. Our government responded by making these changes and by introducing Bill C-51.

We feel it is so important that bill is passed, and we really hope that the opposition will stop playing any kind of games and work with us to get this important piece through. They are laughing, but it is really not a laughing matter at all, not when we are talking about protecting witnesses, which, in the long run, protects Canadians. We are talking about gangs, drugs and organized crime. It is not a laughing matter at all. It is very serious.

The bill addresses a number of other concerns raised by federal and provincial stakeholders, such as allowing for voluntary termination from the federal program and extending emergency protection to a maximum of 180 days, up from the current 90 days. Right now, under the current legislation, someone could be under an emergency protection order for 90 days, but we want to extend that so that they could be protected in an emergency situation for up to 180 days. This received broad support from the witnesses as well as stakeholders.

Together, these proposed changes would serve to strengthen the current Witness Protection Program Act, making the federal program more effective and secure for both the witnesses and those who provide protection. This is the goal of the program, to keep those involved and their information safe and secure.

As I mentioned, I want to go back to one of the changes that is related to the disclosure prohibitions. Before I go into that, I want to say that we heard in testimony, whether it was from the police, Tom Stamatakis of the Canadian Police Association, or other law enforcement agencies, that the protections required are certainly not just for the witnesses who are involved in the witness protection program. We are extending that to cover the law enforcement people who have been organizing and working with them. These are sometimes undercover police officers or other law enforcement individuals who currently are not protected under the prohibitions for information. Bill C-51 would give front-line officers and law enforcement workers the protection that they need. Again, the Canadian Police Association is very grateful and supportive of this legislation.

Currently, the act prohibits the disclosure of information about the location or change of identity of a current or former federal protectee. That is basically the only current prohibition. In stakeholder consultations, some provinces requested that these disclosure prohibitions be extended to include information about provincial witness protection programs and those they protect. The safer witnesses act addresses this concern with changes that would broaden the prohibitions on disclosing information in a number of ways.

We are going to extend and broaden what kind of information cannot be released. I think all Canadians, including all members, would agree that when someone's identity needs to be protected, there are so many pieces of information that, unfortunately, could tip off somebody who would want to do them harm. Therefore, it is very important that we broaden the information that is prohibited from being released.

First, the safer witnesses act would prohibit the disclosure of information related to the individuals who are protected under designated programs, and we are going to expand it to designated provincial programs.

Second, it would prohibit the disclosure of any means or method of protection that could endanger the protected individual or the integrity of the programs themselves. Again, that broadens it. The language is within jurisprudence and other language in the Criminal Code. This includes information about the methods used to provide or support protection and record or exchange confidential information as well as data about the location of secure facilities.

Third, it would prohibit disclosure of any information about the identity or role of persons who provide, or assist in providing, protection for the witnesses. That is where law enforcement comes into play. Part of their job is to assist and protect witnesses. They need to be protected too. That is why the bill is so vital and why law enforcement and stakeholders across the country have been asking for it and why it is important that we pass the bill.

Further, the bill would clarify language in the current act to ensure that these measures apply to situations where a person directly or indirectly discloses information. I want to stress that the bill also specifies that one must knowingly reveal this information for it to be an offence. This means directly and intentionally releasing information with the knowledge that one is releasing information that is prohibited. The bill specifies that if someone does it unknowingly, it would not be an offence.

As with many laws regulating privacy and personal information, there are exceptions to these disclosure prohibitions. Bill C-51 includes changes that would further strengthen the legislation in this regard. For example, as stated in the current act, a protectee or former protectee can disclose information about him or herself as long as it does not endanger the life of another protectee or former protectee and if it does not compromise the integrity of this important program. Under Bill C-51, the wording would be changed to remove the reference to the integrity of the program and to clarify that the protected person can disclose information if it could not lead to substantial harm to any protected person.

The current act also allows for disclosure of prohibited information by the RCMP commissioner for a variety of reasons: if the protected person gives his or her consent; if the protectee or former protectee has already disclosed the information or acted in a manner that results in disclosure; if the disclosure is essential to the public interest for purposes such as investigations or the prevention of a serious crime, national security or national defence; and finally, in criminal proceedings where the disclosure is necessary to establish the innocence of a person. There are some good safeguards in place regarding the prohibition of information.

Under the safer witnesses act, we would change the wording as it relates to the RCMP commissioner disclosing prohibited information for the public interest. Instead, under Bill C-51, the commissioner may only disclose this information when he or she has reasonable grounds to believe that it is essential for the purposes of the administration of justice. Furthermore, we propose a change in the wording related to disclosure for national security purposes. Under Bill C-51, the commissioner could disclose prohibited information if he or she “has reasonable grounds to believe that the disclosure is essential for...national security or national defence”.

Along the same vein, Bill C-51 contains several proposed changes that would authorize the RCMP commissioner to disclose information in specific situations. He or she could disclose information about both federal and designated program protected persons for the purpose of providing protection to federal protectees or for facilitating a secure change of identity for provincial protectees. The commissioner would also be able to disclose information about federal and designated program protectees in situations where a protected person either agrees to the disclosure or has previously disclosed information, such as if the protected person has revealed his or her change of identity to family or friends. Again, some of the same safeguards are in place.

Additionally, the commissioner would be authorized to disclose information about the federal program itself, methods of protection and the role of a person who provides protection under the program. This would only be done when the commissioner had reasonable grounds to believe that the disclosure was essential for the administration of justice, national security, national defence or public safety.

This is a good and concise overview of those elements of Bill C-51 that relate to safeguarding and disclosing information that would compromise the safety of a protected witness or those who provide protection for that witness.

I would like to close by taking a few minutes to talk about some concerns raised in committee. We heard some concerns from the opposition that this would mean rising costs. However, we heard directly from witnesses, including the RCMP, the Minister of Public Safety, the Assistant Commissioner of the RCMP and other stakeholders that rising costs were not anticipated.

We also heard some concern that there would be a great influx of witnesses coming into the federal program. Again, witnesses and experts told us that the prediction was that there would not be a great influx. The number of witnesses accepted into the program fluctuates from year to year, but a huge number coming in now is not anticipated. Admission to the program is based on a set of criteria found under section 7 of the act. Only one of those is cost.

Todd Shean, the RCMP Assistant Commissioner, stated, in his committee testimony, “since my time in the chair, never have I denied an entry because of costs”. Therefore, we were able to clear up the concerns some opposition members had. It was clear that no witness has ever been denied access to the program because of cost. Costs are not expected to rise under this new legislation.

Regarding who would be administering the program, there were some concerns about whether it should be the RCMP. There were some recommendations that it could fall under the Department of Justice. We looked at this recommendation and conducted extensive consultations. It was determined that the RCMP was best suited to managing the program.

There would be a clear distinction between investigative and protective functions to ensure objectivity with respect to witness protection measures, so there would be two separate organizations within the RCMP. One would manage the actual witness protection program and decide who should be involved in it, and one would be the administrative part, which would be completely separate.

As I said at the outset, a strong federal witness protection program is critical to keeping our law enforcement and justice systems working effectively. We need to take these steps to ensure that individuals are protected and that our communities are safe. That is why our government is committed to strengthening our federal witness protection program. That is why we are committed to doing this to address the threat of organized crime and drugs in our communities and to make sure that informants and witnesses can collaborate with law enforcement. As such, it is vital that we pass this piece of legislation in a timely way so that it can become law and we can give law enforcement organizations the tools they need to keep Canadians safe.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, as you know, our government has moved forward this week to conduct business in the House of Commons in a productive, orderly and hard-working fashion, and we have tried to work in good faith.

We began the week debating a motion to add an additional 20 hours to the House schedule each week. Before I got through the first minute of my speech on that motion, the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley interrupted with a dubious point of order to prevent the government from moving forward to work overtime. His was a bogus argument and the Speaker rightly saw the NDP delay effort as entirely devoid of merit and rejected it outright.

During its first speech opposing the motion to work hard, the NDP then moved an amendment to gut it. That amendment was defeated. The NDP then voted against the motion and against working overtime, but that motion still passed, thanks to the Conservatives in the House.

During the first NDP speech on Bill C-49 last night, in the efforts to work longer, the NDP moved an amendment to gut that bill and cause gridlock in the House. I am not kidding. These are all one step after another of successive measures to delay. During its next speech, before the first day of extended hours was completed, the NDP whip moved to shut down the House, to go home early. That motion was also defeated. This is the NDP's “do as I say, not as I do” attitude at its height.

Take the hon. member for Gatineau. At 4 p.m., she stood in the House and said, “I am more than happy to stay here until midnight tonight...”. That is a direct quote. It sounded good. In fact, I even naively took her at her word that she and her party were actually going to work with us, work hard and get things done. Unfortunately, her actions did not back up her words, because just a few short hours later, that very same member, the member for Gatineau, seconded a motion to shut down the House early.

I am not making this up. I am not kidding. She waited until the sun went down until she thought Canadians were not watching anymore and then she tried to prevent members from doing their work. This goes to show the value of the word of NDP members. In her case, she took less than seven hours to break her word. That is unfortunate. It is a kind of “do as I say, not as I do” attitude that breeds cynicism in politics and, unfortunately, it is all too common in the NDP.

We saw the same thing from the hon. member for Davenport, when he said, “We are happy to work until midnight...”, and two short hours later he voted to try to shut down the House early. It is the same for the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing and the hon. member for Drummond. They all professed an interest in working late and then had their party vote to shut down early. What is clear by their actions is that the NDP will try anything to avoid hard work.

It is apparent that the only way that Conservatives, who are willing to work in the House, will be able to get things done is through a focused agenda, having a productive, orderly and hard-working House of Commons. This afternoon, we will debate Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act, at report stage and third reading. After private members' hour, we will go to Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act, at second reading.

Tomorrow before question period, we will start second reading of Bill S-14, the fighting foreign corruption act, and after question period, we will start second reading of Bill S-13, the port state measures agreement implementation act.

Monday before question period, we will consider Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act. This bill would provide protection for aboriginal women and children by giving them the same rights that women who do not live on reserve have had for decades. After question period, we will debate Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act, at second reading, a bill that makes a reasonable and needed reform to the Criminal Code. We are proposing to ensure that public safety should be the paramount consideration in the decision-making process involving high-risk accused found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. It is time to get that bill to a vote. We will also consider Bill C-48, the technical tax amendments act, 2012—and yes, that is last year—at third reading.

On Tuesday, we will continue the debates on Bill C-48 and Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act.

On Wednesday, we will resume this morning's debate on Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act, at third reading.

On Thursday, we will continue this afternoon's debate on Bill C-51. Should the NDP adopt a new and co-operative, productive spirit and let all of these bills pass, we could consider other measures, such as Bill S-17, the tax conventions implementation act, 2013, Bill C-56, the combating counterfeit products act, Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, and Bill C-57, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act.

Optimism springs eternal within my heart. I hope to see that from the opposition.

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we always conduct ourselves with very high ethical standards. In this case, there is one very important ethic. It is called the work ethic. We on the Conservative side of the House believe very strongly in the work ethic. That is what we are seeking to advance here.

Let us talk about some of the important bills we are looking to have debated in advance as a result of the motion to extend hours here.

There is the technical tax amendments act, Bill C-48. This bill has been around for years. There is uncertainty in our economy and uncertainty among those who are functioning, because these changes have been put in place structurally but need to actually be cemented legislatively. It is about time we got on and did that.

There is the Canadian museum of history act. The bill would help us create relevant history for Canadians and respect for our Canadian national identity in a proper and full way. This is something that is very much overdue.

There is the safer witnesses act, Bill C-51. It is very important for us to provide changes to the Witness Protection Program Act if we want to have safer streets and communities. Why would anyone from any party want to resist having a bill like that debated? Why would they want to limit the amount of debate in this House so as to keep bills like that and the others from moving forward.

I will continue going down this list as we discuss this. These are very important priorities for Canadians, and that is why we are bringing in this motion to work a bit harder.

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will pick up where I left off. Obviously my hon. friend did not hear this and has not read the motion. I will respond to his macho riposte at the end of his comments by pointing out that the motion would do three things: first, it would provide for us to sit until midnight; second, it would provide a manageable way in which to hold votes in a fashion that works for members of the House; and third, it would provide for concurrence debates to happen and motions to be voted on in a fashion that would not disrupt the work of all the committees of the House and force them to come back here for votes and shut down the work of committees.

Those are the three things the motion would do. In all other respects the Standing Orders remain in place, including the Standing Orders for how long the House sits. Had my friend actually read the motion, he would recognize that the only way in which that Standing Order could then be changed would be by unanimous consent of the House.

The member needs no commitment from me as to how long we will sit. Any member of the House can determine that question, if he or she wishes to adjourn other than the rules contemplate, but the rules are quite clear in what they do contemplate.

As I was saying, the reason for the motion is that Canadians expect their members of Parliament to work hard and get things done on their behalf.

Canadians expect their members of Parliament to work hard and get things done on their behalf.

We agree and that is exactly what has happened here in the House of Commons.

However, do not take my word for it; look at the facts. In this Parliament the government has introduced 76 pieces of legislation. Of those 76, 44 of them are law in one form or another. That makes for a total of 58% of the bills introduced into Parliament. Another 15 of these bills have been passed by either the House or the Senate, bringing the total to 77% of the bills that have been passed by one of the two Houses of Parliament. That is the record of a hard-working, orderly and productive Parliament.

More than just passing bills, the work we are doing here is delivering real results for Canadians. However, there is still yet more work to be done before we return to our constituencies for the summer.

During this time our government's top priority has been jobs, economic growth and long-term prosperity. Through two years and three budgets, we have passed initiatives that have helped to create more than 900,000 net new jobs since the global economic recession. We have achieved this record while also ensuring that Canada's debt burden is the lowest in the G7. We are taking real action to make sure the budget will be balanced by 2015. We have also followed through on numerous longstanding commitments to keep our streets and communities safe, to improve democratic representation in the House of Commons, to provide marketing freedom for western Canadian grain farmers and to eliminate once and for all the wasteful and inefficient long gun registry.

Let me make clear what the motion would and would not do. There has been speculation recently, including from my friend opposite, about the government's objectives and motivations with respect to motion no. 17. As the joke goes: Mr. Freud, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. So it is with today's motion. There is only one intention motivating the government in proposing the motion: to work hard and deliver real results for Canadians.

The motion would extend the hours the House sits from Monday through Thursday. Instead of finishing the day around 6:30 or 7 p.m., the House would sit instead until midnight.

This would amount to an additional 20 hours each week. Extended sitting hours is something that happens most years in June. Our government just wants to roll up our sleeves and work a little harder, earlier this year. The motion would allow certain votes to be deferred automatically until the end of question period, to allow for all honourable members' schedules to be a little more orderly.

As I said, all other rules would remain. For example, concurrence motions could be moved, debated and voted upon. Today's motion would simply allow committees to continue doing their work instead of returning to the House for motions to return to government business and the like. This process we are putting forward would ensure those committees could do their good work and be productive, while at the same time the House could proceed with its business. Concurrence motions could ultimately be dealt with, debated and voted upon.

We are interested in working hard and being productive and doing so in an orderly fashion, and that is the extent of what the motion would do. I hope that the opposition parties would be willing to support this reasonable plan and let it come forward to a vote. I am sure members opposite would not be interested in going back to their constituents to say they voted against working a little overtime before the House rises for the summer, but the first indication from my friend opposite is that perhaps he is reluctant to do that. Members on this side of the House are willing to work extra hours to deliver real results for Canadians.

Some of those accomplishments we intend to pass are: reforming the temporary foreign workers program to put the interests of Canadians first; implementing tax credits for Canadians who donate to charity; enhancing the tax credit for parents who adopt; and extending the tax credit for Canadians who take care of loved ones in their home.

We also want to support veterans and their families by improving the determination of veterans' benefits.

Of course, these are some of the important measures from this year's budget and are included in Bill C-60, economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1. We are also working toward results for aboriginals by moving closer to equality for Canadians living on reserves through better standards for drinking water and finally giving women on reserves the same rights and protections other Canadian women have had for decades. Bill S-2, family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, and Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act would deliver on those very important objectives.

We will also work to keep our streets and communities safe by making real improvements to the witness protection program through Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act. I think that delivering these results for Canadians is worth working a few extra hours each week.

We will work to bring the Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, into law. Bill C-48 would provide certainty to the tax code. It has been over a decade since a bill like this has passed, so it is about time this bill passed. In fact, after question period today, I hope to start third reading of this bill, so perhaps we can get it passed today.

We will also work to bring Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act, into law. The bill would support economic growth by ensuring that all shippers, including farmers, are treated fairly. Over the next few weeks we will also work, hopefully with the co-operation of the opposition parties, to make progress on other important initiatives.

Bill C-54 will ensure that public safety is the paramount consideration in the decision-making process involving high-risk accused found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. This is an issue that unfortunately has affected every region of this country. The very least we can do is let the bill come to a vote and send it to committee where witnesses can testify about the importance of these changes.

Bill C-49 would create the Canadian museum of history, a museum for Canadians that would tell our stories and present our country's treasures to the world.

Bill S-14, the Fighting Foreign Corruption Act, will do just that by further deterring and preventing Canadian companies from bribing foreign public officials. These amendments will help ensure that Canadian companies continue to act in good faith in the pursuit of freer markets and expanded global trade.

Bill S-13, the port state measures agreement implementation act, would implement that 2009 treaty by amending the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act to add prohibitions on importing illegally acquired fish.

Tonight we will be voting on Bill S-9, the Nuclear Terrorism Act, which will allow Canada to honour its commitments under international agreements to tackle nuclear terrorism. Another important treaty—the Convention on Cluster Munitions—can be given effect if we adopt Bill S-10, the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act.

We will seek to update and modernize Canada’s network of income tax treaties through Bill S-17, the Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2013, by giving the force of law to recently signed agreements between Canada and Namibia, Serbia, Poland, Hong Kong, Luxembourg and Switzerland.

Among other economic bills is Bill C-56, the combating counterfeit products act. The bill would protect Canadians from becoming victims of trademark counterfeiting and goods made using inferior or dangerous materials that lead to injury or even death. Proceeds from the sale of counterfeit goods may be used to support organized crime groups. Clearly, this bill is another important one to enact.

Important agreements with the provinces of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador would be satisfied through Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, which would, among other things, create the Sable Island national park reserve, and Bill C-61, the offshore health and safety act, which would provide clear rules for occupational health and safety of offshore oil and gas installations.

Earlier I referred to the important work of committees. The Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations inspired Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act. We should see that committee's ideas through by passing this bill. Of course, a quick reading of today's order paper would show that there are yet still more bills before the House of Commons for consideration and passage. All of these measures are important and will improve the lives of Canadians. Each merits consideration and hard work on our part.

In my weekly business statement prior to the constituency week, I extended an offer to the House leaders opposite to work with me to schedule and pass some of the other pieces of legislation currently before the House. I hope that they will respond to my request and put forward at our next weekly meeting productive suggestions for getting things done. Passing today's motion would be a major step toward accomplishing that. As I said in my opening comments, Canadians expect each one of us to come to Ottawa to work hard, vote on bills and get things done.

In closing, I commend this motion to the House and encourage all hon. members to vote for this motion, add a few hours to our day, continue the work of our productive, orderly and hard-working Parliament, and deliver real results for Canadians.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue the debate on today’s opposition motion from the NDP. Pursuant to the rules of the House, time is allocated and there will be a vote after the two-day debate.

Tomorrow we will resume the third reading debate on Bill S-9, the Nuclear Terrorism Act. As I mentioned on Monday, I am optimistic that we will pass that important bill this week.

Should we have extra time on Friday, we will take up Bill C-48, the Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, at report stage and third reading.

When we come back from constituency week, I am keen to see the House make a number of accomplishments for Canadians. Allow me to make it clear to the House what the government's priorities are.

Our government will continue to focus on jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. In doing that, we will be working on reforming the temporary foreign worker program to put the interests of Canadians first; implementing tax credits for Canadians who donate to charity and parents who adopt; extending tax credits for Canadians who take care of loved ones in their homes; supporting veterans and their families by improving the balance for determining veterans' benefits; moving closer to equality for Canadians living on reserves through better standards for drinking water, which my friend apparently objects to; giving women on reserves the rights and protections that other Canadian women have had for decades, something to which he also objects; and keeping our streets and communities safer by making real improvements to the witness protection program. We will of course do more.

Before we rise for the summer, we will tackle the bills currently listed on the order paper, as well as any new bills which might get introduced. After Victoria Day, we will give priority consideration to bills which have already been considered by House committees.

For instance, we will look at Bill C-48, which I just mentioned, Bill C-51, the Safer Witnesses Act, Bill C-52, the Fair Rail Freight Service Act, and Bill S-2, the Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, which I understand could be reported back soon.

I look forward also to getting back from committee and passing Bill C-60, , the economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1; Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act; and Bill C-21, the political loans accountability act.

We have, of course, recently passed Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act and Bill S-7, the combating terrorism act. Hopefully, tomorrow we will pass Bill S-9, the nuclear terrorism act.

Finally, we will also work toward second reading of several bills including: Bill C-12, the safeguarding Canadians' personal information act; Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act; Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act; Bill C-56, the combating counterfeit products act; Bill C-57, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act; Bill C-61, the offshore health and safety act; Bill S-6, the first nations elections act; Bill S-10, the prohibiting cluster munitions act; Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act; Bill S-13, the port state measures agreement implementation act; Bill S-14, the fighting foreign corruption act; Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, which establishes Sable Island National Park; and Bill S-17, the tax conventions implementation act, 2013.

I believe and I think most Canadians who send us here expect us to do work and they want to see us vote on these things and get things done. These are constructive measures to help all Canadians and they certainly expect us to do our job and actually get to votes on these matters.

I hope we will be able to make up enough time to take up all of these important bills when we come back, so Canadians can benefit from many parliamentary accomplishments by the members of Parliament they have sent here this spring.

Before taking my seat, let me formally designate, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)(a), Tuesday, May 21, as the day appointed for the consideration in a committee of the whole of all votes under Natural Resources in the main estimates for the final year ending March 31, 2014. This would be the second of two such evenings following on tonight's proceedings.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the opposition House leader for his stream-of-consciousness therapy.

Our government, however, is very focused. Our top priority is jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. With that in mind, this afternoon we will continue second reading debate on the cornerstone item of our legislative agenda, which is Bill C-60, the economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1. We will continue this debate tomorrow.

Next Monday, May 6, will be the fourth day of second reading debate on this important job creation bill, and Tuesday May 7 will be the fifth and final day.

Once debate is concluded, the House will have an opportunity to vote on the substantive job creation measures in this bill.

On Wednesday, the House will debate Bill S-8, the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act. This will be the fourth time this bill is debated at second reading so it is my hope and expectation that this bill will come to a vote.

With the vote, there will be another clear choice before the House. Members will be voting to allow for national standards for on-reserve drinking water. This is a question of basic equality. I know the opposition voted against equality for women on reserves when it voted against Bill S-2, matrimonial property on reserves, but I hope they have stopped grasping at excuses to oppose equal treatment for first nations and will now support Bill S-8.

While I am speaking about aboriginal affairs, allow me to take the time to notify the House that I am designating, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)(a), Thursday, May 9, for consideration in committee of the whole all votes under Indian Affairs and Northern Development in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2014.

On Thursday, we will continue to advance the economic priority of our legislative agenda by debating Bill C-48, the technical tax amendments act, 2012, in the morning. Following question period on Thursday, May 9, we will continue Bill S-9, the nuclear terrorism act at third reading. I understand there is broad support for this bill, so I hope to see it pass swiftly. Then we can move on to other legislation, including: Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act; Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act; Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act; Bill S-10, the prohibiting cluster munitions act; Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act; Bill S-13, the coastal fisheries protection act; and bill S-14, the fighting foreign bribery act.

Finally, Friday, May 10 will be the seventh allotted day, which I understand will be for the NDP.

Public Safety and National Security

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security in relation to Bill C-51, an act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act.

The committee has done its work on this, and I am pleased to report that it has been reported back to the House unamended. We look forward to the House accepting this report.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to meeting 78 of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, Tuesday, March 26, 2013.

Today we are doing clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-51, amendments to Canada's witness protection program. In the final half hour or the final 15 minutes, however long it's going to take, our intentions are to go to committee business which will be in camera.

The first chore that we have this morning is the clause-by-clause study.

We're joined by Julie Mugford, director of research and national coordination, organized crime division, Department of Public Safety. Welcome back. We have as well Inspector Greg Bowen, officer in charge, witness protection operations with the RCMP. Welcome. We have Susan Alter, senior counsel with the Department of Justice.

These witnesses are here to assist us if we need it. I also will note that we have not received any amendments to Bill C-51, so my intentions are to move through this fairly quickly.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, the short title, is postponed until the end of clause-by-clause consideration.

Because there have been no amendments that have been brought forward, I would like to call the question on clause 2 through clause 24 rather than doing them individually. I will call that right now.

(Clauses 2 to 24 inclusive agreed to)

Shall the short title carry?

Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise today. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi. I know the member well because I serve on two committees with him.

I am very pleased to speak again in the House on the NDP's views on this piece of legislation, Bill C-55. It would amend the Criminal Code in response to the Supreme Court ruling referenced several times here this morning in previous speeches.

The point that has to be reiterated is that this is all coming about with a very few days remaining to meet the deadline that was provided to the House by the Supreme Court. It stayed a decision for a year to give the government the opportunity to bring forward an improvement to legislation that is much needed. We have supported this legislation throughout the process, although we found the process daunting because of the delay that took place in getting it here. We supported the government because it is an important tool for our police services in this country.

However, on the counter side of that, it is very important for the official opposition to look cautiously at any legislation that authorizes people to look into people's lives in the manner that this would. This enactment seeks to amend Canada's Criminal Code, and the Supreme Court ruling talked about the need for safeguards for Canadians, because this allows for authorized, and I want to stress the word “authorized”, interception of private communications, done prior to judicial authorization as foreseen in section 184.4 of the act.

It is worth noting that the enactment states that it:

requires the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the Attorney General of each province to report on the interceptions of private communications made under section 184.4;

and

provides that a person who has been the object of such interception must be notified...within a specified period;...

The assumption is that those persons have not been found to be taking part in any criminal activity, and thus they have every right to be informed; and if they were involved with criminal activity and are part of an ongoing investigation, there could be an extension.

It narrowed the class of individuals who could actually make such interceptions, and those limited interceptions to particular offences are listed.

I was speaking a few moments ago about the fact that we are within three weeks of a deadline supplied to us by the Supreme Court. There was the benefit of a year from the Supreme Court to act on this, and the government has not done so until the very last minute. I have to question what the delay is. Why did it take close to a year for the government to respond to this? This was not a great difficulty, from the standpoint that the Supreme Court identified the areas in which the government had to make changes.

I would go so far as to say that when any government or any party in government looks to put forward legislation, a significant part of the process is debate in this place. Another significant part is the opportunity for all parties to come together, which we did in the instance of Bill C-55 at committee, to look at it, to hear witness testimony, to do those things necessary to offer any piece of legislation the due diligence necessary to make it as good as we possibly could. That is the concern over the timeframe, the concern over the fact that we had a couple of days to try to do things that could have well extended beyond, had we brought in more witnesses. It is troubling because that impedes the due diligence we have to administer on behalf of those people who sent us to this place.

I tend to repeat myself in my remarks, because that troubled me to the degree that I felt it was worth repeating.

There have been other times in this place that the opportunity to debate and to consider various bills has been impeded. I would ask how many times the Conservative government has moved time allocation on bills. It is not the delay just in this particular bill, but in other bills. We must be closing in on 30 times that it has occurred in this Parliament. It has to be close to that by now. I hear other members agreeing.

We have seen budget bills and other legislation affecting services, which Canadians rely on, shut down or extremely limited by the Conservatives, at what appears to be almost every opportunity. It stifles the opportunity for us to make those bills better. It stifles the opportunity we have as members to point out what they have done well and what they have done not up to the standards Canadians expect. We get to do that in this public forum. That has been curtailed too many times.

Once again, that is part of my concern with this bill, Bill C-55, and how it got to committee after such a delay. It has the potential of impacting ordinary Canadians in a very negative way if the protections of which the Supreme Court has spoken to us were not put into place.

Bill C-55 is simply an updated version of wiretapping provisions the Supreme Court previously deemed unconstitutional. That is quite a statement when we think about it. Fortunately again for the House, the Supreme Court set the parameters of what it saw as the need to protect Canadians' rights.

I have to say that Canadians have good reason to be concerned about privacy legislation that comes out of the government. To date the government has not had what I see as a good record in that area. It is not encouraging at all.

There is an obligation on the official opposition to work for the public good in upholding the rule of law, our Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It was in February 2012 that the Conservative government tabled Bill C-30. Members will recall that gave authorities the power to access personal information in a way to which the Supreme Court responded.

It raised very serious concerns across the country, as I recall, about personal privacy and fundamental rights. That was due to the manner in which it was constructed and the powers it was seeking to give out. I will add that it was kind of a compilation of previous bills that have been before this House, Bill C-50, Bill C-51 and Bill C-52 from a previous parliamentary session. The Conservatives were attempting to build on the original legislation from 1999 to provide public safety authorities with extensive surveillance powers over digital information. As I said a moment ago, there was a significant backlash from the people of Canada in regard to this.

Now we have the government with these much-needed changes, I will commend the government. It reached across to us in the committee. We did work better on that bill than we did on some others in the past. If we did not meet the deadline or the provisions required by the Supreme Court, then these emergency powers would be thrown out.

I began my remarks talking about the need for police officials of our country to apply these. In this particular case, these provisions are intended to happen at the worst possible time, when somebody is under physical threat of injury or harm. It was important for us to go a little deeper into it.

I am looking for what really needs to be summarized here, and that is the fact that our role is to ensure that the privacy rights of Canadians are balanced with the police officials' needs to investigate, particularly in a time where someone is under the threat of physical harm. I have to say that, working together, I believe we accomplished that. Thus, we will be supporting this bill.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you very much. I just wanted to clarify that.

Justice Major, thank you so much for the recommendations you made. As you and previous witnesses noted, many of those recommendations have been complied with and taken up in Bill C-51.

You made that recommendation that we expand the program to take in people, whether via the Department of Defence, Public Safety, or the other applicants who can be brought forward. So can you please tell us why that recommendation was made in relation to Air India as well as other potential attacks?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you very much.

Justice Major, I do have a question for you, so I hope you can stay a little bit longer, if possible.

I just want to start with Mr. Pecknold, though, regarding the discussion he just had with Mr. Garrison. I think you would agree with me, Mr. Pecknold, that you are talking about two separate issues.

First of all, the cost of policing is something that is front of mind for all of us. In fact, it was our Minister of Public Safety who initiated a conference and brought together leaders in January to discuss the cost of policing. As well, we realize that more investments are needed. That's why we just passed Bill C-42, with an additional $15 million to help support the RCMP and bring greater accountability. Unfortunately, it wasn't supported by everyone in the House.

I think what we want to talk about right now and what I think is important is Bill C-51, and the three major changes we are making to the witness protection program. First, it will actually help the provinces because it will create a more streamlined system whereby identity changes can be made. Second, it will expand the criteria, as recommended by Justice Major. Third, there will be greater protection for those who are under the program and those administering it.

I would think you would agree that there are no actual additional costs. The RCMP has testified to it. There will be no additional costs to municipalities from these changes in Bill C-51.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Thank you for that.

Judge, I went through the bill itself, and it looks as though most of the recommendations in the Air India inquiry are reflected in Bill C-51 in some form or fashion, probably with the exception of having the Department of Justice completely take over the task of determining the independent oversight. It was really, I think, a decision that the RCMP was better positioned to decide whether the witnesses should be admitted to the program and to what extent those protective measures were required.

But at committee, the RCMP testified that they felt they were making those organizational operational changes to really take away or remove the investigative interest from the decision-making aspect of the witness protection program itself. So there is, in their mind, going to be a clear division between what the investigation wants to achieve and what the ultimate program goal is to achieve, which is public safety and witness safety.

Do you think that is a reasonable compromise and that it will be effective in light of the recommendations of the Air India inquiry?

[Clayton Pecknold, Assistant Deputy Minister and Director, Police Services, Policing and Security Programs Branch, British Columbia Ministry of Justice]

Good morning, and thank you, committee, for the opportunity to speak.

I will be brief. I'm sure you have some questions.

I'll restrict my remarks mostly to policing, which is my sphere of responsibility.

Just for the interest of the committee and to provide background, I hold two roles. I'm Assistant Deputy Minister of policing and security in British Columbia, but I'm also the director of police services for British Columbia. Within those responsibilities under the statute, it's my responsibility to superintend policing in British Columbia and ensure adequate and effective policing across the province, and I do this on behalf of the minister.

As you know, we are policed under contract in British Columbia. Our provincial police force is the RCMP under contract. We are the largest contract division in the country. As a result, approximately one-third of the RCMP are stationed in British Columbia. So we are, by definition, fully integrated with federal policing through the RCMP.

British Columbia does support a robust witness protection program. We see this as an effective tool for the protection of witnesses, and it's paramount for us in the fight against organized crime. You need only refer to events in British Columbia over recent years and some of the challenges we've had with on-street gang violence to see how important that is to British Columbians.

Based on our analysis, the amendments in Bill C-51 appear responsive to the specific needs of law enforcement in British Columbia and to the issues raised by our partners and stakeholders, including the broadening of the disclosure prohibition to include information on the program's methods for providing protection, extension of the emergency period beyond 90 days, and a process for voluntary termination.

We also support the adjustments to administrative processes under the federal program that will broaden the scope for who may be considered for protection. The proposed processes will better reflect the changing clientele of witnesses we have, including those associated with the increased prevalence of youth gang violence that now poses somewhat of a significant challenge for all of us across the country, I'm sure, but in British Columbia in particular in those agencies under municipal responsibility.

As the committee may know, British Columbia does not have provincial witness protection legislation. However, under an agreement reached in 2003, all police agencies in B.C. have operated under an integrated RCMP witness protection program. It's referred to as the Integrated Witness Protection Unit. This model has been successful in British Columbia. It integrates municipal witness protection programs into the present RCMP witness protection program. It increases the resources available to the program through secondments of municipal officers into the unit managed by the provincial force under the federal legislation and by the RCMP policy.

Like other jurisdictions, British Columbia has seen witnesses threatened, especially when organized crime is involved. Consequently, our view is that it's an effective and necessary tool that needs to be improved in British Columbia and modernized to ensure that it meets the needs of our very dynamic policing environment.

Within B.C. our anti-organized gang strategies are the responsibility of the Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit of B.C. British Columbia funds that unit exclusively, but it's also integrated with federal policing resources. CFSEU-BC is specifically mandated to target, investigate, prosecute, disrupt, and dismantle gangs and individuals who pose a high risk to public safety. CFSEU-BC has informed us that the proposed changes to the act, especially the protections afforded in emergency situations, will be beneficial to their investigations.

Many CFSEU-BC witnesses are extremely difficult to handle, by nature of their violent and criminal behaviour. Providing the commissioner with an additional 90 days in cases of an emergency provides more appropriate timeframes that will tend to improve the management of these key witnesses, often in very dynamic investigations. Often, as you may know, witnesses involved in organized crime, after cooperating with investigators, will go underground as it were and become difficult to locate for further interviews and for the purposes of supporting the prosecution. CFSEU informs us that they believe the proposed amendments will support improvements to the re-engagement of such witnesses.

From the perspective of the Province of British Columbia, providing modern protective measures, while challenging, is especially challenging with gang-affiliated youth, and that will require some different handling with respect to the program. We also think that the changes the RCMP will be implementing around procedures with respect to psychologists and other professional services will support a more integrated program in British Columbia and take into account the needs of the protectee.

We also will be interested to watch the organizational changes that will take place within the RCMP, once, and assuming, the bill is passed. I would add parenthetically that under the new provincial police service agreements that we have with the federal government to provide RCMP contract services, the provinces that contract have a much more involved oversight with respect to RCMP programs. We'll be looking very carefully to make sure not only that the program meets provincial policing priorities but also that it is integrated well with national priorities. We'll be working closely with the RCMP to make sure that works.

Finally, I'd add that we're pleased to see there's a certain amount of flexibility so we can design our program to meet the needs of British Columbians but still leverage the national efficiencies and effectiveness of the national program.

Those are my comments. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much. Our time is up for this first hour here.

We want to thank both of you for appearing and for your comments today.

We are going to suspend. The video conferences from Calgary and British Columbia are ready, I believe. So we will suspend long enough to allow our guests to leave, and we'll come back here in about 30 seconds.

I'll call this meeting back to order. This is the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. We're continuing our study of Bill C-51 and its amendments to the Canadian witness protection program.

I want to let the committee know that we are going to take a few moments at the end of the hour to go to committee business. We'll go in camera very briefly, for just a couple of minutes, to deal with a budget.

We are pleased today to have appearing as an individual by video conference from Calgary, Alberta, Mr. John Charles Major, a retired judge of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Also appearing by video conference from Victoria, British Columbia, on behalf of the Government of British Columbia, we have Clayton Pecknold, assistant deputy minister and director of the Ministry of Justice, police services, policing and security programs branch.

I would invite both our guests to make brief opening statements before we proceed to questions from the members of Parliament on our committee. It is my understanding that our time with Justice Major is limited, and he will have to leave us around 10:20. So we'll begin with his comments.

Please begin, sir.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Is there a way to improve the protection of children as part of the witness protection program? Will Bill C-51 be of help or is there something we could add to make the protection of minors more effective?

[Prof. Yvon Dandurand]

There is not a whole lot of difference in terms of the criteria, but there is a growing recognition that witnesses and victims have a right to protection whether or not they're being useful—or very useful—to the system. This is perhaps not totally reflected in the law. I'm not suggesting it isn't reflected in practice, because I do not really know how those decisions are made case by case, but it's not totally reflected in the law.

The purpose of the program as it was first defined and continues to be defined in Bill C-51 is to help those who help the justice system, and not to help those who are in serious trouble because of their cooperation with the justice system.

I'm going to ask you a hypothetical question. What decision would be made under the criteria if someone is no longer required as a witness because the offender has been dealt with otherwise?

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

You mentioned the psychology of this. We heard from the RCMP that they do provide the services of psychologists to people who are considering going into the program, and not just those people but also their families. I would suggest to you that it is probably harder on their children, let alone their spouse, be it a man or woman, to have to change their life. It's not just the witness, but the family that has to do that. You can imagine if there were teenagers. I know that just moving for your job is hard enough on your family. As the RCMP testified, there is psychological help available. So that covers your concern.

Going back to 2008, the reason that precipitated the study by this committee.... And here I would suggest to you the result is BillC-51. There probably aren't a lot of complaints because the people administering this, the RCMP, know that if a program is to be of value and attract the kinds of people we need to have as witnesses, they need to make it so there won't be any complaints. In other words they cover most areas. Would you not agree with that?

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And through you to the witnesses, thank you for appearing today.

I recall, Mr. Dandurand, your appearance before this committee in 2008, and some of your suggestions. I'm happy that the government has seen fit to incorporate them, although, to use your words, “rather lightly” in some respects, but then we don't get everything we want all the time.

At that time there were, as you may recall, a great many other suggestions, some of them not quite the same as yours. As a matter of fact I wouldn't say they were diametrically opposed, but they didn't necessarily go along the same path yours did. It's good to see that the current legislation goes down that path.

I was making some notes as you were speaking, and I printed the word “trust”. You were talking about the availability of counsel for the people in the program who may have some complaints. If I recall correctly, one of the reasons the committee was looking at the witness protection program was that there had been some issues surrounding the way some of the people protected were being treated. I believe, as a matter of fact I know, that this legislation covers some of that or neutralizes some of those problems.

When we heard from the RCMP witnesses, I believe some of the testimony indicated that there is an availability of counsel, and I think you mentioned that. So how much more...?

We live in a society where everybody runs around yelling and screaming about rights, rights, rights. But there's a huge responsibility living in a democracy, in a country that has the rule of law. Everyone is responsible, not just the state. The individual citizen is responsible for the function of our justice system and public safety. If you go back to the original function of police, it's that the people should police themselves. But in a modern society you have people who put on uniforms to do these jobs.

All that considered, for these great people who take their responsibilities seriously to give evidence for the state, because of the complexity and because of the danger that puts them in, the state now provides them with an opportunity to.... Because they've taken such a big stand, the state assumes a very expensive.... If I remember correctly, the average dollar figure per year is around $60,000 per witness—some more, some less.

I wonder if you could talk about the trust element, and then the responsibility element of the witness and how the state takes on this responsibility. And since we're dealing with BillC-51, does Bill C-51 strike the right balance? So far we have heard that generally it does.

[Professor Yvon Dandurand, Criminologist, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of the Fraser Valley, As an Individual]

Thank you very much.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before your committee this morning. I really appreciate this because I think Bill C-51 will make it possible to increase the effectiveness of the federal witness protection program, as well as of the available provincial programs. I believe there is a consensus right now that the bill will significantly improve the existing legislation.

As some members of the committee may recall, I had the pleasure of making suggestions to the committee in 2008 when the committee was previously dealing with the witness protection issue. At that time, my suggestions were based on my own research, including the research I was doing for the Air India commission. At that time, I pointed to the importance of making some improvements to the existing program. I will go back to those suggestions this morning and compare them to what is included in Bill C-51. I think most of the suggestions that I made at the time are reflected in one way or another in Bill C-51. I say “one way or another” because, in some cases, the solutions proposed in the bill are not necessarily the ones that I had suggested. However, in most cases, they are still dealing with the problems that the committee and I identified at that time.

In 2008, I made a suggestion to the committee about the decision-making process for the admission of candidates to the federal program. I noted then that the Council of Europe considered that it was important to separate witness protection agencies from those responsible for investigations and prosecutions. I also felt it was important to do so in order to improve the decision-making process, to ensure objectivity and to better protect the rights of individuals. That is why, at the time, I suggested the creation of a more or less independent agency to manage the program. This committee also made similar suggestions or recommendations.

I see today that the government and the RCMP are proposing a different approach to address this need. Organizational changes are apparently in progress to ensure the centralized management of the program and more consistent management properly focused on witness protection. We learned that these organizational changes would be implemented fully this May. We also learned that a new admissions protocol has been developed and will be implemented. I am ready to believe that those changes will have the intended effects and address the pitfalls that were identified in 2008. However, I would be more likely to believe it if I was told that an independent evaluation of the changes will be carried out in the near future. For the time being, I will say that I am satisfied with the solution proposed, but we will have to wait and see if it is sufficient.

At the time, I also said that It was important to add an independent oversight mechanism to the witness protection program. Again, the government is proposing a modest solution, but I think it is a solution in the right direction. The plan is to set up an advisory committee for the witness protection program, a committee that would report to the commissioner or to his delegate. In my view, that is also a step in the right direction, but we still have to see in due course how that committee will operate and fulfill its duties.

I know that the committee has been looking into the costs of the program and whether existing resources are available to meet the growing needs of the program. I'm not in a position to say much about the resources that are available for the program, but I would assume that the amount of resources required is dictated in part by the growing need for the services that the program offers.

Unfortunately, it is very difficult to estimate the total need or demand for this kind of program. We know that slightly over a hundred candidates are considered every year. Potential candidates do not directly apply to the program; they are referred to it by a police organization—and will be by other security organizations if Bill C-51 remains as is.

We are told also that in fact very few people want to join the program. That may very well be true, as the committee can appreciate, because participation in the program for a witness is a hugely disruptive choice that a witness can make. However, there is no way to independently verify this assumption. We don't know, really, what the demand is, and given the secrecy that must accompany this program, it's very hard to know whether there's more of a demand than we currently know.

I have suggested in the past that, in existing protection programs, full protection tends to be extended to witnesses only in cases involving the most serious crimes, and not necessarily always in cases involving the most serious threats. This is because the logic behind such programs, given their cost and the need to establish priorities, is based primarily on the desire to facilitate the cooperation of the witness and not on the premise that the state has an obligation to protect all witnesses and that witnesses have a right to be protected.

I am well aware of the fact that section 7 of the present law identifies the factors that must be considered in determining whether a witness should be admitted to the federal program. However, the nature of the risk to the security of the witness is only one of the factors to be considered together with the costs involved, the value of the information or evidence given by the individual, the likelihood of the witness adjusting to the program, and other factors.

I would draw the attention of the committee to the fact that there is actually no publicly available data on how these criteria have been applied in the past. It is therefore quite difficult to determine how these criteria are being applied in practice and whether they actually serve the purpose they were intended to serve.

I understand that the RCMP is improving its own database on all cases considered for admission in the program. I hope this will lead to some independent analysis and further transparency in the way in which current decisions are made concerning candidates for admission into the program.

I think all of the changes proposed in Bill C-51 are going in the right direction, but I am still not sure how the RCMP proposes to measure the impact of these changes and determine whether they will achieve their goals. In 2008 I was advocating for independent research on the efficiency and effectiveness of the witness protection program and in the related areas of witness intimidation, the use of criminal informants, and accomplice testimony. I am not sure this kind of research will take place, but it definitely should.

In 2008 I suggested it was time to address the need for an effective complaint and redress mechanism for witnesses at risk and for protected witnesses who are endangered or whose rights may be abused as a result of poor witness protection practices.

I know that Bill C-42 will establish a new civilian complaint commission, and that amendments contained in that bill and in Bill C-51 will allow the commission access to the information it needs to perform its function. I am not aware of other measures that may have been taken to address that issue. I hope this committee will have a chance to look further into this aspect of the question.

There is another potential issue with Bill C-51 that may become problematic. I am referring to the new wording concerning the protection of information found in clause 12 of the bill, relating to section 11 of the law. Protection of information, as the committee can appreciate, is at the very heart of a witness protection program.

On the one hand, I am very pleased that the proposed amendments will enhance the safety of those who provide protection to program beneficiaries. That change was long overdue.

On the other hand, I am worried that the new section may negatively affect the situation and the rights of the beneficiaries themselves and perhaps render them more vulnerable.

The modified version of section 11 of the law contained in clause 12 of the bill provides only a limited exception for protectees from the prohibition against disclosure. I'm not sure how protectees will always be able to determine on their own whether something they may reveal directly or indirectly could result in “substantial harm”. I do not know either whether this new wording may prevent protectees from seeking legal advice about a formal complaint they may wish to make or some other decision they need to make concerning their own participation in the program.

It seems to me that the exception for protectees, as worded in clause 12 the bill, is narrower than what currently exists in the law. It should probably be formulated more broadly. However, I will admit that this is a complicated issue, and I sincerely wish that the committee will study it very carefully.

I will conclude my remarks, Mr. Chairman, with a reminder of the need for greater transparency in the management of witness protection activities and programs. I and others have argued that there is a fundamental imbalance between the rights of witnesses who can be compelled to testify and the rights of the state to demand that witnesses respond to summons and subpoenas, testify under oath, and tell the truth. The imbalance is particularly troubling when one considers that most of the decisions made about witnesses—the information or evidence they bring forward and whether or not they are compelled to testify—depends on police and prosecutorial discretion. This is why guidelines concerning these practices are important and why the careful monitoring of this somewhat obscure part of the criminal justice process is required.

It's also important to ensure that witnesses have access to legal advice and representation with respect to these decisions and the process that leads to them. I'm very pleased by the decision of the RCMP to offer the services of legal counsel to all candidates being considered for admission into the program. That is clearly a positive development. However, it would be important to know also what access protected witnesses have to legal advice or representation once they have been admitted into the program. For example, could they obtain legal advice without breaching their obligation to protect information if they are making a formal complaint against the RCMP or against its protection program?

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

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Good morning, everyone. This is meeting number 76 of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, Tuesday, March 19, 2013. Today we are going to continue our study of Bill C-51 and its amendments to Canada's witness protection program.

In our first hour, we're pleased to have with us here today Mr. Yvon Dandurand, a criminologist with the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Fraser Valley.

As well, if he is able to be here, we expect to have the president of the Canadian Association of Police Boards, Mr. Alok Mukherjee. He has appeared at this this committee before. We have a bit of winter happening outside as all of you know, but we expect him to be here shortly.

Perhaps we would then open with Mr. Dandurand.

Welcome. This is a rude awakening for you coming from Vancouver, but this is Ottawa. We look forward to your comments. If you'd be willing to take some questions at the end your presentation, that would be appreciated.

[Commissioner Micki Ruth, Member, Policing and Justice Committee, Canadian Association of Police Boards]

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, my name is Micki Ruth. I am appearing today on behalf of the Canadian Association of Police Boards, or CAPB. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the chair and members of the committee for allowing me to speak to you today.

CAPB realizes the important role all of you play, and I am glad to be able to contribute to this discussion.

Let me begin by telling you a little bit about myself. I am a member of the board of directors of CAPB and of its policing and justice committee. I am also the vice-chair of the Halifax Board of Police Commissioners. I'm also a former police officer, albeit that was quite a while ago.

CAPB is a national not-for-profit organization that was founded in 1989, motivated by a desire to find common ground among police governors on matters of mutual concern and matters that have a national implication.

CAPB works collaboratively and proactively to improve police governance in Canada and to bring about change that will enhance public safety for all Canadians. The police boards and commissions, who are our members, are responsible for more than 75% of municipal police in Canada. They manage the police services of their municipalities, hire chiefs of police, set priorities, establish policy, and represent the public interest.

CAPB has been recognized as the foremost national voice of civilian oversight of policing agencies in Canada. I appear before you today to talk about Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act.

CAPB applauds the government for introducing amendments to the witness protection program, and we support the bill in principle. However, we are concerned about some aspects of the bill, especially in the area of funding. I will address the five main aspects of the legislation.

We support the amendment to provide for a provincial or municipal witness protection program to be designated under the federal Witness Protection Program Act.

CAPB appreciates the government's recognition that allowing witnesses access to a secure identity change without having to enter the federal program and having to deal with delays and potential mismanagement has significant advantages.

CAPB also welcomes the intention of streamlining and speeding up the issuance of security identity documents through the RCMP. With this provincial witness protection program designation, it will make the process of acquiring those documents faster and more accessible.

The third area of reform concerning the protection and disclosure of information is also a measure that is badly needed. In fact, in 2007 Dr. Alok Mukherjee, chair of the Toronto Police Services Board, and current president of CAPB, went to Parliament Hill to urge the government to put more money into the witness protection program. At that time he stressed how critical to community safety it is that witnesses come forward in an environment of security and confidentiality. Dr. Mukherjee recommended that legislative changes be made to ensure that court processes encourage and support witnesses who provide evidence in legal proceedings. He appealed for changes to the disclosure rules for criminal trials to help protect the identity of witnesses whose testimony is key to the prosecution's case.

If we want witnesses to come forward and give evidence, anonymity is absolutely critical. Where a judge determines that the identity of the witness has no bearing on the case, and therefore does not prejudice the accused, then the witness should remain anonymous and only their evidence be disclosed. People don't always want to be uprooted from their community and be relocated, but they want anonymity.

The fourth aspect refers to the expanded definition to include referrals from outside agencies with national security mandates, which we also support.

The last part of Bill C-51 covers operational issues, such as changes to voluntary termination, extending the time for emergency protection, etc. While we do not have that specific details of how these would affect the witness protection program, we believe that the intent must be to improve the efficiency of the program so that it is executed properly.

We are happy to see that this important legislation is being modernized and improved to reflect the changes law enforcement has been calling for over the last decade.

Crime statistics may be on the decline, but organized crime, gang-related crimes, and violent crimes are all issues of concern for many citizens and communities in Canada.

We, members of CAPB, have a duty to ensure that our employees, the uniformed police officers, have the tools at hand to enforce laws, help solve crimes, and protect our public. Witness protection is an extremely important tool, but at present it is one that is too costly for many police services and municipalities.

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.

Currently, when a municipality does make use of a provincial witness protection program and the crime is federal in nature or involves drugs, then the RCMP takes over and charges the local police services the full cost, which is an expense that many services cannot afford. According to the RCMP's website, sometimes the cost of protecting witnesses hinders the investigations, especially for small law enforcement agencies that have a tight budget.

Therefore we would recommend that you give consideration to the following principles in your review of Bill C-51.

Since witness protection is critical for front-line policing, the program should be a tool that is well-funded, easy to access, and increases public safety. Second, there should be better oversight, evaluation, and protection of the interests of witnesses. Third, there should be specific reference to the eligibility of street gang witnesses in the program. Last, there should be independent oversight of the program, instead of having the RCMP as the decision-making authority on who is to be admitted under the program, given that the RCMP is also the investigating authority.

I want to emphasize that while we support the intent of Bill C-51, CAPB has a duty to its members to ensure that legislation passed by the government does not result in a downloading of additional costs to the municipal police services that we represent. This is an important element of our work on the economics of policing, a subject with which you are already very familiar.

Therefore we urge you to appreciate our position that unless the issue of adequate funding is addressed, the legislation will not produce the result that is intended.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We'll call this meeting back to order. We are the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. We're continuing our study on Bill C-51, an act to amend Canada's witness protection program. On this panel, we're hearing from Micki Ruth, a member of the Canadian Association of Police Boards. She's appearing before us by video conference from Halifax, Nova Scotia.

We welcome you this morning. Thank you for making yourself available. I need to apologize in advance, to be quite frank, Ms. Ruth. There is a very good chance there could be some votes this morning, in which case we will be disrupted. It may happen and it may not happen, but we always need to be prepared for that. So we invite you to continue with your presentation on this. We look forward to it, but chances are it may not happen. That's just a warning in advance.

Ms. Ruth, go ahead, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much. We're going to have to leave it at that for today.

I want to thank both of you for appearing on this. I think probably you've helped us a bit more than just with Bill C-51. Some of us are new members of Parliament and new to this committee, and our responsibilities in the committee are prisons, parole, police, CSIS, and borders. I think you have both given us a little picture into the life of those who are serving in this capacity and brought forward Bill C-51 very well.

So thank you for doing both of those things for us. We very much appreciate your testimony today and every time you appear before our committee.

Thank you.

We are going to suspend and go to teleconference with Halifax.

[S/Sgt Abraham Townsend]

I was really pleasantly surprised in preparing for this meeting and doing some research in that area.

These are folks who are already well-trained and seasoned police officers, with two weeks of dedicated training in this discipline, twelve months in the field doing this, and then another three weeks, and continual tactical training.

I was really impressed that we've stepped up our game, given the demands and the complexity of the demands that we've faced over the last 10, 15 years, quite frankly, since I've been operational in this regard.

As far as the level of training is concerned that other police forces in Canada have or would engage in, I know we train folks from other police forces in Canada within our program as part of the integration. We have done that; we do that.

Internationally, we compare our training with other nations that have similar legislation, and our training is world class at this point.

If I can take a minute, and I think this is important for the committee to hear, I did talk to several practitioners who are all well informed about Bill C-51. From my perspective as a representative, I asked the natural question: is there anything more that you could have asked for in BillC-51, stuff that's not there? And quite frankly, they were uniformly pleased in their understanding of the legislation, and there was no more that they would have asked for.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Townsend and Mr. Stamatakis, I would like to thank you for being with us today to discuss Bill C-51. We are pleased to have you here.

My first question is for both of you.

In 2007, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security studied the federal Witness Protection Program. In the ensuing report, some questions were left unanswered. For one, it was not determined if the program could accommodate a teenage member of a street gang whose safety might be at risk for cooperating with the authorities.

Perhaps I will begin with you, Mr. Stamatakis. How would you answer that question? Could the program accept someone under the age of 18 who is a member of a street gang? I would also like to know if you have encountered a case where a minor has used the witness protection program—not as a child of someone who has been offered protection, but as a witness in a trial, etc.

[Tom Stamatakis, President, Canadian Police Association]

Good morning, Mr. Chair, and members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear this morning to discuss Bill C-51, which my organization, the Canadian Police Association, strongly endorses.

I believe this is my sixth or seventh appearance before your committee, so I know that most of you are familiar with the Canadian Police Association. I should note just briefly that I have the privilege of representing over 54,000 front-line police personnel from across Canada, including officers and civilians serving in almost every federal, provincial, and municipal police service in the country.

Organized crime is one of the biggest challenges facing front-line police personnel, and I can't possibly emphasize the term organized nearly enough. Groups that engage in serious criminal offences, particularly drug trafficking, will often go to great lengths to conceal their activities, frequently relying on violence and intimidation to keep associates from cooperating with law enforcement.

Law enforcement often has to rely on witnesses who are putting their own safety, as well as the safety of their families, in jeopardy when they come forward with information that is used to prosecute these dangerous offenders, and this legislation will help provide, and perhaps most importantly, modernize the tools we use to protect these informants.

As police officers, one of the issues we regularly have to deal with is the enforcement of legislation that was written 10, 20, and sometimes even 30 or more years ago and has rarely been kept up to date. This can often be a significant challenge to our members, as criminals are rarely as slow to adapt to modern technology as our laws can sometimes be.

The Witness Protection Act is one of these particular laws. While the act itself is only 17 years old, having come into force in 1996, technology has progressed by leaps and bounds during this time. One of the most important aspects of this legislation, particularly for our members, is around the disclosure of information about people participating in the program, as well as those who provide the protection necessary under this act.

When the act was originally brought into force, it probably made sense that the only information that was protected was the change of name and location. However, in today's information age, that simply isn't sufficient, and I appreciate the steps in this bill that broaden the scope of information that will be protected from disclosure.

Further on that point, the specific changes in this legislation that exempt a person from any liability or punishment for stating that they do not provide or assist in providing protection to witnesses will be a direct benefit to the law enforcement community in Canada that is tasked with these particular responsibilities.

I should also note that the parts of this legislation that deal with extending the authority to designated provincial or municipal protection programs and not just the federal program remind me of some of the testimony I recently gave to this committee around the economics of policing and the need for us to adopt and embrace operational efficiencies in order to deliver the best possible community protection at a reasonable cost to the Canadian taxpayer.

Red tape in this case, where provincial requests had to be filed with the RCMP, then processed accordingly before any changes to the identity or location could be finalized, is precisely where the cost to the system increases. I do believe that this legislation will have an impact on streamlining that work. I can only hope we'll see more of that in future bills.

In conclusion, Mr. Chair, members of the committee, Bill C-51 is an example of legislation that will help better coordinate efforts across various levels of law enforcement, provide better protection to the men and women who serve as police personnel in this country, help our members crack down on organized crime and gang activity, and promote at least some efficiencies in a system that is badly in need of reform. On those levels, the Canadian Police Association supports the adoption of the bill.

I would certainly welcome any questions that you might have.

[Staff Sergeant Abraham Townsend, National Executive, Staff Relations Representative Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen.

We thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this morning. I speak on behalf of the 24,000 regular and civilian members of the RCMP who serve across Canada and internationally, providing their perspective and input.

My name is Abe Townsend. I have 32 years of service. I'm one of two national executives on the staff relations program and have been an elected representative since 2004.

The staff relations program is the non-union labour relations program for all 24,000 members of the RCMP. The program is authorized by law to represent them on all issues affecting the welfare and/or dignity of the members.

During my service, I've lived in four different provinces and two territories. My duties have included uniformed general duty policing, federal policing, and major crime investigation.

On behalf of those I represent, I wish to thank the government for advancing Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act, which will in turn advance the public safety interests of all Canadians. Bill C-51, when it passes into law, will serve to protect not only police officers, but those people the police rely on to carry out their duty to protect.

Policing continues to become more complex. The disclosure protections within this legislation will serve to address a portion of the complexity and some of the risk facing those who serve to protect. I have consulted with the RCMP members whose substantive duties are within the witness protection program. They are encouraged and look forward to Bill C-51 becoming law, as it will enhance their ability to perform their duties on behalf of all Canadians.

Again, thank you. I look forward to replying to any questions the committee may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Good morning, everyone. This is meeting number 75 of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, Thursday, March 7, 2013. Today we are continuing our study of Bill C-51, an act to amend Canada's witness protection program.

On our first panel we have, from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police's staff relations representative program, Staff Sergeant Abraham Townsend of the national executive.

Welcome back. It's good to have you again before the committee.

We also have Tom Stamatakis, president of the Canadian Police Association. He is appearing by video conference this morning from Vancouver, British Columbia.

Thank you for getting up bright and early, sir, and appearing before the committee again.

I will first invite our witnesses to make brief opening statements before we proceed to questions by members of Parliament. We will begin with the RCMP.

Mr. Townsend, please.

[Trevor Bhupsingh]

Thank you for the opportunity. I would just say that we think Bill C-51 is going to make the program more effective and secure, and in that way we're very supportive of the bill itself.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I mean if some of the other departments now are going to fall under Bill C-51—he mentioned Border Services—is that only for the securing of documents, or is that—

[A/Commr Todd G. Shean]

No. If the documentation is prepared properly, it can go very quickly.

In comparison, before Bill C-51, individuals had to be admitted to the federal program and we dealt with a number of different police forces. In the majority of cases, what slows down the process to obtain the documents is the fact that the required documentation is not prepared properly. Under Bill C-51, we will deal with one designated person who will have been trained. If the documents are prepared properly, individuals will not have to be admitted to the federal program. That means the documents can be obtained more quickly.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Excellent. I will push my research a little further. I was honestly wondering how it could be that some young street gang members would be less eligible to the program. It is good to know that this can be an excellent way to help young people break the vicious circle of crime when they want to do so, especially the younger ones.

In this regard, I believe the minister mentioned that the witness protection program was one of the indispensable tools in fighting crime, no matter where we are in the country. This is one of the very rare occasions where we agree completely. I find that extremely interesting.

I looked at the content of Bill C-51 and I have a few questions related to speeding up the process for obtaining new identification. How does it work? This is a new topic for me and I am not familiar with the process. Does it take a while?

[Trevor Bhupsingh]

I'm not sure Bill C-51 will protect us against the particular cases you mentioned, but I think the efficiencies are primarily driven in the bill around what Assistant Commissioner Shean has said. The efficiencies lie in the integration of the provincial programs into the federal program.

Certainly we're hopeful that with Bill C-51 the individuals will be able to have a secure identity change in a much more efficient and quicker process. Then again, there's an internal process that's followed by the RCMP on every case. The layers of complexity that we talked about this morning all play into that.

It's hard to say specifically how generally the efficiencies will drive themselves; however, there are a number of elements that are important. As I said, the integration of the provincial programs and then the extending of the emergency protection measures as well will I think allow more flexibility for the RCMP. The duration in which they can establish emergency measures for protectees is being moved from 90 days to 180 days. Along those lines, there will be efficiencies driven that should hopefully address some of the concerns in the specific cases you've raised.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Bhupsingh, what are your impressions about this? It is known that sometimes, organized crime can become organized quickly. Sometimes, it will take charge of witnesses, change their identity and send them as far away as possible so that they cannot testify.

How will Bill C-51 protect us from such eventualities?

[Trevor Bhupsingh]

Yes. When we went out it was for fairly extensive discussions, and the department went out, obviously, with our colleagues at the RCMP. We did that over a period of time. The genesis of Bill C-51 is the product of the better part of a number of years of going out and consulting with various stakeholders, taking seriously the review that was done by this committee in 2008, and taking on board a lot of the recommendations that came out of the Air India inquiry.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you.

When it comes to acceptance of the new program under Bill C-51—and this question would be to the officials—I'm given to believe that the Minister of Justice for Saskatchewan and the Minister of Justice for British Columbia have made positive statements. I understand Gordon Wyant, the justice minister, said they'll help strengthen the system by providing greater protection for witnesses. This is the new regime. Shirley Bond, the Minister of Justice for British Columbia, says she's looking forward to working with us because she thinks it's a positive step in the right direction. Tom Stamatakis, president of the Canadian Police Association, says the association strongly believes that this proposed legislation will enhance safety and security for front-line officers and personnel engaged in protection duties. Chief Blair of Toronto said some positive things.

Would you say, sir, that this is as a result of the two rounds of consultations you've made?

[A/Commr Todd G. Shean]

What we did was look at what had happened over the years and we established an average number of people who want to participate in the program. We are aware of the amendments in Bill C-51. We have therefore made improvements to the program. We have added psychologists. We have separated admission decisions from investigations. We are satisfied with our resources; they suffice for the program as it exists today. We are confident that we will be able to manage this program effectively within our budgets.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

So even with Bill C-51, it will be possible to do so. A lack of funding for witness protection won't force you to pay less attention to some groups that would perhaps be seen as less important or something.

[A/Commr Todd G. Shean]

I am confident that we have the necessary resources to conduct an effective witness protection program, even with what Bill C-51 adds.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Okay.

I was also interested in the discussions around costs. The approximate annual costs of the program for four people were provided. It was said that the protection is for life.

Furthermore, since it is the RCMP that pays for witness protection federally, I want to be sure of one thing. If I am not mistaken, Bill C-51 does not provide more money for witness protection. You are therefore responsible, whether it was intended or not, for the costs directly related to witness protection. The bill expands eligibility criteria for the program. How will that work? Your budget will be a bit reduced. Will you be able to cover the costs entailed by Bill C-51? I would like to know.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you all for being here to enlighten us on Bill C-51. We are very glad to have you.

I have found the discussions on witness protection extremely interesting. My conservative colleague Mr. Hawn commented on witness protection within penitentiaries. That reminds me of something. In my riding, the Leclerc Institution is currently being closed. It had a specialized wing for witness protection. I hope the government will take that into account and replace it elsewhere. Witnesses were protected by being isolated from the rest of the prison population. I wanted to clarify things.

One comment surprised me. The City of Montreal has its own witness protection program. How does that work? Some provinces have witness protection programs, but does the City of Montreal really have its own witness protection program? I don't know if you have a bit more information or if you know how it works. Do the three levels of government in Quebec have a witness protection program?

[Trevor Bhupsingh]

There were three important recommendations coming out of Air India, and obviously the first one was the independence. Certainly I think the Air India commission of inquiry recommended an independent body to manage terrorist protectees. We just felt that the program was best managed with the RCMP.

But picking up on the theme of independence, as was mentioned by the assistant commissioner, the process of investigations and the program itself in terms of management have been clearly separated.

There was also a recommendation coming out of Air India that was equally important, which was that terrorist protectees should be included in the witness protection program. There wasn't, under an existing act, an ability to do that, so one of the things proposed in Bill C-51 is to expand the mandate of those organizations that can make recommendations and referrals to the RCMP. Those will now include organizations with a national security, national defence, and public safety mandate. That's something else that's been picked up on.

Then I think there were some recommendations coming out of the Air India inquiry around culturally sensitive training. I know the RCMP has picked up on that training and has been doing that for many years.

[Trevor Bhupsingh]

We went out in two rounds of consultations. After the SECU report of 2008, we went out to the provinces. We went to all provinces regardless of whether or not they had a provincial program in place, and we spoke to them about the recommendations made by the committee.

Also, for those who had programs, we talked a lot about how we might be able to integrate the programs more efficiently to address some of the concerns, I guess, that were happening with respect to securing federal documents. With the proposal in Bill C-51 around the designated process for provincial programs, we're hoping to address that.

To answer your question, we also visited law enforcement agencies through the process and got their comments and feedback in terms of improving the federal program itself.

We did a second round coming out of Air India just after 2010, and again we went out to the provinces, and we also engaged law enforcement agencies.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister 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.

[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 Act

[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.

[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.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to share my views and add Scarborough's voice on the bill. However, more important, I am pleased to see that the government is finally taking action on strengthening a program that is so vital to the safety of our communities.

The NDP, front-line community workers and Canadians have been calling upon the government to improve our witness protection program to ensure the safety of all Canadians. Since 2007, the NDP has repeatedly pushed for the expansion of the eligibility criteria, better coordination of federal and provincial programs and better overall and adequate funding of the program. While it is concerning that a government that consistently purports to stand up for the safety of our communities has refused to commit any new funding for this program, the changes included in Bill C-51 have been long awaited and are greatly needed.

Bill C-51 proposes a better process to support provincial witness protection programs and expands the program to other agencies with national security responsibilities. In the bill, the eligibility criteria would expand to requests from the RCMP to include street gang members. In addition, federal departments and agencies with a mandate related to national security, national defence or public safety would also be able to refer witnesses to the program. The bill would extend the period for emergency protection and clear up some of the technical problems that were occurring in the coordination with provincial programs.

Provinces such as Ontario have been pushing for a national revamp of the witness protection program, including more recognition of their existing programs. The bill would provide for the designation of a provincial or municipal witness protection program so that certain provisions of the act can actually apply. It would also authorize the Commissioner of the RCMP to coordinate, at the request of an official of the designated provincial or municipal program, the activities of federal departments, agencies and services in order to facilitate a change of identity for a person admitted into the designated program. Overall, this is a positive step.

I represent a riding where community safety is top of mind and, sadly, a recurring concern for many in the community. Scarborough—Rouge River is a diverse, dynamic, successful area to live. However, areas in Scarborough have been tragically affected by street gang violence. The tragedy that happened on Danzig Street in Scarborough this past summer is something that is not far from my mind or the minds of many Scarborough residents. The death of two young people and 23 wounded while enjoying a neighbourhood barbecue is something that should never have happened or be repeated. We have seen ongoing efforts by courageous and committed Danzig residents, Scarborough residents and organizations, as well as city officials, to help the community recover and avoid any future tragedies such as this.

The NDP is also committed to building safer communities and one way is through an improved witness protection program that keeps our streets safe by giving police additional tools to fight street gangs by allowing for more members of the community to feel safe in coming forward as witnesses. I am proud that for years the NDP has been pushing the government to action to strengthen this program by expanding the eligibility criteria and providing adequate funding to support such a vital piece of our justice system, as well as better coordination of the federal and provincial programs.

New Democrats have also been pushing for crime prevention strategies and support for programs that seek to engage and empower our youth. It is amazing to see a Toronto resident donate his own money for resident development projects such as after-school projects and programs. In turn, however, we should have federal funding and leadership to support our youth, and prevention programs that discourage youth from getting involved in crime.

While late to respond to these growing issues, New Democrats are pleased to see the government listening to our requests to expand the witness protection program. In the year ending in March 2012, the federal witness protection program admitted only 30 people out of a total of 108 considered, with a cost of just over $9 million. The expansion of the program is not only important to New Democrats, but the RCMP, the provinces and people on the ground working to combat street gangs all agree. An extremely important addition to this is allowing those seeking to leave gangs access to the program. These improvements would help to improve co-operation with local police and the RCMP in the fight against gang violence and to make our communities safer.

We know there are challenges with our current witness protection program, some of which are addressed in the bill. Since the Witness Protection Program Act passed in 1996, both the Liberal and Conservative governments have done little to respond to the criticisms of the system. For example, the inability to protect witnesses was an obstacle to the prosecution in the Air India bombing case. As we know, witness Tara Singh Hayer was assassinated in 1998, making his affidavit inadmissible as evidence in the court. Two other witnesses refused to appear before the Air India inquiry in 2007, citing fear for their safety and feigning memory loss.

Moreover it is sad and certainly frustrating from the point of view of the Toronto police that they experience challenges and resistance from witnesses to come forward when investigating crimes, such as the shooting on Danzig Street and the shootings that have taken the lives of many members of my community. The government needs to provide local departments with the support they need and the support that is necessary to make sure that witnesses come forward. While we would all like to believe that the government is committed to improving this important program, without the necessary funding to carry out the changes, we fear that the improvements that are needed for our communities may not actually happen.

We are concerned that the Conservatives seem to be assuming that the RCMP and the local police departments would work within their existing budgets, which would hinder the improvement of the program. There is already a high cost to the local police departments. While there are provincial programs, if the crime is federal in nature or involves drugs, the RCMP takes the case and charges the local police department the full cost, which many local or small police departments just cannot afford. The RCMP's own website states, “There are instances when the costs of witness protection may impede investigations, particularly for smaller law enforcement agencies”.

If the Conservatives truly want to improve the witness protection program, they must commit the funding to ensure this happens. The NDP will continue to push the federal government to work with the RCMP and the provinces to dedicate funding to the witness protection program and ensure that local departments can continue the important work that they do.

It is also disappointing that the bill does not include more of the recommendations that were included in the Major report from the Air India inquiry, including provisions for an independent agency to operate the program or to have oversight of the program. It was recommended that an independent agency operate the program. This would allow for a more transparent and accountable process for admissions into the program. This is something that the government also identified as a serious problem, but as we see in Bill C-51 it has done nothing to address it. Transparency seems to be a persistent issue for the current government, but it is still curious why it will not commit to making the process more transparent.

Once again, the changes in Bill C-51 are an important step forward for the community and for the safety of all Canadians. Front-line workers in my community and across the country have long awaited these improvements. Moreover, we see the government listening to the NDP who have always been committed to building safer communities through an improved witness protection program.

Conversations with the local police department in Toronto and with other front-line workers who I talk to on a regular basis have very clearly indicated to me, as well as to my staff, that if the witness protection program were improved, we would see many more people in our communities willing to be witnesses. If our witnesses are taken care of, then they will not be victimized. We want to make sure that those members of our community who are bravely coming forward to be witnesses are not being victimized and that their families are not being victimized.

I hope to see more bills such as this in the future that demonstrate that the government is starting to listen to New Democrats and Canadians, and that we can actually work co-operatively and support the system we have in our Parliament.

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River.

Today, I am very pleased to be debating a bill to amend the Witness Protection Program Act. It will be somewhat of a change to debate a public safety bill that, unlike what the government has brought in since the beginning of this Parliament, will not increase sentences. It is good to introduce other types of legislation.

Today, we are debating a bill that will give our public safety officers other tools to fight crime. We have to protect people, but we also have to protect repentant former criminals who want to leave crime behind and who, because of their knowledge of the criminal world, give our peace officers information needed to conduct investigations and, ultimately, prosecute criminals.

Make no mistake: if we do not enhance the witness protection program, we will unfortunately reduce our chances of enlisting important witnesses, which unfortunately has happened in the past.

Some people wonder why they should testify if their life is in danger and they are not offered any protection. That is a good question. That is why, in November 2012, my colleague from Trinity—Spadina rose in this House to demand more funding for the federal witness protection program.

For a few years now, the NDP has been calling on the government to expand the eligibility criteria for witnesses in protection programs to guarantee safety for all Canadians who bear witness and who are potentially in danger. We are also calling for better coordination between the federal and provincial programs, but most importantly for increased overall funding for the witness protection program.

In May 2010, the RCMP gave the Minister of Public Safety a report calling for the witness protection program to be enhanced. The government unfortunately waited quite a while before taking action. It is unfortunate that the government did not consider the budgetary implications of expanding the witness protection program.

I think it was the RCMP that best explained that sometimes the costs of witness protection may impede investigations, most specifically in the case of small law enforcement agencies. The government should acknowledge these budgetary implications.

In the case of drug-related crimes, for example, the RCMP takes over the case and charges the local police force for the whole thing. The government needs to understand that offloading these problems onto the provinces only impedes their ability to deliver programs such as the witness protection program.

This is not the way to go about protecting our communities or strengthening ties among federal agencies and provincial and municipal police forces.

True to form, the government decided to take action as soon as the issue started blowing up, instead of acting pre-emptively, before any problems came up.

The federal witness protection program has been the subject of criticism for several years as a result of its strict eligibility criteria, poor coordination with federal programs and the small number of witnesses who are accepted to the program.

I would remind members that in 2012, only 30 out of 108 applications that were examined were accepted. So we have to wonder: did the 78 applications that were rejected have a negative impact on the related legal cases? That would be an interesting question to look at. If these witnesses had been protected, would we have had more convictions?

Since the Witness Protection Program Act was passed in 1996, the Liberal and Conservative governments have done very little to address criticisms of the system. The basic issues of admissibility, coordination and funding have never been addressed.

As a number of my colleagues said earlier, we will support this bill. However, we are extremely disappointed that the government has decided not to provide new funding for the program.

Bill C-51 proposes a better process for supporting provincial witness protection programs. The bill would also make the program available to other organizations with national security roles, such as CSIS and the defence department.

We should remember that, during the Air India investigation, attempts were made against the lives of some witnesses. The law did not permit groups of witnesses for national security cases to be admitted to the program. One witness, Tara Singh Hayer, was assassinated in 1998, and the sworn statement he had given the RCMP a few years earlier was ruled inadmissible. Two other witnesses subsequently refused to appear at the Air India inquiry in 2007 because, unfortunately, they feared for their safety.

At the time, Justice Major had already admitted that he was unable to provide the protection needed by these witnesses. This must never happen again. We must be able to guarantee the safety of our witnesses. Otherwise, our sources of information will dry up, and not enough witnesses will have the courage to testify in court. In such cases, it often takes courage to testify at a criminal trial relating to national security. Therefore, we have to provide them with adequate protection.

This bill will expand eligibility criteria for the protection program to include members of street gangs, which are increasingly prevalent in our large cities. Including them in the witness protection program will give our police another tool to eliminate this scourge.

Federal departments and agencies responsible for national security, national defence or public safety will also be able to refer witnesses to the program, which could help avoid problems such as the ones encountered during the Air India inquiry.

Another important point was raised by the RCMP during the Air India inquiry, and Justice O'Connor made a related recommendation in his report. The bill does not include any provisions that would allow an independent body to oversee the program as per the recommendations made in the Air India report.

A transparent program eligibility process that requires more accountability is another important aspect to highlight and implement. Even the governments recognize that this is a serious problem, although they have not tackled it yet.

An independent body would help prevent any conflict of interest within the RCMP, while supporting a transparent process. There could be a conflict of interest within the RCMP given that it would continue to assume responsibility for the program, which could place it in a conflict of interest situation in the future, since it would be both the investigating body and the one to decide who benefits from protection.

In late 2009 and early 2010, the federal government consulted the provinces and territories regarding the witness protection program. Some of the provinces expressed their concerns at that time. Many provinces have their own witness protection programs. However, for budgetary reasons, they can provide only short-term protection.

As I mentioned, this is a huge expense for the provinces. As we so often hear these days, we have to do more with less. Furthermore, for legal reasons, the provinces need the RCMP in order to obtain new identification documents for the people being protected. Thus, there is a lack of coordination and we really hope to be able to resolve this situation when this bill is examined at committee.

So, one important aspect that this bill will improve is coordination with provincial witness protection programs.

In closing, we are pleased that the government has finally taken a serious look at this problem and that it is responding not only to the RCMP's calls, but also the NDP's calls regarding this matter. We have been calling for these changes since 2007. This bill is not perfect, but it is very good and we will support it so it can be sent to committee for a thorough examination.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise to speak to this bill today. I have found the debate and all the preparatory work that we have done in my office in advance of me speaking today very interesting.

Many of the impressions we have about witness protection come from south of the border. We have watched American television and American crime shows for so long that we are very familiar with the concept of witness protection. Most Canadians probably think the system in Canada is as robust, well-developed and tightly coordinated as it appears to be in the United States through those representations we have seen on television.

I was very curious to discover that the program was not that old. I thought I would do a little rundown of the history of the program in Canada, just to give some background to the debate.

At the federal level, the witness protection program only began in 1984 as a series of internal RCMP guidelines and policies. It was designed at a time when the fight against drug trafficking had become a major priority. Its intent was to encourage the co-operation of witnesses who could provide information on organized crime. We can see that the witness protection program is tightly associated with the rise or further expansion of organized crime, specifically in relation to the drug trade.

There were protective measures for those who co-operated with law enforcement in the provinces. Some provinces and municipalities, including British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec already had their own witness protection programs that provided a variety of protection measures, such as relocation for the duration of a trial, for example. However, admission to the federal witness protection program, which is run by the RCMP today, was, and still is, an extreme measure only used in the most severe cases.

The first legislative basis for the witness protection program came with the passing of Bill C-13, Witness Protection Program Act in 1996. The bill sought to strengthen the program by including a clear definition of admission criteria for witnesses and a more public and accountable structure for the management of the program. It provided clearer lines of authority than existed in the program prior to the legislation, which, as I mentioned, was essentially a policy, making the witness protection program the clear responsibility of the RCMP commissioner.

According to 2008 data, there were approximately 1,000 protectees in witness protection program; 700 managed by the RCMP and 300 by other law enforcement agencies. About 30% of these protectees had not themselves acted as witnesses, interestingly, but were in the program because of their relationship to a witness.

Under the Witness Protection Program Act, the commissioner is required to conduct an annual report, outlining statistics about the program, without disclosing details that could compromise its integrity or the identity of protected witnesses.

The 2011-12 annual report showed that of 108 individuals considered for admission to the witness protection program during that period, 30 were accepted, which surprises me. I thought the rate of acceptance would be higher. Twenty-six of the thirty came from RCMP investigations, while four were admitted on behalf of other Canadian law enforcement agencies. The total cost of the program, including RCMP and public servant compensation, totalled $9.1 million.

Under the current Witness Protection Program Act, the RCMP is responsible for making all decisions related to admission and all potential protectees must be recommended by either a law enforcement agency, namely the RCMP, or a provincial or municipal force.

Individuals are admitted to the program based on a number of considerations outlined in the legislation such as: the nature of the risk to the security of the witness; the likelihood of the witness being able to adjust to the program; the cost of maintaining the witness in the program; and whether alternative methods of protecting the witness are available. Once it has been determined that the witness protection program is the best option, a protection agreement is be signed between the RCMP and the protectee, outlining the obligations of both parties. Admission to the program involves a total identity change and relocation. Therefore, when individuals are admitted to the program, it is assumed that they will remain lifelong protectees.

However, protection can be terminated by the RCMP if the conditions of the protection agreement are not met, such as, for example, if the protectee commits a crime, associates with gang members or uses drugs. Protectees can also choose to terminate their protection voluntarily. In either case, their families continue to be protected. It cannot be stressed enough that admission to the witness protection program is the last resort.

There have been some controversies in recent years surrounding the program. In 2008 the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security conducted a review of the federal witness protection program. A few years later, an entire chapter of the Air India inquiry conducted by Commissioner John Major focused on the need for adapting the witness protection program to terrorism cases. Essentially, this bill would update a system that began before the advent of terrorism or before terrorism became an issue in our country and on our continent. This is why it is important that we update the program to take account of these new realities.

Under Bill C-51, recommendations for admission to the program could also be made by federal departments, agencies or services. Bill C-51 would make it possible for federal agencies or services other than the RCMP that might be involved in national security, national defence or public safety to make recommendations for admitting individuals to the program. However, under Bill C-51, the power to determine whether a witness should be admitted to the program and the type of protection to be provided would remain with the RCMP commissioner. This very important change would address the urgent need for the protection of witnesses involved in the investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences.

The need for organizations such as CSIS to be able to offer protection to witnesses was made abundantly clear during the investigation into the 1985 Air India bombing, as outlined in Commissioner Major's 2010 report. The report highlighted the issues surrounding the reluctance of witnesses in the Air India inquiry to co-operate with CSIS investigators who, under the Witness Protection Program Act, could not offer them adequate protection. This bill obviously comes from a recommendation from that inquiry, which is significant in the history of our country and has spurred many changes to public security legislation.

The other interesting aspect of this bill is that it would provide for better coordination with police forces other than the RCMP. This seems to be a recurring theme in the area of public safety, namely the idea that it is becoming more and more important in this complex world in which we live and in this complex reality, that police forces across the spectrum work closely with each other. That has not always been the case, but there is a recognition today that more and more this is part of the need to create a seamless web of national and public security in Canada.

Clause 11 of Bill C-51 states that the Governor-in-Council may, by regulation, add to the schedule of the bill a provincial or municipal program that facilitates the protection of witnesses. Once it is listed in the schedule, this program will become a designated program. By becoming a designated program, it means the federal government can better coordinate the activities of federal departments and agencies whose co-operation is required to provide the protectee, for example, with the proper papers, a new identity and so on. This is a very important part of updating our witness protection regime in Canada and making it much more efficient and effective.

Bill C-51, interestingly, would also extend the period of time during which the commissioner might grant emergency protection to a witness who had not been admitted to the witness protection program. Therefore, there are cases where it is obviously important to provide some kind of interim protection to a witness and by virtue of the bill, the commissioner will be able to offer longer interim protection. Under the current provisions of the Witness Protection Program Act, emergency protection may be granted for no more than 90 days, but Bill C-51 would allow for an extension of that time period by another 90 days, bringing the total time of interim coverage to 180 days.

This is a good bill but there are some issues in it that have not been properly addressed and I would like to outline a couple of those.

Both the Air India inquiry and the 2008 House of Commons committee report on the subject of witness protection recommended that decisions relating to the admission of witnesses to the program and the resolution of disputes arising between protectees and the RCMP be handled by an independent body. In other words, the objective was to provide a third-party view to resolve any disputes between these two parties. In the Air India inquiry, this was envisioned to be in the form of a new position, a national security witness protection coordinator, whose mandate would include assessing the risks to potential protectees, who would work with relevant partners to provide the best form of protection based on the situation and to resolve disputes between the protectee and the program, as I mentioned earlier.

The 2008 committee report recommended that this body be an independent office within the Department of Justice, consisting of a multidisciplinary team that could include police officers, crown attorneys and criminologists. In other words, as in many areas of public policy or many areas of life today, we are moving toward a more holistic approach to issues, which allows us to deal with the many sides of a particular situation using many different kinds of specialists. This office within the Department of Justice, as I mentioned, would have a multidisciplinary team.

Another of the recommendations in the 2008 House of Commons committee report was that potential candidates for admission to the witness protection plan be offered the aid of legal counsel during the negotiation of the admission and the signing of the protection contract. This recommendation arose from testimony about the powerlessness of many prospective protectees when it comes to negotiating their protection agreement. Protection agreements have a huge impact on the lives of protectees or their families and, at present, are negotiated between the RCMP, which has years of experience in such negotiations, and protectees who are unfamiliar with the process and may not understand the implications and scope of the document they are signing. The House of Commons committee therefore felt that the presence of a lawyer would help ensure that negotiations are more fair and equitable.

These are two reasonable recommendations that fit within the widely accepted view that people need support when they are dealing with such complicated issues. One can just imagine the stress that someone contemplating going into the witness protection program would feel. He or she may not be thinking clearly about the issue, may not be familiar with that side of police work because of their always being on the other side of the police-criminal divide. It would seem to me that having the person negotiate without support would leave him or her somewhat helpless, and that is not the Canadian way. We believe in counter-balancing situations so that things are not entirely one-sided. In that perspective, this recommendation makes a fair amount of sense.

Like the NDP we will be supporting the bill. It is really a housekeeping matter in some ways and it would help build another defence against the threat of terrorism. The witness protection program in its current form has provided an effective tool to fight organized crime but it has not been updated to take into consideration cases involving terrorist threats. There is other legislation before the House today, Bill S-7, that is also meant to update our defences against terrorism. This bill connects very well and very logically with that other initiative and with the general vigilance that we are exhibiting in our society to make sure that our communities are safe and secure.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

Currently, subsection 6(2) reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying that I will be sharing my time with the member for Sherbrooke. I am looking forward to his remarks. He has been asking very pointed questions so far, so I am very interested in what he has to say.

Mr. Speaker, you will know this very well, because I know that you were involved in some of the activities that were happening in 2007 relative to the witness protection program.

Since 2007, people from the NDP and perhaps even the Liberals have been calling for the government to expand the eligibility for the witness protection programs, to ensure the safety of all Canadians who are in potential danger because they have taken up their duties as responsible citizens. They have stood up and put themselves in jeopardy at times, and we have what I would call a valuable program to help protect them.

However, we have specifically called for better coordination of federal and provincial programs and better overall funding for the program. That is an area members will hear more about further on in my remarks.

That call that went out in 2007 for coordination and an improvement in coordination was echoed in 2009 and again in 2012.

Notwithstanding the fact that the NDP supports the government's attempt with Bill C-51 to improve the witness protection program, we remain concerned that the Conservative government has not committed any new dollars to the system to support an increase in use.

The world has changed very much in the last 10 years—for example, the situation around street gangs and the young people who get caught up in them. Getting them back out of that very concerning behaviour oftentimes only comes about when they are put before the justice system and we have the opportunity to use their evidence in court. However, they are reluctant unless they have the protection of our government.

We are also concerned that the RCMP and local police departments are quite unreasonably being asked to work within their existing budgets. Clearly, that is unrealistic. It should be obvious that it would clearly impede any substantial increase in participation in the program. I believed that part of the purpose was to open the doors wider to the program. However, if it is not funded how can that be accomplished?

We are satisfied with Bill C-51 overall and that it would extend the period of emergency protection and clear up some of the technical problems that have been brought before both the Liberal government before this and the current government. However, we believe that for it to be effective, Bill C-51 should include provisions for an independent agency to operate the program. That was recommended in the report that came out of the Air India inquiry. We are quite surprised that it was not included in Bill C-51. As a result, the RCMP would continue to be responsible for the program, and I will leave this point with the House: that would put the RCMP in a conflict of interest by being the agency both investigating the case and then deciding who would get protection.

Even though I have raised some of Bill C-51's shortcomings and the fact that the Conservatives were late to respond, in fairness to them, they have not been the only ones who have been late. I would go as far as to say that the previous government was even negligent in this.

The New Democrats are pleased that the government has finally listened to our proposals. It has been said that within the committee there was a collaborative effort to try to get to the right place on this. However, I cannot stress enough that, if the Conservative government truly wants to improve the witness protection program, it must also commit the necessary funding. It is required to ensure that those improvements have a chance of working, especially in that new area relative to street gangs. As a society, we cannot put ourselves in the position of telling young people that we want to take them out of the gangs and use their evidence in court but that we would leave them high and dry afterwards, because we know that some of those gangs can be particularly vicious in how they respond to anyone who stands up and tries to do the right thing.

All members of the House on both sides are concerned with making our communities as safe as possible. I believe the witness protection program in particular is one of the more important tools in fighting street gangs. I have talked a bit on that already.

I would remind government members that the federal witness protection program has long been criticized because of its very narrow eligibility criteria. Again, the Speaker and others have raised these concerns previously. There have been continuing complaints of poor coordination with provincial programs and of the low number of witnesses who actually get access to the program.

In 2012, only 30 out of 108 applications considered were actually accepted. I would suggest that very much undermines the program's value. We had 78 witnesses who put themselves at risk but did not get the follow-up protection that was believed to be their right and for which it was worthy of applying. To my mind, that is very concerning.

Changes to the witness protection program have been called for by the NDP since its very inception in 1996. There were glaring omissions in it. Majority Liberal governments and subsequently this government to date have done little. However, I must add the proviso that with Bill C-51, the Conservatives have made some fairly reasonable moves, but there have been few bills over that long period of time that actually got introduced into this House. One was way back in 1999, which was Bill C-223, regarding witness protection during domestic violence cases. I would add, because it is quite often said in this place that the NDP does not support the government's crime bills, that back in 1999 we supported that bill to protect people in domestic violence cases.

The overarching issues of eligibility, coordination and funding still have not been significantly addressed. The NDP is on record for repeatedly asking the government to address these three key issues, and the previous speaker spoke to that to some degree. The criteria for eligibility must be expanded even further. The co-operation that has been criticized between the provinces and the federal government has to be addressed. Of course, the underpinning of the whole process, like every other government program, is based on funding, and if that funding does not increase it is not going to be effective.

In 2012, the member for Trinity—Spadina called for more support for the federal witness protection program. That member pointed to the difficulty Toronto police were having in trying to convince witnesses of the summer's mass shooting at a block party in Danzig Street, which we all heard about, to come forward.

I would reiterate that some aspects of the bill we do support, and because of those aspects, we support the bill overall. It is not as comprehensive and does not go as far as we would like, but it is a reasonable effort, and I acknowledge that.

We are pleased that the bill modestly—and I stress the word “modestly”—expands the eligibility, which was at the direct request of the RCMP. I am quite satisfied that when the government gets advice from organizations like the RCMP, it gives credence to it.

Going back one more time to street gangs, it is good that street gangs were included in the bill. It is a new group of people giving assistance to us. We do not think of street gangs as giving assistance, but within them are some young people who have made mistakes. They have recognized those mistakes, have stood up and have tried to make amends in their own way, and we do need to support that.

Federal departments and agencies with a mandate relating to national security, national defence or public safety would now be able to refer witnesses to the program. I am curious about the words “refer witnesses to the program”. I would like to see stronger words such as “recommend them to the program”. Hopefully we are opening the door for sustained use of the program, which will be of value in that particular area of national security.

I mentioned earlier the emergency protection and the clear-up of some technical problems of coordinating with the provinces.

For emergency protection, we are talking about situations where we are saying people must give evidence in support of a case that is going to help the courts deal with very negative situations, situations of violence. Emergency coverage for those people is really essential.

I see my time has run out, so I will wrap up. I have much more to say, but this time I will leave it to the next speaker.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Sherbrooke for his important observation.

We try to be good managers. Every member of the House strives to manage public funds as efficiently and effectively as possible. That is the parliamentary secretary and the Minister of Public Safety's overriding duty. I do hope they fulfilled this duty when they drafted Bill C-51. If they neglected to undertake a feasibility study and a financial analysis of the measures included in their bill, I do believe members on this side of the House will be quite disappointed, more so if it turns out they have not yet given any thought to the matter. I hope they have at least begun the process. I do believe I speak for all my colleagues on this issue.

I sincerely hope that new money will be earmarked for this in the next budget. Even if demand stays the same year after year, the cost of the witness protection program is sure to increase.

We need to be good managers. The Conservatives remind us daily that they reign supreme in that regard. I can only hope that they will walk the walk and increase the program's funding in the next budget.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we all need to understand very clearly that Bill C-51, the witness protection program and its enhancement via the bill, will have an impact in our communities.

The member referred to a tool belt. Yes, our police services across Canada have all sorts of tools they can use, and this is just but one of those tools, in co-operation with crown attorneys and others, they will be able to have access to.

I do believe that it is fair to assume that there will be an increase in demand for the program. Would the member not agree that it is a safe assumption to make and that there needs to be co-operation among the different levels of government on how they will best be able to meet that particular demand for resources, because I hope that we can avoid some duplication that way?

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for her question.

I did in fact mention it briefly at the beginning of my speech. I gave an example from 2012 about the percentage of cases considered and accepted. That goes with the funding here, however.

I do not want anyone to be alarmist and say that there will be ballooning or anything like that. It is important to mention that. All we are asking is that this bill be supported by adequate funding.

The government has probably done fairly extensive research to find out how much it could cost. I know that my colleague has heard various witnesses testifying before the committee. We just have to ensure that we have the resources and the money to pay for changes brought about by Bill C-51, which is seemingly going to work very well. Nevertheless, the resources must be there.

During the committee study now under way, we have seen that police forces are already struggling. We must not give them more to cope with. We must not place an additional financial burden on the provinces and municipalities. The costs must be borne here.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-51.

For years, the federal witness protection program was strongly criticized, in part because eligibility criteria were too strict, which prevented many witnesses from benefiting from it. The program was also poorly coordinated with other federal initiatives.

Even though this system was implemented under the Liberals in 1996, the Conservatives also did not try to address the criticisms by improving it. Since then, the system has not been working well. In 2012, only 30 of the 108 applications reviewed were accepted.

It must be recognized that several attempts were made to reform the system and to correct the flaws of the Witness Protection Program Act. A private member's bill dealing more specifically with family violence was debated in 1999 and supported by the NDP. The Liberal government of the day wanted at all cost to prevent that bill from becoming law. Moreover, fundamental issues relating to program eligibility were not examined, nor issues relating to coordination and funding.

It is often difficult for police forces to find witnesses to testify, because these people are not adequately protected. That was the case with the killings at a block party on Danzig Street, in Toronto, where the police department had a very hard time convincing witnesses to come forward.

That is why, in November 2012, the NDP member for Trinity—Spadina asked for more federal support to ensure that the program can meet its ambitious goals.

In the case of the Air India bombing, even the judge admitted that he was unable to provide the necessary protection to witnesses. One of the witnesses had been assassinated in 1998, thus making his sworn affidavit made to the RCMP in 1995 inadmissible in court. During the 2007 investigation, other witnesses did not want to testify, because they feared for their safety. That was understandable, since they could not get adequate protection.

Bill C-51, which we are discussing here, largely addresses these concerns. It expands eligibility criteria for the witness protection program to include members of street gangs, for example. In addition, federal departments and agencies that have a security or defence mandate may propose witnesses for admission to the program. It also extends the emergency protection period and eliminates problems that arose in coordinating with provincial programs.

Provincial programs are essential to our system, but the present act does not adequately acknowledge that fact. That is why Ontario and Alberta insisted that the witness protection program be restructured at the national level to provide greater recognition for what was already being done.

Bill C-51 also addresses those concerns. It provides for the designation of a provincial or municipal witness protection program so that certain provisions of the Witness Protection Program Act apply.

Bill C-51 also authorizes the RCMP to coordinate the activities of federal departments to facilitate a change of identity for persons admitted to the program.

I will be frank: I have one fear about this bill. I am concerned about the fact that funding for the witness protection program is not addressed in Bill C-51.

This kind of act is popular. No one is opposed to greater protection for the people who make it possible for us to fight crime every day. However, Bill C-51 does not provide enough details on funding that would be granted for the new measures to be implemented.

Why did the government not consider that before introducing this bill in the House? This is really something that concerns us on this side of the House.

However, having discussed the matter with them, I must acknowledge that Bill C-51 enjoys strong support among the general public and first-line workers.

Many people engaged in the fight against organized crime say this bill is absolutely essential. Expanding the program will help fight street gangs, in particular. As we know, street gangs are particularly violent and quick to use intimidation to prevent their members from going to prison. Those who decide to testify against them are very often in danger.

The same phenomenon occurs in south Asian communities. We will recall that several witnesses in the Air India affair were attacked. Those witnesses were not eligible for the protection program. Why? Simply because matters of national security are not eligible for the program.

A third issue would finally be addressed by this bill, and that is coordination between the federal and provincial governments. The provinces, as hon. members know, have been calling for a review of the witness protection program for a very long time. Their main complaint was that coordination was lacking. They have programs that encroach on the federal program in some instances. Consequently, witnesses are sometimes caught in a bureaucratic mess that completely jeopardizes their safety.

Those are three shortcomings that will be corrected by Bill C-51. Members of street gangs who want to make amends will be able to testify against their former cronies without fear of reprisals. People who are called to testify in cases involving national security will also be better protected, and the provinces will finally know where they stand.

Before I move on to my next point, I would like to raise a question that I have. A little earlier, I spoke about the Air India case. Clearly, Bill C-51 greatly improves the witness protection program for such cases. However, the process for accessing the program will still be too obscure, even after the changes made by the bill. The accountability process is still insufficient as well. The government is aware of the problem since it has already admitted that such is the case. I am therefore wondering why it has not taken the opportunity presented by this bill to resolve the problem once and for all.

In summary, I think that the measures included in Bill C-51 are a step in the right direction and will bring about very positive results. However, the bill is still flawed. When an investigation pertains to a crime that involves drugs or falls under federal jurisdiction, the RCMP takes over the case. Yet, the federal police force passes on the cost of witness protection to local police departments, which often do not have the budget to cover it.

I would like to quote the RCMP website, where it states:

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

This shows that this prohibitive cost is a hindrance to establishing a truly effective system. As I was saying a few moments ago, this bill sweeps the issue of funding under the rug. That is a major concern for me.

Before I continue, I would like to ask my colleagues from the other parties a few questions. Since 2007, the NDP has been asking for changes to be made to the witness protection program. It took six years for the Conservatives to finally respond to our request. During that time, we repeated our request again and again. Why did it take so long for the government to take action? As I explained, no additional funds are included in this bill. Why is the government changing the rules without providing adequate funding? These are vital questions that require clear and specific answers. Can the government confirm that it will provide adequate funding for the measures set out in its bill? Can the government guarantee that the witness protection program will receive adequate funding, particularly in the long term?

I also have a few thoughts I would like to share with my Liberal Party colleagues. The Liberals are claiming today that the program needs a major overhaul.

That is all well and good and, frankly, I share their point of view. The Liberals were in power for several years before the arrival of the current government. They even had a majority in the House. Why did they not take advantage of the many opportunities they had to carry out this reform? The many criticisms levelled against the program date back to when the Liberals had their majority. They had the power to change things at the time, but unfortunately they chose to do nothing.

There is something else that raises eyebrows. Today, they are proposing amendments to Bill C-51 that they do not consider generous enough, but they do not specify exactly what should be done. Empty rhetoric is fine and dandy, but before taking a stand, there needs to be some substance. I invite them, therefore, to immediately disclose the details of their proposals.

Let me take a moment to go over the ins and outs of this bill. It is my opinion that this legislation is extremely important to the witness protection system. These things must not be taken lightly. This is a question of life or death. The bill will have major ramifications, so we need to take the time to go over it carefully.

Before going any further, I repeat that I am glad that the government has finally decided to address this issue. I am happy to see that the government has heeded the demands that my party and I have been making for years. The simple act of broadening access to the program is already an excellent decision.

As I said, it is nevertheless important that sufficient funds be allocated to the program, otherwise—and this would be regrettable—these wonderful initiatives will not come to fruition. The government’s intentions are good, but it needs to put its money where its mouth is.

The NDP has always been committed to building safer communities. One key way of doing this is by improving the witness protection program. Doing this will respond to an urgent demand being made by police officers across the country.

That is why, despite my reservations, I support the adoption at second reading of Bill C-51. I will do so on behalf of all the people, organizations and associations that share these very same concerns. When we work together, we can achieve tangible results. Bill C-51 could prove a very good example of this.

I am thinking in particular of the provinces that have long been calling for the adoption of a bill of this kind. I am also thinking of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police that recently called on the government to support it in its fight against organized crime. The RCMP has also argued for an enhanced psychological evaluation of beneficiaries, which this bill will allow.

Police officers whose job it is to fight street gangs are particularly enthusiastic about this bill. There is also Justice O’Connor’s report, which in the wake of the Air India attack, issued recommendations along the lines of what the bill proposes.

It is quite evident that all the organizations involved in the fight against organized crime support the adoption of this bill. It comforts me to know that this is a good initiative, despite its faults.

Overall, Bill C-51 is a step in the right direction in the long march in the fight against crime. The bill is a good initiative from this government and, in all honesty, I am quite pleased to support it. I do hope, however, that my colleagues from all parties will take note of my criticisms. This is not an instance where we should be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, as the saying goes. Rather, we should pause for a moment and think about everything that can be done to ensure that the protection program performs optimally.

These brave men and women who appear in the witness box exhibit courage at all times. They make our society a safer, more welcoming place. In so doing, they often take enormous risks. Bill C-51 will provide better protection for them, but we can also do more.

I therefore take this opportunity to appeal to my colleagues. We have already taken a step in the right direction with Bill C-51, but perhaps we should go a little further.

As I mentioned, Bill C-51 contains some promising measures that have been approved by police officers across the country, particularly for the fight against street gangs, which is extremely important in my riding, Alfred-Pellan.

Part of the riding is mainly agricultural, but Alfred-Pellan is in fact very close to Montreal Island. So we have highly urbanized centres throughout the agricultural area, and that yields quite an eclectic mix.

All the police officers in Laval try to make our streets and our community as safe as possible. We New Democrats are committed to working with all those players to build safer communities.

The witness protection program is reassuring for the people who live in my neighbourhood or who are caught up in street gangs. There are unfortunately a lot of them on Laval Island. Because of this program, people know that they have a chance to pull through. At the same time, it provides police forces with additional tools to fight street gangs.

I am talking about tools because I see this as a big toolbox that we can offer our police forces and our justice system in order to fight crime. It really is necessary to work with these tools and to use them as much as possible. Bill C-51 is one of those tools.

Unfortunately, I would also like to criticize my colleagues opposite. They are doing something good with Bill C-51, but they have also done some more regrettable things. For example, the Conservatives recently announced that they would stop funding the police recruitment program. A budget of $400 million was set aside for the police recruitment fund, and they decided not to renew it in 2013.

We in Quebec have benefited from that budget. We received approximately $92.5 million over five years to establish joint forces and to combat street gangs. It was an additional tool for fighting street gangs in Quebec. In the very first year, there were more property seizures and fewer street gang crimes and murders.

There were tangible results as of the very first year. The $92.5 million budget granted to Quebec over five years made it possible to build those squads. The municipalities are working together. There is a major team effort among various cities such as Gatineau, Montreal, Laval, the north shore, the south shore and Quebec City. Everyone works together. Sherbrooke is also involved and is benefiting from the joint forces program. Everyone benefits from it. It is a very good thing.

It is sad to see that this tool is to be taken from our toolbox. We had funding for these joint forces in our toolbox. Bill C-51 adds an important tool, plugging gaps in the Witness Protection Program Act, and some extremely important things, but does not provide any funding.

I can see all the good intentions behind this bill, but I hope the federal government will pony up and allocate a significant budget to this bill so that the municipalities and provinces do not have to absorb the cost. The public safety committee is studying economic parameters for police services. Police forces across Canada are already struggling to manage their funding in the most efficient way possible. We must not give them an additional burden.

This is our opportunity not to do that. I would ask my colleagues opposite to ensure that the funding will be there in the next budget. I honestly hope it will be, because I have the extreme pleasure today of rising with them to support Bill C-51.

The House resumed from February 11 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 second time and referred to a committee.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-51, which is intended to make witnesses in Canada safer.

Naturally, the NDP will support the underlying principle so that the bill can go to committee. However, the NDP is once again asking the government to broaden criteria for witness protection program eligibility to ensure the safety of all Canadians who might be in danger.

To that end, my colleagues in the House will recall the remarks made by the member for Trinity—Spadina last November. She stood up, as I am standing today, to urge the government to support the work of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and our local police forces. The federal witness protection program does not have enough funding, its selection criteria are too narrow, and there is not enough co-operation among the three levels of government when it comes to protecting witnesses.

My colleague from Trinity—Spadina also pointed out that our local police forces and the RCMP have a very hard time convincing witnesses to speak out against street gangs, a scourge that also affects my riding, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

The NDP is committing to building safer communities. One of the ways we plan on doing that is by improving the federal witness protection program and giving police forces additional tools to combat street gangs. I speak from experience with the urban context in my riding, but it is just as important to protect potential witnesses who live in the suburbs or in rural areas across Canada.

In Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, the police are working hard to combat the influence of street gangs. My riding is a suburb of Montreal. We are talking about Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Uptown and the suburbs of Lachine and Dorval. Street gangs and human trafficking are serious problems in an area of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce. There is a lot of prostitution, drugs and $25-an-hour hotels, if you know what I mean.

Eastern Lachine also has a lot of problems with drugs and street gangs. Members of the Dalbé-Viau high school community, which is in the area, are afraid because people often come to recruit students after school. The police are very focused on the issue of street gangs in my riding.

When the local population feels safe, it co-operates with the local police force in order to better serve the neighbourhood. However, our police forces do not have enough resources. For local communities in Canada, strengthening the federal witness protection program will improve co-operation with local police forces and the RCMP in their efforts to fight violence and will increase the safety of our communities.

I am talking about the lack of resources. The east end of Lachine has a big problem with street gangs. However, we are lucky because the local newspaper, Le Messager Lachine & Dorval, publishes two pages every week where police station No. 8 provides information about crimes that were committed and asks for help from the community.

I believe this is a good example of a local newspaper working together with the police force. However, it also shows that the police force really must lack resources, since it has to go through the community newspaper to ask for help from witnesses to crimes involving street gangs. This does not happen in other parts of my riding. When such crimes are committed in Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, the newspaper does not work with the police force. The police have to go out and find witnesses, because it is not easy and they are very afraid.

Earlier I talked about prostitution in Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine. As indicated by a Conservative member, one who has worked very hard on the issue of human trafficking, victims are often the ones who become prostitutes. It is very difficult to seek them out and get their testimony. These victims are afraid for themselves and their families. They do not always trust the police; they have to be sought out. If they are not given adequate protection, of course they will be less likely to give testimony.

Since 2007, the NDP has been asking the government for this on behalf of Canadians who do not have legitimate protection. We are thrilled that this is finally before the House today. We have been calling for this for some time, and as my colleagues have mentioned, this government has been in power for seven years. The Liberals did not take care of this matter either. We need to do something, and fast.

I would like to focus on three key points that, I think, still need to be discussed regarding Bill C-51: expanding the eligibility criteria, co-operation with the provinces, and insufficient funding.

As for expanding the eligibility criteria, for quite some time now, the federal witness protection program has been criticized for its eligibility criteria, which are too strict, because not many witnesses are admitted to the program.

According to a Public Safety report, only 30 of the 108 cases assessed for the program were accepted in the year ending on March 31, 2012. This translates into an admission rate of 28%. Since we are good parliamentarians, this compels us to really look at the program's shortcomings and ask some questions here today.

We are talking about witness protection. But the government says it is tough on crime. I do not understand. To be tough on crime, we need help from witnesses. That is the key to solving crimes. If there are no witnesses to provide information, charges cannot be laid. It is key that we protect witnesses because if we do not, they will not come back. No witnesses will ever come forward, and that will not set a good example for others. In the case of street gangs, it is often internal witnesses that come forward. If gang members know that one of their gang friends told the police about a crime that had been committed and then that friend is never seen again, it is a given that they will not want to testify.

The eligibility criteria have been expanded. Bill C-51 says the following, and I quote:

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;

Bill C-51 will expand the eligibility criteria for the witness protection program—and I am very happy about that—in particular, by including a new group of eligible people, those who assist federal departments.

Consider the case of a person who wants to testify against an organized crime group or a street gang. Think about the stress such individuals will experience and the courage they will need to testify. Add to this the fact that these witnesses will most likely be testifying against someone they know. This is where the federal witness protection program comes into play.

As I said earlier, federal departments and agencies that have a mandate related to national security, national defence or public safety will also be able to recommend witnesses for the program.

Human trafficking is a real problem in Notre-Dame-de-Grâce. Many young women work as prostitutes, often without earning any money themselves, because they have a pimp. The documentary Avenue Zero addresses this issue. It raises a number of questions and paints a picture of the human trafficking problem in Canada today. The documentary was filmed in various parts of the country and ends in my riding. It is not a Quebec production as such, but the closing scenes were filmed on Saint-Jacques Boulevard in Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, where a number of seedy hotels used by prostitutes are located.

I recall very vividly a victim who gave testimony to a female RCMP officer responsible specifically for human trafficking. The victim recounted how it had taken her a very long time to testify against the people who were abusing her and forcing her into a life of drugs and prostitution.

It makes my skin crawl. She initially testified that she did not always trust the police because it was hard for them to think of a prostitute as a victim. She stated that she was now very happy because she knew that the City of Montreal was working hard to make officers assigned to neighbourhood police stations more aware of the fact that, in the world of prostitution, prostitutes are not always the criminals, but rather the victims.

She explained how she needed a lot of time and courage, how she feared for her life, and for the lives of her sister and parents. She had to go to the police, but that was hard to do without being spotted. Once she arrived at the station, she had to tell everything she knew and the police recorded it all.

These actions require extraordinary courage. There is no denying the existence of vast sex trafficking networks in Canada. Proposed legislation on human trafficking is before the House right now because trafficking is going on around us and the victims require protection.

When I see that there were 30 people under witness protection, I have to ask myself some questions.

The same goes for drugs. Often, the people involved are young. The Polyvalente Dalbé-Viau is a high school in Lachine, which is in my riding. Lachine has a troubled history because of street gangs. There was once a cannabis café in Lachine. That brought a lot of problems to my neighbourhood. Since then, people have been going to the school and recruiting young people to sell drugs, recruiting young women to go into prostitution, and bullying. If nobody wants to testify against such people because there is no protection, as I said earlier, then what is the point of the program?

Another purpose of Bill C-51 is very useful:

(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;

I think that this is important too because the bill will extend the emergency protection period. It will eliminate some technical problems related to coordination among provincial programs.

The second point I want to discuss about the federal witness protection program is co-operation with the provinces. I think that is very important. As a number of my colleagues mentioned, a certain level of coordination is necessary, but right now, that coordination is not consistent. Ontario and Alberta have called on the government to revamp the witness protection program. Bill C-51 would allow for the designation of provincial and municipal witness protection programs so that some provisions of the act apply, which I think is very good.

It would also authorize the RCMP commissioner to coordinate, at the request of appropriate, non-political officials of a designated program, the activities of federal departments, agencies and services in order to facilitate a change of identity for persons admitted to the designated programs.

As I said, I think that is very important.

And, since the government does not seem to be paying attention, I will repeat what we have been saying all day: there is not enough funding.

It is clear that changes cannot be made and more people cannot be protected unless there is more funding. That makes no sense at all. How can the Conservative government improve the witness protection program if it does not allocate the necessary funding and personnel?

The government must invest money to bring these measures to fruition, as called for by the RCMP. Why did the Conservatives refuse to provide additional funding for this program? No one knows.

It will be very difficult for local police forces and the RCMP to work with the existing budget and effectively manage the growing demand for this program.

If I recall correctly, the current program cost $9 million during the 2012 fiscal year, which is not that expensive. However, if we want to protect people, we have to allocate the money needed. One plus one equals two. This will put a huge operational burden on witness protection groups.

As my colleague and friend mentioned earlier, it is difficult for local police forces to set budgets for protecting witnesses. The context varies from one city to the next. A city like mine, Lachine, has lots of expenses related to all kinds of other things. In my opinion, based on the new criteria, many witnesses will be accepted into the program. We cannot keep accepting people and then refuse to pay for them. That makes no sense. Perhaps the Conservatives do not realize how much money this could cost.

The RCMP websites states the following:

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

The RCMP website states that, under the current criteria, there is not enough money to conduct in-depth investigations. There is a shortage of witnesses and no money to protect them.

Today, the Conservative government is telling us that it will admit more witnesses because it is expanding its criteria. That is a good thing; I agree. It is a step in the right direction. But they are telling us that they will admit more witnesses without providing more money. That does not make sense.

We are also concerned about transparency. In May 2010, the RCMP submitted a report to the Minister of Public Safety in which it requested that the witness protection program be enhanced. We were never informed of this. We managed to obtain a copy of this report in December 2012 through the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act.

The government has difficulty being transparent and this is another prime example of that.

In conclusion, this is definitely a positive piece of legislation. I am very pleased that the criteria are being expanded. I believe that protecting victims is the most important consideration in these cases but that this is an area that needs improvement, as proven by the fact that only 30 witnesses were admitted to the program in 2012. If we want to punish crime, we must first be in a position to call witnesses in order to ensure that a crime was indeed committed and that the investigation will be conducted efficiently. In my opinion, it will be difficult to use these new tools without the necessary funding. When the bill is studied in committee, I hope that the government will be open to discussing the possibility of making amendments.

Today, the parliamentary secretary often repeated that the objective of the bill is to expand the criteria. That is fine, but we have to be able to use these new criteria and apply them with the help of the requisite resources.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, you are absolutely right. I accept your admonishment and I will do my best to avoid using proper names. The members of the House of Commons sometimes have difficulty obeying this rule, because we have to speak in a strange way in order to obey it, so as to avoid addressing the person directly and instead speaking through you, Mr. Speaker. We will continue to respect this time-honoured tradition.

As for witness protection, although we began this debate as a result of the Air India inquiry, I think today's debate should focus on protecting Canadians from the street gangs that exist primarily in large urban centres, where the need is greatest. We see that. People are being injured or even killed by these gangs. It is crucial that young people be able to co-operate with police forces as much as possible, but this is posing a problem right now.

I would like to quote part of an article by Jim Bronskill that appeared in The Canadian Press on February 12, 2012:

Youth gang members—not just mobsters, bikers and other traditional protectees—should be allowed into the federal witness protection program as part of a sweeping modernization, says the RCMP.

The RCMP says that this protection needs to be expanded. Bill C-51 responds to the RCMP's request to a certain extent, which is good. However, no one seems to know where that money will come from. Let us not forget that this program is not very costly. In 2011-12, the program cost only $9 million.

If we want to improve the system, it is going to cost a little more. The Conservatives are keenly aware of this. It is important that they realize this and that they provide additional resources.

During the committee examination, what resources will they add to their plan?

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to be as brief as possible.

I am pleased to rise in the House to say that I support a government bill—at second reading, at least. It is a jewel, and I hope we will see bills like this more often.

The government has a very hard time consulting people and developing bills that truly address the realities of everyday life. We have seen that over and over with all kinds of bills. I could name a few, but I would rather focus on Bill C-51 right now.

This bill addresses certain points. What is most obvious is the lack of money. We have heard many times in the House that the program will not be funded.

It is very worrisome that this government claims to be a good manager of the economy but cannot see the need to have resources available when it proposes changes. The government has missed the mark.

Once again, I condemn the government for failing to hold enough consultations. If it had taken the time to consult people, especially the provinces that have been calling for a new witness protection program, it would have seen that resources are needed and that the provinces need support.

The fact that we have gotten to this point today is due in large part to the Air India inquiry. The Air India bombing was devastating. Many lives were lost. It took years, decades, before we could begin to understand what went wrong and what could be learned from this tragedy.

After Justice Major released his report on Air India, the Government of Canada presented its game plan. In its 2010 action plan, it spoke specifically about witness protection:

“Witness Protection -- Delivering better and more effective protection for witnesses.”

The bill before us today stems in large part from the fact that the Conservative government read the report and is trying to find solutions. I commend it for that.

The Conservatives said:

To further enhance its federal Witness Protection Program and address current challenges, the Government will: introduce more transparency and accountability into decisions concerning admission to the Witness Protection Program; promote the fair and equitable treatment of protectees by focusing more on their needs; and enhance the way sources of mutual interest to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) and the RCMP are handled.

Perhaps what is missing here is, again, financing all of these goals. It is great to list them, but it would also be great to finance them.

To understand what the government is trying to accomplish with the bill before us, we must go the Public Safety Canada website, which provides a definition of a witness entitled to protection under the witness protection program:

Definition of Witness

A witness is defined [by the witness protection program] as someone who gives or agrees to give information or evidence, or agrees to participate in a matter relating to an investigation or the prosecution of an offence. Generally, there are three categories of people who may need protection under the federal [witness protection program]: agents, who are directed by the police to accomplish certain tasks in the course of the investigation and are compellable witnesses; witnesses, including “innocent bystanders” who have information about a crime and decide to come forward, or individuals who, because of a relationship with the witness, may also require protection; and repentant witnesses or co-accused individuals who agree to testify against a fellow accused.

That is all very nice. However, let us not forget that during the Air India inquiry, one of our witnesses was killed before he could testify.

I think that proves how urgently this program needs to be overhauled. Because of the program, a key witness at such an important inquiry was unable to testify and was killed as a result.

Quite frankly, witness protection is not too much. We must not forget that there have been expenditures under the program before us. I will come back to that because it is important. The program accepted only 30 people out of 108, at a cost of $9 million. Therefore, for the year that ended in March 2012, $9 million was spent to protect 30 people. For an investigation such as the Air India investigation to be conducted properly, quite frankly the $9 million would have been a good investment at the time. We missed an opportunity to better protect people.

We have before us a bill that could help us, give us some avenues to explore and even offer solutions. It is not a bad bill. We can even applaud many of the measures. However, since the Witness Protection Program Act was passed in 1996, there have been few improvements.

In the past, the Liberal and Conservative governments did little to respond to criticisms. When Bill C-223 was introduced by a Reform member in 1999, we supported it. The NDP also wanted to move forward. Unfortunately, the Liberal government at the time thought otherwise and defeated the bill.

Once again, I congratulate the members of the House who really wanted to improve how witnesses who need protection are treated. The members across the floor will recall that the Reform Party has a lot in common with the Conservative Party. At least they will agree with me on that. A consensus among us would have been nice, so we could move forward with this bill. It is too bad the Liberal Party did not move forward on this when it had the chance.

Since then, there have been many calls for improvements. We must not forget that the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina introduced a bill on this in November 2012 in response to the problems that the Toronto area was having with street gangs.

The new bill would definitely help address these issues. It is important to keep moving forward, but we need to do so in co-operation with the provinces. Co-operation is seriously lacking. Provinces like Ontario and Alberta that have many Conservatives members—who, incidentally, should listen more—have been pushing for the program to be renewed and improved for quite some time now.

Based on the provinces' requests, the changes set out in Bill C-51 are simply inadequate. They need to go a lot further.

Inter alia, Bill C-51 does the following:

(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....

What I was saying is that the person's identity must be changed. But the provinces simply are not in the position to be able to do that themselves.

But the RCMP is able to help people change their identity. They need licences, a new ID card, a new social insurance number and perhaps even a passport. Many federal documents are required. And no organization is in a better position to help these people than the RCMP.

All this is funded by the federal government in co-operation with the provinces, and that is what I dislike. It is critical that we find a way to better fund the bill before us today.

I hope that when this is debated in committee, the government members will propose improvements to the bill so that the programs will be better funded in co-operation with the provinces. The request that the provinces are making, that the program be better funded, is key.

An article was recently published in Maclean's. I want to quote certain parts of it that support what I have been saying and the claims from the provinces and other stakeholders. We hope to see these claims when the bill is studied in committee.

In December 2012, the Conservative government made the following announcement:

The Conservative government plans to introduce long-anticipated legislation today to modernize the federal witness protection program...

Revelations five years ago that a protectee committed murder while in the program triggered a wave of review and discussion.

Très inquiétant.

The legislation is expected to include a more independent process for deciding who gets into the secretive program, as well as improved training and more sophisticated practices for handling protectees.

Some members have sued over the program, while others have been kicked out.

The proposed federal changes follow recommendations from a Commons committee, an inquiry into the 1985 Air India bombing and extensive consultations with the provinces.

Several provinces have their own witness protection programs, but often they provide only short-term assistance. In addition, obtaining new federal identity documents for protectees requires co-operation with the Mounties.

The proposed changes to the Witness Protection Program Act, passed in 1996, are expected to simplify the process of obtaining these crucial documents and generally improve relations with provincial agencies.

Ontario and Alberta have been pushing for more federal recognition of their witness programs as part of the national revamp.

I want to emphasize that there were consultations and that the problems raised during those consultations were, for the most part, related to expensive technical issues. Once again, there is no support to move ahead with what needs to be done. I think that the government could come up with a bill that better meets the needs if it were to take the provinces' comments seriously.

We would like to see a more transparent system, a system that does a better job of meeting needs for the purpose of determining who is eligible for this program. So far, this is not necessarily clear because even the government has a hard time answering the question. Still, this is a step in the right direction. We want the Conservatives to start providing the necessary resources to ensure that the current program meets the needs in our communities.

Many have stated that the need to protect people is greatest right in communities, in street gangs. We want people affected by street gangs to feel comfortable testifying so that, ultimately, our streets can be safer. To make that happen, people need easier access to this program. They have to know that they will be protected. I doubt that is the case now. I am not sure that they would put their faith in the bill before us. Once again, this bill would benefit from more thorough debate in committee.

To date, the government does not seem to have recognized that operating a regional police force is very expensive. The fact that it costs the provinces a lot of money and that no money will be coming from the federal government is a problem. Unfortunately, that is often the case with the government. It legislates changes at the provincial level or drops a federal responsibility hoping that the province will pick up the slack. Then the province has a hard time paying for a program it does not have the means to pay for. In the end, the federal government will tell people that it has conquered the deficit because it has decreased spending when all it will really have done is transferred costs to the provinces and municipalities, which will have to find ways to make up the shortfall.

The Harper government is terrified of increasing taxes. That is all well and good, except that it leaves the provinces no choice but to increase their own taxes.

For the taxpayer, provincial and federal taxes are all the same: they are taxes. The Harper government has nothing to brag about. I would even say that it should be ashamed.

In the provincial witness protection programs that involve crimes of a federal nature, the RCMP takes over and charges local police departments the full cost, something that many local departments cannot afford. The RCMP's own website states that there are instances when the costs of witness protection may impede investigations, particularly for small law enforcement agencies.

The municipalities I know that have their own police force and smaller municipalities with smaller police forces will find it very difficult to fulfill the obligations that the federal government is imposing on them, or at least that the bill we are studying in the House plans to impose.

Once again, it is an improvement, and I congratulate the government, but we must do much more. Unfortunately, this government has a great deal of difficulty understanding just how great the need is and how crucial it is that the need be met.

Our society is protected by the combined efforts of the federal, provincial and municipal governments. Together, we can help solve the problems we face. However, it does not help to impose new criteria without providing the resources required to enforce or even implement the criteria. The government is creating a situation that is doomed to failure. This must be avoided at all cost.

The NDP has long been calling for better co-operation between the federal government and the provinces. We are pleased to see an improvement in that regard. That being said, without the necessary funds, it will be hard to ensure that the programs being proposed here today will get very far. I think this is going to create even more problems for the local police forces, which will have a hard time meeting the obligations imposed by the federal government. We must prevent that. Closer co-operation would have truly improved the situation, but that is not what we are seeing today.

I am very pleased to vote in favour of this bill, at least at second reading, but it is time for the Harper government to start realizing that we need better co-operation.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the bill today and to let the members opposite know that I will be supporting it, at least at second reading. It is an important bill. I have some reservations, which I will speak to in a moment, but I will also speak to some of the good things in the bill and why we need to get it to committee for discussion.

First, the NDP has long called for the government to enter the witness protection program and to ensure the safety of all Canadians who are in potential danger. Since 2007, the NDP has specifically called for better coordination of the federal and provincial programs and better overall funding for the program. Our demands were repeated in 2009 and again late last year by our member for Trinity—Spadina. If I have time, I will speak to that.

I certainly support Bill C-51 and the government's efforts to improve the witness protection program. There is a bit of history there, which I will also talk about in a moment. For people who are following the debate in the House and those who may be watching at home, we have heard about costing. Money has become a point of debate, and I would also like to bring it up at the risk of having a couple of questions from the members opposite, particularly from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety.

The parliament secretary has said that the government refuses to commit to any new funding. She also mentioned there were 30 Canadians in that program in the last year, but that only represents about a quarter of the people who actually applied to get into the program. That would indicate to me that there were probably more than 30 last year who should have been in the program, and the police forces could have used the program to a better end by including more people in the program.

It seems to me that saying there is no new funding for the program means that it would come from elsewhere. I suppose $400 million a year from the Senate would be helpful to expand the program, but that is another whole debate that perhaps I will not get into right now. However, we are concerned that this Conservative requirement that the RCMP and local police departments work within their existing budgets will hinder the program and hinder a bill of legislative changes that are good.

Bill C-51 would expand the eligibility criteria of the witness protection program to include gang members as well as witnesses who are recommended by CSIS and the Department of Defence. This is a good expansion of services, but how would the money situation be sorted out when there is no new funding for it?

One of the glaring things in the bill, which I hoped would have been addressed, is provisions for an independent agency. My friend from Winnipeg mentioned an independent agency to operate the program in one of his questions. This was recommended in the Air India report.

The RCMP would continue to be responsible for the program. That leaves the RCMP in a potential conflict of interest by being both the agency that is investigating and also the organization that decides who gets protection. There are some conflicts. I do not think they cannot be worked out, but just to make the government aware, these are some issues in the bill that we will be bringing up and talking about during the public safety committee and with the witnesses we see there.

To recap, New Democrats are pleased to see that the government is listening to NDP requests to expand the witness protection program. It is a little late in coming. There has been some give-and-take over the last number of years. If the Conservatives want to ensure the success of this new expanded witness protection program, they are going to have to commit to some funding. The NDP has always been committed to safer communities and one way to do that is through the witness protection program. It keeps our streets safe by giving police services the extra tools that they require to fight street gangs, for example.

The Witness Protection Program Act was first put forward in 1996 but unfortunately governments of the days in between have really done nothing to respond to the criticisms of the system. Overall, it is a positive step but we need to see if the Conservatives are going to provide the resources that really count for communities. In my riding of Thunder Bay—Rainy River, we have seen services cut. We have seen Service Canada cut to the absolute bone. Lots of jobs have been lost in Service Canada. We have seen our veterans office closed. We have seen immigration close. I do not know if the government has a good track record in terms of making sure that the resources are there to make these programs work, so naturally there is a concern about Bill C-51.

The government front benches are mostly Mike Harris throwbacks from the earlier Ontario years. That is in fact what the Conservatives did in Ontario. Downloading became the order of the day and Ontario is still trying to recover from that. I am concerned that is the direction the government might be going in.

For the folks at home, let me talk about Bill C-51 and some of the good things that are there. It proposes a better process to support provincial witness protection programs and expands the program to include other agencies with national security responsibilities. Bill C-51 would expand the eligibility criteria of the witness protection program to include various requests from the RCMP, including such people as gang members, and covering a whole new group of people who give assistance to federal departments. The federal departments and agencies with a mandate relating to national security, national defence and public safety would also be able to refer witnesses to the program. These are good things. It would also extend the period for emergency protection and clear up some technical problems in coordinating with provincial programs.

Provinces, such as Ontario and Alberta, for example, have been pushing for a national revamp of the witness protection program for some time, including more recognition of their existing programs. Bill C-51 provides for the designation of a provincial or municipal witness protection program so that certain provisions of the act apply to such programs. That is also a good thing. It also authorizes the Commissioner of the RCMP 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 into the designated program.

Lots of Canadians of course would think of witness protection in American media, movies, television shows and so on. We have quite a different system here. It is certainly not as widespread or as widely used. I am concerned when so many people apply for the program and police services give value to the people who are applying, and only a few, a third or a quarter of them, are accepted into the program. I can only assume that is because of the limited financial resources that are available.

I welcome questions from my hon. colleagues and perhaps we can flesh this out a bit more.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River.

In addition to telling us about the nature of our world and our origins, astrology also serves as a wonderful time marker. Much like two orbits crossing, on this rare occasion, my opinions are crossing with the Conservative government's. I will support Bill C-51. But much like two stars that align but do not touch, I want to add that the government could do much more to ensure that the witness protection program is successful.

To be clear: I applaud this bill. It is certainly a step in the right direction. However, time will tell if it goes far enough. I think that, after the provisions are in force for a few years, there will be three things the public will think are insufficient: the expansion of the eligibility criteria, co-operation with the provinces and the adequacy of funding.

Since the NDP called on the Conservatives to review the witness protection program in 2007, the earth has travelled around the sun six times. As they say, all things come to those who wait. All things? That is what we will see.

In 2007, the NDP started urging the government to address the problem of coordinating the witness protection program with the provinces. We repeated the demand a number of times, notably in 2009 and 2012. I am pleased that the Conservatives were open to our ideas, but I deplore the fact that the funding was not there so that these changes could be implemented properly.

Buying fighter jets is not the only way to protect the public. We also protect them by doing whatever we can to help people help us. This is the case with street gangs, for example. Naturally, a gang member would want to be assured of safety before testifying. The same should go for every first-hand witness. These people are key elements in the government's fight against threats to public safety. If the money is invested properly, I am positive that this can work.

The witness protection program makes communities throughout the country safer. In fact, witness protection often guarantees the success of an investigation. My fellow Quebeckers know something about that. Witness protection gives the police access to useful, first-hand information. It is deplorable that we have had to wait so long to extend protection to street gang members, for example. But we have had to wait a long time. In 2012, 108 potential witnesses tried to sign up for the witness protection program. Of the 108 people prepared to divulge important information to investigators, only 30 were accepted by the government. The government will probably say that those 30 people cost millions of dollars. That is true, but that is what our taxes are for.

Since coming to power in 2006, the Conservatives have increased the deficit by almost $150 billion and reduced corporate taxes by about $50 billion. Clearly, it is mainly about how we choose to spend the money.

Were dozens of cases closed due to a lack of money or poor procedure? That is really what we should be asking with regard to 2012.

Are we talking about 78 cases that could have been solved, but were not for lack of evidence? If the answer is yes, it was high time for action from this law-and-order government.

We also really wanted to review another problem raised by the program: coordination. At present, offences pertaining to national security are excluded from the witness protection program. We saw what happened with the Air India investigation.

One man, Mr. Hayer, was killed in 1998, and a number of others received threats. Mr. Hayer was therefore unable to testify, and the affidavit he gave the RCMP in 1995 became inadmissible.

Could this man's death have been prevented with better protection? I think so. Could the inquiry have gone further if there had been better protection? I think so. Mr. Hayer was the editor of the Times of India, in British Columbia. It is absolutely outrageous that we were unable to protect him.

I wonder why it did not occur to the Liberals at the time to look at the issue of witness protection a little more closely when that tragedy occurred. It is also sad to see that the Conservatives have not included more of the recommendations that came out of the Air India inquiry in their bill.

It should also be noted that in 2010, the RCMP submitted a report calling for beefed-up witness protection. It was December 2012 before we even found out about that report and a few months after that before the Conservatives did anything with it. It has been a long haul. It was high time.

The Conservatives do not seem to realize the magnitude of the costs being incurred right now by local police forces for witness protection. Several Canadian provinces have programs in place to ensure witness protection, but unfortunately, there is not enough money and federal-provincial co-operation is lacking.

Since Bill C-51 does not include any budget increases, I really have to wonder how we will achieve results that are any better.

The government should acknowledge the viewpoints of the RCMP, the provinces and the official opposition. There is no room for partisan politics on this issue. This is not the time to be dilettante. If the government wants to ensure witness protection, it must do so with all the necessary financial investments; otherwise, the proposed changes will remain but empty rhetoric.

One recommendation that came from the Air India investigation involved an eligibility process that is more transparent and requires greater accountability. Bill C-51 does not include any provisions in that regard. Why will the government not commit to making the program more transparent?

The bill contains no provisions allowing for an independent organization to administer the program based on the recommendations made 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.

That said, I am giving this bill the benefit of the doubt, and I will support it at second reading, in the hope, of course, that the government will not disappear when it is time to pay.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to approach this from a different perspective.

I have had the opportunity to be the justice critic in the province of Manitoba for many years, and there are a wide variety of issues facing our justice system. To pick up on the point that was raised in terms of the budget responsibility and so forth, at the end of the day, Bill C-51, which is a positive bill that we want to see move forward, would have a fairly significant impact, even if it passes as it is currently being proposed today.

When the member said it is an issue of budget, he is correct. We need to factor in that at any given point we could have somewhere in the neighbourhood of 1,000 people within the program, 70% of whom would be under RCMP jurisdiction. As has already been referenced, the number of applications made last year versus the number that were accepted raises other issues.

However, to look at what we are ultimately wanting to pass, there is no doubt that by expanding the program we would see a higher demand for it. I believe the current budget is around $9 million to $10 million. I am not completely sure of those numbers, but it is a significant amount of money, and there would be a need to ensure the program is adequately resourced. When we talk about being adequately resourced, obviously the bill would have more. The last question to my colleague was related to the responsible province or municipality, and he made reference to the police or the department of justice.

In the last little while, I have been circulating a petition within my constituency. I will read the last paragraph of the petition, to which I must say I have had many of my constituents respond very favourably. It reads:

We, the undersigned residents of the Province of Manitoba call upon the House of Commons to provide for and support [effective crime prevention] programs that will prevent crimes from happening like programs that focus on steering young children away from associating with gangs or gang activities.

The petition is calling on the Government of Canada to work with other levels of government to develop effective programs that prevent youth from committing crimes.

When we talk about the financing, administration and so forth, we need to recognize that the different levels of government all have a role to play in this. That is the reason, when the parliamentary secretary introduced the bill, I asked how many other jurisdictions had a program that is currently running. I was pleased to hear some of the numbers that the parliamentary secretary referenced.

At the end of the day, this is a significant issue. I asked whether there was an increase in the number of gangs, as this has been a serious problem in Winnipeg. However, Winnipeg is not alone. There are other jurisdictions, as the member has pointed out, that have issues related to gang activity. Gang activity in the province of Manitoba has skyrocketed over the last 10 years. During the 1990s, gang-related issues were not debated much inside the Manitoba legislature. However, since 2000 or 2001, it has become a very serious issue.

One year we had over 14,000 vehicles stolen. For a province with roughly 550,000 drivers, that is a significant number of vehicles. When we look at the individuals who were stealing them, it was young people. I had acquired through a freedom of information request that it was somewhere in the neighbourhood of 200 youth. I might be off on the number, but they had stolen, on average, 30 vehicles.

Out of that relatively large grouping of youth, if we were to canvass them we would find that a good number were directly involved in gangs. It was part of a gang initiation whereby they had to go out and steal cars. At the end of the day we all pay for that at the different levels, whether it be municipal, provincial or national. We have to take more of a co-operative approach to dealing with crime in our communities.

Also, the federal government needs to play a leading role. It can ensure there are some national standards, from coast to coast to coast, in proactively preventing crimes from taking place. That is what we ultimately want to see happen.

In regard to Bill C-51, the Liberal Party is in favour of this bill and wants to see it go to committee. We do believe it would have a positive impact. It would help in terms of resolving crimes. Ultimately, I do believe if it is administered properly it would prevent some crimes from taking place.

In looking at the bill, it does several things. The parliamentary secretary made reference to how the provinces would be able to designate their own internal programs and get that designation from the federal program without necessarily having to transfer the individual into the program. As she made reference to its merit, I do believe there is great benefit to that, the biggest being time. Time is very important with things of this nature. Processing times, being able to change identity, and so forth are of critical importance. For the most part, I believe the government would receive a very favourable response in regard to those measures in Bill C-51.

We understand it would assist in changing identity, which is something one would think would have a wide diversity of support from the many different stakeholders following the debate on this bill. We appreciate the fact that it does broaden the information that can be protected and also supports people from within the program.

However, if we take a look at the history of the witness protection program, I think most Canadians would be surprised that it does not have a very long history in terms of legislation. Most people would believe there has always been some informal aspects to witness protection, and that was primarily done at the local policing level. We can go back 30 years, 40 years, where police officers, through discretion, were able to provide assurances to witnesses. There would have been all sorts of actions taken to try to provide assurances to witnesses that they would be safe if they were to come forward and state what they had observed or what they were aware of in terms of a criminal activity. We could go back to the eighties where that started to become a little more formalized because of different commissions and reports that were coming out. We started to see internal documents clearly demonstrating the need for a witness protection program.

It was not that long ago when Prime Minister Jean Chrétien introduced the Witness Protection Program Act, the first legislation of its kind brought to the House of Commons. As we continue to move forward, we today have another piece of legislation that has been drafted that would ultimately complement the original legislation. Why? Because in time things change.

There is a need for us to change the legislation and modernize it so that we can meet the needs of today. The power of the Internet, the influence that organized crime has, the potential of terrorism, these are all very real issues today to which legislation has to be able to respond.

The ability of police to protect witnesses is crucial in order to fight crime and acts of terrorism. If we cannot provide those assurances to witnesses, there is a very good chance they would be unable to testify. If they are unable to testify, we would be unable to get the types of convictions that our crowns are looking for across Canada in all provinces and territories. We have to somehow recognize the importance of witnesses and the roles that they play and the risk we take by not enabling those witnesses to feel safe in testifying. If we fail in doing that, then individuals who are committing some pretty terrible crimes are going to get away or be let off with a much lighter sentence than if a witness had been able to testify. It is of critical importance that police see this as a viable tool that would make a difference.

Public trust in the witness protection program is also vital to the success of the program. We can say that we have the program in place and ask Canadians to trust us because it is a great program, but there has to be a certain element of confidence in the program. If a potential witness does not feel the program is going to be strong enough and that their life is going to be threatened by making a disposition, chances are they will walk away from that opportunity. Therefore, building trust is critically important.

We support the ability of the federal departments, agencies, services and the national security, National Defence or Public Safety, mandate to recommend witnesses to the WPP. It seems to be a natural evolution that would be incorporated into the current legislation. It makes sense. That is why we support the government's proposed change.

We look to the government to be sensitive to our concerns, such as why there has not been a separate body created to oversee admissions to the witness protection program and what potential merits there could be if we were able to identify that. How we deal with disputes between protectees and the RCMP is another issue that has been raised and brought to my attention. The government would be best advised, between now and the time in which the bill gets to committee, to give some attention to that. In the hope that Conservatives will approach it with an open mind, I trust that there will be amendments brought forward. Through those amendments, we will ultimately see the legislation take better form and receive much stronger support.

The broadening of information that can be protected is very important. I believe it is a core base that is being suggested and we need to be able to expand that base. We support that aspect of the legislation. We need to recognize, as we look at ways in which we can improve upon the program, that the program may have to be expanded, which is, in part, a resource issue. There needs to be adequate resources to support the program.

I have always appreciated that through our federation, we have different ministerial conferences, justice being no different, and that there is a need for different levels of government, as they come together, to talk about this program and other programs. We should look at ways in which we could do more to prevent crimes from taking place. We do support the bill in principle because it is a good bill. It is a change from the original act of 1996. It makes a lot of sense and therefore we would like to see it sent to committee soon.

On a personal note, it would be wrong of me not to emphasize to the Prime Minister and the government just how important it is to have safe streets in our communities. During my first election to the House in the byelection, I had indicated that crime and safety was a high priority for me and that given the opportunity I would raise these issues in the House. I believe in fairness and in consequences to crimes. I also believe passionately that we need to do more to prevent crimes from taking place.

In debate from both sides of the House we heard members make mention of organized crime, which is a serious issue for many of my constituents. They want the government to take action. Most of my constituents recognize how important it is. I have the opportunity almost on a weekly basis to talk about this type of issue with my constituents. I put a lot of focus on preventing crimes from happening in the first place.

We talk about organized crime and gang activities, but many initiatives could be taken to prevent young people from entering into gangs in the first place. We need to look at our infrastructure, our resources from different levels of government, and have a higher sense of co-operation in terms of finding alternatives that would engage our young people and stop them from getting involved in gang activities. Young people get involved in gang activities for a multitude of different reasons. In the 1990s there were under a thousand young people involved in gang activities and now there are thousands. It is hurting a lot of communities, not only in Winnipeg North but in many communities across this country.

If the legislation ultimately passes, we hope to see a government that is more committed to resolving the gang-related problems that many of our communities are living with today. I have confidence that our police forces across the country would use this tool well and work with our courts and prosecutors. There are many other things we can do to prevent our young people from getting involved in gang activities.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to say honestly that I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-51 at second reading, not so much personally, as I was already up speaking this morning, to Bill C-42, as was the parliamentary secretary, but because, like many members, we have had challenges even getting to the House today.

As the NDP public safety critic, I have the honour of speaking in the House quite often. Unfortunately, too often, it is on bills motivated by the Conservatives' tough on crime attitude. The parliamentary secretary asked why we do not support all of their bills. I would like to take just a moment to talk about this tough on crime attitude, because this is an attitude that too often results in policies that are ripped from headlines.

At best, it is based on a faulty concept of deterrence and the idea that harsh sentences somehow deter crime. There is actually no imperial evidence to show that. The only way deterrence functions is when the investment is made at the front end of law enforcement. It is the certainty of being caught and the swiftness of prosecution that puts people off committing crimes.

Most criminals do not sit at home thumbing through the Criminal Code to see which offence to commit based on the length of the sentence. Obviously they are motivated by other social, economic and personal factors. If resources are put at the front end, we get better results. That is one reason this legislation looks a lot better to us than most of the bills that come forward from the Conservatives.

At worst, the tough on crime agenda appears to be based on little more than retribution, and retribution is not an effective approach to crime. Although it may make some people feel better for a short period of time, it results in policies that are expensive and that rarely show any positive results. In contrast, we in the NDP believe in evidence-based measures, which will help us build safer communities.

I am honestly pleased to stand in the House today to support Bill C-51 at second reading. We have seen a couple of hopeful signs from the Conservatives with this legislation, and also with Bill C-54, which deals with measures for those not criminally responsible. We have seen more consultation from the government on these two bills. We have seen more attention to evidence on these two bills than we have seen before. In this case, action is long overdue. We are glad that the government finally listened to stakeholders, as we have been asking it to do this since 2007.

In November 2012, the NDP member for Trinity—Spadina repeated our call for action to expand eligibility for those going into the witness protection program. This is particularly important in the struggle against street gangs. The previous narrow definitions excluded them from the witness protection program. We and government members have heard from many community representatives, and from many law enforcement agencies, that to get co-operation to help break street gangs, inclusion of possible witnesses in this program would be very important.

Since 2007, the NDP has also specifically called for better coordination of federal and provincial programs and better provision of services to those provincial programs, which is another positive measure we see in the bill.

We have always called for better overall funding for the program. I will come back to that question.

While we support what the bill attempts to do, which is improve the witness protection program, we are concerned that the Conservative government will refuse to commit any new funding. In fact, the minister said during the introduction of the bill that this would have to be funded from existing funds.

While there is no legislative flaw we can see at this point in the bill, which ensures that we will support it at second reading, we are concerned, because as I often like to say, the proof is in the funding. If we make these improvements, but law enforcement agencies do not have the funding they need to operate the program, we have not moved very far forward.

Whatever the improvements here, the demand that the RCMP and local police departments work within their existing budgets will likely hinder the implementation of the proposed amendments and the improvements in the bill.

The RCMP's own website states that there are instances when the cost of witness protection may impede investigations, particularly for smaller law enforcement agencies. When municipal departments, which are extensive across this country, try to make use of the program, they must reimburse the RCMP fully for the costs, which can be very high. This is an ongoing cost for them. Most of them have no provision in their budgets for making use of this program. It means, oftentimes, that front-line law enforcement officers have to make difficult choices, because they cannot get those who need protection into the program, because the funding is not available to support those individuals once they are in the program.

Again, the witness protection program is often crucial to getting the co-operation the front-line police need so that they can get convictions that will take key organized crime figures out of the community. If there were adequate funding, the same would be true for getting key witnesses to testify against street gang members to help break up those street gangs.

The federal witness protection program has long been criticized for its narrow eligibility criteria, for its poor coordination with provincial programs, and for the low number of witnesses actually admitted to the program. In 2012, 108 applications were considered for admission to the program, and, largely due to funding constraints, only 30 people were accepted.

What does that mean? It means 78 cases for which we might have been able to get a conviction and might have been able to make progress on organized crime, because that has been the focus of the program to this point. We did not get that because of inadequate resources.

There are some important improvements, as we acknowledge, in the bill. Bill C-51 proposes a better process to support provincial witness protection programs. This would be especially important for expediting getting new identity documents for those in provincial programs. Before, as the parliamentary secretary mentioned, this required transferring them to the federal program and transferring them back, with an enormous amount of bureaucratic time-wasting and cost. We are pleased to see that.

The expanded definition is important. In addition to including witnesses in street gang cases as possible entrants to the program, it would also expand the program to include agencies with national security responsibilities.

It would also extend the period for emergency protection. That is one of the key issues local law enforcement figures have raised. Sometimes people need to go into this program very quickly, and sometimes it takes a while before they can get into a more permanent situation. Extending that emergency protection is important.

Provinces such as Ontario and Alberta have been pushing for a national revamp of this program, including recognition of their existing programs. Again, the designation of programs and recognition of those programs is a positive feature of the bill.

For federal departments and agencies with a mandate related to national security, both those that function under national defence and those that function under public safety would now be able to refer witnesses to the program. I will say in a minute why that has been a gap of very great concern in the past.

Because there is no direct reference to eligibility for the program for witnesses in street gang cases, many stakeholders have been concerned that street gang witnesses may not fit these new criteria. We are assured by the government that they will. We look forward to talking about this question in committee to make sure that this critical area is indeed covered by these changes to the witness protection program.

At committee I will be asking those questions to make sure that the federal government is truly committed to the inclusion of street gang, youth gang and national security witnesses in this program. This will be an important step toward building safer communities in Canada.

We believe that the bill addresses the key problems. There are still a few things it does not do. Again, we would like to talk about those in committee.

Bill C-51 does not include provisions for an independent agency to operate the program, as was recommended in the Air India inquiry report.

There is kind of a conflict of interest when the RCMP manages the program and also manages the investigations. It is able to use the incentive, I guess one would say, of the witness protection program to get co-operation, and then, later, it makes the decision about who is actually eligible to be in the witness protection program. The Air India inquiry report suggested that there should be an independent agency to make those decisions that involve the RCMP as both the investigating authority and the decision-making authority on who gets protection from the program.

When we look at national security, the inability to protect witnesses was a major obstacle to prosecutions in the Air India bombing case. That is why, in the report, there was a lot of attention given to the witness protection program. One witness, Tara Singh Hayer, publisher of the B.C.-based Indo-Canadian Times, was assassinated in 1998. This made the affidavit he had given the RCMP in 1995 inadmissible as evidence in the case.

I would say that Mr. Hayer was not a likely candidate to go into the witness protection program because he was a very brave individual. However, two additional witnesses, seeing what had happened to him and not being eligible to go into the witness protection program, refused to provide evidence to the RCMP or the Air India inquiry because of what they had seen happen to another witness who had provided information, and the fact that he was assassinated.

Justice Major, in his report, acknowledged that he felt unable, because of the restrictions in the witness protection program, to provide the protection that would be necessary for prosecution in the case of Air India.

The RCMP has also called for intensive psychological examination of potential protectees, a national support centre for the program, and has also supported the call for an external advisory board in their case to serve as a watchdog on the decisions being made.

We recognize that these are all potentially outside the scope of this bill, but I still think it is worth having a discussion in committee about some of the other things that the RCMP has said are necessary for the efficient operation of the witness protection program.

New Democrats believe that strengthening the program will improve co-operation with local police and the RCMP in the fight against gang violence, and in doing so will help make our communities safer. It has a proven record of success in the fight against organized crime.

While the Conservatives have been slow to respond to this issue, and we on our part have been calling for these changes since 2007, we are pleased to see that the government has listened to the stakeholders in this case and brought in this new legislation to expand the program.

Bill C-51 does address key legislative concerns with regard to the witness protection program and therefore warrants our support. Despite our ongoing concerns about funding, the NDP recognizes that Bill C-51 still falls short on some key changes to the program, such as having a more transparent and accountable process for admissions into the program. Again, the Conservative government has ignored the important recommendations of the Air India inquiry with regard to this independent review of who is admissible into the program.

We do feel that Bill C-51 provides the basic legislative fix that we need. We will wait to see if the Conservatives are going to provide the resources to make it really count for local communities. As I often say and will say again, the proof is in the funding. Local police wish to make use of this program. They welcome these changes. They are waiting to get to work on some of the street and youth gang problems they have when this tool becomes available to them. However, it will not work if they do not have the funding at the local level.

At the public safety committee, we are doing a large study on the economics of policing. I think it has made all members of Parliament aware of the constant downloading of costs and responsibility onto police forces.

When we asked witnesses at committee what percentage of their calls for service were actually what people regard as crime, they responded that it was around 20%, saying that 80% of the time the police spend working on other issues. What that really means is that they are working on things like mental health, addictions, and all those other social problems of exclusion and marginalization. In our society we have made what I would call an unconscious decision that we will leave all those responsibilities to the police. One good sign of that, which we often see, is the difficulty of finding emergency social services, even in urban areas, after five o'clock. Who will one call after five o'clock when most people have their mental health and addiction crises? Those offices are closed.

The police become the agency called to deal with those problems. This is one of the huge, and probably the most important, cost drivers in policing. I know that the Minister of Public Safety suggested that police salaries were in fact a cost driver and that they took away resources from other things they needed. We on this side believe that the police who serve our communities as highly trained professionals need to be paid a fair, professional wage. We recognize that most of the time wages—and certainly in municipal and provincial departments—have been set through a process of free collective bargaining. Therefore, it not the police salaries that prevent resources being available for things like the witness protection program, but government budgets and all those other demands that we place on the police every day of the week.

As I said at the beginning, we know that the police are out in snowstorms doing all kinds of things that are not strictly fighting crime but providing emergency assistance to the public. I am looking forward to the work in committee not just on this bill but also on the study on the economics of policing to help find some ways to get the cost of policing under control by getting the focus back on building safer communities.

We in the NDP are committed to this concept. We need measures based on real evidence that will lead us toward solutions that make our communities safer. One way of doing this is through an improved witness protection program that helps keep our streets safe by giving police additional tools to fight street gangs.

The parliamentary secretary talked about an expedited process. I want to again reassure her, as I did in the questions asked at the beginning, that on this side we are committed to getting this bill to committee as soon as we can, and giving it a high priority in committee and bringing in the witnesses we need to talk to as quickly as possible. We will not prolong the process beyond what is needed, because we know that local police forces are in fact waiting for this tool to be made available to them in order to do some very important work in community safety.

At this point, I am happy to conclude my remarks by saying that this is one case where the New Democrats believe that the government has listened to stakeholders and has consulted. It might be a little late, but we are pleased to see that it brought in this legislation, and we will be looking at the next budget to make sure that the resources that police forces need, particularly the RCMP, are there to ensure that this new and improved witness protection program can actually be used by those on the front line.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act, is an important bill. The many important provisions in the act help secure identity changes for witnesses and help our law enforcement agents when they do risky undercover work.

Recently there were news articles about an important undercover case that exposed Hell's Angels' activities in British Columbia. It was very daring undercover work. Risky police activities are taken to help bring criminal organizations to the law.

When victims of crime also come forward and testify about nasty, terrible events they have experienced, I wonder if the member would expand on how the provisions of the bill would help someone such as the undercover officer, who put himself at great risk in the recent case in British Columbia, and how victims of crime would benefit from the protections in the bill.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege for me to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act.

Our government has been quite clear that one of our top priorities is to help build safer communities for all Canadians. One of the ways we are doing that is by providing law enforcement officials with the tools they need to do their job more efficiently and effectively. We have done a lot since day one. We have enacted legislation to stiffen sentences and increase the accountability of offenders, and we have enhanced the ability of all law enforcement officials to keep Canadians safe. We have taken steps to modernize the RCMP.

The legislation before us today strengthens our track record and will go a long way to enhancing our collective efforts to combat organized crime. Crimes committed by organized crime networks present a serious concern to both police and Canadians. Many organized crime groups are involved with the illicit drug trade, which we all know is growing.

According to Statistics Canada, for example, cocaine trafficking, production and distribution in Canada has grown nearly 30% over the last decade. Today we also know that organized crime is becoming more global, more transnational and more pervasive. We know that organized crime groups are becoming more sophisticated to avoid detection and arrest.

We also know that most serious organized crime groups are very secretive, and they often pose unique challenges for law enforcement officials because they can be very difficult to infiltrate. In some cases, law enforcement officials rely on the co-operation of individuals formerly involved with these organizations in order to combat their activities or successfully prosecute the ringleaders. In other cases, they might rely on the testimony of key eyewitnesses. Those who do come forward or co-operate often fear for their own safety as well as the safety of their family and loved ones.

Public safety is the cornerstone of the witness protection program as it offers protection, including new identities, for certain individuals whose testimony or co-operation can be so vital to the success of law enforcement operations.

Although witness protection was informally available since 1970, Canada's federal witness protection program was officially established in 1996 with the passage of the Witness Protection Program Act.

Today, the federal program, which is administered by the RCMP, can provide emergency protection to witnesses under threat, offering such services as permanent relocation and also secure identity changes.

Since provincial governments are also responsible for the administration of justice, many provinces, including Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, have established their own witness protection programs, which differ from the federal program.

The federal program has a legislated mandate to provide national protection services to all law enforcement agencies in Canada, as well as to international courts and tribunals.

Legislation governing the federal witness protection program, however, has not been substantially changed since it first came into force, despite the constantly changing nature of organized crime and some calls for reform.

The safer witnesses act would help to strengthen the current federal witness protection program, a program that, as I have mentioned, is often vital to effectively combatting crime, particularly organized crime.

As the hon. Shirley Bond, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of British Columbia, noted when commenting on Bill C-51, in the fight against crime, protecting witnesses is essential.

Bill C-51 would enhance the protection offered to key witnesses who wish to co-operate with law enforcement officials in the fight against serious organized crime.

Chief Bill Blair of the Toronto Police Service perhaps said it best when he said:

In Toronto we have seen the fear caused by intimidation and the threat of retaliation in gang investigations. Witnesses with valuable information are deterred from coming forward.

Chief Blair supports this legislation, as it is “a valuable step in protecting public safety”, in his words.

Bill C-51 would also help to protect individuals and front-line officers involved in administering and delivering witness protection.

Tom Stamatakis, president of the Canadian Police Association, recognized the protection put in place through our bill. The Canadian Police Association strongly believes that the legislation will enhance the safety and the security of front-line law enforcement personnel who are engaged in protective duties.

Mr. Stamatakis has stated that the Canadian Police Association appreciates the steps being taken by the Government of Canada to address those concerns. He went so far as 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”. I could not agree more.

The safer witnesses act would also promote greater integration between federal and provincial witness protection programs and will help to ensure that individuals can access federal identity documents more quickly and easily.

Bill C-51 proposes important changes in five main areas, which I will outline. First, the changes will allow provincial and territorial governments to request that their programs be designated under the federal Witness Protection Program Act. This designation will facilitate their witnesses receiving a secure identity change without needing to be admitted into the federal program, which is the case today.

Should an individual in a provincial program require a secure identity change under the existing rules, he or she must be temporarily transferred into the federal witness protection program so that the RCMP can obtain the appropriate documents. This can obviously cause delays. It can also lessen the security of the program and present witness management issues for the RCMP.

The reforms that our government is proposing would streamline and speed up the issuance of secure identity documents through the RCMP. As long as a provincial witness protection program has been designated, a provincial official responsible for the program would be able to work directly with the RCMP to quickly acquire the necessary documents. Once designated, secure requests for documents would be handled more quickly and easily, since witnesses under a provincial program would no longer need to be admitted into the federal witness protection program.

Under these changes proposed by the legislation before us today, federal organizations would be required to assist the RCMP in obtaining identity changes not only for witnesses in the federal program but also for witnesses in designated provincial programs. Provincial governments have been requesting an expedited process for obtaining federal identity documents, and we are acting on their request. These two changes, which our government has introduced, would help meet these demands from provinces such as Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.

In fact, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Saskatchewan Gordon Wyant had this to say about the legislation:

These changes will help strengthen our criminal justice system by providing greater protection for witnesses. We support the proposed improvements to the Witness Protection Program Act as yet another step in making our communities safer.

A third area of reform proposed by Bill C-51 concerns the protection and disclosure of information about people within provincial and municipal witness protection programs. Under the existing federal Witness Protection Program Act, the prohibition against disclosure of information is limited to only information about the change of name and location of federal protectees. The bill would broaden the type of information to be protected and include information about the change of identity and location of provincial witnesses in designated programs as well as information about the federal and designated programs, including those who administer both the federal and provincially designated programs, which is so important.

Therefore, we would be providing greater protection to both the protectees as well as the law enforcement officials who are administering these programs. It is hard to believe it has gone this long without changes. It is very important that we all support this and get the bill passed. Again, this is consistent with provincial requests to strengthen disclosure prohibitions so that information about their witnesses is protected throughout Canada.

The fourth set of changes in the safer witnesses act would mean that the federal witness protection program would be able to accept referrals of persons assisting organizations with a mandate related to national security, national defence or public safety rather than only from law enforcement and international courts and tribunals, as is currently the case. Such organizations include the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and National Defence.

Again, these are very important changes. These legislative reforms would respond directly to a recommendation that was made in the final report of the Air India inquiry.

Finally, Bill C-51 would also address a number of operational issues, based on experiences gained in administering the current program over the past 15 years. For example, this would include permitting voluntary termination from the federal program and extending the amount of time emergency protection could be provided to candidates being considered for admission into the federal program. The change would be to extend the current 90-day availability of emergency protection to a maximum of 180 days. These changes have been recognized as important as the program has been used and administered over the last several years.

The changes our government is proposing to the Witness Protection Program Act are the product of extensive consultations with federal partners and provincial and territorial governments, as well as with stakeholders, law enforcement officials and many interested parties.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, our government is committed to providing law enforcement with the tools and resources needed to protect the safety of our families and our communities, including an effective witness protection program. An effective program is extremely valuable in the fight against crime, especially, as we know, organized crime.

Our government is proposing to enhance the effectiveness and security of the federal witness protection program by making it more responsive to law enforcement needs. These changes are needed to better support law enforcement and those whom the program is designated to protect by providing better service to provincial witness protection programs and improving protection for those who provide it; through broadened prohibitions against the disclosure of program information; by improving processes to obtain secure identity changes for witnesses; and through an extension of the amount of time emergency protection may be provided.

The changes that our government is proposing would respond to many of the needs and requests of provincial and territorial governments. They would respond to the needs of law enforcement officials and other stakeholders involved in the criminal justice system. They also would respond to the needs of Canadians from coast to coast who wish to see our government continue to build safer communities for everyone.

I therefore urge the opposition members to consider the bill, to look at the merits of the bill and to support this common-sense proposal that we have put forward. I encourage all members to support the bill and, as police and stakeholders across the country have asked us, let us expedite this, get the bill passed quickly, and get better and more efficient protection for witnesses who help us combat organized crime in Canada.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

moved 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 second time and referred to a committee.

Business of the House

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

Yes, I have a plan, Mr. Speaker.

This afternoon, we will continue today's NDP opposition day.

Tomorrow, we should finish the second reading debate on Bill C-52, Fair Rail Freight Service Act. Then, we will resume the second reading debate on Bill C-48, Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012.

Before question period on Monday and Tuesday, the House will debate third reading of Bill C-42, Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act. After question period those days, we will turn to second reading of Bill C-51, Safer Witnesses Act.

On Wednesday, we will debate second reading of Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act. I do not expect that this bill, which responds to views of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, would need a lot of House time. I hope we can deal with it quickly. We could then turn to report stage and possible third reading of Bill S-7, the combating terrorism act.

Next Thursday shall be the fourth allotted day, which I understand will see the Liberals choosing our topic of debate.

On Friday, we will resume any unfinished debates on the bills we just mentioned, or we could also consider dealing with any of the many bills dealing with aboriginal issues. That being raised as a concern, we have Bill S-2 dealing with matrimonial property; we have another bill dealing with safe water for first nations; and we have another bill dealing with fair elections for first nations. On all of these bills we would welcome the support of the official opposition. We have not had that to date, but if we do, we can deal with them very quickly on that day. I would be delighted to do that. I will await with interest the response from the NDP.

Safer Witnesses Act

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)