Bill C-286 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act (protection of spouses whose life is in danger) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act

This enactment amends the Witness Protection Program Act. Its purpose is to extend the scope of the Witness Protection Program to include in this program persons whose life is in danger because of acts committed by their spouse.

Witness Protection Program Act

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-286 amends the Witness Protection Program Act to extend the scope of the program to include persons whose life is in danger because of acts committed by their spouse.

I think we can agree that my colleague from Lévis—Bellechasse is, in a way, aiming to protect women who could suffer spousal abuse. I think that we all support that aim and can only commend this initiative and commend the member for his concern about violence against women.

As the status of women critic, I can assure hon. members of one thing: it will be a long time before we live in a world and a society where women and children are not victims of violence. However, as a criminologist, I can only question the means used to protect these people, in this case the famous witness protection program.

This program is designed to protect informants, which does not send a very good message. An attempt is being made to use a program designed for informants to protect people, especially women threatened by their spouse. The indirect message this sends is that a woman who complains of abuse is an informant. And the method being used to protect such people is unfortunately not the best.

I would like this government to think about the methods it is using to fight crime and especially to protect victims. I think that the intent of the bill is good and honourable.

There is another disturbing point in this bill. The first clause mentions that protection will apply only to certain persons. I think that any person who needs protection against violence must be protected. Besides, who will decide that a person has, and I quote, “reasonable grounds [to believe] that their life is in danger by reason of acts committed against them by their spouse”?

My question is the following: Who will make this evaluation? Is it the RCMP, as is the case in the current program? If so, what will be done for Quebec? In Quebec, front line workers are, to name just a few, the municipal police, the Sûreté du Québec in some regions where there is no municipal police force and, of course, women's shelters.

What will be done? Will there be a situation where people who are already the victims of violence will have to deal with administrative red tape, that is the famous reverse pyramid? Indeed, although it may take months before women are protected, it takes only a few seconds to get a bullet in the head.

Also, there is absolutely nothing in this bill that deals with child protection. Generally, when it comes to women, sometimes they have children with them, sometimes not. I greatly appreciate my Conservative Party colleague's generosity and desire to protect women. However, I will give him a few little ideas that are concrete and that would help protect women.

First, why does he not ask the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women to give back the famous $5 million a year that she wants to cut from Status of Women Canada? We know that, in 2007, this $5 million a year will be taken from the funds of Status of Women Canada.

Why does he not ask his minister to take appropriate action? A $5 million a year cut to Status of Women Canada's budget means $5 million less to fight violence against women and children. Those are concrete measures.

If the member is so passionate about the issue of violence against women, I am willing to meet the Prime Minister with him, if he so wishes. I am even willing to meet his whole caucus to make his colleagues understand the importance of the gun registry. The importance of this registry is obvious. Any woman, any man, anyone in Quebec will tell you that it is very important. Indeed, the registry has led to a reduction in the number of homicides against women and children. In the case of women, the reduction was 31%.

I do not think that we want to resemble the United States. We do not want the right to bear arms to be a constitutional right. People in Quebec and in Canada want the right to life to be a constitutional right. That is the right they want, not the right to bear arms and to line the pockets of the gun lobby.

I urge the hon. member to review, along with his government, not only their perception of crime, but also the means used to fight it. We all want to eliminate this plague. Unfortunately, the means currently used by this government will not achieve that goal.

I wish to make another point. Prevention is critical in the fight against any form of crime, whether we are dealing with violence against women, youth, street gangs, organized crime or terrorism. Prevention, measures to fight exclusion and poverty, and efforts to reconcile work and family are all effective ways to fight crime. Building jails and imposing stiffer penalties will not do the job. In fact, the longer people are behind bars, the more criminalized they become. Any criminologist can confirm that. Any self-respecting criminologist knows that penitentiaries are, quite simply, universities for criminals.

I will conclude by saying that it is not going to be easy for the hon. member for Lévis—Bellechasse to convince his government that it should view crime from a new perspective. In any case, he should never forget that we were sent here, in this House, by the public, and that we should only be accountable to that public.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for the opportunity to speak to this bill. I would like to applaud my hon. colleague for bringing forward this important matter. Sponsoring such a thoughtful bill, he has demonstrated his personal concern for one of our most troubling challenges as a society, the abuse of spouses by their partners.

As a society we have come a long way. We have developed a much better understanding of this issue and as a consequence, we are taking real and meaningful steps to address it. The debate we are having today is more evidence of a concern that is widely shared.

A caring society must ensure that its citizens are able to go about their daily affairs with a reasonable expectation of personal safety. As lawmakers, we cannot guarantee complete safety to every individual, particularly behind the four walls of their homes. However, we can take steps to increase the overall level of safety of Canadians, and that is exactly what Canada's new government is determined to achieve.

As hon. members will recall, the Speech from the Throne designated attack on crime and the protection of communities as two of the government's five main priorities.

Budget 2006 pledged $161 million to hire 1,000 new RCMP personnel and federal prosecutors to focus on such law enforcement priorities as drugs, corruption and border security. Another $20 million was earmarked for various youth crime prevention initiatives with a focus on guns, gangs and drugs. Our government has also promised $26 million for a range of initiatives for victims of crimes, including the establishment of a victims ombudsman for matters within federal jurisdiction.

The government is also examining such issues as the length and terms of custodial sentences. In particular, as the Prime Minister has committed, the government introduced legislation to address sentences for dangerous offenders, particularly those convicted of sexual or violent offences.

Such initiatives will do much to enhance the safety of our streets and to increase the confidence of Canadians. Can we do more? Yes we can. As the hon. member for Lévis—Bellechasse proposes, we can amend one of our existing laws to bring greater protection to a particular vulnerable group.

Under the bill before us, the Witness Protection Program Act would be amended, so as to extend to victims of spousal abuse the kind of protection afforded to men and women who endanger their lives by testifying as witnesses for the Crown. In order to weigh the merits of the proposals before us, permit me to expand a bit more on the witness protection program.

The RCMP has been engaged in witness protection activities since the 1980s, initially for informants contributing to the breakup of narcotics rings. This authority was formalized in 1996 with the passage of the Witness Protection Program Act, which allows the RCMP to protect witnesses to any inquiry, investigation or prosecution that places them at substantial risk. Typically, these witnesses are testifying in cases involving major organized crime, national security, terrorism, and so on.

The question then becomes, is it appropriate, feasible or indeed necessary to broaden the witness protection program to also protect victims of spousal abuse? In considering this question, we need to begin with some context.

According to the Government of Canada's 2004 general social survey, an estimated 7% of Canadians aged 15 and older had experienced spousal violence in the previous five years. While nearly as many men as women reported that they were victims of domestic abuse, it is noteworthy that the scope of their experience is different.

Female victims, for instance, were three times more likely than men to fear for their lives and to lose time from their everyday activities. Women were also much more likely to report that they were the targets of more than 10 violent incidents and suffered bodily injury.

What do people in that situation really need? The answer to that question is as varied as the cases. In general, victims of domestic violence need a range of interventions, from information, counselling and social support, to emergency shelter and medical attention. Some need to get away altogether.

For some, fleeing a life-threatening situation, only a whole new identity will save them. Such a solution is of course always an absolute last resort. It is a complex task and drastic desperate measure. It starts with a new name, but it is so much more than that. There is a new home, a new community and a new job. Gone is everything that the person once had such as friends, colleagues, a personal history and often even a family.

Fortunately, in Canada victims of violence do not have to walk that path alone. Some, as I mentioned earlier, are eligible for the protection by the RCMP under the witness protection program. The Government of Canada also works with its provincial and territorial partners, police, and a variety of social agencies to ensure that victims of family violence gain access to the services and supports that they need. These services may be delivered right in the victim's home community. Alternatively he or she may need help to relocate.

In assessing the intent of Bill C-286 several questions come to mind. For example, are those who fear for their lives at the hands of a dangerous partner sufficiently well-served by existing programs and also by social services that might exist at the provincial, territorial or local levels?

For one thing, the program is a tool for law enforcement officers operating in a context of crime investigation. As such, might it lack a focus on social intervention and support which are often important to domestic abuse cases?

Such social interventions, moreover, fall under the jurisdiction of provincial and territorial agencies, and we must determine whether it is inappropriate for the Government of Canada to manage their activities under federal law.

Finally, there is the issue of resources. We must assess whether the RCMP has the capacity to manage a substantial increase in the number of individuals afforded protection under the witness protection program. If the focus of the program were to change, would officers working on domestic abuse cases need to receive further training which would add to the cost?

There are few obligations of government more grave than the duty to protect and defend society's most vulnerable. Victims of domestic abuse need support and practical aid, including, in the most serious cases, assistance in leaving their abusers.

Addressing those needs is not easy. Programs must be developed and delivered in a way that will genuinely help victims, not inadvertently expose them to new dangers. In that context, I want to reiterate my appreciation for the initiative demonstrated by the hon. member for Lévis—Bellechasse.

The remedy he proposes in Bill C-286 is thoughtful. It underscores his profound concern for a truly worthwhile cause and it merits the respect of further debate and deliberation. This deliberation must also weigh the utility of the witness protection program as a tool to address domestic abuse, the jurisdictional implications of its use, and the resources available to law enforcement bodies that might wish to use it.

I do, however, thank my hon. colleague for bringing this matter to the floor of the House of Commons in the hope that it will receive due consideration in the very near future.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-286 would amend the Witness Protection Act to include spouses whose lives are in danger because of the action of their spouse, which is defined to include former spouse, common law partner or former common law partner. A common law partner is a person who has cohabited in a conjugal relationship with another person for a period of not less than one year.

Violence against women remains a serious social problem, despite advances in public awareness, support services and judicial and policy responses such as peace bonds, firearm prohibition orders, incarceration, no contact communication orders, restraining orders. To an irrational abuser, however, civil remedies, such as supervisory orders, custody orders for children or division of matrimonial property, may exacerbate a situation to the point where the only final recourse for the victim's spouse and her children is to escape the threat of personal harm by disappearing.

A commentary on Bill C-286 points out that this proposed legislation will introduce a subtle yet important shift in the rationale for the witness protection program. The existing program is to promote law enforcement by protecting witnesses who are in personal jeopardy because of their involvement in police activities. The proposed bill will add a related but separate purpose, the protection of persons who believe their lives to be in danger from their spouse or former spouse. This protection for individuals would be a goal of its own and not directly related to broader police activities.

I have no doubt that all members of the House agree that support for victims of domestic violence is needed and most commendable. The act will, however, be meaningless unless additional financial resources are committed to cover the expanded role of the federal government and the RCMP.

Currently, spouses who are in such danger that they feel they must flee their surroundings and change their identities do now have some measure of protection under a little known ad hoc process called new identities, unless this has been a victim of the Conservative government's latest round of cuts to federal programs.

With the help of information from police, women's shelters and victims groups, the program assists desperate women in life-threatening situations gain a new identity and relocate by providing them with new social insurance numbers and ensuring continuity of federal social benefits such as employment insurance. This does prevent some devious predators from surreptitiously tracking down their estranged spouse. However, with no separate funding sources, the assistance provided is not comprehensive and falls far short of its aims and objectives, which leads us to the need for this act.

Bill C-286 would also provide a new solid base for the new identities program.

Subclause 7(2) of the bill sets out the factors which should be considered in the case of admitting a spouse to the program. They include: the nature of risk to the security of the spouse; the nature of the injuries caused to the spouse by the severe psychological damage inflicted on the spouse by the other spouse and the criminal record, if any, of the other spouse; the circumstances that cause the spouse to believe that his or her life is in danger; alternative methods of protecting the spouse without admitting the spouse to the program; and such other factors as the commissioner deems relevant.

Unless the criteria for entry are somewhat strict, the program could result in an unmanageable situation in which applicants flood the system. Spouses would have to believe, on reasonable grounds, that their life was in danger by reason of acts committed against them by their spouse and would have to be recommended for admission by a law enforcement agency, which could also include government departments.

Participation in a spousal witness protection program must be well thought out by a prospective candidate who must appreciate both the short term and long term complications. If elements of organized crime are a threat, one is most happy to disappear without a trace. Under the spousal program there is the family dynamic of parents, siblings, grandparents left behind, which could complicate matters. Children who, with the passage of time, may forget or play down the violence and abusive behaviour of the parent left behind, may work to reconnect with the parent, thereby blowing the cover of this protective veil after much time, effort and expense.

In most cases, under the current program, the RCMP erases all traces of a witness' former identity, moves the persons to a new province, pays for job re-training and provides money for re-establishment. A handful of abuse victims have been admitted to the existing program, but mainly for those who have testified against their partners.

When we consider the tremendous number of victims of domestic abuse and violence in our country, one can readily appreciate that there could be much take up under these programs and the funding necessary for the programs would be substantial. At the present time, the witness protection program costs range from $400,000 to $500,000 per witness, which is very significant.

As this bill entails expenditures of money, I hope that the sponsor of the bill has sought an opinion on whether a royal recommendation is required, and if so, that the Conservative government will in fact support such a recommendation. The costs in and of themselves should not defeat an initiative that is worthy of further consideration.

Although it goes beyond the scope of the proposed legislation, serious consideration should be given by this government to working with our provincial partners to provide additional resources to deal with preventive measures and sound programs to get at the root causes of domestic abuse and violence, whether they be programs for counselling in alcohol and drug abuse, anger management, debt management, stress management, gender sensitivity--something we did not see much of on the other side of the House yesterday--marriage counselling, or other interventions that may prevent violent and abusive behaviour. This wish list is extensive but so necessary if we are truly to address the issue of spousal abuse and violence.

We must assist the service and delivery providers throughout this country with much needed resources, either indirectly through the provinces in our social transfers, or directly to the social agencies for assistance programs that do not offend the federal-provincial jurisdictional responsibilities. The bottom line is that the groups and organizations on the front lines need help and financial assistance, help that will pay dividends in diminishing the demand and the need for extensive utilization of a spousal witness protection program.

One of these front line agencies in my riding of Welland is Women's Place of South Niagara, a crisis centre and provider of shelter for women and their children who are victims of domestic abuse and violence. Its doors are open to those who are forced to flee their residences, often in emergency situations, and sometimes with just the clothes on their backs, in order to protect themselves from serious injury or worse at the hands of a physically aggressive spouse or common law partner.

Occasionally an intervention of this nature is the catalyst to defuse an increasingly violent relationship, allowing the parties to reassess such a relationship and either to proceed to a more amicable or at least rational separation or to work to a possible reconciliation and a new respect for one another. Too often this is not enough.

I have listened with astonishment and horror to the anecdotes of abused women from the shelter who are brave enough to tell their stories anonymously. I question how our society allows such situations to occur and why there are not the resources for prompt interventions. It is a sobering fact to learn that some women, for many different reasons, endure up to 30 incidents of abusive behaviour before they seek help to leave an abusive relationship for a much better life.

Some advocates for victims of domestic abuse and violence would like to see a totally new program of protection with decisions of acceptance into the program being managed or reviewed by professionals trained and skilled in making assessments of abused women and children, instead of leaving it to the RCMP to decide which victims need protection. Their concern is that the policing authorities could limit their choices to victims of abusers who have been criminally convicted of a serious related criminal offence. Police involvement would still be required but augmented by the input of trained professionals.

In this discussion I also wish to point out that legally acquired rifles and shotguns are the weapons of choice in cases of domestic homicide. It has been pointed out that guns are frequently part of the cycle of intimidation and violence that many victims face in their homes. For every woman who loses her life at the hand of a spouse with a firearm, there are thousands who are threatened or live in fear. In fact, one shelter worker with the Alberta Council of Women's Shelters estimated that at least 30% of her clients had been threatened with a gun. The opponents of licensing and registration tend to come from regions where guns are more common, such as rural communities and the west. Ironically, these regions are also where firearms figure more prominently in incidents of domestic violence.

The Firearms Act introduced measures for licensing of gun owners and registration of firearms. Coupled with appropriate training and implementation, these measures are essential to removing firearms from situations where women are at risk. Licensing of gun owners is essential to keep guns away from potentially abusive spouses or individuals with a history of violence.

I would hope that the sponsor of the bill would urge his government not to proceed with its commitment to gut the firearms program. Protection of women and children from domestic abuse includes much more than including them in a witness protection program.

The inclusion of spouses in the witness protection program is the last, the final safety net in cases where counselling and criminal law have been ineffective. Women who fall into this category must be given this opportunity to save their lives and those of their children. That is why I will support this bill moving to committee stage for a full consideration, including the testimony of knowledgeable witnesses.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I am not in any way questioning the good intentions of the member for Lévis—Bellechasse who introduced this bill. However, I think his position is actually contrary to the policies of his party. Although he wishes to protect women and children in our society, by cutting numerous programs, the Conservative government will only put them more at risk. I would like to list some of the programs that were cut.

I acknowledge—and all the statistics show—that women are still the victims of spousal violence. However, given the government's approach that all persons must fend for themselves, I think we are going in the opposite direction from the member's goal.

The government has just imposed drastic cuts on Status of Women Canada. This organization speaks out and advocates for women's equality. Now that it has been muzzled, it will be more difficult for it to advocate for women. We know that financial support for the administration, which allows this organization to function, has been cut, so, again, I would ask that he speak to the members of his caucus and the Prime Minister to reinstate that funding.

On the question of programs for prevention, they are almost completely sidelined in favour of simply making more criminals, creating more prisons and building the prison industry rather than helping those who are at risk through solid prevention programs. The funding, as we saw in the budget, has become so limited that its usefulness is questionable.

On a third point, the Conservative Party has been unanimously against the arms registry. We have seen many crimes in the past year that have seriously endangered what we think of as our country's values. The saw the terrible tragedy at Dawson College, and recently women and children have been the victims of conjugal crimes.

We have to begin questioning why some of those weapons are even present in our society and why the government would not present a bill to simply ban the sale or the presence of these semi-automatic or fully automatic weapons. There is absolutely no reason for them in our society. Friends of mine who are hunters tell me that they do not need them.

Yet these are some of the measures that would begin to help reduce crime in Canada, particularly, as we have seen in the past few years, violence against women and children. I believe those measures, with the appropriate funding, would be more effective in helping address a problem that we have all recognize. We all want our country to have a strong social cohesion, to be a place where women and children feel safe.

I would suggest that these are the measures of which our party would be more supportive.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Lévis—Bellechasse has five minutes to answer.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank the hon. members who spoke to the bill: the hon. member for Ahuntsic, the hon. member for Welland, who asked a pertinent question concerning royal assent—and I think that the speech by the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville will comfort him—and the hon. member for Victoria, who is an ardent defender of women's rights.

At the outset, I want to say that this private member's bill has not been introduced by a single member, but with the support of all the other members of his caucus. I want to underscore the personal contribution and the selflessness shown by our party's whip, the member for Prince George—Peace River, without whom the bill could not make its way through the administrative maze. Members are aware that bills are adopted through a relatively complex process. I benefit from the hon. member's support and logistical help and I thank him for that. This is a cause that is important to him and has been for a long time.

On the government side, I want to acknowledge the contribution of the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development who provided me with a great deal of support to ensure that this bill got off the ground. I think all parliamentarians agree with the bill's principles. The purpose of the bill is to protect women from violent ex-spouses. I am glad this is something that is supported by parliamentarians, regardless of the party they belong to or where they are from in this country. Now we have to find a way to make this bill effective and that is why I am working in close cooperation with the ministers I just mentioned.

According to Statistics Canada, there are still far too many women—653,000 women, but also 546,000 men—who encountered violence by their spouse or partner between 1999 and 2004. Some 9% of women even reported that they had been stalked by their spouse. This type of harassment involves repeated threatening or intimidating telephone calls. The spouse might follow or spy on the victim, physically or psychologically threaten the victim or, worst yet, try to kill the victim. Over 60% of stalking victims pursued by an ex-spouse were harassed for over one year.

We realize that this bill is not necessarily perfect and that it will not address all situations. However, if even a single woman in this country, and her children, is protected from her ex-spouse, we will have attained our objective. We cannot expect perfection before taking action. Too many women need our help.

Resources are available to women and I am proud of the assistance provided by Jonction pour Elle to the women in Lévis. The member for Welland spoke of one organization. Many agencies need tools to effectively help women. It is not right for a violent ex-spouse to get away with going to a police station to obtain all the information about the person we are trying to protect.

The House must pass this bill without delay. Naturally, the parliamentary committee will have the opportunity to make amendments and improve it. Time is money and too many women need this bill. I could continue by providing some examples.

It is not true that the bill will be costly. During the last debate, large amounts such as $400,000 were bandied about. That is not necessarily the case. We are looking at a much lower figure, perhaps in the order of tens of thousands of dollars in some cases.

There are also tragic examples. Right in Montreal, violent ex-husbands have gone so far as to enter the houses where these women have sought refuge and to attempt to take their lives.

Our government has been working with the provinces since January 2006 to improve the status of women. I believe that this bill, with the support of members of the House, will be another step that the Government of Canada and parliamentarians can take to ensure that we live in a better society. This is, unfortunately, one of the elements we need at this time to help those women most in need.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The question is on the motion.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think if you seek it you would find unanimous consent to see the clock as 2:30 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

It being 2:30 p.m. the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:10 p.m.)