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

[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.

[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.

The House resumed, from June 8, consideration of the motion that Bill C-286, 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Before we launch into orders of the day, I have a short ruling to make.

As hon. members know, the Chair has undertaken to ensure that pertinent procedural questions are resolved before the second reading debate on a private member's bill is concluded.

Therefore, before the debate begins on Bill C-286, 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, I must advise the House of a procedural difficulty which the bill poses for the Chair.

Hon. members may recall that I first raised this issue in the statement I made in the House on May 31st last concerning private members' business.

Careful examination of Bill C-286 indicates that clause 4 replaces sections 3 and 4 of the existing Witness Protection Program Act. It extends the application of the program to persons whose life is in danger because of acts committed against them by their spouse, a protection that does not currently exist under the witness protection program. In doing so, the bill proposes to carry out an entirely new function.

As a new function, such an activity is not covered by the terms of any existing appropriation. As the House knows, funds are approved by Parliament only for purposes covered by the accompanying royal recommendation, as explicitly stated in Standing Order 79(1). New functions or activities must be accompanied by a new royal recommendation.

Thus, the Chair has concluded that those provisions in clause 4 of the bill which relate to the expansion of the witness protection program require a royal recommendation.

I will therefore decline to put the question on third reading of this bill in its present form unless a royal recommendation has been received.

Today, however, the debate is on the motion for second and this motion shall be put to a vote at the close of the second reading debate.

Witness Protection Program Act

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

moved that Bill C-286, 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 be read the second time and referred to committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you and all members of the House who are taking the time to listen to these remarks about a bill that will have real repercussions on the vulnerable members of our society: women whose lives are threatened by their spouse or ex-spouse in cases of domestic violence.

The goal of this bill is simply to expand the existing witness protection program to include spouses whose lives are in danger.

I hope that this bill will receive the support of the members of this House. The bill was created due to an ugly reality, a reality that we would prefer not to see in Canada but that nevertheless exists, namely, domestic violence and its after-effects.

In my own riding, as in many others, there are organizations to help women in difficult situations. In my riding, the Jonction pour elle, in Lévis, is a crisis centre and shelter for women who are victims of violence. The centre welcomes women and children who are victims of domestic violence.

For such individuals, the Jonction pour elle—and other centres—represent a haven of peace and security. This bill is presented here today for such organizations, in order to give them the tools to help women even more—especially women living in poverty—when they are threatened by their spouse or ex-spouse. The goal of this bill is to say no to domestic violence and yes to respect, dignity and equality.

Violence is something personal that occurs in the privacy of our homes but can have a major impact on a woman's health and well-being. The measurable health-related costs of violence against women in Canada exceed $1.5 billion a year. These costs include short-term medical and dental treatment for injuries, long-term physical and psychological care, lost time at work, and use of transition homes such as Jonction pour elle and crisis centres.

These women came to see me in my riding, at my constituency office. I was happy to receive representatives of Jonction pour elle, just as every parliamentarian is happy to receive representatives of agencies working to improve quality of life in the riding.

I told them I would be pleased to visit them and I asked them where their centre was located.

Pardon my ignorance, but I did not know that such shelters do not disclose the location where they help women, because women who stay there feel threatened by the violent behaviour of their spouse or ex-spouse. This was my first encounter with this reality: the location of these shelters cannot be revealed.

In other words, women also need protection. As I was saying earlier, the purpose of this bill is to allow these women, in extreme cases, to go so far as to change their identity, change their social insurance number and even move to another town. People do not make such decisions light-heartedly.

These are extreme measures, but in today's society, we must make them available in order to avoid unfortunate incidents such as the one that occurred in the riding of the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River. It was a very tragic story. A women who felt threatened was unable to get proper protection and ended up in a coma. The person who committed the physical violence was released after serving a four-year sentence.

It is important that legal tools be provided for these centres that help women in need. That is why I am asking for the support of this House.

Let us review some statistics. Attacks against women by a spouse or partner are nine times more frequent than attacks against men. Spouses are involved in half of the homicides committed within a family. Unfortunately, the reality is that in our country, at this time, there are homicides and that half the murders of women are carried out by individuals known to them, hence the need to protect the potential victims.

Family violence is also a problem that can have lasting consequences for the individual and for society in general. In addition to the physical, psychological, social and economic impact on those directly affected, family violence has significant social and economic costs for health care systems, civil and criminal justice systems, housing and shelter services and community services.

Going back to the reality of the Jonction pour elle in Lévis, in the riding of Lévis—Bellechasse and Les Etchemins, last year, more than 131 people, including 69 women with their children, were sheltered in this centre. As I said earlier, for these women, the centre is a haven of peace, a place where they can feel safe and heal their psychological and physical wounds. Unfortunately, the centre had to refuse 139 requests last year. Clearly, there is a need in my riding, just as there probably is in other ridings. The purpose of the bill before us today is simply to provide a tool for protection. But the bill touches on a broader issue: quality of life in our family units. We need family units where people can thrive and feel respected. Spousal violence is truly the seed of destruction in our families, and it must be eliminated.

One-third of women, who were assaulted by a partner, feared for their lives at some point during the abusive relationship. Therefore, there are women whose lives are threatened by their previous or actual husbands. In almost two-thirds of wife assault cases, violence occurred on more than one occasion, so we can see there is a repetition pattern.

In total, in 2001 almost half of all female victims and a few male victims were killed by an individual with whom they had had an intimate relationship at one time, either through marriage or dating.

We can see the importance of protecting those women who feel that their lives are threatened as well as males in some cases.

I could go on at length, but I think I have covered the basics for the members of this House, who have granted me the time I needed to explain this bill. In short, it seeks to amend the Witness Protection Program Act to include spouses whose lives are threatened. This bill, which my colleague from Prince George—Peace River has been introducing for six years, goes beyond partisanship.

I thank my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou for seconding my motion regarding the bill. In closing, I would just like to thank the members of this House for their attention, and I invite them to support this bill.

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-286, 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.

Mr. Speaker, this morning, as the member for Lévis—Bellechasse, it is an honour and a privilege for me to introduce in this House a bill designed to extend the witness protection program to spouses whose life is in danger.

This will help men but it will help women even more. The fact is that 80% of victims of criminal assault are women, and half of these assaults are committed by ex-spouses.

My sincere thanks to the member for Prince George—Peace River for his considerable help in developing this bill. I think that all members of this House would do well to support it. I personally invite them to support this bill that, I am convinced, will better protect men and women who are victims of assault.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)