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

[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.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his speech and all of the thoughts he expressed.

In the domain of justice, there are resources that probably need to be applied to such a program, if it were expanded. Has done any consultation with the various providers of these services, I think particularly of provincial governments and the like, to see if resources would be needed for this? If that is the case, does he think his bill inferentially calls for an expenditure of money or will there be an increased transfer in the fiscal imbalance talks to provinces to take care of his bill should it be successful?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member asked a responsible question. When we propose bills, we have to check the financial implications of those bills.

I would like to tell my colleague that consultations with the departments of Justice and Public Safety are now underway.

First of all, this is an existing program, and I have some statistics on it right here. For example, the total number of RCMP witnesses admitted to the program dropped by 45% from 60 to 34 in 2002 and 2003.

I think this is a program for extreme cases that affects very few people. But knowing that the program is available is effective at dissuading a lot of people.

I would like to reassure my colleague that this measure will expand the existing program, and we are doing the numbers. Early estimates indicate that any costs added onto the existing program will be minimal.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, women in every riding across the country are going to thank my colleague for bringing forth this bill. Every person in Canada, no matter sex, creed or whatever, has a right to feel safe. The vulnerable need protection from society by government, and I applaud the member for bringing this forward.

Our government has made it very clear that we will get tough on crime. We will lock up those who commit crimes. As the saying goes “real time for real crime”.

Does the member think his private member's bill will enhance what the government is trying to do in toughening up crime laws and protecting the vulnerable all around?

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

I thank my colleague for his question.

I think that people will not necessarily remember who introduced this bill or who supported it, but I hope they will remember that all members of the House voted for it.

People will be able to say that the members of the 39th Parliament did the right thing for the safety of women in extremely dangerous situations.

In answer to his question, I would say that many measures must be implemented to ensure that women in Canada, as well as children and the elderly, have the basic social protection and safety they need to function. That is why I think that this is one element of the more comprehensive vision underlying our government's policies to promote safer, healthier communities.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too wish to commend the member opposite for his speech and for bringing forward this bill. The spotlight must be shone, on a very frequent and regular basis, on domestic violence and abuse.

I am pleased for my part to speak to the bill. I practised family and criminal law for some 25 years prior to being elected in June of 2004. I had occasion to represent literally hundreds of spouses who had been abused by their partners. I also represented, as a component of my criminal law practice, individuals who had been charged with domestic or spousal assault.

As I understand the rationale for the bill, it essentially seeks to provide spouses with an opportunity to avail themselves of the various protections provided by the witness protection program; that is, to provide them with that opportunity in the situation where their spouse is abusive.

The Witness Protection Program Act is quite broad in its definitions. For instance, the act currently states that it is:

An Act to provide for the establishment and operation of a program to enable certain persons to receive protection in relation to certain inquiries, investigations or prosecutions

Clearly, spouses are not in any way excluded from the definition section of the act and, as it currently stands, spouses would clearly fall within the category of persons who may seek assistance under the terms of the Witness Protection Program Act.

It is sad to say that I have received or heard of numerous complaints about the operation of the witness protection program. The complaints I have heard referred to funding shortfalls and the inadequacy of the protections within the act. Individuals who are registered with the program often encounter a variety of problems ranging from a difficulty or inability to obtain employment to difficulty in obtaining official or government identification.

With respect to the former problem, it is trite to say that it is difficult to obtain employment when one can furnish no references for the consideration of one's prospective employer. Nor can one provide that prospective employer with any type of work history.

I have also heard of situations which have resulted in the protected witness or person being not at all protected, given that the person who was dangerous to the protected person discovers the address or location of the protected person.

Although I appreciate that the imperfections of the current program should not, in and of themselves, derail a broadening of the program, it is important to consider carefully whether a seemingly already overburdened program can realistically deal with a new strata or category of persons who could become registered under the act.

Entering into the program has some short and long term consequences. Certainly more extensive or comprehensive measures should be enacted to ensure that persons wishing to enter the program are made aware of exactly what it is they are signing on to. There should be a requirement that the individual contemplating signing on to the program seeks independent legal advice so the short term and long term ramifications of entering the program can be clearly explained to that person by competent counsel.

As I understand the current situation, a large number of individuals, who are registered with the program, sincerely regret they ever entered the program. They claimed that they had no idea of what they were agreeing to and no idea as to the full scope of the program.

Unquestionably, the idea or concept of protecting abused spouses as much as possible is most laudable. It is trite to say that abused spouses and certainly abused children need as much protection as is possible. However, there is family or relationship dynamic between spouses which, in my view, distinguishes the spousal situation from the situation covered in the current Witness Protection Program Act; that is the typical situation witness and accused person.

A typical witness and an accused person, for instance, do not have children together, often do not have any degree of shared history and will have absolutely no incentive whatsoever to repair their relationship or to maintain a level of contact for the sake of children who, of course, do not exist.

In the typical situation in which there are children of the relationship, how appropriate would it be for the children to have no contact with their grandparents, that is, the parents of the abusive partner, if the relationship between the children and their paternal grandparents was positive and beneficial for those children? Certainly such a positive tie would be severed upon the entering into the program of the abused spouse.

What of the children's relationship with their father who, although clearly abusive of the mother, may otherwise enjoy a positive relationship with his children? If the abused partner, the children's mother, enters the program, how feasible would it be for the children to continue the positive relationship with their father?

I have been professionally involved in cases in which spousal abuse was present, typically abuse perpetrated by a husband against his wife. At times, the husband eventually curbed his abusive or violent tendencies, normally with the assistance of counselling and behavioural modification. In due course, typically after a separation of several months, the parties reconciled and the husband's abusive behaviour became a thing of the past. Essentially, the family members, including the children, were reunited. The husband returned to the family with a greater appreciation of his wrongdoing and with a renewed purpose to treat his partner with respect and dignity.

I appreciate that those are the success stories and that there are undoubtedly as many stories of failure, where the cycle of abuse continues. However, it is my current belief that an abused spouse is much more than simply a witness and that the remedies which our system should offer an abused spouse should be more helpful and more creative than the witness protection program, laden as it is with operational difficulties, lack of funding, et cetera.

Like the member opposite, I am familiar with a very well-regarded shelter for abused women in my riding of Brant. The management and staff of Nova Vita Women's Services provide caring, helpful shelter for abused women and children and also provide insightful programming for abusive males. In my view, such shelters and programming should be the focus of our efforts in dealing with the issue of domestic violence.

There should likely be separate legislation established that works within the proper jurisdictional framework to deal with cases of abuse where there is a need to provide additional protection, or even relocation, to a spouse whose life has been put in danger by her spouse. I would agree that in many cases there is a need to provide additional protection to a spouse; however, I do not necessarily believe that expanding or broadening the witness protection program is the best way to deal with this problem.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to commend the enthusiasm of the new member for Lévis—Bellechasse, who has just found an important issue to which he thinks he has found a solution in such a short time.

The Bloc Québécois will support the bill in principle. We should, however, point out to the hon. member the many solutions he should apply to solve particular problems. The strategy he has chosen may not be the most appropriate, in our opinion.

The witness protection bill is a strategy that was developed to protect a small number of witnesses against very powerful criminal rings with considerable resources available to them to take revenge on anyone who betrayed them. This bill will extend that protection to a much greater number of individuals threatened by people who do not have the same kind of resources to make an attempt on their life.

It is very likely that the case assessment process is not appropriate, and the same with the proposed solutions. Also, it is obvious that costs will explode. Under the existing program, providing protection for a single witness can cost some $400,000 a year. Did the member estimate how many people could have access to that program?

Furthermore, to get into this program, people must appear before an RCMP commissioner in Ottawa. How are we going to ensure the same procedures for people in the Northwest Territories, Quebec, the Maritimes and everywhere else in the country? This does not seem to be the most appropriate way to reach the objectives set by the hon. member.

I also understand that he, too, has discovered what I discovered as a young member in the past, taking care of all sorts of problems in my riding, including the problem of domestic violence, namely, that shelters offering women a safe refuge often try to keep their location secret. Why do they try to keep it a secret? So that the husbands they are running from cannot find them. Why? Because they are afraid.

By the way, I am not sure whether any members have seen the Quebec film The Novena—it is quite sombre but was very well received. That shows the quality of the Quebec audience, which was able to appreciate a film of such depth. The film tells the story of a psychiatrist whose serious problems were set off by one incident, when one of her patients was killed by her husband while she was at a women's shelter. The psychiatrist witnessed the murder. This fear exists not only in the movies, but in reality, as well. This fear is everywhere.

Frankly, I hope that the hon. member will continue to take this issue as far as he possibly can. It is obvious that he is aware of the enormous risks facing women.

There are certain things he must also realize. I am pleased that he is thinking of measures to prevent crime for his first bill, rather than following the lead of the majority of his party, which cannot seem to find a solution to reducing crime apart from the deterrent effect. Furthermore, earlier he used the word “deterrent” himself. I found this word somewhat inappropriate, because it is a tool for prevention that the member wishes to put in our hands. He has within reach—as we all do—a proven tool for prevention. However, his party is about to sweep it under the rug.

I would like to point out to him that since the establishment of the gun registry, murders of women involving firearms—which is something that worries women's shelters that do not give out their addresses—decreased by 31%, whereas murders of women not involving firearms increased slightly, by 2%, during the same period. This may convince the member that there is something there to be studied. In addition, it will be much more difficult to apply section 111 or 112 of the Criminal Code if we abolish the gun registry. When women fear for their lives—or when other people, the police or family members, fear for the lives of a woman who does not dare press charges—they can go before the courts and request that the individual be forced to turn in any firearms they may own pursuant to these sections. But how can the police check whether or not the firearms have been turned in if the weapons are no longer registered, as proposed by the member?

If he uses logic, and I encourage him to do so, he will make his party see the preventive value of the gun registry.

Last week, we held a press conference with the president of the Montreal police brotherhood. He gave examples of instances where the gun registry was used to defend spouses and prevent crimes against these women, who were afraid that their husbands would do violence to them. He gave us one striking example of an instance where the woman knew her spouse had weapons, but she did not know how many. Thanks to the gun registry, the police were able to determine that he had a veritable arsenal. As a result, they did not stop searching until they were sure they had seized the entire arsenal. They would not have been able to do this if they had not had access to the gun registry.

The member's goal is a noble one. I respect him, and I encourage him. That is why we will support him, at least on the principle of the bill. However, if he wants to show us that he is really serious about protecting women, he should think about how applying the gun registry to long guns as well as handguns has provided protection for a number of women who needed it. That is one reason for registering all firearms.

He should also think about the practical applications of the legislative method he has chosen to use. It would entail a considerable budget increase. I expect that a lot more than 64 women would apply for this system. I am told there are currently only 64 witnesses who want this protection. He must also ensure that these women have easy access to these measures so that they can have this protection. In my opinion, this should be done through the local police. It would not make sense to force these women to move to Ottawa, or to a big city when they live in the country, in order to benefit from this program.

The intention is quite noble and the proposed provisions are generous. It is a credit to the hon. member. Nonetheless, I think he should consider another method rather than witness protection. That said, we fully agree with him that women should get at least the same protection as the witnesses who benefit from this legislation he wants to amend.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the member for Lévis—Bellechasse for the work he has put into this bill. I agree with the points he raised, but I also have some problems with it. I think that the current legislation offers the same protection to spouses as it does to witnesses. They would be treated the same way under the existing legislation, which is broad enough to cover them.

If we were to actually look at the definition in the existing law of both who is a witness and the criteria for those individuals to qualify as witnesses and qualify for the program, in a large number of cases the victims of domestic abuse would qualify.

I am thinking that at some point the proposed bill could be ruled out of order as not accomplishing its intent, although extremely well-meaning on the part of the member, to provide additional protection within our government infrastructure for victims of domestic abuse.

Having said that, I would suggest to the member that there are a number of other programs that would be better equipped and better designed, but underfunded, that could provide this kind of protection.

I have one final point with regard to my reservations on the proposed bill. I believe this would dramatically change things if we were to follow through on the principles enunciated by the member in his comments on the bill. I also wonder if it will survive the analysis, which I know the Speaker is making with regard to a number of bills, as to whether the bill needs a royal recommendation. My own analysis leads me to believe that it may very well need a royal recommendation and may not meet the criteria to go ahead.

Any number of other programs, at both the provincial and federal levels, also are badly in need additional funding. We have heard from some members, including the member for Lévis--Bellechasse, about the existing residences and services that are available in their respective communities. The Windsor-Essex county area has a well-known safe house, Hiatus House, for women and children who are victims of domestic abuse and violence. This is a substantial institution but it lacks the funding to fully service its client base.

When we go back and look at the history of the transfer payments, we see that the funding shortages originally started with the Mulroney Conservative government back in the late 1980s and early 1990s. It continued under the Chrétien government and then under the former prime minister, the member for LaSalle-Émard.

If we were getting serious about dealing with the repercussions of domestic abuse and violence, we would be looking at this level of government to assist the provinces and local authorities in providing additional resources to deal with those repercussions, which basically means additional transfers from this level of government. It would mean replacing some of those social service dollars that were cut originally by the Mulroney government and then by the Liberal government, and which continue to this day.

In spite of some of the money that the government has put back, almost all of that money has been in the health field. Some of the money has gone toward education but little to none has been put back. The provinces have been struggling to find additional resources to offset that money and to meet with what one can only describe as a burgeoning need in this particular area.

I do not want in any way to demean the effort and the intent of the member, but a greater effort would be to pressure his government, his party, to move additional funds out of the federal coffers to the provinces for this particular need. There is a crying need for it, and there is no suggestion otherwise. He detailed that in some of his comments. I certainly can support him in that regard, but I have some serious difficulty as to whether the bill meets those needs to any significant degree.

At the present time the program costs in the range of $400,000 or $500,000 per witness. Given the number of domestic dispute victims in this country, there is absolutely no way the budget for the witness protection program will meet, other than probably less than 1%, the needs of victims of domestic abuse and violence. It is just not the right way to go. There are many better alternatives and a good deal of it comes down to funding.

I want to make one additional point. Rather than expend effort on dealing with the after-effects, we very much want to deal with prevention. It would be so much easier and cheaper if we could prevent domestic abuse and violence from occurring.

When we look at what happened through the 1990s in any number of provinces, because of problems at the federal level, the governments of the day cut money from them. Then, in some cases driven ideologically by some of the more right-wing provincial governments, a number of those programs that dealt directly with male violence in the domestic setting, counselling programs and prevention programs overall, were cut. A good number of the programs in my province of Ontario were cut completely because there was no funding for them. As a result we saw an upswing in the amount of violence that went on.

During that period of time, society was expressing its revulsion toward domestic violence. In popular culture, movies and TV programs, there was a great movement to express our abhorrence of domestic violence, whether that violence was toward the spouse or toward the children. At the same time, the social service programs that really could address the mindset that leads men, particularly or almost exclusively, to that kind of violence, were being cut right across the country. Again, some of it was ideologically driven, but most of it was simply that the provinces and the local authorities could not afford the programs.

Although I appreciate the intent that the member for Lévis—Bellechasse has shown in the bill, and quite frankly if it came to a vote we probably would be supporting it, I really doubt that if it ever got to the justice committee that the committee could adequately amend it to make it work. Our efforts need to be in other areas.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the private member's bill brought forward by my colleague and compliment him and other colleagues for their hard work.

I would like to start by giving a summary of the bill itself. It states:

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.

Therefore, we are talking about other criminal acts committed by the spouse and not necessarily totally in relationship to the spouse.

This private member's bill proposed by the hon. member addresses one of the five priorities of our government, which is protecting families and communities. In budget 2006, we invested in this priority. We invested $161 million to hire 1,000 more RCMP officers and for federal prosecutors. We have put in $26 million for victims of crime. We have put in $20 million for crime prevention.

There is a long history of spousal violence. I would like to give the House some background. In this case, the hon. member is addressing an important concern. That concern is violence against spouses.

According to the Government of Canada's 2004 general social survey, it is estimated that 7% of Canadians 15 years of age and over, in a current, previous or common law union, experienced spousal violence in the previous five years. That is a horrendous number.

This same survey indicated that the rates of those affected by spousal violence by a current or previous partner are 7% for women and 6% for men. This represents an estimated 653,000 women and 546,000 men.

Women were also much more likely to report that they were the targets of more than 10 violent incidents at the hands of their partner and more likely to state that they were injured as a result of the violence.

Female victims of spousal violence were three times more likely than male victims of spousal violence to fear for their lives and three times more likely to take time off from their everyday activities because of the violence.

It was three times more likely that females feared for their lives compared to men. There is little doubt that spousal violence deserves ongoing attention in this country.

It is then also worth considering the focus of the hon. member's bill. As Bill C-286 focuses on the witness protection program, I would like to take some time to provide the House with some background about it.

The RCMP has been involved in witness protection matters since the 1980s. However, it has only been since 1996 that the legislative program was introduced.

This act, called the Witness Protection Program Act, or WPPA, provides legislative authority for the Commissioner of the RCMP to introduce protective measures to any person who has given information or evidence, or participated in an inquiry, investigation or prosecution, and whose involvement in the aforementioned has resulted in that person requiring protection.

The existing objective and scope of the WPPA could not accommodate the addition of a new group of victims that have significantly different needs.

The current act is, however, sufficiently broad in its definition of “witness” to include any person who reports to police an assault, whether or not that person is the spouse of the alleged attacker. The current program also is designed as a law enforcement tool to assist in the fight against domestic and transnational organized crime and, increasingly, in the fight against terrorism and the maintenance of national security.

The witness protection program in its existing format faces many challenges. I think we have heard that from members opposite. The complexities associated with organized crime investigations and the very real threat to witnesses in national security investigations have challenged the existing program's ability to provide the required services.

There is no doubt that this bill would create an increase in the number of requests for admission to the witness protection program, which the Royal Canadian Mounted Police does not currently have the capacity to manage. Additional training would also have to be provided to officers working in these specific areas and cases.

Although many of the protectees currently within the witness protection program have aided law enforcement in the investigation of significant organized crime enterprises, a new reality within Canada demands that services be expanded to those persons who aid law enforcement with national security and terrorism investigations.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police witness protection program can and will provide protection to victims of spousal abuse where the threat is assessed to warrant that level of police protection. The RCMP has advised the government that there are a number of spouses currently within the program.

The new identities for victims of abuse is an ad hoc program managed by Human Resources and Social Development Canada, which works with victims of spousal abuse and can provide effective protection measures when necessary. New identities for victims of abuse personnel work closely with local police services and other service providers to try to ensure victims of spousal abuse receive the help they need.

As many of the services and responsibilities for victims of violence are within the purview of the province and territories, significant consultations would be required prior to moving forward with any initiative that may be interpreted as extending federal involvement in areas of provincial jurisdiction. In addition, considerable and meaningful consultation with these groups and organizations that provide services to the victims is essential. This is because it may be argued that many victims would express concern about being included in a program that is essentially designed to deal with criminals and that is not currently equipped to deal with the specific needs of a victim.

The idea of further support for victims of domestic violence is a worthwhile goal. However, consideration of any new initiatives to protect or support victims of abuse, particularly if this would entail an expanded role for the RCMP or the federal government, would require careful and extensive examination of the policy and legal issues involved as well as the resources available.

Before concluding on a specific policy direction, it would be necessary to consider the extent and degree to which the current witness protection program currently provides a framework for protecting victims of spousal abuse. Any such initiatives would also require approval from the House.

I thank the hon. member for raising this matter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-286. The intent of it may be admirable. We all know of spouses who need protection in one form or another. Many organizations across the country and in my own province assist spouses who are having difficulty and need protection. Most of these cases involve women, but not all the cases with which we end up dealing.

As the individual before me said, the purpose of the bill is to extend the scope of the witness protection program to include persons whose lives are in danger because of acts committed by their spouses. Somebody can correct me if I am wrong, but in my reading of the bill it does not indicate if the acts are criminal or not. The wording of the bill is very broad and that gets legislation in difficulty from time to time.

The Bloc critic said that the approach was basically the wrong vehicle to do what was intended here. I agree with that criticism. That member also mentioned the cost of implementing this kind of protection. We are looking at anywhere in the range of $400,000 to $500,000 per individual. I believe those kinds of dollars could be used in better ways than what has been proposed in the bill.

This is a poorly thought out proposal. Beyond that, there is the issue of the human resources that would be required to manage this kind of protection. Personnel are involved. I realize dollars are available, but what will the impact be on the RCMP? The government opposite has gone to great lengths to talk about increasing the number of police officers, and that is a good thing. It is following on what we did previously. The way the bill is currently designed could in fact draw down those numbers and the human resources originally intended would not be there.

Others have spoken of the difficulty of qualifying to get into the witness protection program itself. This bill would change the thrust of the program from the way it was originally designed to operate. In my former capacity as a minister, I looked at this program fairly closely. There have been lots of complaints about its operations, everything from not enough funding to the lack of support to build a new life and a new identity. That also is one of the difficulties in the design of the bill.

First and foremost, individuals suffer the trauma of facing the abusing spouses and needing protection from that abuse. Fear and intimidation goes along with that abuse. Then they are put into a program where they lose, to a great extent, their former identity. Where is the counselling that will be needed? It is not in the bill. Moneys would be far better spent in that area, although the government opposite seems to be more comfortable building jails and that kind of stuff rather than building infrastructure to deal with some of these problems. The government does not seem willing to put infrastructure in place that would assist those people who need counselling, protection and support.

One of the great criticisms of the current witness protection program is that individuals lose that typical history that they have with their identity. There is the inability to get a job because they have changed to a great extent their life. There is also the difficulty in terms of getting references. They do not have the history to get an identification.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I hear chirping from the House leader on the other side but that is not unusual in this place. The House leader and the Conservative Party do not like to face constructive criticism and that is what we are offering here.

We have said that the intent is fine, but the government tends to do everything through the criminal justice system whereas social programming works better and prevention works better.

I recognize it is a private member's bill and it will be really interesting when it comes time, whether the government will allow a free vote. The Conservatives talked about free votes, but we have not seen a free vote yet in the House. Maybe this one will entice them because I know for a fact that the justice department cannot be recommending that the government support the bill, but we will see what happens as we go down the road.

The fact of the matter is that the bill, while good in terms of its intent, can be approached differently. The witness protection program is not designed to deal with the problems that the bill is addressing. I believe that at the end of the day it would create more problems than it would solve.

The member has not put a cost on this and that needs to be looked at. What would be the total cost of the program? What would its impact be on policing? What would its impact be on the witness protection program itself? There are better ways to do this through social programming by a government that would have a social agenda rather than the kind of strict justice agenda we see being pursued by the government opposite.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand my time will continue when we resume the second hour of debate on this very important bill, Bill C-286, put forward by my colleague from Quebec, the member for Lévis—Bellechasse.

It is a real pleasure for me to speak in support of the bill, not only tonight but at the second hour of this debate. We have heard many reservations and concerns by members opposite from all three of the opposition parties.

This is a private member's bill. I know this because at one time it was my bill and I offered it to my colleague from Quebec, and he very graciously took up its cause. He was lucky and had his name drawn on the private member's draw and was in the first number of MPs to have the opportunity to present a piece of legislation in this chamber. He chose this piece of legislation.

What nobler cause is there than the protection of those most vulnerable in our society? The reason my colleague put this forward is because virtually every day individuals are in danger.

The member for Malpeque, rather than listen, is now heckling me. I sat and listened to him while he made his outrageous comments about the legislation and now he does not want to give me that same courtesy.

I was referring to abused spouses and their children and the fact that they are in danger. There is not a day that goes by where we cannot pick up a newspaper and read about another tragedy that has befallen some family because of spousal abuse. Oftentimes it is not just the spouse. About 80% of the time where there is spousal abuse, it is the wife or the female partner who is abused. Oftentimes she loses her life and all too often the lives of the children are lost or damaged as well.

What nobler cause do we have as a government, as a society, to protect the most vulnerable? That is the purpose of this legislation. I know my time is up and I look forward to continuing my eight minutes when the debate resumes during the second hour.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. The order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

It being 6:18 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:18 p.m.)

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.

[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.)