Bill C-51 (Historical)

Safer Witnesses Act

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

This enactment amends the Witness Protection Program Act to, among other things,
(a) provide for the designation of a provincial or municipal witness protection program so that certain provisions of that Act apply to such a program;
(b) authorize the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to coordinate, at the request of an official of a designated provincial or municipal program, the activities of federal departments, agencies and services in order to facilitate a change of identity for persons admitted to the designated program;
(c) add prohibitions on the disclosure of information relating to persons admitted to designated provincial and municipal programs, to the means and methods by which witnesses are protected and to persons who provide or assist in providing protection;
(d) specify the circumstances under which disclosure of protected information is nevertheless permitted;
(e) exempt a person from any liability or other punishment for stating that they do not provide or assist in providing protection to witnesses or that they do not know that a person is protected under a witness protection program;
(f) expand the categories of witnesses who may be admitted to the federal Witness Protection Program to include persons who assist federal departments, agencies or services that have a national security, national defence or public safety mandate and who may require protection as a result;
(g) allow witnesses in the federal Witness Protection Program to end their protection voluntarily;
(h) extend the period during which protection may, in an emergency, be provided to a person who has not been admitted to the federal Witness Protection Program; and
(i) make a consequential amendment to another Act.

Safer Witnesses Act

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to lend my support to Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act.

At the outset, I will point out that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Kelowna—Lake Country.

Without question, the federal witness protection program continues to serve Canadians well. However, there is no denying that there have been sweeping changes in the landscape since the Witness Protection Program Act was first passed 17 years ago. At the same time, various stakeholders have made constructive suggestions for improving the program. For all these reasons, the time has come to bring Canada's witness protection program into the 21st century both for the sake of protectees, as well as the ones who protect them.

Having carefully reviewed Bill C-51 and as a member of the public safety committee, I am confident the safer witnesses act would make federal witness protection programs more effective and more secure.

Before highlighting the proposed amendments, let me reflect on the rationale for the changes. There are three main catalysts for this bill: the evolving nature of crime and technology, the recommendations of several key reports and the needs of our stakeholders. I will address each in turn.

The revolution in information technology, which continues unabated, has been an double-edged sword. On the one hand, the law enforcement community has new tools to track down criminals. On the other hand, organized crime can now track down, intimidate and threaten witnesses more easily. Canada's witness protection program needs greater flexibility to keep one step ahead of the criminals. In other words, we need to better protect and secure information about witnesses, programs and the administrators of those programs. Bill C-51 addresses those concerns.

Against this backdrop, we must also acknowledge that two major reports have recommended changes to how we protect our witnesses. In March 2008, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security made several important recommendations to enhance the witness protection program. In its response, the government committed to consult with affected stakeholders and the bill we are discussing today is informed by those wide-ranging views.

Members may recall the Commission of Inquiry into the Investigation of the Bombing of Air India Flight 182 also recommended changes to the witness protection program. The Government of Canada responded, and I am pleased to note the safer witnesses act reflects priorities in the government's Air India action plan.

The third major catalyst, which is connected to these reports, is the evolving needs of our stakeholders, including the provinces and territories and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. In particular, there has been a resounding call for improved interaction between and among different levels of government.

I am pleased to say the safer witnesses act has provisions to enhance communication between federal departments and between federal, provincial and territorial governments. On that note, let me review the main elements of the bill, beginning with how it would streamline management of the witness protection program.

Members may be aware of differences between the federal program and programs that exist in Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Essentially, the federal program, which is run by the RCMP, provides long-term protection for witnesses. This could involve moving a family to another location and changing the identities of its members.

Provincial programs are often generally focused on more short-term protection. This could include making sure that witnesses are safe and secure before they testify in a major trial. However, there are times when the provinces need support from the RCMP. Unfortunately, there are also times when that support gets bogged down by bureaucracy. For example, sometimes provinces must obtain new identities for the protectees. To do so, the provinces must currently enrol them in the federal program. This process can take time and when lives are at stake, obviously time counts.

To address this problem, Bill C-51 would change this process. Ultimately, once designated, provincial programs could deal directly with the RCMP for secure identity changes without transferring protectees into the federal program. The proposed amendments would enhance interactions between and among federal agencies and departments. Now, when the RCMP needs help with an identity change for a provincial protectee, federal departments would be duty bound to co-operate.

The second major set of amendments in this bill concerns disclosure of information. Currently, the act prohibits only the disclosure of information about the location and identity of federal protectees. Bill C-51 would broaden the scope of protection to include sensitive information about how the program is run and about those who administer the program.

Moreover, in response to concerns by stakeholders, the bill would extend these prohibitions to designated provincial programs. Bill C-51 would also clear up vague wording in the current act about the nature of direct and indirect disclosure. It would prohibit, for example, revealing anything about protectees that could even indirectly identify them, such as medical conditions or distinguishing marks.

This government strongly believes that protectees have a right to know when their new identities might be compromised. That is why the proposed amendments will broaden the government's duty to notify witnesses about any relevant disclosure.

At the same time, the bill reserves the right to a full notification if the disclosure might compromise national security. There is always a need to balance the rights of protectees and the needs of the public. In certain parts of the existing legislation, however, the pendulum swings too far away from the protectees.

For that reason, Bill C-51 would specify the RCMP Commissioner must have reasonable grounds to believe national security or defence was at risk before he or she could disclose a protectees identity.

At the same time, the proposed legislation would authorize the commissioner to disclose information if it would better protect witnesses in both federal and provincial programs.

Disclosure would also be allowed if protected persons gave their consent, if they had already disclosed their real identities themselves or acted in a way that revealed their identities.

This brings me to the question of what happens if a protectee no longer wishes to be protected. Currently, only the commissioner may end protection for witnesses in the federal program. Bill C-51 proposes a change that would allow protectees to voluntarily terminate their involvement. Not only would this protect the rights of protectees to leave, it would also protect the integrity of the program. If a protectee no longer follows the rules, it jeopardizes the entire program, including the lives of its administrators. These witnesses are very different and we must try to accommodate them as best we can.

As I mentioned earlier, we must recognize that witnesses may need protection from a terrorist rather than a simple criminal. For that reason, the bill proposes to open the witness protection program to referrals from federal institutions with a Public Safety, National Defence or National Security mandate.

Bill C-51 is a thoughtful and comprehensive approach to bring the federal witness protection program into the new millennia. It has been well received by many provincial jurisdictions as well as by law enforcement communities, and takes into consideration the needs of other concerned groups.

Let me quote from Tom Stamatakis, who is the President of the Canadian Police Association:

The Canadian Police Association strongly believes that this proposed legislation will enhance the safety and security of front-line law enforcement personnel who are engaged in protective duties. Unfortunately, the disclosure of identifying details can present a real danger to police personnel themselves as well as their families, and we appreciate the steps being taken today by the government of Canada to address those concerns. On behalf of the over 50,000 law enforcement personnel that we represent across Canada, we ask that Parliament quickly move to adopt this Bill.

The NDP and Liberals have supported this legislation at every stage. No amendments were proposed. Bill C-51 was studied at five public safety committee meetings, and this is the fourth day that Bill C-51 has been debated in the House.

It is time to get on with it. I would urge all hon. members to join me in giving Bill C-51 their full and unconditional support.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting bill. A number of New Democrats have promoted the principles behind this bill in the past and more recently.

However, money is the crucial issue. Police forces, especially smaller forces in smaller communities, will not necessarily have the resources they need. There are some serious concerns about this.

Although we agree with the spirit of the bill, we want to know how the government plans on helping these police forces protect witnesses who are in danger, when they do not have as many resources at their disposal.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that all the witnesses who came before the committee, when asked the question about financing, said that they were more than comfortable that there were sufficient resources within the program to do that.

If there is some smaller community out there that has some difficulty, certainly it could approach and appeal for assistance in some way. Without knowing any circumstances, it would be currently hypothetical to say it would be or would not be accepted, but the process and the openness is there to listen to anybody who needs help.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, here is what Andy McGrogan had to say. He is the chief of police of the Medicine Hat Police Service, which serves a city that is not exactly tiny:

Provincially, they're working on witness protection legislation, as well. Again, the chiefs across the province are concerned about the costs that are involved. Right now we're looking at how to absorb those costs. If you look at a community such as ours, the protection of one witness, if funded through the municipality, has a major impact on our budget.

Small cities are not the only ones having problems, according to this chief of police.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, again, I cannot recall all of the testimony off the top of my head, but the overwhelming response was that the funding is there to run these programs. The provinces are running their programs now. This is not going to change markedly. There is not going to be a huge increase. None of the witnesses said there would be a huge increase in the number of people seeking protection. Everybody who is seeking protection is carefully analyzed. Not everyone who asks for it gets it because there are criteria that have to be met. That is done provincially and federally, depending on which program people are in. There are no suggestions and no suggestions from any of the witnesses that there would be an increase in the number of people in the program.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, originally when the act was brought into force, I believe that the only things that could not be disclosed were a change of name or the actual address or location. I know the member touched very briefly on how the changes we are making will better protect our hard-working men and women who serve our country through police agencies and so forth. Could the member speak to why it is so important to expand what specifically can and cannot be disclosed within the legislation before us?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is not just about protecting the protectees. It is also about protecting the people who administer the program, the police and other administrators in the program who are also at risk. That is why we had to broaden the categories of items that cannot be disclosed. Part of it is due to the impact of new technology.

As I said in my comments, technology is a two-edged sword. On the one side it is great for people administering a program like this. On the other side it is also very “helpful” for the criminal element in bringing harm to the protectees and the people who administer it. When a police officer gets involved in this program, he or she and the family are at risk. We have to take extraordinary measures to make sure that we do not compromise their identity, which would then connect them to the protectees or vice versa. It is very important that we take every measure possible to protect the protectors as well as the protectees.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege and honour to rise in the House this afternoon to share the speaking time with my hon. colleague from Edmonton Centre, my birthplace. I know it is well looked after by the hon. member, with his 30-plus years with the air force, and now serving this constituency as a member of Parliament.

It is a pleasure to speak specifically to Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, something that I know is vitally important for effective law enforcement right across Canada. It is of great interest to my constituents of Kelowna—Lake Country and many, if not all, members' constituents. They understand the bill's important role in helping to combat organized crime.

I suspect there are few individuals who have not at least heard of “witness protection”, whether it is a favourite CSI television show, or through high-profile court cases in which someone is offered protection in exchange for his or her testimony. We do not normally hear many details about how the program operates or about the people who are admitted into it. That is how it is supposed to work. Nonetheless, I believe all Canadians understand how important it is to have effective witness protection programs to combat organized crime.

Therefore, I appreciate this opportunity to join in the debate on our government's legislation, which would help to modernize and strengthen the federal witness protection program in Canada, while also making it more effective and secure.

The current Witness Protection Program Act, which we have heard from previous speakers, and my hon. colleague from Edmonton Centre, is about 17 years old and has not been substantially modified since it came into force. That does not mean we need to have a radical overhaul or alter the act in a major way, but we need to make some changes to modernize it. It is important that we have the proper tools in place to help us build safe neighbourhoods across Canada by keeping up with the changing nature of crime and criminal or terrorist organizations.

As members know, organized crime groups were certainly prevalent in 1996 when the current act took effect. However, their operations, their tactics and their make-up have changed significantly, and I think we would all agree on that.

Globalization has facilitated the diversification of organized crime groups and in many ways has allowed them to become involved in many more types of activities, serious activities that they are scheming together on across our country and around the world. The Internet has allowed many of these criminal organizations to avoid capture and detection in ways that seemed unimaginable when the Witness Protection Program Act came into force.

The Internet also provides organized crime groups with more ways to find people than before. This is certainly a big concern for individuals in witness protection, as well as for those who administer these programs. Looking after the safety of our witnesses is a key. All these changes make witness protection both more urgent and more difficult to perform. Reforms are therefore needed.

I would like to note that the changes proposed under Bill C-51 are the result of extensive consultations with the provinces, and we believe we are on the right track. I have the privilege of serving the great constituency of Kelowna—Lake Country in the province of British Columbia. The Hon. Shirley Bond is the minister of justice and Attorney General of British Columbia. We do not know what her portfolio will be after the recent May 14 election. However, when she was the minister she said:

In the fight against crime, protecting witnesses effectively is essential. We look forward to reviewing the amendments and working constructively with our Federal counterparts to ensure that any changes minimize the risk to witnesses.

As members can see, we have consulted with our partners in the provinces and we believe that we are on the right track.

We were very pleased to see support from provincial attorneys general and from police officers from across the country, including the head of the Canadian Police Association, who said in a recent news article:

The Canadian Police Association strongly believes that this proposed legislation will enhance the safety and security of front-line law enforcement personnel who are engaged in protective duties...

Bill C-51 would first and foremost improve the interaction of the federal witness protection program with provincial witness protection programs. We are working in partnership to complement each other. At the moment, someone in a provincial program can only obtain a secure identity change if he or she is temporarily admitted into the federal witness protection program. This can result in delays in obtaining a new identity. It can also result in a number of issues for the RCMP, which administers the federal program.

Bill C-51 proposes to remedy this situation by establishing a process whereby provincial programs can become designated witness protection programs. Once again, the provincial programs would work together with the federal program and become a designated witness protection program.

A province would request this designation from the Minister of Public Safety, at which time the provincial authority would provide assurances of the program's capacity to protect both its witnesses and its information. It is important that it protects both the information and the witnesses. Once the program is established and designated upon the request of that program, the RCMP would be obliged to help in obtaining federal identity documents for a provincial witness without any need for him or her to be transferred temporarily into the federal program. That is one of the big changes.

In addition to being easier, the new system is also designed to be more efficient and more secure. Security and efficiency are other complementary assets of the new reform program. Under the designation regime proposed by Bill C-51, requests for federal identity change documents would be submitted by a provincial official from a designated provincial witness protection program to the RCMP, thereby limiting the number of individuals involved in the process and making the system more secure.

Bill C-51 also proposes to enhance the security of witness protection regimes in Canada by both enhancing and extending the current prohibitions against the disclosure of information concerning an individual in a designated witness protection program. The current federal Witness Protection Act prohibits the disclosure of information by individuals within the federal program. Section 11(1) of the act says "no person shall knowingly disclose, directly or indirectly, information about the location or a change of identity of a protectee or former protectee".

Bill C-51 would strengthen this prohibition in a number of important ways. Let me expand a bit on that.

Bill C-51 would not only prohibit the disclosure of information about individuals in the federal program, it would also prohibit the disclosure of information about how the program itself operates, as well as about those individuals who provide or assist in providing protection for witnesses. Both of these prohibitions would also extend to individuals in designated provincial programs. Such prohibitions against the disclosure of information currently exist only within the legislation of the particular provincial jurisdiction, not across jurisdictions. That is another big contributing factor to enhancing the existing legislation.

As we can see, Bill C-51 would also clarify the prohibition with respect to what and how information is being disclosed. Clarity is very important. As I mentioned earlier, Section 11(1) of the current act contains the phrase "no person shall knowingly disclose, directly or indirectly, information about the location or a change of identity of a protectee or former protectee". The phrase "directly or indirectly" was considered to be unclear. Bill C-51 proposes amendments to ensure that the prohibitions will clearly apply to cases where a person discloses information in a range of ways.

Let me share a few examples. It would include telling someone what a protected person's name is, leaving information about the protected person unguarded, telling someone where a protected person lives and revealing unique characteristics about the person that could, for example, identify a specific housing market that results in someone deducing the city to which the person has been relocated. Bill C-51 would prohibit all of the above disclosures by specifying that no one could disclose any information, either directly or indirectly, that would reveal the location or change of identity of a protected person or the information from which the location or change of identity could be inferred.

Finally, among other improvements, Bill C-51 would expand referrals for admissions to the federal witness protection program to sources assisting federal security, national defence or public safety organizations, such as the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. By extending referrals to this category of witnesses, we are also addressing one of the commitments under the Government of Canada's Air India inquiry action plan released in 2010.

The act has not been substantially changed since it came into force, despite the constantly changing nature of organized crime and calls for reform. The safer witness act would help to strengthen the current federal witness protection program, a program that, as I mentioned, is often vital to effectively combat crime, particularly organized crime.

Like my colleague from Edmonton Centre, I encourage all hon. members in the House to follow the example I would encourage on our side. I know that there was support at committee. Hopefully the House will support Bill C-51 and see it move forward to provide the tools for our men and women serving across the country and our witnesses as well.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague that criminals can use certain tools, such as the Internet, to find witnesses.

However, the NDP has been calling for changes to the witness protection program since at least 2007, and many other groups have been calling for changes for a long time. The Internet existed before 2007. It is not a new concept.

Why did the Conservatives take so long to introduce this bill?

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's support for this. I had the chance to sit in on one of the committee meetings. My understanding is the NDP did not actually bring forward any amendments to the bill. We have been trying to push the bill through for a long time and the NDP had forced votes and delays. I am hoping that we can agree that the safer witness protection act is important not only for our witnesses, but for the men and women who are serving, protecting our communities.

Assistant Commissioner Todd Shean, who works in federal and international operations with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, was a witness at committee and was very supportive. The RCMP has waited for the changes the bill brings. It is comfortable that we have the resources within our existing resources to run an effective witness protection program and it welcomes the changes.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure that the Liberal Party is also very supportive of this piece of legislation and worked in committee.

One of the things about this piece of legislation is that it protects our men and women in the RCMP who put people into the witness protection program. It protects them and their families. Could the member elaborate on what protections are in there for our RCMP officers who work within the department to put people into the witness protection program?

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Avalon, a beautiful part of the country. I had a chance to visit there a few years ago with my wonderful wife.

He raises a great point. In fact, my neighbour has been an RCMP officer for about 27 years. He is an outstanding individual and works day in and day out providing safety and security. He works in an integrated force. There is a very high-level court case going on right now in my community that he is involved in.

The fact is, we have to protect these men and women, our front-line officers who were exempt from the previous act. That is the biggest change and advantage of the bill. It not only protects witnesses who come forth from the community, but also protects the front-line officers.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I am just thrilled that my colleague is speaking to this very important bill. He is talking about the protection of my brothers and sisters in blue across the country. I know that the Canadian Police Association is very supportive and the president himself, who represents police officers across the country, has been very supportive.

Every time the government puts forward bills that give police another tool so they can keep our streets and our communities safe, I have to applaud the efforts by the government, and I want to applaud the member as well.

Could he tell us a little more about the stakeholders who have come forward to support the bill? There are several and I think it is important that he be allowed to put those on the record.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I think all of us here in the chamber give great gratitude for our hon. colleague. She is not only serving as a member of Parliament, but she served many years protecting men and women in the community in Winnipeg. That deserves a round of applause as well.

The bill has had numerous consultations with the provinces and stakeholders. As the Minister of Public Safety alluded to earlier, the police association president, Mr. Tom Stamatakis had clearly shown great support at committee. He said:

Further on that point, the specific changes in this legislation that exempt a person from any liability or punishment for stating that they do not provide or assist in providing protection to witnesses will be a direct benefit to the law enforcement community in Canada that is tasked with these particular responsibilities.

As I alluded to earlier, we had Minister Bond from British Columbia. We also had Chief William Blair from the Toronto police. He said:

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

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Before we get on to the hon. member for Winnipeg North on resuming debate, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou, Health; the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona, Employment.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Winnipeg North.