This bill was last introduced in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session, which ended in September 2013.
Vic Toews Conservative
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.
This is from the published bill.
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.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet NDP Hochelaga, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech.
As he said, and as we have already indicated, the bill contains enough improvements to the program for the official opposition to support it at third reading, despite our concerns regarding funding.
I wonder if my colleague knows why the bill does not contain more of the recommendations that came out of the Air India inquiry, such as ensuring that the eligibility process is more transparent.
Devinder Shory Conservative Calgary Northeast, AB
Mr. Speaker, as recommended in the Air India report, the concerns over objectivity of entrance into the program has been addressed by changing the reporting structure of the witness protection program internally within the RCMP to increase its objectivity and independence.
These changes separate investigations and decisions on admission for the running of the program.
LaVar Payne Conservative Medicine Hat, AB
Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege to sit on the public safety committee, and I did hear a lot of the witnesses who came forward, including the police organizations.
Everyone seemed to be very favourable in terms of this bill and what we are bringing forward. I would just like to ask my hon. colleague, the member for Calgary Northeast, a question. He is my brother, actually. Does he in fact believe this is really a very good bill?
Devinder Shory Conservative Calgary Northeast, AB
Mr. Speaker, as the member knows—my brother from a different mother—our government is committed to providing law enforcement with the tools and resources needed to protect the safety of our families and communities, including an effective witness protection program.
An effective and reliable witness protection program is valuable in the fight against crime, especially organized crime, and terrorism.
Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I just want to make a comment, because we know that while the Conservatives are late in responding to this growing issue, New Democrats are pleased to see the government listening to our request to expand the witness protection program. It is something we had been requesting when the Liberals were in power, and now the Conservatives are in power. We are glad to see it.
However, just as with any other bill, there is room for improvement. Knowing full well that there is room for improvement, one would think we would want to take this on immediately.
Basically, the bill does not include provisions for an independent agency to operate the program, as recommended in the Air India inquiry report. I am just wondering if my colleague could tell me why that was not included in this bill.
Devinder Shory Conservative Calgary Northeast, AB
Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, consultations were made, and amendments are based on all kinds of consultations with the stakeholders, the police associations, other organizations and, specifically, with the victims.
Let me quote what the president of the Canadian Police Association said:
The Canadian Police Association strongly believes that this proposed legislation will enhance the safety and the 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.
I urge my colleagues on the other side to quickly move on this.
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise here to debate Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act.
As many of my colleagues have mentioned, we will support this bill at third reading, but not without reservations, because a number of the questions we raised in committee at second reading remain unanswered.
We see enough progress in this bill to support it. However, it would be nice if the government members, especially those who are making speeches, would answer our questions at third reading. I will come back to this.
The government is relying more and more on the principle of disclosure to obtain information in order to enforce its laws properly. Whether in relation to its tax policies, public health or the criminal justice system, the general public is a valuable ally in helping the government anticipate and manage crisis situations.
The people who witness a wrongdoing play a key role in reporting, solving or preventing an offence or a crime. These people live in the constant fear of reprisal and feel that disclosing what they know will turn their lives upside down. They must be treated with respect, since they are risking a lot to protect others.
That is why this bill has been generally well received. It will better address the needs of these people who often reluctantly become involved in investigations related to national security.
This is somewhat of a delayed reaction from the Conservatives, since the bill was designed in 1985 to address some concerns raised by the Commission of Inquiry into the Investigation of the Bombing of Air India Flight 182. I would like to quote one of the commission's findings:
A failure to provide adequate protection for witnesses threatens their safety and, sometimes, their lives. It discourages others from helping intelligence or police agencies. In the end, poorly designed witness protection measures can rob the justice system of crucial assistance.
Better late than never, though. We are happy that the government has listened to our calls to expand the witness protection program.
The ability to protect witnesses was one of the main reasons—one of them—the Air India investigation was mishandled. It was certainly mishandled. One witness, Tara Singh Hayer, the publisher of the Times of India, a newspaper in British Columbia, was assassinated. This meant that the statement he gave under oath to the RCMP seven years earlier, in 1995, was deemed inadmissible. Other witnesses refused to participate in the investigation in 2007 because they feared for their safety. I do not blame them.
At the time, Justice Major admitted that he was not able to give witnesses the protection they needed. The authorities must understand the importance of these people and the magnitude of what they are doing. Chapter 8 of the commission's report stated:
Witness protection also involves developing a “culture of security” within the institutions that reflects an awareness of the real risks to those who assist the authorities in guarding against terrorism.
A number of recent events have focused attention on the serious problem of information sharing between the various organizations involved in national security activities, including the RCMP, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, various departments and provincial and local police forces.
This problem was mentioned in the Air India commission report:
The processes and procedures by which decisions are made as to what information should be passed exchanged between the intelligence and law enforcement communities are seriously flawed and require substantial revision.
This problem still exists and is the reason behind this bill's objectives. Witnesses must be guaranteed protection so that information can be gathered and a crisis or crime prevented or managed. The sharing of that information amongst the various intelligence and security forces and governments transcends the whole issue of national security.
In the case of Air India, for example, some testimony was called into question, and various authorities had the different pieces of evidence or testimony in their possession. The commission concluded that:
Government agencies were in possession of significant pieces of information that, taken together, would have led a competent analyst to conclude that Flight 182 was at high risk of being bombed by known Sikh terrorists in June 1985.
The handling of sources and sharing of information is a key element, one that is central to the objective of this bill, yet no consideration is given to it in this bill, despite reports such as the Air India commission report, which is more than 20 years old, I might add.
I would like to quote some of the commission's other findings concerning the sharing of information. It is worth quoting them because they are at the heart of the problem that this bill will resolve, albeit quite imperfectly. Here are some excerpts from the commission's report:
The institutional arrangements and practices of information-gathering agencies were wholly deficient in terms of internal and external sharing of information, as well as analysis.
CSIS failed to include important information, such as the Duncan Blast, in the threat assessments it provided to the RCMP and Transport Canada.
The RCMP wasted resources creating a threat assessment structure parallel to CSIS'. The RCMP structure was itself ineffective—it failed to identify, report, and share threat information.
I have some more excerpts from the commission report:
The RCMP failed to transmit the June 1st Telex, warning about the possibility of bombing with time-delayed devices in June 1985, to either CSIS or to Transport Canada.
Excessive secrecy in information sharing prevented any one agency from obtaining all necessary information to assess the threat. Excessive secrecy also prevented those on the frontlines from obtaining information necessary to put in place security measures responsive to the threat.
There was a lack of cooperation and communication within the RCMP and between RCMP, Transport Canada and airlines in relation to airport security.
I will go on with some more excerpts:
Although Air India was operating under an elevated threat level, CP Air (the airline upon which the bomb was loaded in Vancouver) was not informed of this fact and was operating under normal security protocols.
On June 22, 1985, the security level in force at Pearson and Mirabel airports called for the use of an RCMP explosives detection dog (EDD). That weekend, however, all RCMP EDD teams were in Vancouver for training, leaving the Toronto airport without any coverage.
I will close with some other excerpts from the same report:
CSIS often failed to disclose promptly to the RCMP information relevant to the criminal investigation, particularly information from human sources, or it disclosed information without sufficient detail or in a manner that prevented the RCMP from using the information.
CSIS was mesmerized by the mantra that “CSIS doesn’t collect evidence,” and used it to justify the destruction of raw material and information. CSIS erased the tapes that caught coded conversations possibly related to the planning of the bombing, and CSIS investigators destroyed their notes that recorded the information CSIS sources provided in relation to the Air India bombing. Both of these actions compromised the prosecution’s evidentiary position at trial.
The RCMP failed to appropriately protect sources and witnesses.
And finally:
The RCMP, at times, failed to take threats against Tara Singh Hayer seriously.
This sharing of information must occur between the federal and the provincial levels, since many provinces have their own witness protection programs.
Greater collaboration between the two levels of government would not only ensure better service to witnesses and sources, but also provide for more effective management of the intelligence services. Bill C-51 now under discussion would address this issue, but only partly.
From now on, more individuals will be eligible for the program. The bill also provides for recognition of provincial programs in place—meaning that some provisions of the act will apply to these programs. The bill also authorizes the Commissioner of the RCMP to work with the appropriate federal and provincial departments and agencies to facilitate the change of identity of persons admitted to the program. This is great news, as witnesses and sources will not have to submit a second application to the federal program to be eligible. Indeed, their files may simply be transferred between programs.
Despite this important addition, a problem remains. Where a provincial protection program is in place, local police forces may have to cover the costs of the investigation even when that investigation is federal in nature and the RCMP is involved. That is one of our major concerns about this bill. We agree with the spirit of the bill but, if the resources are not available, it will be extremely difficult to move in the right direction. The government is trying to reassure us, but we have still not received clear answers to the many questions that have been asked, particularly those asked by the official opposition.
It is not surprising that, although “the costs of witness protection may impede investigations, particularly for smaller law enforcement agencies”—and that is a direct quote from the RCMP website—Bill C-51 does not provide for any new funding for the program. This issue is not addressed in the bill.
When the bill was introduced in December 2012, the Minister of Public Safety said, “[o]ur Government is committed to keeping our streets and communities safe. An effective and reliable witness protection program is valuable in the fight against crime, especially organized crime and terrorism”.
We also want citizens to feel safe. Still, I really do not see how the government can claim that the bill will be another instrument to accomplish this, since the program will be expanded but the resources will remain the same. If the Conservatives really want to improve the witness protection program, they must commit more funding in order to achieve their goals.
The opposition has asked many questions of various government spokespeople. We keep coming back to the question of resources. The answers we are getting are not really answers. The government says we should trust it. Apparently, the Canadian Police Association told the government that it has sufficient resources. Nevertheless, local police forces say they do not have the resources they need. The RCMP's website says, and I repeat the quote, “There are instances when the costs of witness protection may impede investigations, particularly for smaller law enforcement agencies.” That is what the RCMP says.
Unfortunately, the government has not allocated additional resources that might make it possible to respond to the RCMP's concern. There may be some former police officers and police chiefs among the Conservative MPs, but that alone does not address the basic question: if there are not enough resources to enforce Bill C-51's provisions and improvements, how can the situation get better? We would like an answer to this question or at least an assurance that the government members will agree to commit more resources if necessary as Bill C-51 is implemented.
Another element I have already mentioned and which is worth repeating concerns the Air India inquiry's recommendations. We have said several times that few of the recommendations in the commission's report have been implemented. One of the primary recommendations from the inquiry was that the process for entering the program be transparent and subject to more rigorous accountability. Bill C-51, which we are currently studying, skips right over that issue.
I hope the government will give us answers to our questions later. That is why we are having this debate.
We all agree, and all parties in the House have already indicated that they would vote in favour of Bill C-51 at third reading, because it is an improvement over the current situation. Still, we would like the government to take our concerns seriously and do something about them.
Having an eligibility process that is more transparent, rigorous and accountable should also be a concern for the government.
We have still heard no answers even though the questions have been repeated over and over. We will continue to debate Bill C-51 this evening. We will continue to ask questions until we get answers from the government.
I have a question that is rather significant. It is possible to have the best intentions in the world and want to improve the situation. However, we are now in a context where the government is making cuts to various services, such as the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Unfortunately that has very negative consequences.
The issue of witness protection and keeping witnesses safe should be taken seriously because these people have often put their lives in danger in order to do their civic duty.
I do not want to see the government strutting about in public, in front of the media, saying that it is taking care of witness safety, that it is looking after victims, and using that as a non-partisan issue when, really, these provisions will have no teeth because there is no money behind them. Money is crucial. In this bill, it is essential to give police forces the resources they need.
We want a commitment, here and now, on these additional resources. If it is not here and now, we would like to have it by the end of the debate.
I eagerly await the questions I will be asked in about an hour, after private members' business.
The Acting Speaker Bruce Stanton
The hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques will have three minutes for comments when the House resumes debate on this motion.
It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.
The Acting Speaker Barry Devolin
Resuming debate.
The hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques has the floor. He has three minutes left.
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Speaker, I had come to the end.
I spoke at length about the commission of inquiry into the Air India events. This was really one of the key events that gave rise to the bill now being considered, even though it took a long time for the various governments to act and ensure that witnesses were safer and better protected.
I repeatedly said that the bill, which is likely to become law, requires resources to be properly implemented. These concerns were raised by the RCMP and others, but downplayed by other police services. This is why I want the government to be aware of the importance of providing these resources.
I would also like to raise the issue of street gangs because it has not really been discussed within the context of Bill C-51. Offences that are related to drugs or street gangs should be dealt with by local police forces. However, since they are drug-related offences, they are sent to the RCMP.
The RCMP can make decisions about witnesses needing protection because it is an area of federal jurisdiction. However, the costs are borne by local police forces. There is no guarantee that local police forces will have adequate resources to ensure that witnesses are protected in a secure manner.
As well, when we talk about the need to protect witnesses, we need to remember that in 2012, of the 108 candidates eligible for the witness protection program, only about 30 were admitted to it. In addition to the criteria that were used to determine if the witness protection program should be used, there was also the issue of resources.
I want the government to really take this issue seriously and ensure that resources will be made available to the right people—the RCMP, for one—but I also want it to create a special fund for the witness protection program. I would also like government members to start addressing this issue when responding to questions.
We will not let it go. We will continue to ask these questions when Conservative members speak to this bill. However, as I said, because there has been significant progress in this situation, which was untenable, we will vote in favour of this bill. Our support is contingent on having the resources put in place to ensure that the bill is properly implemented.
Anne Minh-Thu Quach NDP Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques for his speech. He always provides us with facts and clear examples, so people can easily understand.
Although this bill is a first step towards ensuring enhanced protection for witnesses, it gives police forces greater responsibilities without giving them any additional financial resources. Drug enforcement falls under federal jurisdiction. Can my colleague elaborate on that?
My riding is close to the American border, and there is a lot of drug trafficking. The RCMP is asked to deal with these problems, but it does not necessarily have the financial resources to do so.
What impact does my colleague think this could have on the community?
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Speaker, indeed, this does have a serious impact on border communities.
Other matters that come under federal jurisdiction include immigration and terrorism. The issue of the border we share with the United States often comes into question.
For that reason, it is very important to ensure that the progress achieved through Bill C-51—although it should have come a long time ago—is done in a pragmatic way with adequate resources to guarantee the safety of witnesses.
It is clear that this government has no plans to increase the existing budget envelopes allocated to the various police forces responsible for guaranteeing the safety and protection of witnesses. As a result, although this is an important bill, it is merely wishful thinking, since it will be impossible to implement it.
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is really refreshing to see the NDP actually supporting some initiatives that will make our streets and communities safer.
A number of times in the last little while, we have heard reference to the question of whether there are the adequate resources to implement the bill. I want to remind my colleagues on the other side that on two different occasions, the assistant commissioner indicated that there were, in fact, sufficient resources. I will quote from a meeting on March 5, when he said:
I am confident that we have the necessary resources to conduct an effective witness protection program, even with what Bill C-51 adds.
He also said:
—with the changes this bill brings about, the RCMP is comfortable that we have the resources within our existing resources to run an effective witness protection program.
With those statements clearly on the record, could my colleague explain to Canadians why he thinks, in spite of this evidence, that there are not sufficient resources?
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the question.
In fact, the NDP does support good crime legislation. I believe we began with Bill C-2, immediately after the election, when we suggested working with the Conservatives to quickly pass a bill that would make it easier to hold megatrials for criminal gangs. We are not afraid to support good bills; we are proud to do so.
I understand the evidence that was presented in committee. However, we have to realize that it was somewhat ambiguous.
My colleague mentioned that the RCMP had enough resources. However, this is what it says on the RCMP website:
There are instances when the costs of witness protection may impede investigations, particularly for smaller law enforcement agencies.
Major police forces across Canada and the associations that represent them believe that the resources are generally available. However, in very specific local situations, there may not be enough resources, and this can compromise the safety and proper protection of witnesses.
The evidence is contradictory, and that is why we are asking for a guarantee from members of the government. They must assure us that, if there are not enough resources, they will be the first ones to fight for additional resources and to ensure that Bill C-51 is in reality a good law.
Denis Blanchette NDP Louis-Hébert, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
There are intentions and then there are actions. In his speech, the hon. member emphasized the issue of resources. In my opinion, if we want to go beyond intentions and take action, we definitely need the appropriate resources.
Ever since I came to this House, we have often voted on bills based on their intentions. One could say it has become a habit. We do not think about what is needed for our intentions to become reality, to move from intentions to actions.
Besides pointing out that the Conservatives did not consider this and are not talking about it, what can we really do to move forward and begin to calculate the costs, to see where the needs are, and in the end, to pressure the government so that intentions become actions?