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

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there were consultations, but I am not the House leader, so I cannot answer my colleague's question.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is a very resourceful fellow himself. He is a retired army engineer who has served in Bosnia and Afghanistan. He understands resource allocation in terms of battalions and brigades, because he has been responsible for that.

Now that this program would be expanded, we would have the opportunity to look after witnesses who may impact national security. I would like my colleague's opinion on the impact of this legislation on witnesses who may come forward to provide evidence in cases of terrorism.

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is also a former military member who served with great success in Bosnia defending Canadian values.

I just want to say one thing. The police is like the army. They manage their resources. The bill would smooth the transition between the small police forces, the provincial forces and the RCMP. They would manage their resources in a very good way.

I am just wondering why the NDP is always asking about resources. I do not understand why they are looking at a $21 billion gas tax.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak to Bill C-51. Fortunately, I have the time to do that, despite the fifth time allocation motion in five days and the thirty-eighth since the beginning of this Parliament.

Since this is my first opportunity to speak to this bill, I want to point out that this morning, the Minister of Public Safety stated that everyone was in agreement on this bill and that since no amendments had been put forward, a debate was pointless. Yet I have been here since early evening and I have been listening to a very interesting discussion on available resources and on the next steps to be taken in the area of witness protection, which is the focus of Bill C-51. This underscores the importance of having a debate to bring these problems to light. Even if these are not settled this time around, at least we will be able to proceed with due diligence in future.

That said, to echo the words of my colleagues, I want to say that the NDP will be supporting this bill since it favours improvements to the witness protection program. Many criticisms have been levelled against the program since it was first introduced in 1996. To finally see the government make some improvements is a positive step, even if it has taken far too long, in our opinion. We will therefore be voting in favour of this bill.

However, as I said, a number of problem areas were discussed this evening. I would like to focus on a few of them.

The first one is very important and may seem rather ironic to some extent, since it concerns witness protection. This bill disregards an important recommendation contained in the report released in the wake of the Air India tragedy. This recommendation focused on the transparency, review and accountability of the program.

It is important because, as I said earlier this evening when I put a question to one of my colleagues, the RCMP oversees the witness protection program, but often it ends up investigating the very same individuals at the same time. Often these persons are also implicated in the crimes in question. Therefore, there is a conflict of interest, so to speak, and that can be a problem.

Therefore, accountability and transparency mechanisms need to be put in place. This is extremely important in order to ensure that the RCMP acts properly. I want to stress that this is not a criticism of the RCMP's work, which is excellent. The members of the RCMP are deserving of our praise, but at the same time, in a society like ours, it is vitally important to have in place mechanisms to ensure transparency.

This is one of the important problems highlighted, particularly since this recommendation was contained in a report drafted in the wake of events having to do with witness protection. There is no reason why the government could not include these mechanisms in this bill. We hope to see this happen in the future.

The other major problem is obviously the issue of resources, which has been noted repeatedly. This is interesting because the Conservative Party member who preceded me said that all the NDP wanted was resources and spending. However, what is funny is that we in fact want to avoid burying the provinces and municipalities under more expenses. We are facilitating co-operation between the RCMP and local and provincial authorities. If we improve co-operation and expand witness protection admission criteria, more people will actually enter the program. Consequently, more spending will be incurred. That seems obvious to me.

The question thus arises as to who will absorb those costs. The RCMP, of course, already has resources, but municipal and provincial authorities will receive more applications and will accept more of them as a result of more flexible criteria, and they will have to cover the necessary costs.

However, municipal and provincial authorities are very concerned. We know they are because that is what we heard in committee. The RCMP is not concerned because it says it has the necessary resources, and that is a good thing.

As for provincial and municipal authorities, as my colleague from Toronto—Danforth said, everything will depend on how the federation is managed, how the government works under collaborative federalism.

I think it is a major problem for the government to introduce a bill when there has been very little consultation, knowing that it will result in additional costs. That is one of the criticisms we want to make.

I will conclude by saying that we support the bill. However, we wanted to point out those two extremely significant deficiencies. However, we hope that we will be able to rectify the situation in future and that this will be a lesson to the government to co-operate more with local authorities so that they can lower their costs and not succumb to the effects of bills that, like this one, are introduced unilaterally.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I want to underscore that while New Democrats are supporting this legislation, we have great concerns about the ability of it to do the job that needs to be done. One statistic I would point out, which is fairly well known, is that in 2012, of the 108 people considered for the program, only 30 were granted access. Fewer than a third of the people who were up for consideration were admitted to the program.

The eligibility criteria are being increased without putting in any new money, and the Canadian Association of Police Boards is complaining about that. How can the member feel that this will actually be an improvement without the kind of support that police boards, for example, are looking for?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

It is an excellent question because I heard a Conservative member say during the debate that these were administrative changes that would make the program more efficient and that they were going to relax the admission criteria and thus be able to accept and protect more witnesses. However, as my colleague said, if we accept more people and protect more witnesses, somewhere along the line being more efficient will also be more costly because we will be serving more people. That much is obvious, as I said in my speech.

What will happen is that the municipal and provincial police forces will co-operate with the RCMP. Of course, they are very happy. They will be in a situation in which they can co-operate better, protect more witnesses and have more flexibility. However, that also means that the program will serve more people. Consequently, there will be more spending. That is really obvious and it will be hard to manage at the local level. This is what we criticize on the government's part. I believe a little consultation would have gone a long way in this instance.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the bill does not contain a provision allowing an independent body to administer the program in accordance with the recommendations in the report.

My question is as follows. After Air India, is the RCMP not in a conflict of interest with this bill? Is there a way to bring in an outside judge, as is done when the police are involved in an accident? In that case, another police service is asked to get involved and judge the case.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is quite right. The issue of a conflict of interest came out of the recommendations made following the Air India tragedy.

As I said, we have confidence in the members of the RCMP, and we thank them for the excellent work they do every day. In a society based on law, justice and democracy, it is important that we have measures to ensure accountability and a degree of transparency. In this case, it is very important.

We protect witnesses who are often criminals as well. Sometimes they are members of street gangs or organized crime. We have to be very careful to have the mechanisms we need to avoid conflicts of interest. I believe that this serves us well and that it is good for the legal system, which the bill is trying to improve.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to talk on Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act.

I thank all of my colleagues across the House for their interventions, and of course I thank the NDP members for supporting this bill. I think some of their arguments are flawed, but they are supporting it, and that is tremendous.

I would like to share with members why I support Bill C-51 and why my constituents and community organizations in Etobicoke Centre support it. I will also share why I think it represents an important step forward in making the protection of witnesses an effective and relevant program for our country today and for law enforcement in the future.

I have two police divisions in my riding, 22 division and 23 division of the metro Toronto Police Service. I discussed Bill C-51 with Staff Sergeant Doug MacDonald of 22 division today, and he told me something rather interesting. He said that the public are the eyes and ears of the police.

The TV shows on police forensic investigators, and other shows of that type, are often misleading and give the public the wrong perception of how forensic evidence can be linked to a perpetrator. In the course of an hour, the show will depict a major forensic investigation being done, or the police all on their own linking a perpetrator to a particular crime, but that is not always the way it works.

A lot of the forensic evidence is most certainly there, but often the police are not able to take that one further step to definitively link the evidence to the perpetrator, because we are a country of rule of law. Before a person can be charged for a crime, the police have to be absolutely sure they have the right person. Often they may know it in their heart of hearts, but without the public stepping forward, without witnesses coming forward, they have a very difficult time in achieving that. Therefore, this act would be hugely important in solving those cases by giving the confidence to the public and witnesses to step forward and provide the testimony to put serious criminals away and safeguard our streets and communities.

I have to give a shout out to the metro Toronto Police Service. They are outstanding under Chief William Blair. Also, I think this House would like to note that the Toronto Police Service sends 10 officers abroad every year to serve as mentors and police liaisons in very dangerous places around the world, such as Afghanistan, to help bring the rule of law to those people in those lands. I thank the metro Toronto Police Service for doing that.

Our government is committed to ensuring the safety and security of constituents in Etobicoke Centre, but unfortunately violence does occur. In 2011, Toronto had 86 homicide victims. On July 5, 2012, Abdulle Elmi was killed in a hail of gunfire in a quiet street in my riding, and it was believed he was a member of the gang Sic Thugs. Community organizations, not wanting to see any more bloodshed, advocated for strengthened witness protection programs. Our government listened and we have acted.

As we have heard in the interventions during the debate, this bill would make important amendments to the Witness Protection Program Act, which has been in place since 1996. Since then, Canada's witness protection program has served our police services well and has forged many new identities for those who have risked much to see justice through to the end.

However, as time passed, the witness protection program has proven to be in need of fine-tuning. It is a program that serves us well, but it could work better, and my constituents agree with that. It is a program that needs to adapt to our changing environment to better protect those who come forward and those who protect them, and this bill would do just that.

This proposed legislation acts on a number of recommendations that have come forward based on some key and tragic events in our history. Sources include, for example, the 2008 study by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, the 2010 Commission of Inquiry into the Investigation of the Bombing of Air India Flight 182 and stakeholder consultations with federal departments and agencies, the provinces and law enforcement agencies.

I would like to focus my time here today on how this proposed legislation would address the concerns that we have heard from federal and provincial stakeholders as well as my own constituents, community organizations and other stakeholders in Etobicoke Centre whom I have spoken to on this important matter, such as Staff Sergeant Doug MacDonald, who, of course, was an operator in all of this.

Bill C-51 would make the witness protection program more balanced and secure by allowing for a more seamless co-operation among law enforcement services and going beyond jurisdictions.

The federal program differs somewhat compared with the programs currently administered in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec. If there is a need for a witness to be referred to the federal program, that decision rests with the particular law enforcement agency dealing with a specific case. That means provinces have jurisdiction over their cases and can select and use their own good judgment in being able to bring these cases to the RCMP, if required.

What is consistent among all programs is they are adaptable, allowing decisions to made, as I said, case by case, factoring all the key information, such as the costs involved, the resources available, the level of threat to the witness, and the time needed to appropriately afford protection and safety to those individuals in need. In, for example, complex federal cases, provinces can decide whether to refer witnesses to federal authorities for admission in the federal witness protection program. One area that has consistently been raised by provincial stakeholders is the need to streamline the current process for obtaining secure identity changes for protectees in provincial programs.

Let me share an example of that, and how the bill would improve how jurisdictions could work together across this country.

When it comes to secure identity changes and federal documents required, we have heard from provinces that the RCMP currently assists only those protectees under federal jurisdiction.

The way this is currently set up means that the provinces must temporarily admit their protectee into the federal witness protection program in order for the RCMP to assist in the process. By doing this, and provincial stakeholders have been very clear on this point, the process can slow down and create time-consuming paperwork and delays that in fact could put lives at risk. What that can also lead to is then a lack of co-operation by witnesses, because it may cause a lack of confidence in the system. People would be afraid and not step forward; crimes would go unsolved. That is an outcome that we do not want.

We can all imagine that when it comes to something as significant as a secure identity change, further delay could cause undue stress and hardship, as I said, for those in need of protection, not to mention those brave individuals on our police forces who are trying very hard to safeguard our communities.

Now, the changes of Bill C-51 would improve federal and provincial collaboration. That is something that has come up time and again this evening. Designated provinces would no longer need to have their witnesses entered into the federal program and would retain decisions on who to protect and how. Bill C-51 would help improve the way jurisdictions work together, with a new framework that would allow for provincial witness protection programs to be officially designated.

This new framework would allow the provincial authority to make a request to the federal Minister of Public Safety. An official designation would then allow the province to ask that the RCMP assist it in obtaining the necessary federal documents required for a secure identity change for a provincial witness. This would eliminate the need to first admit the witness into the federal program.

Furthermore, an official designation would only need to take place that one time. It would streamline the whole process. It would be quicker, it would be safer, it would be faster and we would get convictions.

We have also heard statements by the provinces asking that the RCMP be removed from the process so that the provinces could request secure identity documents directly from federal departments. However, let us remember that these are not always simple cases and witness protection is not a typical program. These cases affect an individual's very identity and his or her personal security. I believe that the RCMP needs to play a central role in this, and a key role in this, and act as a single point of contact in order to protect the operational security of this program.

As they say, too many fingers in the pie and we could ruin that pie.

By doing so, our federal police service would add a level of security that would allow for the efficiency and consistency in cases that can be, and often are, very complex.

Balancing the safety of protectees with the needs of those administering the program is a key feature of Bill C-51. That is why I am here today, to show my support for these important changes.

It also proposes changes to prohibitions on disclosure. Bill C-51 proposes changes for designated programs, such that the prohibitions of disclosure would be extended to provincial witness protection information; the means and methods of provincial witness protection programs; as well as information about those who provide protection. This prohibition would apply across Canada.

I would like to urge all our hon. members to support Bill C-51. This is an act that is in need of change right now because, as all countries do, we have evolved as a nation. We have evolved to the point, especially in our law enforcement, where these changes are required. I think all members of the House have already stated they do support this bill at the end of the day. For those on the opposition benches who may still be troubled by it, I encourage them to support the bill because it would help the people most in need and it would help our law agencies to do their best job.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member.

Bill C-51 does not contain any provisions that would allow an independent organization to administer the program in accordance with the recommendations made in the Air India investigation report.

As a result, the RCMP will continue to be responsible for the program, which could put it in a conflict of interest, because it will be both the investigating body and the one to decide who benefits from protection.

Does my hon. colleague have anything to add in that regard? Does he intend to take that recommendation into account?

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this has been an expanded program as well, so it would allow the federal institutions that have a role in national security, national defence or public safety to make referrals to the RCMP for possible admission. Of course it allows, on a case-by-case basis, those related foreign agencies to make submissions to the RCMP, in that we have arrangements and MOUs with them.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know that both Chief of Police Rick Hanson, in my own riding of Calgary Centre, and the former justice minister were calling for some of the changes that were made in this bill. One of their concerns in particular was that we need stronger protection to make sure we can catch bad guys, especially so that people who are eyewitnesses will come forward.

Could my hon. colleague tell us what would this do for witnesses, for bringing forward the people who can help the police solve crimes?

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I discussed this today with Staff Sergeant Doug MacDonald at 22 Division of the Toronto Police Service. He told me quite clearly that he is looking forward to its passage. In Etobicoke generally—Etobicoke North, Etobicoke Centre and Etobicoke Lakeshore—there have been some serious crimes and serious gang crimes perpetrated right across those areas. Often what is preventing the solution to those crimes is witnesses lacking the courage to step forward and provide testimony. He is convinced that the new provisions in this act would provide the confidence for those witnesses involved to step forward, be assured of their security and help the police put some bad guys away and solve a lot of cases.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre's speech. He raised some very interesting points.

I would like to know what he thinks about the testimony that Alok Mukherjee gave in committee on March 19 of this year.

He is the President of the Canadian Association of Police Boards. He stated:

Our conclusion has been that there needs to be more funding available than currently is the case. Without the availability of sufficient funding, our ability to take advantage of the program will be limited.

What are your comments on that?

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

I have no comments on that. However, I am sure the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre would like to respond.