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

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I truly respect the perspective and the career experience the member has brought to this House as a former police officer.

I would like to ask the member just one question, and it is not a surprise question. Many of us have had this concern. There seems to be underplaying from the government benches on the issue of resources for provincial and local police forces. Ultimately witness protection is bundled up with investigations, and even if the RCMP is involved, it bills back to the police at the municipal and provincial levels.

We have heard testimony in committee that at that level there are concerns about inadequate resources already. Does the member share those concerns? If so, would the member not agree that while this bill is first step, those issues have to be addressed later?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I come from a community with a smaller police agency than many of the large communities have.

This particular program is actually one that assists us in our resources. It means that the RCMP will handle the witness protection. We are not able to do that with a smaller community and smaller police agency. This program, which is funded by the federal government and administered by the RCMP, is a great tool for police agencies across the country.

Police agencies are always concerned about resources, as they should be. There is never enough in any circumstance, but this particular program is one that I think will go a long way to providing that opportunity for smaller departments to have opportunities to deal with witness protection in conjunction with the RCMP.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the question of resources just came up with my hon. friend. However, the RCMP and the Assistant Commissioner, Todd Shean, who is involved with the federal and international operations at the RCMP, are comfortable that they have the resources within their existing base to run a very effective witness protection program.

Could the hon. member expand upon are his thoughts on how the provincial programs work more seamlessly with the federal program?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, some of the provinces have their own programs, which operate somewhat independently from the federal program and yet in conjunction with it. They are fairly seamless. They operate well and they provide the protection to witnesses that all of the programs are intended to do.

I heard numbers here a few minutes ago about how only so many people were admitted into the program. That may not have anything to do with the resources that are available. They may be folks who, for whatever reason, decide that when they understand what is involved and no longer wish to go into the program.

There has not been an issue about a lack of resources hindering the program itself. We are always cognizant that there are never enough resources to do all the things that we would like to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question about the recommendations made in the report that was produced following the Air India tragedy.

One of the recommendations had to do with the fact that witnesses who need protection are often themselves involved in crime. For instance, this is often the case with members of street gangs and organized crime. When the RCMP has to choose witnesses and protect them on the one hand, while also possibly investigating them on the other hand, this can cause a conflict of interest. The recommendation had to do specifically with the lack of independence in the process, which could be problematic.

I wonder if my colleague could talk a little more about that. Does he think this flaw in the bill will be corrected in the future?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there will be a lot of discussion about who may or may not go into the program. He talks about someone who may be responsible for a crime, but that is one of the issues that the witness protection program has do deal with in one way or another.

Many of these people are the people who have been in the middle of the organized crime unit, drug unit or whatever it might be. However, we have to have them as witnesses, so the program provides that protection for them to be used as witnesses.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying what I think has been fairly clear in the contributions from colleagues all along, that the NDP will be supporting the bill.

Bill C-51 does some important things, and nobody is going to claim that it does not. In particular, it adds to the categories of folks who might eventually receive witness protection. For example, those who have been assisting agencies in the federal security or defence or safety realms are added, as well as those associated with them: friends, family, et cetera, who may also need protection. There are any number of contexts that we could all refer to and know about that indicate that witness protection, if anything, is a growing need on the law enforcement side of government.

The Air India inquiry was one of the contexts in which we heard that the national security context was a gap in the system. Surely that has to be the case with other forums and other terrorism investigations, which cannot be much different.

The member for Oxford spoke very well about the burgeoning transnational nature of organized crime and how it is becoming more and more sophisticated, which has been a trend line for decades. Law enforcement is always playing catch-up in the role of witnesses to somehow or other get ahead of the game, and the witness protection program must surely be very important there.

One area that is very important to those of us from more concentrated urban areas is the whole question of street gangs and especially youth gangs. How is it that we can actually break the codes of silence, encourage witnesses to come forward, such as in the Danzig shootings that took place in Scarborough not so long ago? Also, how is it that we can use the witness protection program as part of a broader strategy in getting youth out of that environment?

Nobody is contesting that the bill, as far as it goes, is a good bill and deserves to be supported. Nobody is saying that the context is not one that presents a crying need.

That said, working briefly through three themes, I would like to suggest that the bill does not go nearly far enough when it could have, which is the problem. We have had many years of warning. The NDP started in 2007, and we had reports from 2008 on, saying that the system needed to be upgraded. With the upgrading of the system at the level of effectiveness, we have heard all kinds of concerns, including about funding and the need for an independent agency from the RCMP to be involved. We know from the various interventions that have occurred already that those elements really were not addressed, and so it is a lost opportunity. At some level I would like to think of this as sort of a battle between the real and the rhetorical.

We also went through this recently with respect to Bill C-37, the increasing offenders' accountability for victims act, which I was involved with when I was on the justice committee. The NDP also supported this bill, despite considerable concerns we had that it was totally avoiding any federal public support philosophy for victims and instead was trusting in sort of a combination of surcharges that offenders would pay—and many of them would not be in a position to pay—and provincial programs that were a patchwork quilt and often nonexistent across the country. However, the government at that time presented that bill as making a major contribution to support for victims when it was largely devoid of any kind of a federal role with respect to true victim support programs.

However, again, we supported that bill. It was not because we thought it was the greatest bill in the world, but it was because it added something. Although we had some problems at the level of rights protections, we ultimately felt those could be worked out down the line.

This is why I have joined with the mother of a murdered youth from Toronto—Danforth, Joan Howard, whose son Kempton was murdered 10 years ago literally around the corner from my house. He was murdered by handgun. He was a youth worker who contributed in amazing ways to his community. His mother is of the view that we need to focus more on the needs of victims when it comes to the kinds of public support mechanisms that we associate with other causes, which are the kinds of support mechanisms people need, such as psychological support and social service support.

The supports are needed not just for the immediate victims who survived crime, but quite often for their families—maybe even more often, especially when it is violent crime that has taken a life. It is true that provinces jurisdictionally have the responsibility for this, but the specific link to crime means that the kind of victimhood that occurs because of crime is really not taken into account for the most part in most provinces. We get to legislate the Criminal Code and a bunch of other areas of criminal law through other statutes up here, but we kind of back off when it comes to how we deal with the consequences of crime. Somehow, that becomes purely a matter of another jurisdictional level.

At some point, the federal government has to, obviously under an initiative from Parliament, really catch up to other countries that take public victim support programs a lot more seriously than we do, rather than simply downloading costs on offenders and provinces and thinking that somehow or other we have accomplished the task. I see this bill as falling a bit into the same trap. It would do a fair bit that is important, but at the level of making sure the system functions in a way that all witnesses who need protection will be protected—which is a goal that is necessary for making sure all crime that can be prosecuted is prosecuted—then it is a bill that would fall short.

Therefore, I move on to the second thing, which has been emphasized a lot: funding. The government MPs are focusing often on comments coming from government witnesses, including RCMP witnesses, before the committee; basically comments saying that the funding is adequate. I will read an example that has been read, at least in part, by others. This is from assistant commissioner Todd Shean of the RCMP. He said, “We will immediately increase resources. We have increased the resources allocated to our witness protection unit”, and he goes on to say then, “I am confident that we have the means to manage the program effectively”.

What is the problem here? First, he speaks of “...our witness protection unit”. Of course, the RCMP has its own costs, runs its own program and sometimes assumes all the costs because it is an entire RCMP or federal investigation that the witness protection program is latching onto. It is good to know that he is projecting an increase in resources, but there is no reference here, or recognition even, to the provincial or local police force costs associated with witness protection programs. These levels of government, provincial and municipal, and more particularly their police forces, are charged for the costs.

The member for Oxford made it clear to us that of course costs are saved for police forces. I am not saying that is not true, but ultimately when there are costs that are not simply the costs from the fact that there is an overall system that they can tap into, they get billed for it. What we know is that there is already a problem with funding for these levels. In 2007, this was pointed out. We are in 2013, and there was no evidence before the committee that it has changed. There was clear and persuasive testimony before the committee on this, and I will return to some of it as I end.

However, let me first go back to the RCMP. Its own website states, “There are instances when the costs of witness protection may impede investigations, particularly for smaller law enforcement agencies”. What is the second problem with this, apart from the fact that it really probably is only focusing on the RCMP's own costs? The second problem is that none of this is actually a budgetary commitment from the government. It does not indicate anything more than that the RCMP sees increases in resources, and it is no small irony that this is the case when we know that we are in budget season, and that it would not have been a big deal to coordinate this bill with a very clear budget line item indicating that there would be adequate budgetary support for our partners in crime prevention, the provinces and the municipalities. Every million dollars counts; I recognize that. However, a $9-million budget for the last fiscal year for the witness protection program is not exactly a huge budget when we know, from all the testimony before the committee, mostly from police services boards, that there is a need.

I do not think we should end this debate thinking that by having what might be unanimous support for the bill, we have somehow addressed the issue of resources. I would much prefer it if my colleagues across the way would say that the bill does something and is important—we are supporting them on that, let us take that as a given—but let us not throw a cloak over it and pretend we have solved the whole problem.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the hon. member and his party are going to support our bill. In his opening remarks he was fairly fulsome in his description of the witness program, its needs and the improvements to it being, generally, very good.

I have a couple of questions for him. He talked about other nations and how they provide witness protection. I would like him to describe or perhaps give an example of how another nation does that.

As well, he talked about being rhetorical or literal and he is a little vague when he says it falls short. He does not really provide any particular suggestions on how it could be improved.

The third part of this is that not everything comes with a price tag, necessarily. A lot of this program is administratively driven, and changes to administration still accomplish the same thing in terms of witness protection, but it is much more streamlined where the provinces can go right to the RCMP, who would be the central point of contact for much of that. I would like to know what kind of price tag he envisions. That needs to be attached here, because I am not seeing it.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on the whole question of comparative witness protection programs, I was actually talking about victim assistance programs. I could go into some more detail on that. I do not have a lot of knowledge about witness protection programs in other countries. Spain, Italy and Honduras are all places I could tell a little about, but I think it would wear out my welcome with the Chair in terms of how much time I have.

On the question of the financial resources, it is all great if the bill does what is being claimed, that it has administratively efficiencies and actually enhances some of the co-operative elements of the program. No one is denying that.

We are also emphasizing that we are supporting it, but we are just disappointed that there is not the recognition that at the local and provincial level, there was evidence to say that the downloading of costs has consequences for investigations. Therefore, as we go forward, Parliament, or the government on its own perhaps, needs to address it.

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

Mr. Speaker, authorities who work on combatting street gangs welcome this bill and say it will allow them to protect witnesses who are members of street gangs but want to leave that lifestyle. They see it as another tool for their toolbox.

As we know, protecting witnesses costs money; in fact, it is very expensive. We also know that the government has not made any plans to transfer additional funds to the provinces that have witness protection programs or to the RCMP.

My question is as follows. If the government wants to create a cardiac unit at a hospital and forces the hospital to create it, how is the hospital supposed to balance its budget if it does not eliminate another service? It is a question of credits and debits.

Why did the government not plan any transfers to pay for these changes?

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this goes to the heart of some of what we all have been saying, that we may well need a better collaborative federalism component to this.

The Criminal Code really is a huge federal responsibility, but a lot of things stop after we have legislated. Then it becomes a matter of the provinces and municipal police forces clawing back from the feds—that is us—some kind of a contributory role within something that should be more seamless in budgeting than it is.

Therefore, a transfer of payment system might be the way to go. Alternatively, there could be some kind of a statutory authorization within our budgetary systems for the RCMP itself, capped—we would have to figure out what that cap would be—where it could actually be paying to the municipal and provincial police forces what is needed for given investigations, without having to get specific supplementary estimates. That might be a way to think about it. It might not need a transfer system. It might simply mean the RCMP is the distributor cap for the needed money to make sure local investigations work.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to hear the strong support for Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act, from all sides of the House.

As we continue our discussion today of the safer witnesses act, it is important to take a step back and look at where these proposed changes stem from. As hon. members have heard, there have been two major reports in the last four years containing recommendations to enhance the federal witness protection program. The first of these reports was the result of a study conducted by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security in 2008. That committee put forward nine recommendations on how to enhance the federal program.

Since that time, and through our extensive consultations with our federal partners and provincial stakeholders, our government has committed to moving ahead with legislative amendments, administrative changes within the RCMP and the implementation of measures that would enhance the protection of witnesses in the federal program. The 2008 report included a number of good recommendations that have provided momentum for change and, in the case of one recommendation, is directly addressed in our current legislation, Bill C-51.

Today I would like to take a look at those recommendations as I think they add valuable perspective on how we have arrived at today's legislation. The committee's recommendations fell under four thematic areas, the first of which was to promote fair and efficient management of the federal program. Within this theme, our government has supported three of the four recommendations.

First let us look at the one we did not support, the first recommendation. This recommendation called for the creation of an independent office within the Department of Justice that would be entrusted to administer the federal witness protection program. This issue has been raised again recently in committee and it is important to address it again.

In our consultations with the provinces and federal partners, we found that in fact the best option was for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to continue to manage the federal program. As the Minister of Public Safety has commented, the fact is that the Department of Justice does not have the expertise to run a program to protect witnesses and the actual transfer of the program for the department would create potential security risks.

We agreed, however, with the intent of this recommendation, namely that there should be a clear distinction between the investigative and protective functions to ensure the objectivity of witness protection measures. These concerns are being addressed through changes in their reporting structures within the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

I mentioned that our government supported three of the four recommendations under this theme of fair and efficient management. We agreed that psychological assessments and counselling of candidates over the age of 18, as well as their family members, was a critical step in the witness protection process. As such, the RCMP has begun to engage psychologists to conduct assessments and to offer counselling to candidates for the federal program. Once they are admitted into the program, it is the intent that these services will be offered to both protectees and their families.

We support in principle the recommendation that the federal program should offer potential candidates the aid of legal counsel with an appropriate security clearance during the negotiation of the candidate's admission to the program. Indeed, all the candidates considered for the federal program, as well as the protectees under the federal program, are offered the services of legal counsel.

I say our government agreed in principle because we did not support the suggestion that the federal government should cover all legal fees as a regular course of business. Rather, these are made on a case-by-case basis. This is because there are some cases where providing legal counsel could be seen as a conflict of interest as the government itself may become the subject of legal action on the part of candidates or protectees. We believe our approach is an appropriate use of public funds.

Finally, our government also agreed with the recommendation that candidates and protectees of the federal program must have a proper independent body to which they could submit formal complaints about RCMP conduct, as needed. This calls for an enhanced complaints review body is addressed in Bill C-42, legislation our government recently introduced to modernize the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Bill C-42 would create a new civilian review and complaints commission that would have access to all the necessary documents required to effectively review complaints by federal protectees regarding RCMP conduct.

Under a second theme, that of facilitating access to the federal witness protection program, the committee made two recommendations in 2008. The first was to develop a shared funding agreement among the federal, provincial and municipal governments for witness protection. The second was to allow provinces and territories to work directly with federal departments for processing secure identity changes.

For reasons of fiscal restraint and the need to keep the process secure, our government could not support a permanent funding arrangement for provincial programs.

Bill C-51 would improve integration between the provincial and federal witness protection programs, as well as allow designated provincial programs to obtain secure identity changes for their protectees without having to admit them into the federal program.

The third thematic area of recommendation was to establish minimum standards across the board for all Canadian witness protection programs. The federal government has no plans to overstep its jurisdictional boundaries by imposing national standards upon provincial witness protection programs. Furthermore, the provinces themselves have made it clear that they would object to such federal encroachment on their authority. Therefore, we could not support that recommendation.

Finally, the committee's report included two recommendations under the theme of promoting transparency, as much as could be done, considering the confidential nature of the witness protection program. Namely, it recommended that more independent research should be conducted on the effectiveness of the federal witness protection program and that the federal program's annual report should be enhanced to give a clearer picture of how the program works.

Research has already been conducted on the federal program and the RCMP is looking into creating a database that would enhance the federal program.

As to the final recommendation, the annual report was modified and enhanced in 2008 to provide Canadians with a more precise picture of the program.

The safer witnesses act is a strong and effective legislation that addresses many of the recommendations made by the standing committee, as well as issues raised by stakeholders. Strong witness protection programs are invaluable to investigations and court proceedings.

Particularly when we are dealing with gang activity, it is critical that witnesses feel safe coming forward with information. It is also important to consider the safety of our front-line law enforcement personnel. Mr. Stamatakis, president of the Canadian Police Association, said:

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.

Too often, we forget the fact that our men and women who put themselves in harm's way are the ones who are really bearing the brunt of a lot of the things that we ask them to do. It is important that we have these measures in place to protect them.

In speaking about his city's experience, Toronto police chief William Blair said:

—the fear caused by intimidation and the threat of retaliation in gang investigations. Witnesses with valuable information are deterred from coming forward.

As such, Mr. Blair has joined other key stakeholders in supporting this bill as a valuable step in protecting public safety. I ask all hon. members to do the same.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question will be very short.

What will happen when the witness who needs protection is foreign and is no longer protected by his own country?

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, I do not get the question. Was it when the person is foreign?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat my question.

What will happen here in Canada when a witness is foreign and is no longer receiving protection from his own country?