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

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question, but the member was not here in 2006, when we started the whole cracking down on crime initiative as a new government.

One of the things we did do was make strategic investments in the training centre for the RCMP, in Saskatchewan. We invested in more police officers. We decided we would make sure there would be the resources to crack down on crime when we go forward with the initiative for cracking down on crime. We increased the number of border security people to crack down on the gun trade and the drug trade across the border between Canada and the United States. There are ample resources there to do that work.

I can say with confidence that this bill would be another building block to what we are trying to accomplish, and the resources are there. The RCMP has also acknowledged that the bill would not be any stress on those costs.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up, if I could, on the question put earlier by my colleague from York West.

By all accounts, there are many legislators in this House who have a lot of experience. We all know that this kind of late-night sitting is costing the taxpayers of Canada somewhere between $50,000 and $60,000 an hour. It is very important for Canadians, I think, to know that.

I also think it is important to pick up on a comment made by my colleague from the NDP moments ago, raising important questions about resourcing the witness protection program and noting that the $60,000 an hour it is costing for this debate could go toward resourcing the program.

I am not sure why the government is debating the bill. All three parties agree. It passed through the committee without amendment. We are trying to understand why it is we are charging the Canadian taxpayer $50,000 to $60,000 an hour. Why do we not move on and actually pass this bill and get on to an issue of debate, so we do not have people reading speeches for TV productions?

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that we do not necessarily enjoy talking about things. We like taking action. We have done that as a party.

The fact is that there is time allocation and the members opposite are aware of that. It is really interesting. Those on the opposite side frequently state that there has not been enough time for debate on various bills. Here we are, giving you ample time to debate the bill and you are not taking advantage of it or do not want to take advantage—

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. Again, I would remind this hon. member and all others to please address your questions to the Chair rather than to your colleagues.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again we find an opportunity to move ahead on a number of initiatives that this government has brought forward since 2006 to help strengthen and encourage the protection not only of our police officers but obviously of those victims and how we protect them. This gives me an opportunity to speak to Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act.

As members know, the act was brought forward in 1996 for the nature of crimes we were dealing with then. However, since that time there has been an incredible amount of change in our society.

In fact, as has been mentioned before, in the drug-dealing business, the production of crack cocaine has increased some 30%. Unfortunately, this affects not only large urban areas but small rural communities and towns like mine as well. Also, in 1996 cybercrime was something that many of us did not know anything about, and in 2013, there may still be those who are not aware of the complexities of cybercrime in this country. Organized crime has become much more prevalent than it has been in past history. As well, on terrorism, we think of those situations that have happened, not potentially but those that have actually been stopped in this country. We would never have thought about that a few years ago, but we hear about it every day on the news. In fact, our members in the armed forces deal with it on a regular basis as they help protect our great nation and others against these terrible atrocities.

Methods of policing these crimes have been modernized in an attempt to keep pace, but what we need to do now is put in place a modernized witness protection program to help keep up with some of the events that are happening in our society.

Law enforcement often relies on the co-operation of individuals to give information and those who are willing to come forward and give evidence against these criminal organizations. Informants are often the key component that makes the difference between talking about it and getting out there and actually making the arrest. As a matter of fact, law enforcement depends on key witnesses. However, key witnesses deal with the fear and issues that come with dealing with organized crime, and we need to make sure those people have the opportunity to come forward without fear, at least without the extended fear they would normally have because they had been a part of something they knew was terribly wrong.

We have an opportunity now to move forward and help guarantee witness safety. We have an opportunity to not only help protect witness identities but strengthen that protection, and for a longer period of time.

In the past our witness program was designed to promote law enforcement by facilitating the protection of those directly or indirectly involved in criminal activities, and it had been an effective tool. In fact, it still is, but it is not as effective as it should be to deal with modern-day events.

As members know, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta have established their own provincial witness protection programs that work independently of the federal program. However, it is becoming increasingly apparent that we need to strengthen the protection given to witnesses and also to those who protect them across the country, and there have been calls for reform of the witness protection program to keep in line with the government's mandate of tackling crime.

Since 2006 we have taken that initiative to tackle crime, protect the innocent and give justice to the victims. We now need to make sure that we give credence to the witnesses who are helping make sure that happens.

As we developed this bill, we took into consideration the recommendations made in the final report of the 2010 Air India inquiry, the 2008 study of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security of the federal witness protection program, as well as the recommendations from consultations we carried out with not only with federal agencies and departments, but also with agencies of the provinces and law enforcement groups at all levels across this country. We have carefully assessed the feedback from these reports and consultations to bring forward a comprehensive bill, which is the one that we have in front of us.

In Bill C-51, we have identified a number of changes to the act that would improve the protection services for informants and witnesses.

The provincial witness protection programs meet the needs of provincial law enforcement agencies and offers a range of protection that can include accompanying a witness to trial, a temporary relocation or limited financial support to the individual. However, they do not have that authority to obtain secure identity changes. In this age of technology, it is becoming so important that when we give them a change of identity it is secure, protected and there for them in their time of need.

One of the measures we would be putting in place with this bill is the streamlining of the process that would allow provincial programs to be designated under this act. We had a number of questions come up about how we would be able to do this in terms of other agencies and the efficiencies in the bill.

Bill C-51 would make it possible for the Attorney General or other provincial authority to request the Minister of Public Safety to recommend to the Governor in Council that a provincial protection program be designated. This would then allow the RCMP to assist with obtaining the federal documents for secure identity change without the witness having to be admitted into the federal program.

Though there have been recommendations to bypass the RCMP and have the provinces request secure identity documents directly from the various federal organizations involved, we believe it is more prudent to maintain a single point of contact for this process. That is all part of the security and the efficiencies built into Bill C-51 in terms of the protection of witnesses.

The RCMP is the organization best suited to act in this capacity and bring continuity, which would ensure efficiency and enhance security. The Commissioner of the RCMP would coordinate at the request of the provinces and we would look to help those who are admitted to the designated program.

I see that I am running out of time. What it really all comes down to is that the amendments, the federal organizations with mandates related to national security, defence or public safety, such as CSIS and the Department of National Defence, may also refer witnesses to this national program. That means that those issues that I talked about earlier with respect to breadth and some of the issues that had not been brought into the witness program in 1966 are here now.

I look forward to the support and the passing of this important bill.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the comments by the hon. member and his colleague from Okanagan—Shuswap and I have to say that both members actually made the case for the very recommendation by the commission that looked into the Air India incident.

My understanding is that there was only one recommendation for amendments to the federal witness protection program made by the commission: to create the national security witness protection coordinator. Why? It was because a number of witnesses in the Air India inquiry refused to testify because they did not feel they were going to be adequately protected. This protection coordinator's mandate would include providing confidential support, psychological and legal advice, independent confidential arbitration of disputes and acting as an advocate for witnesses.

The member said that the government has made comprehensive amendments and yet it chose not to implement the single amendment recommended by the commission. I wonder if he could speak to that.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my comments, there may be police officers and members of law enforcement agencies that are much more into the details of it than I am.

As a government, we in fact have the responsibility to make sure that we reach out to some of the most significant tragedies that have happened around the world, not just in this country. We learn, unfortunately, from incidents that have happened around the world. We want to make sure that when people come forward, we give them the most secure opportunity we can, and not only to change their identity over a period of time. As I mentioned, they will always carry a fear because they have been part of something that has dramatically changed their lives. We do not want that extraordinary fear to stick with them because they do not have the security of a new identity.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' last speaker said that my colleague was not an MP in 2006 when the Conservatives announced their cracking down on crime initiative.

It is really demeaning to refer to the knowledge of a member just because he was not elected then. Does he also mean that the members for Mississauga South or Ajax—Pickering should not have spoken on this bill just because they were not elected then? It is very demeaning when a member is referred to as not credible or not knowledgeable because he was not elected in 2006.

That was my comment. Now I am going to ask a question of my colleague.

I know that my colleague represents a rural region, and the RCMP's website clearly says that funding problems impede investigations.

Could my colleague tell us why the government has not allocated more funding to a program that the RCMP has said needs more funding?

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we will often reference new members. We respect the fact that they are new, but it also gives us the ability to say we had a program in place. It was only to provide knowledge about where the government started and where it is going. The comment was never meant to be derogatory to anyone. I would never, nor would my colleague, ever do that.

Clearly, in terms of funding, we have to understand that this could have been a full national program, but we know that the provinces did not want to let go of some of their authority. I come from a small rural riding. Some members think, particularly over there, that we cannot build in efficiencies, that we just have to keep throwing money at it. We provided funding for 2,500 police officers. We have enhanced funding for police officers.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, be read the third time and passed.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, contrary to the apparent perspective of some in this place, I think it is actually worthwhile to debate these bills. Each one of us learns a lot more by hearing the perspectives of the other side. I am grateful for the opportunity, despite the late hour, to participate in this debate.

At the outset, I would like to say stricter sentencing provisions without effective investigative powers, resources and timely judicial processes are empty. I would bring attention to the failure of the government to take timely action in the appointment of judges, including in my jurisdiction, as raised by the Attorney General of Alberta, and the failure to fill that vacuum by providing sufficient aboriginal police, as first nations are calling for. That certainly would help with the situation of gang action and in helping to bring witnesses forward.

I am rising in support of Bill C-51, an act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act. There are many measures that are worthwhile. It is good that after many years the government is finally moving forward to improve and enhance the program, which, by the way, the Conservatives did not invent. It has been around for quite some time, but to their credit, finally, after seven years, they are coming forward to actually improve it.

We support the fact that it would expand the eligibility criteria in certain circumstances to expand access in the case of witnesses dealing with crimes related to street gangs and certainly for witnesses recommended by CSIS and National Defence. As I understand it and as outlined by the government members, there would be improved efficiency and coordination with provincial and municipal police forces to achieve more effective access to the program by those authorities. I am hoping that is the case, regardless of the fact that there is no additional funding.

These are important changes that the New Democrats have been calling for as improvements for quite some time, particularly to fight street gangs and organized crime. I bring to the attention of the Speaker that the New Democrat member for Trinity—Spadina called for this exact reform some time back, specifically in relation to the mass shootings in Toronto. I know that we and everyone certainly support her efforts to have some increased measures to deal with these kinds of activities and to respond to the increasing concern over terrorism. In that case, people may be even all the more nervous about stepping forward and serving as a witness or providing testimony or evidence to the authorities.

The bill would expand access to more individuals seeking to deal with gangs, although I would have to add that I wanted to put this question to a number of the members here who are participating in the special task force on missing and murdered aboriginal women. I am not convinced that the measures we are debating today are sufficient to address the complex issue in aboriginal communities of witnesses coming forward. That would be something that is probably worth pursuing.

The federal witness protection program has long been criticized for its narrow eligibility criteria, for its poor coordination with provincial programs and for the low numbers of witnesses admitted to the program. Apparently only 30 of the 108 applications that were considered were accepted in 2012. I am not sure that the committee heard all of the detail for why that was, but on the basis of some of the testimony from police authorities, certainly part of it is a lack of access to funding. I am surprised, given the government's enthusiasm for ensuring that these cases come to trial with solid evidence and testimony from witnesses, that it would not also want to address this funding shortage issue.

One of the things that particularly bewilders us is that the Prime Minister commended the report from the Air India commission. One of the strong recommendations from the Air India inquiry, and apparently the only one related to the federal witness protection program, was to appoint a national security witness protection coordinator.

The government has chosen to disregard that recommendation. There do not appear to be really clear arguments for why it would turn down that position.

My understanding of the recommendation is that the coordinator would not provide the actual physical protection. The national security witness protection coordinator's mandate would include such things as ensuring consistency in the handling of sources and resolving disputes between agencies that may arise in negotiation or implementation of a protection agreement. The coordinator would also provide confidential support for protectees, including psychological and legal advice so that they could decide whether they wanted to sign the protection agreement. The coordinator would also provide for independent and confidential arbitration of disputes and act as an advocate for witnesses.

That all seems very clear and obvious, because in many cases the very reason for the existence of this witness protection program is that witnesses are reluctant to come forward. There could be many reasons. They could be terrified. They might be nervous of police authorities. It seems perfectly logical that a non-police body would work with those individuals and would be less intimidating.

The government's decision remains a puzzle to us. It had the opportunity to also include that recommendation. Hopefully in future it will also bring that one forward.

One of the key problems that has been raised by my colleagues in this place is the refusal by the government to admit that the program is inadequately funded. As has been stated many times in the House, only 30 of 108 applications considered were accepted in 2012.

A great number of witnesses came before committee, many of whom spoke to exactly this issue. One was Commissioner Micki Ruth, a member of the policing and justice committee of the Canadian Association of Police Boards. Micki Ruth said:

Like many issues facing government today, funding is one of the biggest and toughest ones to find solutions for. The problems identified back in 2007 with the adequacy of funding for the current witness protection are not addressed in Bill C-51. Unfortunately, we see problems with the ability of municipality police services to adequately access witness protection because they lack the resources. ... CAPB has a duty to its members to ensure that legislation passed by the government does not result in a downloading of additional costs to the municipal police services....

This is the very concern. We have heard member after member defending the position that there is no need for further funding, but in most cases they are citing the RCMP. The problem is that the downloading occurs to the municipal or provincial police authorities.

That concern was also raised by the British Columbia Ministry of Justice through Clayton J.D. Pecknold, who is the assistant deputy minister and director of police services, policing and security programs branch, as well as Dr. Alok Mukherjee, the president of the Canadian Association of Police Boards. Those are citizen boards and commissions representing a broad spectrum of society.

Dr. Alok Mukherjee said:

Without the availability of sufficient funding, our ability to take advantage of the program will be limited. In places like Toronto, that's a big problem because, as you know, we're dealing with serious violent crimes and often rely on witnesses from the community, not informants....

Very serious concerns are being raised.

When we go to the very purpose of this legislation and program, which is to encourage witnesses who may otherwise feel intimidated to come forward, we have to scratch our heads and ask why the program would not be fully funded, particularly when we are dealing with incidents of terrorism.

We will remain puzzled. We support the initiatives that the government has brought forward in the bill, but we will continue to pursue, on behalf of those agencies and the public and those who might be compelled and approached to testify, the availability of funding to support them to testify.

As I mentioned at the outset, in the case of aboriginal or isolated communities there may have to be additional measures, because it may be a bit harder to address the fact that individuals will be picked up and relocated or that they may not even speak English or French and would be quite intimidated by being removed from their community.

I look forward to further discussions on this matter within Parliament.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite mentioned a number of items. I am going to focus on two areas.

First, I appreciate the NDP's support for this bill. It is important for our national interests to have security for witnesses who choose to come forward to deal with organized crime, as the member for Okanagan—Shuswap said.

The member said that one of the original recommendations in 2008 was to have an independent office outside of the RCMP and not conducted by it. It has been brought up that one of the challenges with that idea is that there are many skills specific to keeping witnesses safe. To suddenly switch from one system in which there is an extreme amount of experience to another in which there may not be that same level of experience may cause a reduction in the safety of these witnesses.

The second point is the question of funding. The provinces and municipalities set their budgets for policing. There is direct accountability there, obviously, with a national program that is decided by the RCMP, and it is decided by this place what that funding will be. That is more of a comment on the funding. There is sufficient funding for the national program, and municipalities and provinces should set their own budgets and tax accordingly so that people can hold them accountable and can have their say when they go to the ballot box and elect their leaders.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy serving on the OGGO committee with the hon. member. We are working on a very interesting report, which I hope comes forward before we adjourn for the summer.

I am not sure if the member caught what I said when I spoke about the recommendation from the Air India inquiry. I was very clear that the recommendation from that commission was that this body, this independent protection coordinator, would simply help with the handling and the processing and negotiation of the agreement. That person would not actually deliver the protection program. Program delivery would remain with the RCMP or the police authorities, so I do not see any way there could be interference. We could be assured that the office would include people who were fully qualified to deal with these kinds of activities. They could even be former police officers, who could be seconded into the program. However, it would be stand-alone.

In a lot of cases and a lot of communities, people do not trust the police. They may have had bad incidents and experiences and so forth. In this case, it might be really useful for the person to be seen clearly as not being an enforcement officer and to work with the witness and encourage him or her to come forward.

On the second point, about funding, I suggest that most police forces would say that they could always use additional funding.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague about the point she just mentioned regarding funding.

The government is bringing in a system that will potentially—almost certainly—attract more witnesses. A number of government speakers have said that provincial and municipal police forces would be able to accept more witnesses. We know that this will cost money.

I would like my colleague to talk about the worrisome fact that there will be additional costs. I would also like to hear what she thinks about the fact that the government is once again introducing a bill without properly consulting municipal and provincial authorities.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member both for the fabulous speech he gave this evening and for his question. He sets the bar high in this place.

I too remain troubled. Very clearly, the government is saying that the intention is to expand the witness protection program and enable the various police forces to bring more witnesses into that program. I do not know how police forces are going to do that. I know that police forces are stretched in most jurisdictions. They are stretched even in my province, which is supposedly financially stable but is also suffering from a deficit.

The priority is that people are demanding more police boots on the ground. I do not see a lot of people coming forward and saying that the priority should be witness protection, yet the police forces themselves know that in order to win these cases, they need these kinds of programs and greater access.

We have $3.1 billion missing for the anti-terrorism program. Perhaps if we could find that, it could go into expanding the witness protection program.