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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member a question about funding.

Last year, 30 of the 108 candidates received funding. Ninety-nine of them were not funded. All this cost $9 million. Members will admit that this is still quite costly.

Now the program is to be extended to gangs. The reasoning is that there is a real need to take action and tackle crime. We support the bill.

How will the process be carried out? What about the 99 candidates who were not granted protection? How are certain candidates chosen over others? Will it be based on the financial implications associated with their actions as witnesses? Will people be treated fairly and equitably when there are witnesses? If dealing with terrorism, for example, will the process be based on the incident? What are the criteria?

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, obviously it will be left to the experts to decide, based on the seven criteria, how many of the potential witnesses would be put into this program. I would note that Tom Stamatakis, the president of the Canadian Police Association, when it came to cost said that it is obviously important, but he said that this would “...deliver the best possible community protection at a reasonable cost to the Canadian taxpayer”.

I think that is why we have seen the RCMP and the Canadian Police Association express the importance of this legislation because it is reasonable and the costs are manageable, but fundamentally what is important is the safety of Canadians, and this would enhance that.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for Barrie who was on a team tonight that went out and played hockey against the media and beat the media, six to four. Now he has come back to this place at 11 o'clock to give an outstanding speech on this bill.

[An hon. member]

How many goals did he score?

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Is that my question? How many goals did he score? No.

Mr. Speaker, Bill Blair, the chief of the Toronto Police Service, stated:

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

Could the member for Barrie elaborate on that statement?

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yes, this bill certainly would do a lot to enhance safety in our communities.

I would note, on the member's first question, that the teamwork in the Conservative caucus and the great work from the member for Brampton West in back-checking helped ensure that we held the day against the media. We were very pleased to work together on a hockey rink, just as we do in Parliament to ensure the best interests of Canadians are accounted for.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House to speak about a bill that is dear to my heart, and that is Bill C-51.

The NDP has said that it will support this bill. Why? For various reasons. First, the bill broadens the eligibility criteria for the witness protection program to include witnesses recommended by the Department of National Defence. It will also extend the period of emergency protection and clear up some of the technical problems that were occurring in relation to coordination with provincial programs. It has been said many times in the past several hours that the program will likely generate additional costs. The members opposite do not seem to believe that. Time will tell.

When it comes to witness protection, in Quebec in particular, there have been clear examples in recent years of why it is absolutely necessary to have witnesses to help target and stop criminal groups. Many police operations would have failed miserably had it not been for the co-operation of informants. Take for example, Opération SharQc, which resulted in the arrest of 115 Hells Angels, thanks to the help of an informant and the protection he was offered by the police. In Quebec, the Sûreté du Québec protects witnesses.

There have also been other arrests, such as those of all of “Mom” Boucher's Nomads, a chapter of Hells Angels. Once again, an informant, “Godasse” Gagné, worked with the police.

Clearly, the witness protection program covers a wide variety of activities. When it comes to terrorism, there is a certain type of witness that needs to be protected. When it comes to organized crime and street gangs, we are not talking about some poor innocent witness. It is important to be clear on that. These are not choirboys. They are people with rap sheets longer than the government's mammoth bill.

Although these witness protection programs have been very effective recently in the fight against organized crime, there have also been some abuses, things the public felt should not have been done. Informant witnesses, under the protection of the police and the government, received large sums of money for their co-operation. Of course, giving up 115 notorious criminals for arrest has its price. One witness was given $3 million. The public saw this as an abuse. There have also been witnesses who received new identities and then went out and committed crimes a few years later. That happened in Quebec, and the public is not okay with those types of abuses.

I would like to point out that the witness protection program is managed by police forces. We know nothing of the agreements between the police and witnesses. The rules are not clear, and there is no transparency.

Tonight, there has been a lot of talk about the need for transparency with these kinds of agreements. Based on what I know about how the program is administered, I can say that, in Quebec, there was no transparency. There was so little transparency that there were abuses involving the public as well as reformed and protected witnesses. They challenged their agreements with police, to the point where they formed an association, the Association des témoins spéciaux du Québec. That shows just how bad things got. These protected witnesses sued the Quebec government for $6 million for breach of contract.

What I am trying to say is that transparency is an issue.

There has been support for the improvements made to the bill. There is support for the fact that Bill C-51 expands the witness protection program to include criminals involved in street gangs. I think that is key to eventually eliminating that scourge.

Members have also said that this bill assumes that the funding currently allocated to the RCMP is sufficient. We do not feel that is the case. In addition, the bill unfortunately does not follow through on the recommendation to create an independent organization to oversee all of the witness protection programs.

It is important to understand that when a police force is dealing with a witness from organized crime who made the first step to access this type of program, there is no proper balance of power between the police and the criminal. A lot of pressure and responsibility is put on the commissioner. The new statute, especially clause 12, indicates that the commissioner must protect the witness' identity, but may also disclose the witness' identity if the commissioner deems it appropriate to do so. In fact, the commissioner becomes judge and master of this program. We know that sometimes he is put in a position of being judge and jury. It does not serve the justice system well for police forces to be judge and jury. We often see this when police forces investigate other police forces. This does not necessarily produce the best results.

An independent agency made up of specialists that are completely independent from the police forces could manage this program effectively, have clear criteria and agreements that are respected and deemed appropriate by the public. When we negotiate agreements with criminals, we must remember that we represent public ethics and power and that we cannot negotiate any old thing. I would say that in this type of program, it is a bit like shaking hands with the devil. We have to be careful. I am not the only one who prefers to have this safeguard in the bill.

I would like to quote from a letter sent to the Minister of Public Safety from the Barreau du Québec.

Under clause 12, the commissioner may disclose confidential information if the protected person consents to the disclosure or has previously made such a disclosure or acted in a manner that results in such a disclosure.

We can agree that if a criminal under witness protection wants to terminate his protection, it is up to him.

Furthermore, the commissioner could disclose that confidential information if he has reasonable grounds to believe that the disclosure is essential for the purposes of the administration of justice; this could be necessary in the context of investigating a serious offence if there is reason to believe that the protected person can provide material information or evidence in relation to, or has been involved in the commission of, the offence; preventing the commission of a serious offence; or finally, establishing the innocence of a person...

The commissioner can lift a witness's protection for about a dozen reasons. This is a very serious decision. This disclosure could put the commissioner in a conflict of interest.

As we have also seen, it is not the role of the commissioner to act as judge and jury. The committee recognizes the importance of this issue, but does not feel it compiled enough information to be able to make an informed decision. In its final report, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security recommended the establishment of an independent body to administer and manage the federal witness protection program.

Furthermore, in the report that followed the Air India tragedy, the commission recommended the creation of an independent body, specifically, a national security witness protection coordinator.

I agree with those recommendations. It would have been better if this bill had included a provision to create an independent body to oversee Canada's witness protection program.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for giving us one of his typically passionate speeches.

I would like to quote Clayton Pecknold, assistant deputy minister and director, Police Services, Policing and Security Programs Branch, British Columbia Ministry of Justice. He appeared before the committee on March 19, 2013, and said:

It's important from my perspective that the program be adequately funded and effectively and efficiently administered. The cost of major investigations is a concern to municipalities. As a consequence, whether it's the cost of actually conducting the extraordinary investigative measures that are necessary or managing the file from a witness protection or witness management perspective, it will indeed be a concern for municipalities.

What does my colleague think about that statement?

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will not repeat what has been said all evening.

The NDP is of the same mind as some of the police chiefs and police associations that testified in committee, and it shares some of the concerns expressed by municipal officials. Transferring the cost of a program to other levels of government is a fairly common occurrence with Conservative bills. Conservative bills often result in increased pressure on provincial budgets. In the case of employment insurance, the effect is obvious: people who exhaust their benefits will turn to welfare, which is a provincial program. Therefore, the province will absorb these costs.

In the case of prisons, the provinces will have to build more of them to enforce the government's proposed law and order regulations. That will also result in additional costs that will have to be borne by the municipalities. It is crystal clear.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this topic of underfunding has been surfacing all night.

The members from the opposition have said that it is underfunded, and they have given all these quotes from provincial organizations. However, I have not heard any quotes from federal organizations. We on this side have said that from a federal perspective this program is funded and it is going to make good law.

Does the member have any facts from federal organizations that say this program is not adequately funded?

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, having worked for a long time with municipalities, I know the situation in Quebec, and I imagine that the situation of municipalities elsewhere in Canada is no different.

Municipal funding is a major challenge because infrastructure is crumbling everywhere and money has to be allocated to projects that the municipalities are working on. They have to provide local services for the people. The municipalities are already having a great deal of difficulty covering their expenses, and additional costs will only make things more difficult for them. I believe that if the federal government introduces bills, it must follow up with the money.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech and I must say that I did not learn anything new, because that same speech has been repeated over and over by NDP members, much like Conservative Party members repeat their speeches.

I have a simple question. In the last five hours, we have spent about $250,000 in additional costs to hold this debate in the House tonight instead of continuing to study other bills. That kind of money could buy 30 insulin pumps for people with diabetes.

Could the member tell the Canadians watching at home how the two parties debating this issue justify spending this money?

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have an answer for that. Members of Parliament are paid to be here. This is not additional spending.

Witness protection is very important. Do they remember Ma Chouette, the anonymous witness who spoke out about the sponsorship scandal? They always wanted to find out who that was. It is important to protect witnesses.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be here to debate the bill, unlike my colleagues way over there in the far corner. They want to go home, but that is not new. That is what they want to do all the time. We want to be here. We want to debate this legislation. Those members say they support this legislation, that they agree with it, but they want to go home. They want to go home because they support it.

I am very happy that they support this legislation, because this is pretty new. This is quasi-judicial. This is quasi-criminal justice reform. It is almost a justice bill—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!