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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for a very interesting speech. He raised a number of points that deserve special consideration.

I would like to come back to the issue of funding, because a number of government members mentioned that, while the committee was studying this bill, the vast majority of witnesses supported the government's view that additional funding is not necessary.

That is not surprising, given that the committee has a Conservative majority. The majority of witnesses endorse the opinion of the majority of the committee's members. It is not very surprising that this opinion was aired many times in committee. That said, a number of witnesses also raised the fact that funding could pose a problem for municipalities.

In the United States, there is often talk of unfunded mandates. That is somewhat similar to what we are seeing here. We want to improve the system, but it will cost a lot to do so. We want to increase the number of witnesses that can access the program. Clearly, there will be significant costs associated with that.

I really want to understand how the government intends to fund this program, instead of always trying to offload the costs to the provinces and municipalities. Will the government take financial responsibility for its own bills?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it does not matter who we ask. If we ask an open-ended question, saying, “do you need more funding?”, it will always be yes. We can always use more funding, it does not matter who we ask.

If I asked my son if he needed more money to go to university, the first answer would be “Yes, I need more money to go university, Dad”, whether he needs it or not.

Let me talk about what Todd G. Shean, the assistant commissioner, federal and international operations of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, had to say:

—with the changes this bill brings about, the RCMP is comfortable that we have the resources within our existing resources to run an effective witness protection program.

The witnesses who came forward in committee were very clear. They liked this legislation and felt they could work within the confines of it.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his remarks. However, I would like to refute the last statement he made in regard to people always saying they need more money. Time and again tonight, we have heard Conservative members talk about how the officials from the RCMP said they did not need more financing.

I am rising this evening, like everyone else, to speak to Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act. The NDP supports Bill C-51, as it attempts to improve the witness protection program. However, we still have concerns about this bill. We are concerned that the Conservative government has refused to commit any new funding to the system. We are concerned that the Conservatives' requirement that the RCMP and local police departments work within their existing budgets would hinder the potential improvement of the program.

This situation is similar to other legislation we have seen before this House lately; namely, the Conservative government bringing forward legislation that would only partially fix a problem. Why are the Conservatives unwilling or unable to find the courage and political will to develop legislation to the point where it would actually be as effective as it could be? Once again, I find myself supporting legislation that is a half measure. It would in fact help, but would not fully resolve a problem that the government could be resolving.

Another shortcoming of the bill is that it does not include provisions for an independent agency to operate the program as recommended in the Air India inquiry report. The RCMP would continue to be responsible for the program, and this would leave the RCMP in a potential conflict of interest, being the agency both investigating the case and deciding who gets protection.

The federal witness protection program has long been criticized for its narrow eligibility criteria, poor coordination with provincial programs and low number of witnesses actually admitted to the program. Only 30 out of 108 applications considered were accepted in 2012. The blame for that has to go to the original authors of the bill, which would be the previous Liberal government members.

Since the Witness Protection Program Act passed in 1996, the Liberal and Conservative governments have done little to respond to the criticisms of the system. Some bills have been presented in the House of Commons to address small components of the protection program. As an example, Bill C-223 from a Reform member of Parliament in 1999 regarding witness protection in cases of domestic violence, was supported by the NDP and was defeated by the then-Liberal government.

The overarching issues of eligibility, coordination and funding have not yet been addressed. The New Democrats are on record as repeatedly asking the Conservatives to address the three key issues in the witness protection program: expanded criteria eligibility, co-operation with provinces and adequate funding.

In November 2012, the NDP member of Parliament for Trinity—Spadina called for more support for the federal witness protection program, pointing to the difficulty Toronto police faced in convincing witnesses to this past summer's mass shooting at a block party on Danzig Street in Scarborough to come forward. The Danzig shooting is just one of many examples I could point to where witnesses have been reluctant to step forward due to concerns for their own safety.

Bill C-51 proposes a better process to support provincial witness protection programs and would expand the program to other agencies with national security responsibilities. Bill C-51 would expand the eligibility criteria of the witness protection program to include various requests from the RCMP, such as including youth gang members by covering a new group of people who would give assistance to federal departments. Federal departments and agencies with a mandate relating to national security, national defence or public safety would also be able to refer witnesses to this program. It would also extend the period for emergency protection and clear up some technical problems in coordinating with provincial programs.

Provinces such as Ontario and Alberta have been pushing for a national revamp of the witness protection program, including more recognition of their existing programs. Bill C-51 would provide for the designation of a provincial or municipal witness protection program so that certain provisions of the act would apply to such a program. It also would authorize the Commissioner of the RCMP 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.

Bill C-51 includes enough improvements to warrant our support through third reading, though concerns about funding have been reiterated multiple times in committee and over and over again tonight, and there are still no answers from the government.

Expanding eligibility for the witness protection program is a generally popular policy. Those working to combat youth gangs feel allowing those seeking to leave gangs access to the program would be an important addition to the tools they need. This issue retains a high profile in the South Asian community due to the attacks on witnesses during the Air India inquiry, where witnesses were not eligible for the program as it currently excludes witnesses in national security cases.

The provinces have long been calling for better coordination between federal and provincial programs. Now, of course, in terms of coordination between federal and provincial programs, we know that is a weakness of the current government, when we look at the Prime Minister who has refused to meet with the first ministers as a group over the seven years the Conservatives have been in power.

We are also disappointed that the bill did not include more recommendations from the Air India inquiry, such as a more transparent and accountable process for admissions into the program. Even the government itself identified this as a serious problem, and yet it failed to address it in the bill.

Overall, Bill C-51 is a positive step, but unfortunately we do not see the Conservatives providing the resources to make it really count for communities. We want to see them provide local police departments with the support necessary to make sure witnesses come forward in gang situations, for example. The Conservative government is not acknowledging the high cost borne by local police departments. There are also provincial witness protection programs, but if the crime is federal in nature or involves drugs, the RCMP take over and then charges local police departments the full cost, something many local departments cannot afford, particularly in small communities.

The RCMP's own website states, “There are instances when the costs of witness protection may impede investigations, particularly for smaller law enforcement agencies”. I have not heard one member of the government speak to that issue here tonight.

While the NDP has been calling for changes to the witness protection program since 2007, it is just now that the Conservative government is responding to our concerns, as well as many stakeholder concerns.

The NDP would like to believe the Conservative government is committed to improving the witness protection program but without the necessary funding for the RCMP to carry out these changes, we fear the improvements that are needed will not necessarily materialize.

Speaking of resourcing, several witnesses and the RCMP at committee said that they in fact do believe that they have the resources to take care of their share of the burden. However, as I mentioned previously in my speech, local law enforcement agencies and provincial law enforcement agencies are going to end up bearing many of the costs that are associated with changes in the witness protection program.

We have seen this kind of approach time and time again with the Conservatives' crime agenda. They make changes to legislation that are going to impact provincial and municipal budgets without providing any of the funding to absorb the costs. What ends up happening is an insidious form of downloading. Instead of the costs of the federal changes being borne by the federal government, they end up being borne by the provinces and municipalities, which are already straining to a much greater extent than the federal government is.

It is very unfortunate to see this kind of approach continuing. Back in the 1990s, the Liberal government downloaded billions of dollars on the provinces, and then the provinces, like mine of Ontario where we had the Mike Harris government, proceeded to download provincial costs, like social services and welfare programs, onto municipalities without actually giving them the funds to address the issues.

It is sad to see here in 2013 that we are in fact seeing the same kinds of things happening.

While the NDP is supporting the bill, once again we are seeing a bill that we do not think addresses all the issues that could be addressed in the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his very thoughtful and always pertinent speech.

Since the Liberals are saying that this debate is not important, I would like to ask my colleague a question about the criticisms related to eligibility and the lack of funding. This is nothing new.

Why did the Liberals not respond to criticism of the witness protection program when they had the chance a long time ago, namely, when they were in power?

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question.

Just look at the Liberals' last intervention on this issue. A member from Montreal said that they did not really see any problem with the bill. I have to wonder why they did not see any. We found many problems in the bill. We have to wonder if they did the work or if they are in denial about the fact that any problems could exist in a bill they drafted in the 1990s.

We cannot help but wonder why the Liberals are even here. They do not want to debate the bill. They simply want to complain about the cost and the fact that democracy costs money. We, however, are here to ask questions, to point out the problems in the bill and ensure that Canadians know that not everything is perfect.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend gave an excellent review on Bill C-51. From what I can see, the House is unanimous in planning to pass the bill. However, it is important to point out where we could, without a doubt, see a lack of adequate resources.

I have been surprised to see cuts to Canada Border Services Agency, when we need law enforcement agents there. I have been surprised to see RCMP officers pulled out of airports, such as the one in my riding, which is called the Victoria International Airport,but is actually in Sidney, B.C.

Does the hon. member have any proposals for how we can continue to press for the resources that will be needed to ensure that the witnesses in this program are kept safe?

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I addressed these issues before when I spoke about such things as ensuring that there were additional resources for witness protection provided to municipal governments, municipal police forces and provincial agencies to beef-up their witness protection programs. Another was to make a change that when the RCMP took over an investigation or witness protection because the crime involved drugs that it would not pass all the costs on to the municipal or provincial governments, but that it would bear the costs itself or help to pay for them.

Bill C-56, another bill that we will be speaking to soon, would make amendments to copyright and counterfeiting, which brings up border issues as well.

The member quite rightly has said that there have been cuts to the Canada Border Services Agency. We are not doing our neighbours, particularly those to the south, any service when the CBSA is no longer tracking outbound shipments of drugs. That is not helping to make their streets safe. Nor is it making our streets safer because we know that when drugs get exported oftenimes the resources, the money gained from those illicit activities comes back to Canada in the form of other drugs, guns and money that goes to organized crime.

Therefore, we should be stopping that drugs from crossing the border as best we can. Cuts to drug-sniffing dogs and front-line services at the Canada Border Services Agency do not make any sense when we are trying to fight crime.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to talk about this legislation. It is an interesting scenario indeed when a person can talk about what is important to people, and that, of course, is their life.

Some people have called this legislation different things but I broke it down. It is about someone seeing something, wanting to tell the truth about what was seen, but worrying about one's life or the life of a family member being taken as a result of the truth being told. Often these people are members of criminal organizations and they do not have the greatest character.

When we looked at the necessary amendments, we realized, as the NDP has said, that the Liberals did not get it right. Hopefully we are going to get it right. We had to make some changes to legislation that was not too bad. It was a good first step, but it obviously would not do the job.

I am glad to hear that the NDP and the Liberals both support this particular piece of legislation, but they cannot support anything without voting against it first. I would be surprised if the NDP actually do vote for it. That party cannot support anything without criticizing and I find that rather negative. It is not constructive, especially with respect to this particular piece of legislation.

I certainly think that protecting witnesses With respect to terrorism offences, we must make sure that we protect witnesses so they can speak without worrying about their safety. This is the time the NDP should come forward and say this is a great piece of legislation, but it might have a suggestion. The Speaker would not stand up and criticize something if he did not have a suggestion, but the NDP did. It is hard to believe that those members criticized today on three different points, but they never suggested one amendment to the legislation. The first time the bill came to the House there was not one suggestion. When it went through committee, there were no suggestions, not one amendment.

The NDP has suggested that there is not enough money. To be clear, I am not an expert on it. I was a criminal attorney for some period of time and I had the opportunity to work with people who were involved in situations such as this, although not in an in-depth nature. Police officers will tell us what is on their minds, and they will tell us the truth.

My colleagues keep repeating the same two bits of testimony from experts who came to committee, the first being “With the changes this bill brings about, the RCMP is comfortable that we have the resources within our existing resources to run an effective witness protection program”. Assistant Commissioner Todd G. Shean said, “It's not a question of resources; it's a question of the assessment that's done”.

The House should not take my word for these statements. These experts said there is enough money. Assistant Commissioner Todd G. Shean, federal and international operations, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, is a respected, well-renowned police officer and an expert in international and federal operations. He would know whether there is enough money involved.

When the NDP members come forward and say things like that, they lose credibility. Those members should maybe think about that in the future when they criticize government legislation without having substantive proof of what they are claiming.

That is probably why the NDP is the best at standing against government legislation. That party is against all of our economic action plan bills. It is against the 950,000 net new jobs we have created since the recession. Believe it or not, those members voted against every single action that we have taken as a government because they want to criticize us. They do not want to work as team players. They do not want to work with us to improve Canada's economic condition.

In fact, I am very proud to represent about 150,000 people, 80,000 of whom are directly or indirectly employed by the oil sands. I have seen the oil sands grow over the last 40 to 44 years from a barrel a day to where it is today at over a million barrels. We are looking at somewhere between 3 million and 5 million barrels a day being produced out of that area. Twenty per cent of Canada's exports right now are oil.

The NDP says we need more money, but what does it come up with for suggestions, recommendations or amendments to our legislation? It comes up with zip, zero, nada. New Democrats do that because all they can do is criticize and vote against things.

Speaking of voting against and criticizing, I want to continue on with my story, and it is a true story. Members might not believe it because it does sound like some sort of a fairy tale. Some of the NDP members went down to the United States and protested against the people working in my riding. They protested against Canadian jobs. It is unbelievable. In a time of economic downturn they voted against the people who I work beside, who I represent.

What shocks me the most is that they voted against the jobs of people from their own ridings. We have seen the oil sands produce a large number of jobs for people who work in the forklift manufacturing industry and for a bus manufacturer that is right in the middle of Quebec, for instance, in an NDP riding. They voted against those jobs.

Why did they do so? They did so because they believed, based upon voodoo magic, in my opinion, that somehow oil sands oil creates more GHGs than other forms of oil. That is not the case. When we look at it from start to finish, it is comparable to any other oil in the world, and frankly, it has lower emissions than Venezuelan crude and Californian crude.

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

Mr. Speaker, since the topic is witness protection, I am wondering about the relevance of oil sands and bus manufacturers in Quebec.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

In terms of the content of the member's speech, obviously, all members are required to be relevant to the matter that is before the House, and I would urge the hon. member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca to do this.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was segueing, because as I mentioned, I was a defence attorney in Fort McMurray and I was talking about some of the people I worked with while I was a defence attorney and the fact that the NDP would vote against the jobs those people worked in when I was a defence attorney and dealt with cases such as this in the past.

I know they might not want to hear it and they might want to shut down debate on critical issues such as this. I know they do not want their constituents to find out they went down to Washington and joined in with some people down there to, frankly, protest Canadian jobs. I know they do not want us to talk about that.

However, as a result of the oil sands and what we are producing there, in a very environmentally sustainable way, we have accomplished the best banking system in the world. We have the best economy in the G8 and the G20. We are looking great as a country right now, not only because our laws are fantastic. The Conservative government has brought in some great laws that are tough on criminals, that do not stand up for victims, as does the NDP. I was on the justice committee for a long period of time and I saw time and time again that the NDP members would stand up and vote against our legislation to be tough on criminals.

The NDP uses the excuse that there is not enough money, but we have heard differently. I read two quotes today from a very reputable person with the RCMP that it does not need any more money. They talked a bit about and criticized the admissibility part and that there were not enough people being admitted. Well, we dealt with that in the legislation.

The truth is that the NDP members want to change the channel from what is happening: the NDP speaking against the economy and costing Canadians jobs. We are going to keep Canadians safe, as we would with this legislation, and we are going to continue to make sure the economy grows strong and stays strong.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague was talking about the fact that the RCMP claimed to have enough money.

This is all well and good, but in the end, we heard local, municipal and provincial police forces express concern about the lack of funding to handle the growing demand for witness protection.

What does the hon. member think of the witnesses who expressed these concerns? The RCMP might be doing just fine, but the provinces and municipalities also have to be taken into account. This is where real leadership comes in.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is right that it is true leadership. That is why, when the Federation of Canadian Municipalities identified $123 billion in infrastructure investments that were necessary in this country, this federal government responded immediately. We responded with $45 billion of economic investment, along with our partners in the provincial and territorial governments and the municipalities. We doubled the gas tax and made it permanent. Now it increases every few years automatically. The NDP voted against all of those actions, every single one of them, and not just one budget, not just two, but far more. It will continue to vote against all the great measures we bring forward, and it is shameful. I wish New Democrats would stop doing that.

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

Mr. Speaker, what the members opposite keep talking about is funding for municipal and provincial programs. I want to remind the member that places such as British Columbia do not choose to have those kinds of programs. If the federal government starts giving money to certain provinces and not others, that is to the detriment of everyone. What we do have is a national program anyone can access and be referred to on a case-by-case basis.

The hon. member certainly supported many things on the justice committee. He has done an excellent job. I would like him to point out some of the positive aspects so that people at home watching the debate will understand that this piece of legislation is important, particularly in working with the provinces. I would like to hear the member's comments on that.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we always work with our partners, because there is only one taxpayer, and that taxpayer funds all of the services we provide with their money. That is the difference in philosophy. We bring in these laws because we know that we can make people safer. We do not do it with the chequebook as the only barrier to entry.

To get to the point that member raised, the Attorney General of Saskatchewan said this:

These changes will help strengthen our criminal justice system by providing greater protection for witnesses. We support the proposed improvements to the Witness Protection Program Act as yet another step in making our communities safer.

If members do not believe me, they can believe him. Clearly, this is a situation where the facts speak for themselves.

This is going to be a great piece of legislation to keep witnesses safe, which will ultimately get the information to the courts to convict and send the people to jail who deserve it.