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, thank you for recognizing me. I may be the last to speak about this bill tonight.

I listened attentively to the previous speaker, the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca, and I thought the beginning of his discourse was quite interesting. The last part of it I think it may have been the late hour and he may have forgot that the bill we were debating was Bill C-51, an act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act, not the bill that supports bus industries in the country. I am not exactly sure where he was going. Be that as it may, it is quite important that members try to avoid being dragged under the bus, so let us try to focus on the bill at hand.

The bill has a number of elements that are quite appropriate. There are three key issues.

We expand eligibility criteria for informants and witnesses, an absolutely critical element. We found in the past that there were a number of people who wished to have admission to this program and were simply refused access. We heard over the course of the debate on the bill that we currently had over 800 people who were under the witness protection program, but this year only 30 were accepted. That is out of a total of 108 who made an application.

The proposed bill will increase access to the witness protection program, and that is an important step, 30 is simply unacceptable. We need to go further. We have to continue to expand this program. The bill will go a long way to doing that, but the problem is the bill will also increase costs. I know the members from the government side seem to think that this is not an important issue, but I guarantee the municipalities and provinces are getting very tired of having to fund the mandates that are being passed, in record speed, in the House of Commons. We are not having proper time to debate these issues. I would like to remind the House that time allocation was forced on this bill after only two speakers at second reading. That has to be a record.

We need time to look at the costs that these programs will bring forward and we need to talk to the provinces and the municipalities on how we can partner with them to pay for those costs.

I want to raise a couple of quotes that were mentioned today.

First, I want to start with the minister, who made it very clear that he did not seem to care much about costs. According to the minister:

It is important to note that it is not anticipated that there would be any need for additional funding to accommodate this change. The program is currently funded by the RCMP from existing operational resources, and that will remain the same under Bill C-51.

That is wonderful, except the problem with that is we know a lot of the costs are downloaded onto the municipalities and the provinces. Micki Ruth, from the Canadian Association of Police Boards, talked about how when it had a difficulty and it had to search the services of the RCMP, the costs of this program were downloaded. As Micki Ruth indicated at the committee level, currently when a municipality did make use of a provincial witness protection program and the crime was federal in nature or involves drugs, then the RCMP would take over and would charge the local police services the full cost, which is an expense that many services cannot afford.

Even the RCMP has acknowledged that increased costs of this nature can impede an investigation. This is a serious problem. We are bringing forward changes which are going to increase costs to those who can least afford it. The government has to think about the repercussions of its actions, and it so heck-bent on bringing changes forward in record time that we are not having the proper debate on how we are going to deal with the costs that are downloaded.

Nevertheless, we do have a lot of important issues that are going to be addressed in the bill. Again, the expanded criteria eligibility is very important. Co-operation with the provinces in designating legislation, which is going to be reflected in federal legislation, is very important, as are the funding criteria and all of these things we need to be move forward with. The bill could do with a little improvement, but it is a good step in the right direction.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I desperately would have liked to have risen when the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca was speaking just to provide one quick correction about the oil sands. Actually, it is at 43 years, not at 44. Suncor celebrated its 40th anniversary in 2010, and we are only at 2013.

In response to the hon. member's comment about our fighting against Canadian jobs, that is actually what this government has been doing in advocating for Keystone. We are flushing 40,000 Canadian jobs into the U.S. market instead of having them here.

I will go back to the bill. As we have mentioned before, the resources are lacking for municipal and provincial police forces to ensure that they are able to provide adequate witness protection.

This is particularly relevant in areas like Scarborough Southwest, where often crimes are happening in neighbourhoods where the witnesses themselves live. Perhaps the member could comment on the difficulty of actually getting people to come forward when their neighbours might be the ones committing the crimes. That is why they might need additional resources to get into the witness protection program and move out of those areas. Those might not be borne by the federal government.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a very important point. The bill actually addresses this issue in significant ways. It is very important, if we are to address the issue of gangs, gang warfare and terrorist organizations, to know that these people are under a lot of pressure not to come forward and testify. They are under a lot of pressure not to come to the police to assist and become informants, essentially.

We also have the problem of informants, working in very difficult circumstances, who need all the support we can possibly afford them. It is very important that the bill addresses those issues, and I think the bill is actually taking steps in the right direction.

I would like to underline especially the fact that the emergency protection criteria in the bill have been extended. That is an important step as well. We have gone from a 90-day period for people to consider whether they are prepared to enter witness protection to now, in emergency situations, having 180 days, which is a significant improvement to the bill.

That is what the Liberal Party brought forward so many years ago that needed a lot of--

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech. I would like to hear what he thinks about the comments made by Commissioner Micki Ruth, who testified in committee on March 7, 2013. She is a member of the Policing and Justice Committee of the Canadian Association of Police Boards. She said:

Therefore we urge you to appreciate our position that unless the issue of adequate funding is addressed, the legislation will not produce the result that is intended.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. I think that we need to seriously consider Micki Ruth's comments. In committee we repeatedly heard that a lot of witnesses were very worried because the bill did not do enough.

I want to get back to the issue of funding. The bill does not provide for the funding that will be needed if the House decides to pass it.

I also want to point out that Micki Ruth, from the Canadian Association of Police Boards, was not the only one who expressed this point of view. Alok Mukherjee had this to say about Toronto:

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

We have to ask ourselves: if we pass a bill and the people who are supposed to benefit from it cannot because there are not enough resources, then does the bill truly respond to a need? The bill ought to be improved, but at least it is a step in the right direction.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

It being 12:22 a.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to an order made on Wednesday May 22, 2013, the division stands deferred until Monday, June 3, 2013, at the expiry of time provided for oral questions.

The House resumed from May 30 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.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Pursuant to an order made on Wednesday, May 22, 2012, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the third reading stage of Bill C-51.

Call in the members.