This bill was last introduced in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session, which ended in September 2013.
Vic Toews Conservative
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.
This is from the published bill.
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.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Pierre Jacob NDP Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.
I understand that the witness protection program deserves appropriate funding. My colleague agrees with that. However, if I understood correctly, the bill is not sufficiently generous.
What specific amendments would my colleague suggest?
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the bill is highly effective and very good with respect to the provisions designed to streamline the steps so that an applicant can be admitted more quickly and can make an identity change more rapidly.
Perhaps what is needed is an independent federal fund that could be used if a police force in a smaller community did not have the money to pay all the costs involved in admitting a witness into a provincial or federal witness protection program, for example. At times like these, the small municipality or small police force could draw upon the fund. It would be a good idea to have a reserve fund for that purpose.
There is nothing to prevent the government from moving in that direction, perhaps in the next budget. However, where public safety is concerned, the government should think twice or perhaps even three times before slashing spending or voting against the idea of channeling new resources to these areas.
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Mr. Speaker, the question I have for the member is around funding. I know there were some witnesses who said additional funding was not necessary.
However, if I look at some of the testimony that was given, there was definitely an emphasis from some of the witnesses that additional funding was necessary.
How effective does the member feel this legislation is going to be without the provision of additional funding to ensure that the tools we purport to give are there in reality?
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. Some witnesses did say additional funding was not required and a minority of witnesses, actually one who I recall, said that the lack of resources could be a problem. However, they were talking apples and oranges.
The RCMP came and said that if it needed to protect a witness, it would find the money. I believe the RCMP. I believe that will be the case.
However, the point that Ms. Ruth brought up was not related to whether the RCMP had the budget to accept all the witnesses who needed to be protected. It was more to the fact that a separate fund was not available, created by law for example, that smaller police forces could access if they brought someone into a provincial witness protection program. They may find that the matter is taken up by the RCMP and the RCMP then sends them a bill for protecting that witness.
That is a very different issue than the RCMP saying that it will protect all witnesses who apply directly to the federal witness protection program.
The witnesses were not necessarily on the same wavelength and were not necessarily talking about the same thing when it came to funding.
It will be effective because it will be more timely. I really do believe that will help. However, if we are going to include witnesses to potential terrorist incidents or plots, we may need more funding because we are bringing in CSIS, National Defence and so on and so forth.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, could my colleague comment on the value of the program itself, whether it is related to gang activity or other larger organizations and whether we will potentially be able to prevent crimes from taking place going into the future?
Not only are we delivering justice, quite often, but we are also preventing crime. The bill has the support in principle from all parties inside the chamber. All parties recognize the value of a witness protection program.
Could the member comment on that? I know he did in his opening remarks, but and he might want to reinforce that.
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Mr. Speaker, I found the hearings quite interesting because we all know that witness protection exists. We know it through popular culture.
However, I had never really stopped to think about how the program works. It is a very small program within government. It is part of the crime agenda that is never really discussed. We have talked about more sensational issues than the witness protection program.
It is very much a lynchpin program. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, the point of the program is to combat group crime, whether that be organized crime selling drugs or whether it be a group of people who might want to commit a terrorist act.
It is a very effective tool against group crime. The fact that everyone supports the legislation speaks loudly that everyone in the House wants to combat crime. It is not a partisan issue.
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to rise to speak in support of the bill. Indeed, this is an area that is really critical and one on which the NDP has been pushing really hard. It is good to see the government has listened to our requests to expand the federal witness protection program.
The criteria has been criticized, not just by us but by community members and organizations across our country for its narrow eligibility criteria, for poor coordination with provincial programs and low numbers of witnesses actually admitted to the program.
Before I get into the resourcing, which I might have to leave until we meet again or until I get to continue this dialogue, I really want to talk about the importance of the expansion of the criteria. There are some issues and our history informs us that these steps have to be taken.
I cannot help but stand here and remember the tragedy called Air India, an act of terrorism in Canada that killed hundreds of Canadians on a plane and that led to hundreds of families being impacted for a very long time. We saw whole families being annihilated. I recently met a gentleman who lost his wife and his children on that flight. A man who lived in my riding lost a sister and her family as well.
I also live in a riding in the city of Surrey, the riding of Newton—North Delta, where, if witness protection had been available, maybe the trial on the Air India disaster would have gone differently. I am not the first person to say that. That was said by the judge at the time. As we know, there was a great deal of fear about giving evidence. In fact, people who agreed to give evidence, then pulled back.
Then I have to mention the tragic murder of one of the witnesses. It was our inability to protect witnesses that really ended up being a real barrier and an obstacle to prosecution in the Air India bombing case. A witness, Tara Singh Hayer, whose son and daughter live in Surrey, was a publisher of the B.C. based Times of India. He was assassinated in 1998, making the affidavit he had given to the RCMP in 1995 inadmissible as evidence. Here is the stark reality of why the criteria for the federal witness program absolutely needs to be expanded, and we are pleased it has been.
Two other witnesses refused to appear before the Air India inquiry in 2007, citing fears for their safety. As a result of our failure collectively, what it has meant is that those families live in anguish even today. Yes, because they lost their loved ones, but more because they feel justice has not been done. For that reason alone, this legislation is really critical. At the time, Justice Major acknowledged he was unable to provide the necessary protection.
My heart goes out to the families that were impacted by that disaster and we mourn today because we failed to mete out justice to those who did great harm to the nation.
The Acting Speaker Bruce Stanton
The hon. member for Newton—North Delta will have 15 minutes remaining for her comments when the House next returns to debate on the question.
It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members’ business as listed on today's order paper.
Bill C-51—Time AllocationSafer Witnesses ActGovernment Orders
York—Simcoe Ontario
Conservative
Peter Van Loan ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
moved:
That, in relation to Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the third reading stage of the Bill; and that, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
The Deputy Speaker
Pursuant to Standing Order 67(1), there will now be a 30-minute question period.
I invite all hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate.
Questions and comments. The hon. member for Gatineau.
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
Mr. Speaker, what a surprise to arrive here this Thursday morning to find another time allocation motion. I have lost track of how many there have been. That will be part of my question for the Minister of Public Safety because we have lost count.
This has become a habit. This is the fifth time allocation motion on as many bills that the government has moved and tried to ram down our throats.
I would like to read something to the minister. One of his former colleagues said:
A columnist wrote something interesting today. He wrote that in his view the decision to invoke closure on the bill represented in some ways the death of the true meaning of parliament. Parliament is the ability to gather together as elected representatives to talk, discuss, debate and hopefully do things that can enrich the lives and in this case the safety and security of Canadians. The federal Liberal government has failed Canadians.
That was Stockwell Day in the House of Commons on November 28, 2001.
I wonder what has changed with the guys in front of me. They seem to have forgotten all of the basic rules of democracy. The fact is that a party might support a bill that is, by the way, long overdue. I am sure the minister will use that fact to say that if it is long overdue, we should adopt it quickly. Just because they have suddenly realized the urgency or the need of something does not mean that they have to shortcut democracy.
Does he not feel a bit ashamed to say to the people of Gatineau, let us say, or Sherbrooke or people from the Conservative side that he is not interested in hearing examples that we have concerning the witness protection program? We have crimes that cannot be solved. We have situations because we cannot have access because it is not funded enough. The bill is not perfect.
Maybe the minister needs to hear these things, but no. They shut down debate. If it was not urgent in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 or 2013, why is it urgent now? At what number are we on those closure issues?
Bill C-51—Time AllocationSafer Witnesses ActGovernment Orders
Provencher Manitoba
Conservative
Vic Toews ConservativeMinister of Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the amendments the member is talking about, which she is concerned have not been brought forward.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I am not too sure exactly what it is that could be said that would be a little bit different in regard to commenting on time allocation, for the simple reason that I have now stood in my place more than 30 times to talk about the issue of time allocation.
If we think about it, the government has invoked time allocation more than any other government before it, in a very short window. Ever since it has had a majority Conservative government, it has had a new attitude. It is an attitude that is shameful in regard to what takes place inside the House of Commons. It is very anti-democratic.
We have spent more time on invoking time allocation than we have on the bills for which time allocation has been invoked. We are quickly approaching 40 hours of time allocation.
I recognize that I put my question to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, but he is so predictable now that we know he will not even answer the questions I am going to pose. Therefore, I recognize that it will be a different minister standing up to answer my question.
I reflect on the days of Clayton Manness, Jim Ernst and Jim McCrae , individuals with whom I negotiated in my former life as a member of the Manitoba Legislature. There was a sense of House leaders getting together and working on a legislative House agenda to try to pass things through in a normal fashion, so that closure would not have to be introduced.
My question is for the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, of course, and I would love to see him actually address the issue. He is the one who is responsible for time allocation. It is he who ultimately has to defend the government.
My question to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is: Does he feel it is appropriate to make time allocation a part of normal procedure? That is quite the opposite of what they used to argue for in the days when they were in the opposition.
Vic Toews Conservative Provencher, MB
Mr. Speaker, let me just summarize the facts that relate to the procedural aspects of this particular bill, as I understand them.
The NDP and the Liberals have supported the legislation at all stages. More important, no amendments were proposed. It was studied at five public safety committee meetings. This is the fourth day of debate. There are no amendments to debate. There has been support at all stages.
I think it is very clear to Canadians what is happening here. The opposition is simply being obstructive.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Speaker, I noted a tone of defensiveness in my hon. colleague—