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

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

moved 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 second time and referred to a committee.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege for me to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act.

Our government has been quite clear that one of our top priorities is to help build safer communities for all Canadians. One of the ways we are doing that is by providing law enforcement officials with the tools they need to do their job more efficiently and effectively. We have done a lot since day one. We have enacted legislation to stiffen sentences and increase the accountability of offenders, and we have enhanced the ability of all law enforcement officials to keep Canadians safe. We have taken steps to modernize the RCMP.

The legislation before us today strengthens our track record and will go a long way to enhancing our collective efforts to combat organized crime. Crimes committed by organized crime networks present a serious concern to both police and Canadians. Many organized crime groups are involved with the illicit drug trade, which we all know is growing.

According to Statistics Canada, for example, cocaine trafficking, production and distribution in Canada has grown nearly 30% over the last decade. Today we also know that organized crime is becoming more global, more transnational and more pervasive. We know that organized crime groups are becoming more sophisticated to avoid detection and arrest.

We also know that most serious organized crime groups are very secretive, and they often pose unique challenges for law enforcement officials because they can be very difficult to infiltrate. In some cases, law enforcement officials rely on the co-operation of individuals formerly involved with these organizations in order to combat their activities or successfully prosecute the ringleaders. In other cases, they might rely on the testimony of key eyewitnesses. Those who do come forward or co-operate often fear for their own safety as well as the safety of their family and loved ones.

Public safety is the cornerstone of the witness protection program as it offers protection, including new identities, for certain individuals whose testimony or co-operation can be so vital to the success of law enforcement operations.

Although witness protection was informally available since 1970, Canada's federal witness protection program was officially established in 1996 with the passage of the Witness Protection Program Act.

Today, the federal program, which is administered by the RCMP, can provide emergency protection to witnesses under threat, offering such services as permanent relocation and also secure identity changes.

Since provincial governments are also responsible for the administration of justice, many provinces, including Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, have established their own witness protection programs, which differ from the federal program.

The federal program has a legislated mandate to provide national protection services to all law enforcement agencies in Canada, as well as to international courts and tribunals.

Legislation governing the federal witness protection program, however, has not been substantially changed since it first came into force, despite the constantly changing nature of organized crime and some calls for reform.

The safer witnesses act would help to strengthen the current federal witness protection program, a program that, as I have mentioned, is often vital to effectively combatting crime, particularly organized crime.

As the hon. Shirley Bond, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of British Columbia, noted when commenting on Bill C-51, in the fight against crime, protecting witnesses is essential.

Bill C-51 would enhance the protection offered to key witnesses who wish to co-operate with law enforcement officials in the fight against serious organized crime.

Chief Bill Blair of the Toronto Police Service perhaps said it best when he said:

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.

Chief Blair supports this legislation, as it is “a valuable step in protecting public safety”, in his words.

Bill C-51 would also help to protect individuals and front-line officers involved in administering and delivering witness protection.

Tom Stamatakis, president of the Canadian Police Association, recognized the protection put in place through our bill. The Canadian Police Association strongly believes that the legislation will enhance the safety and the security of front-line law enforcement personnel who are engaged in protective duties.

Mr. Stamatakis has stated that the Canadian Police Association appreciates the steps being taken by the Government of Canada to address those concerns. He went so far as to say, “On behalf of the over 50,000 law enforcement personnel that we represent across Canada, we ask that Parliament quickly move to adopt this Bill”. I could not agree more.

The safer witnesses act would also promote greater integration between federal and provincial witness protection programs and will help to ensure that individuals can access federal identity documents more quickly and easily.

Bill C-51 proposes important changes in five main areas, which I will outline. First, the changes will allow provincial and territorial governments to request that their programs be designated under the federal Witness Protection Program Act. This designation will facilitate their witnesses receiving a secure identity change without needing to be admitted into the federal program, which is the case today.

Should an individual in a provincial program require a secure identity change under the existing rules, he or she must be temporarily transferred into the federal witness protection program so that the RCMP can obtain the appropriate documents. This can obviously cause delays. It can also lessen the security of the program and present witness management issues for the RCMP.

The reforms that our government is proposing would streamline and speed up the issuance of secure identity documents through the RCMP. As long as a provincial witness protection program has been designated, a provincial official responsible for the program would be able to work directly with the RCMP to quickly acquire the necessary documents. Once designated, secure requests for documents would be handled more quickly and easily, since witnesses under a provincial program would no longer need to be admitted into the federal witness protection program.

Under these changes proposed by the legislation before us today, federal organizations would be required to assist the RCMP in obtaining identity changes not only for witnesses in the federal program but also for witnesses in designated provincial programs. Provincial governments have been requesting an expedited process for obtaining federal identity documents, and we are acting on their request. These two changes, which our government has introduced, would help meet these demands from provinces such as Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.

In fact, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Saskatchewan Gordon Wyant had this to say about the legislation:

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.

A third area of reform proposed by Bill C-51 concerns the protection and disclosure of information about people within provincial and municipal witness protection programs. Under the existing federal Witness Protection Program Act, the prohibition against disclosure of information is limited to only information about the change of name and location of federal protectees. The bill would broaden the type of information to be protected and include information about the change of identity and location of provincial witnesses in designated programs as well as information about the federal and designated programs, including those who administer both the federal and provincially designated programs, which is so important.

Therefore, we would be providing greater protection to both the protectees as well as the law enforcement officials who are administering these programs. It is hard to believe it has gone this long without changes. It is very important that we all support this and get the bill passed. Again, this is consistent with provincial requests to strengthen disclosure prohibitions so that information about their witnesses is protected throughout Canada.

The fourth set of changes in the safer witnesses act would mean that the federal witness protection program would be able to accept referrals of persons assisting organizations with a mandate related to national security, national defence or public safety rather than only from law enforcement and international courts and tribunals, as is currently the case. Such organizations include the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and National Defence.

Again, these are very important changes. These legislative reforms would respond directly to a recommendation that was made in the final report of the Air India inquiry.

Finally, Bill C-51 would also address a number of operational issues, based on experiences gained in administering the current program over the past 15 years. For example, this would include permitting voluntary termination from the federal program and extending the amount of time emergency protection could be provided to candidates being considered for admission into the federal program. The change would be to extend the current 90-day availability of emergency protection to a maximum of 180 days. These changes have been recognized as important as the program has been used and administered over the last several years.

The changes our government is proposing to the Witness Protection Program Act are the product of extensive consultations with federal partners and provincial and territorial governments, as well as with stakeholders, law enforcement officials and many interested parties.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, our government is committed to providing law enforcement with the tools and resources needed to protect the safety of our families and our communities, including an effective witness protection program. An effective program is extremely valuable in the fight against crime, especially, as we know, organized crime.

Our government is proposing to enhance the effectiveness and security of the federal witness protection program by making it more responsive to law enforcement needs. These changes are needed to better support law enforcement and those whom the program is designated to protect by providing better service to provincial witness protection programs and improving protection for those who provide it; through broadened prohibitions against the disclosure of program information; by improving processes to obtain secure identity changes for witnesses; and through an extension of the amount of time emergency protection may be provided.

The changes that our government is proposing would respond to many of the needs and requests of provincial and territorial governments. They would respond to the needs of law enforcement officials and other stakeholders involved in the criminal justice system. They also would respond to the needs of Canadians from coast to coast who wish to see our government continue to build safer communities for everyone.

I therefore urge the opposition members to consider the bill, to look at the merits of the bill and to support this common-sense proposal that we have put forward. I encourage all members to support the bill and, as police and stakeholders across the country have asked us, let us expedite this, get the bill passed quickly, and get better and more efficient protection for witnesses who help us combat organized crime in Canada.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I assure the parliamentary secretary that we will certainly be working with her in committee to get the bill considered as expeditiously as possible. We always have to look for the possible poison needle in the haystack, as is our duty as the opposition. However, we will be trying to ensure this gets through as soon as possible.

My question is about the consultation with stakeholders. I would like to hear more about this, because this is an example of where the government members' listening to stakeholders has actually worked quite well.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his commitment and his party's commitment to help us get this through committee.

It is correct that there are numerous consultations that go on continuously, obviously with provincial stakeholders and counterparts. The Minister of Public Safety meets with his counterparts regularly. In fact they just met recently before the Christmas break. As well, we consult with front-line officers. We meet regularly with the Canadian Police Association and members of the chiefs of police. Consultation is indeed very important and it is something that our government takes seriously.

Obviously the member opposite has listened as well to stakeholders and provincial counterparts, and he and his party want this to be moved through quickly. We appreciate the support of the member and his party. Hopefully, going forward we can get this accomplished.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do understand that the Liberal Party also wants to see the bill sent to committee. However, I have a question. When we talk about the designation from other jurisdictions that would be taken into consideration if the legislation were to pass, can the member provide a list of which provinces?

I am also interested to know if there are programs at the municipal level. I know the bill makes reference to the municipal level, but are there cities that actually have them, and if so which ones? I am most interested in knowing that.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there are several provinces that have witness protection programs in place: Quebec; Alberta; Manitoba; and I believe, British Columbia and Saskatchewan. There are no municipal programs. Obviously the province would operate these.

What the designation would do is help expedite secure identity documents. Right now there can be quite a delay when provinces try to get secure identity documents for people involved in the witness protection program. Now they could have their program designated under the federal program. Once it is designated, that process would happen a lot faster, which would make it better for law enforcement and it would make those who are witnesses feel a lot more secure and feel they would be protected if they go forward.

Those are the provinces that currently have a provincial program in place.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act, is an important bill. The many important provisions in the act help secure identity changes for witnesses and help our law enforcement agents when they do risky undercover work.

Recently there were news articles about an important undercover case that exposed Hell's Angels' activities in British Columbia. It was very daring undercover work. Risky police activities are taken to help bring criminal organizations to the law.

When victims of crime also come forward and testify about nasty, terrible events they have experienced, I wonder if the member would expand on how the provisions of the bill would help someone such as the undercover officer, who put himself at great risk in the recent case in British Columbia, and how victims of crime would benefit from the protections in the bill.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, putting victims first as well as recognizing the good work that front-line officers do is very important in all of the legislation our government puts forward. There is a couple of ways that the bill and the changes to the witness protection program would help our officers. First, it would create greater prohibitions regarding what kind of information could be disclosed about someone who is within a witness protect program or who has administered it, which is obviously law enforcement and its agencies.

It is pretty unbelievable, but up until now, all that would not be able to be disclosed was the name and location of someone who was in a witness protection program. There are so many more ways to track someone down, so we have expanded that to a much broader, much greater amount of information that would be protected for not only those people who are part of the witness protection program, but also the law enforcement people who help enforce it.

This would help victims. We hope it would also help us prevent and deter crime, find out where those organizations are working and allow law enforcement a greater ability to infiltrate, stop them and keep our communities safer.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her speech and her bill.

My comments pertain primarily to the situation in Quebec. The Conservative government has been in office for nearly seven years now. During that time, there have often been requests from the RCMP and Sûreté du Québec in light of the growing violence in the province as a result of street gangs, organized crime and biker gangs.

The RCMP and Sûreté du Québec regularly ask for more money in order to detect these situations and run a witness protection program that is as effective and, more especially, as transparent as possible.

I would like my colleague to explain to us how this bill will help to achieve that objective.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we have been very responsive to the needs of front-line officers, including the RCMP and provincial police throughout this country. In fact, we have 11 police officers who are part of our caucus and who have worked on the front line, so we listen to them and we consult.

We have been providing tools such as these legislative changes. We have provided 30 different pieces of legislation to help crack down on crime, which is what police are asking us to do. We have heard from front-line officers in our study on the economics of policing. They have said it is not more money they need; they want the tools to fight crime. They are looking at ways to be more efficient. We have given them the tools as far as legislation is concerned to crack down on gangs, guns, drugs and organized crime. This is just one of them.

Unfortunately, the opposition members did not support many of the bills we put forward. I do not know if they have any police officers in their caucus. We do have 11 of them and we are listening to our caucus members as well as police from across the country. We will continue to give them the support they need. We would ask the opposition to support our legislation and not to vote against us when they have a chance to support police officers.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could tell the House what checks and balances will be in place to ensure that the identity of a federal protectee is not exposed.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, currently there are a number of checks and balances in the program. However, one inefficiency we found was that a very small amount of information about someone involved in the witness protection program is prohibited from being disclosed. As I mentioned earlier, it is only the name and location. Not only as a check and balance but to greater protect witnesses, more information must be protected. The methods of finding people have become much more sophisticated. Therefore, we have to make sure that a greater amount of information regarding where witnesses have been relocated, their change of name, the jobs they are doing and what they did previously is protected. Again, it is not just for witnesses. It is also for members of law enforcement who are part of that process.

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, sometimes the protection can be as simple as police protection, but other times it might require a secondary residence at a safe location.

However, there are costs involved. According to the RCMP's website, sometimes the cost of protecting witnesses hinders investigations, especially for small law enforcement agencies that have a tight budget.

Will the government commit to investing more in witness protection in the future?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the witness protection program is administered by the RCMP, which has a sufficient budget to continue with that program. It is not administered by local police departments, which clearly are under provincial jurisdiction.

We have provided funding. For example, we provided one-time funding of $400 million for the police officer recruitment fund to help recruit more officers. We are giving police the tools they need.

For the hon. member's clarification, the witness protection program is administered federally by the RCMP, not by local police, under the federal program.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to say honestly that I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-51 at second reading, not so much personally, as I was already up speaking this morning, to Bill C-42, as was the parliamentary secretary, but because, like many members, we have had challenges even getting to the House today.

As the NDP public safety critic, I have the honour of speaking in the House quite often. Unfortunately, too often, it is on bills motivated by the Conservatives' tough on crime attitude. The parliamentary secretary asked why we do not support all of their bills. I would like to take just a moment to talk about this tough on crime attitude, because this is an attitude that too often results in policies that are ripped from headlines.

At best, it is based on a faulty concept of deterrence and the idea that harsh sentences somehow deter crime. There is actually no imperial evidence to show that. The only way deterrence functions is when the investment is made at the front end of law enforcement. It is the certainty of being caught and the swiftness of prosecution that puts people off committing crimes.

Most criminals do not sit at home thumbing through the Criminal Code to see which offence to commit based on the length of the sentence. Obviously they are motivated by other social, economic and personal factors. If resources are put at the front end, we get better results. That is one reason this legislation looks a lot better to us than most of the bills that come forward from the Conservatives.

At worst, the tough on crime agenda appears to be based on little more than retribution, and retribution is not an effective approach to crime. Although it may make some people feel better for a short period of time, it results in policies that are expensive and that rarely show any positive results. In contrast, we in the NDP believe in evidence-based measures, which will help us build safer communities.

I am honestly pleased to stand in the House today to support Bill C-51 at second reading. We have seen a couple of hopeful signs from the Conservatives with this legislation, and also with Bill C-54, which deals with measures for those not criminally responsible. We have seen more consultation from the government on these two bills. We have seen more attention to evidence on these two bills than we have seen before. In this case, action is long overdue. We are glad that the government finally listened to stakeholders, as we have been asking it to do this since 2007.

In November 2012, the NDP member for Trinity—Spadina repeated our call for action to expand eligibility for those going into the witness protection program. This is particularly important in the struggle against street gangs. The previous narrow definitions excluded them from the witness protection program. We and government members have heard from many community representatives, and from many law enforcement agencies, that to get co-operation to help break street gangs, inclusion of possible witnesses in this program would be very important.

Since 2007, the NDP has also specifically called for better coordination of federal and provincial programs and better provision of services to those provincial programs, which is another positive measure we see in the bill.

We have always called for better overall funding for the program. I will come back to that question.

While we support what the bill attempts to do, which is improve the witness protection program, we are concerned that the Conservative government will refuse to commit any new funding. In fact, the minister said during the introduction of the bill that this would have to be funded from existing funds.

While there is no legislative flaw we can see at this point in the bill, which ensures that we will support it at second reading, we are concerned, because as I often like to say, the proof is in the funding. If we make these improvements, but law enforcement agencies do not have the funding they need to operate the program, we have not moved very far forward.

Whatever the improvements here, the demand that the RCMP and local police departments work within their existing budgets will likely hinder the implementation of the proposed amendments and the improvements in the bill.

The RCMP's own website states that there are instances when the cost of witness protection may impede investigations, particularly for smaller law enforcement agencies. When municipal departments, which are extensive across this country, try to make use of the program, they must reimburse the RCMP fully for the costs, which can be very high. This is an ongoing cost for them. Most of them have no provision in their budgets for making use of this program. It means, oftentimes, that front-line law enforcement officers have to make difficult choices, because they cannot get those who need protection into the program, because the funding is not available to support those individuals once they are in the program.

Again, the witness protection program is often crucial to getting the co-operation the front-line police need so that they can get convictions that will take key organized crime figures out of the community. If there were adequate funding, the same would be true for getting key witnesses to testify against street gang members to help break up those street gangs.

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 number of witnesses actually admitted to the program. In 2012, 108 applications were considered for admission to the program, and, largely due to funding constraints, only 30 people were accepted.

What does that mean? It means 78 cases for which we might have been able to get a conviction and might have been able to make progress on organized crime, because that has been the focus of the program to this point. We did not get that because of inadequate resources.

There are some important improvements, as we acknowledge, in the bill. Bill C-51 proposes a better process to support provincial witness protection programs. This would be especially important for expediting getting new identity documents for those in provincial programs. Before, as the parliamentary secretary mentioned, this required transferring them to the federal program and transferring them back, with an enormous amount of bureaucratic time-wasting and cost. We are pleased to see that.

The expanded definition is important. In addition to including witnesses in street gang cases as possible entrants to the program, it would also expand the program to include agencies with national security responsibilities.

It would also extend the period for emergency protection. That is one of the key issues local law enforcement figures have raised. Sometimes people need to go into this program very quickly, and sometimes it takes a while before they can get into a more permanent situation. Extending that emergency protection is important.

Provinces such as Ontario and Alberta have been pushing for a national revamp of this program, including recognition of their existing programs. Again, the designation of programs and recognition of those programs is a positive feature of the bill.

For federal departments and agencies with a mandate related to national security, both those that function under national defence and those that function under public safety would now be able to refer witnesses to the program. I will say in a minute why that has been a gap of very great concern in the past.

Because there is no direct reference to eligibility for the program for witnesses in street gang cases, many stakeholders have been concerned that street gang witnesses may not fit these new criteria. We are assured by the government that they will. We look forward to talking about this question in committee to make sure that this critical area is indeed covered by these changes to the witness protection program.

At committee I will be asking those questions to make sure that the federal government is truly committed to the inclusion of street gang, youth gang and national security witnesses in this program. This will be an important step toward building safer communities in Canada.

We believe that the bill addresses the key problems. There are still a few things it does not do. Again, we would like to talk about those in committee.

Bill C-51 does not include provisions for an independent agency to operate the program, as was recommended in the Air India inquiry report.

There is kind of a conflict of interest when the RCMP manages the program and also manages the investigations. It is able to use the incentive, I guess one would say, of the witness protection program to get co-operation, and then, later, it makes the decision about who is actually eligible to be in the witness protection program. The Air India inquiry report suggested that there should be an independent agency to make those decisions that involve the RCMP as both the investigating authority and the decision-making authority on who gets protection from the program.

When we look at national security, the inability to protect witnesses was a major obstacle to prosecutions in the Air India bombing case. That is why, in the report, there was a lot of attention given to the witness protection program. One witness, Tara Singh Hayer, publisher of the B.C.-based Indo-Canadian Times, was assassinated in 1998. This made the affidavit he had given the RCMP in 1995 inadmissible as evidence in the case.

I would say that Mr. Hayer was not a likely candidate to go into the witness protection program because he was a very brave individual. However, two additional witnesses, seeing what had happened to him and not being eligible to go into the witness protection program, refused to provide evidence to the RCMP or the Air India inquiry because of what they had seen happen to another witness who had provided information, and the fact that he was assassinated.

Justice Major, in his report, acknowledged that he felt unable, because of the restrictions in the witness protection program, to provide the protection that would be necessary for prosecution in the case of Air India.

The RCMP has also called for intensive psychological examination of potential protectees, a national support centre for the program, and has also supported the call for an external advisory board in their case to serve as a watchdog on the decisions being made.

We recognize that these are all potentially outside the scope of this bill, but I still think it is worth having a discussion in committee about some of the other things that the RCMP has said are necessary for the efficient operation of the witness protection program.

New Democrats believe that strengthening the program will improve co-operation with local police and the RCMP in the fight against gang violence, and in doing so will help make our communities safer. It has a proven record of success in the fight against organized crime.

While the Conservatives have been slow to respond to this issue, and we on our part have been calling for these changes since 2007, we are pleased to see that the government has listened to the stakeholders in this case and brought in this new legislation to expand the program.

Bill C-51 does address key legislative concerns with regard to the witness protection program and therefore warrants our support. Despite our ongoing concerns about funding, the NDP recognizes that Bill C-51 still falls short on some key changes to the program, such as having a more transparent and accountable process for admissions into the program. Again, the Conservative government has ignored the important recommendations of the Air India inquiry with regard to this independent review of who is admissible into the program.

We do feel that Bill C-51 provides the basic legislative fix that we need. We will wait to see if the Conservatives are going to provide the resources to make it really count for local communities. As I often say and will say again, the proof is in the funding. Local police wish to make use of this program. They welcome these changes. They are waiting to get to work on some of the street and youth gang problems they have when this tool becomes available to them. However, it will not work if they do not have the funding at the local level.

At the public safety committee, we are doing a large study on the economics of policing. I think it has made all members of Parliament aware of the constant downloading of costs and responsibility onto police forces.

When we asked witnesses at committee what percentage of their calls for service were actually what people regard as crime, they responded that it was around 20%, saying that 80% of the time the police spend working on other issues. What that really means is that they are working on things like mental health, addictions, and all those other social problems of exclusion and marginalization. In our society we have made what I would call an unconscious decision that we will leave all those responsibilities to the police. One good sign of that, which we often see, is the difficulty of finding emergency social services, even in urban areas, after five o'clock. Who will one call after five o'clock when most people have their mental health and addiction crises? Those offices are closed.

The police become the agency called to deal with those problems. This is one of the huge, and probably the most important, cost drivers in policing. I know that the Minister of Public Safety suggested that police salaries were in fact a cost driver and that they took away resources from other things they needed. We on this side believe that the police who serve our communities as highly trained professionals need to be paid a fair, professional wage. We recognize that most of the time wages—and certainly in municipal and provincial departments—have been set through a process of free collective bargaining. Therefore, it not the police salaries that prevent resources being available for things like the witness protection program, but government budgets and all those other demands that we place on the police every day of the week.

As I said at the beginning, we know that the police are out in snowstorms doing all kinds of things that are not strictly fighting crime but providing emergency assistance to the public. I am looking forward to the work in committee not just on this bill but also on the study on the economics of policing to help find some ways to get the cost of policing under control by getting the focus back on building safer communities.

We in the NDP are committed to this concept. We need measures based on real evidence that will lead us toward solutions that make our communities safer. One way of doing this is through an improved witness protection program that helps keep our streets safe by giving police additional tools to fight street gangs.

The parliamentary secretary talked about an expedited process. I want to again reassure her, as I did in the questions asked at the beginning, that on this side we are committed to getting this bill to committee as soon as we can, and giving it a high priority in committee and bringing in the witnesses we need to talk to as quickly as possible. We will not prolong the process beyond what is needed, because we know that local police forces are in fact waiting for this tool to be made available to them in order to do some very important work in community safety.

At this point, I am happy to conclude my remarks by saying that this is one case where the New Democrats believe that the government has listened to stakeholders and has consulted. It might be a little late, but we are pleased to see that it brought in this legislation, and we will be looking at the next budget to make sure that the resources that police forces need, particularly the RCMP, are there to ensure that this new and improved witness protection program can actually be used by those on the front line.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell my hon. colleague how much I appreciate his remarks, the thoughtfulness that has gone into the New Democrats' approach in looking at this bill and the fact that they are in agreement with us and, more importantly, stakeholders, provincial and territorial leaders and Canadians that the witness protection program needs to be fixed.

I appreciate some of the comments he made regarding the Air India inquiry and having a separate investigative body. I want to let him know that we consulted with provinces on that. They had some concerns and would rather that we deal with them directly.

The area that we agree on, to allow other public safety agencies such as CSIS and the Department of National Defence to refer individuals to the witness protection program, was in direct response to the Air India inquiry and its recommendations. It is clear that the member has had some experience and done some consulting with stakeholders. I wonder if he could talk a bit more about the people he represents, whether this will be looked at favourably and help in our fight not just against organized crime but also against threats that come internationally.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the parliamentary secretary likes to cite the Conservatives as having 11 former police officers on their side and that I usually respond to that by saying I am former municipal police board member and also did international policing research. Therefore, there is no monopoly on expertise in either caucus.

In my own experience on a municipal police board, the funds were not available and it was very difficult to convince a municipal council to include a line item in the budget for witness protection. It already saw policing costs as high and clearly saw witness protection as a federal responsibility. It was very difficult for municipal police forces to use the tool because they were faced with a big bill for which it was difficult to get budget money. That is why when the budget comes out, New Democrats will be looking very closely at what the government is doing to make sure that the funds are available and that these improvements are actually utilized by front-line police.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member and the parliamentary secretary also referred to organized gangs as a major justification for why we need to expand the witness protection program. Could he provide some background in that regard from the province he represents? What can he tell us about the numbers of gangs, gang activities and increases in membership?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there are areas around the country that have serious problems with youth gangs and street gangs. They are most notable by their presence in the headlines, including some in downtown Toronto. That is the reason the member for Trinity—Spadina has taken such a high-profile role in trying to keep this issue before the House of Commons and to get these changes made. The activities of street gangs, by nature, often involve youth and people whose judgment is not the best, or they would not be involved in the gang. It ends up with a broader threat to the safety of innocent bystanders as a result of gang activities and conflicts between gangs.

In Montreal, my colleague, the member for Alfred-Pellan, has also done a lot of work in her community on the problems with street gangs there. Then of course in Surrey, British Columbia, where we probably have one of the largest problems with street and drug gangs, both the member for Surrey North and the member for Newton—North Delta have been very strong proponents of using this legislation to, as the police say, “crack” those gangs. They have trouble getting anyone to come forward to give evidence. If they can just get one person, they can probably get a conviction that will seriously disrupt street gang activities.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the position described by my party and my colleague with regard to our support at second reading is a clear indication that we approach each bill with a clean slate and hope for the best for our constituents, the people we work for.

I have a quick question. Have we taken this bill as far as we possibly can without adding more money, which, I fear, is the direction the government plans to take?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr.Speaker, I thank the member for Trois-Rivières for his question because that is the key point today. The point of view of our caucus is that we can make these important legislative changes. We can do the right thing here in the House. However, if the police do not have the funding to allow them to use the new tools we give them, then there will be no effect at all. That is why I was reminding the parliamentary secretary that, yes, we will be supporting the bill but we will be watching the federal budget very carefully to ensure that funds are included in the budget for the operation of the new aspects of this program and to ensure that the general cutbacks being applied in public safety do not end up impairing the ability to fight crime at the community level.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague both for his work on committee and his comments today.

On committee, we were talking about the funding available. We have posed this question to people testifying and they have said it is not as much about the funding as it is the model and the structure provided. Can my hon. colleague comment on some of those aspects? We are getting the sense from the other side that if we pour money into it, that will solve the problem, but that is clearly not what we heard on committee. It was not the budget or the money issue; it was how the system was modelled.

On a budgetary note, some of the systems that my hon. colleague was talking about are developed by provincial and territorial governments. Our government has provided to the Yukon, for example, record levels of federal transfer payments. There was $809 million in last year's budget allocated for the kinds of things to support improved models with community groups and organizations working directly with the police. It is as much a provincial and a federal partnership that is required in policing, particularly when we move to organizations that run municipal and provincial police forces, to come up with a great model of Canadian policing.

Could my hon. colleague comment on some of those things that I know we both heard on committee?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is tempting to say to the hon. member for Yukon that the question was asked and answered all at once.

However, what we have heard, particularly at the municipal level, is the perception that witness protection is really part of the justice system and not the policing system. For the cost to be passed back to municipal police forces is a large problem for them and they do not see the logic of that. We are actually protecting the witnesses giving evidence in court, and we are actually protecting the integrity of the justice system by protecting those witnesses. Yes, it is true that we are talking about getting co-operation with the local police forces, but they tend to see that as a federal or provincial responsibility and not a municipal responsibility.

Thus I am looking forward, along with the member, to trying to find in committee structures that make sure that the money gets to front-line policing. As he has been on committee with me, he knows that I am not a person who calls for a lot of excess spending. I think we have to make sure that we spend in the right areas. That is why I am concerned about asking police to do all kinds of things with highly trained police officers, things that might better be done by someone else in our community with more appropriate skills, and not put all of those burdens onto the police force.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the bill expands significantly the number of different areas of jurisdiction that can have witness protection programs. However, as I understand it, the government has said there will be no expansion of budgets to provide for this. How do we do one without the other?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are back to the heart of the matter, from my point of view. Last year, as I said, only 30 out of 108 applications were approved for the program. Only 30 people in the country received witness protection. For the government to expand the numbers eligible, obviously those 108 applications are going to expand exponentially. If we cannot offer that protection to people, we will not get the benefit of this bill. We will not get them co-operating with the police on youth gangs or on national security issues. Without the funding in place, this is not going to work.

All members on this side will be looking very carefully at the federal budget to see if the resources are going to be made available to make this very positive law work on the ground.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to approach this from a different perspective.

I have had the opportunity to be the justice critic in the province of Manitoba for many years, and there are a wide variety of issues facing our justice system. To pick up on the point that was raised in terms of the budget responsibility and so forth, at the end of the day, Bill C-51, which is a positive bill that we want to see move forward, would have a fairly significant impact, even if it passes as it is currently being proposed today.

When the member said it is an issue of budget, he is correct. We need to factor in that at any given point we could have somewhere in the neighbourhood of 1,000 people within the program, 70% of whom would be under RCMP jurisdiction. As has already been referenced, the number of applications made last year versus the number that were accepted raises other issues.

However, to look at what we are ultimately wanting to pass, there is no doubt that by expanding the program we would see a higher demand for it. I believe the current budget is around $9 million to $10 million. I am not completely sure of those numbers, but it is a significant amount of money, and there would be a need to ensure the program is adequately resourced. When we talk about being adequately resourced, obviously the bill would have more. The last question to my colleague was related to the responsible province or municipality, and he made reference to the police or the department of justice.

In the last little while, I have been circulating a petition within my constituency. I will read the last paragraph of the petition, to which I must say I have had many of my constituents respond very favourably. It reads:

We, the undersigned residents of the Province of Manitoba call upon the House of Commons to provide for and support [effective crime prevention] programs that will prevent crimes from happening like programs that focus on steering young children away from associating with gangs or gang activities.

The petition is calling on the Government of Canada to work with other levels of government to develop effective programs that prevent youth from committing crimes.

When we talk about the financing, administration and so forth, we need to recognize that the different levels of government all have a role to play in this. That is the reason, when the parliamentary secretary introduced the bill, I asked how many other jurisdictions had a program that is currently running. I was pleased to hear some of the numbers that the parliamentary secretary referenced.

At the end of the day, this is a significant issue. I asked whether there was an increase in the number of gangs, as this has been a serious problem in Winnipeg. However, Winnipeg is not alone. There are other jurisdictions, as the member has pointed out, that have issues related to gang activity. Gang activity in the province of Manitoba has skyrocketed over the last 10 years. During the 1990s, gang-related issues were not debated much inside the Manitoba legislature. However, since 2000 or 2001, it has become a very serious issue.

One year we had over 14,000 vehicles stolen. For a province with roughly 550,000 drivers, that is a significant number of vehicles. When we look at the individuals who were stealing them, it was young people. I had acquired through a freedom of information request that it was somewhere in the neighbourhood of 200 youth. I might be off on the number, but they had stolen, on average, 30 vehicles.

Out of that relatively large grouping of youth, if we were to canvass them we would find that a good number were directly involved in gangs. It was part of a gang initiation whereby they had to go out and steal cars. At the end of the day we all pay for that at the different levels, whether it be municipal, provincial or national. We have to take more of a co-operative approach to dealing with crime in our communities.

Also, the federal government needs to play a leading role. It can ensure there are some national standards, from coast to coast to coast, in proactively preventing crimes from taking place. That is what we ultimately want to see happen.

In regard to Bill C-51, the Liberal Party is in favour of this bill and wants to see it go to committee. We do believe it would have a positive impact. It would help in terms of resolving crimes. Ultimately, I do believe if it is administered properly it would prevent some crimes from taking place.

In looking at the bill, it does several things. The parliamentary secretary made reference to how the provinces would be able to designate their own internal programs and get that designation from the federal program without necessarily having to transfer the individual into the program. As she made reference to its merit, I do believe there is great benefit to that, the biggest being time. Time is very important with things of this nature. Processing times, being able to change identity, and so forth are of critical importance. For the most part, I believe the government would receive a very favourable response in regard to those measures in Bill C-51.

We understand it would assist in changing identity, which is something one would think would have a wide diversity of support from the many different stakeholders following the debate on this bill. We appreciate the fact that it does broaden the information that can be protected and also supports people from within the program.

However, if we take a look at the history of the witness protection program, I think most Canadians would be surprised that it does not have a very long history in terms of legislation. Most people would believe there has always been some informal aspects to witness protection, and that was primarily done at the local policing level. We can go back 30 years, 40 years, where police officers, through discretion, were able to provide assurances to witnesses. There would have been all sorts of actions taken to try to provide assurances to witnesses that they would be safe if they were to come forward and state what they had observed or what they were aware of in terms of a criminal activity. We could go back to the eighties where that started to become a little more formalized because of different commissions and reports that were coming out. We started to see internal documents clearly demonstrating the need for a witness protection program.

It was not that long ago when Prime Minister Jean Chrétien introduced the Witness Protection Program Act, the first legislation of its kind brought to the House of Commons. As we continue to move forward, we today have another piece of legislation that has been drafted that would ultimately complement the original legislation. Why? Because in time things change.

There is a need for us to change the legislation and modernize it so that we can meet the needs of today. The power of the Internet, the influence that organized crime has, the potential of terrorism, these are all very real issues today to which legislation has to be able to respond.

The ability of police to protect witnesses is crucial in order to fight crime and acts of terrorism. If we cannot provide those assurances to witnesses, there is a very good chance they would be unable to testify. If they are unable to testify, we would be unable to get the types of convictions that our crowns are looking for across Canada in all provinces and territories. We have to somehow recognize the importance of witnesses and the roles that they play and the risk we take by not enabling those witnesses to feel safe in testifying. If we fail in doing that, then individuals who are committing some pretty terrible crimes are going to get away or be let off with a much lighter sentence than if a witness had been able to testify. It is of critical importance that police see this as a viable tool that would make a difference.

Public trust in the witness protection program is also vital to the success of the program. We can say that we have the program in place and ask Canadians to trust us because it is a great program, but there has to be a certain element of confidence in the program. If a potential witness does not feel the program is going to be strong enough and that their life is going to be threatened by making a disposition, chances are they will walk away from that opportunity. Therefore, building trust is critically important.

We support the ability of the federal departments, agencies, services and the national security, National Defence or Public Safety, mandate to recommend witnesses to the WPP. It seems to be a natural evolution that would be incorporated into the current legislation. It makes sense. That is why we support the government's proposed change.

We look to the government to be sensitive to our concerns, such as why there has not been a separate body created to oversee admissions to the witness protection program and what potential merits there could be if we were able to identify that. How we deal with disputes between protectees and the RCMP is another issue that has been raised and brought to my attention. The government would be best advised, between now and the time in which the bill gets to committee, to give some attention to that. In the hope that Conservatives will approach it with an open mind, I trust that there will be amendments brought forward. Through those amendments, we will ultimately see the legislation take better form and receive much stronger support.

The broadening of information that can be protected is very important. I believe it is a core base that is being suggested and we need to be able to expand that base. We support that aspect of the legislation. We need to recognize, as we look at ways in which we can improve upon the program, that the program may have to be expanded, which is, in part, a resource issue. There needs to be adequate resources to support the program.

I have always appreciated that through our federation, we have different ministerial conferences, justice being no different, and that there is a need for different levels of government, as they come together, to talk about this program and other programs. We should look at ways in which we could do more to prevent crimes from taking place. We do support the bill in principle because it is a good bill. It is a change from the original act of 1996. It makes a lot of sense and therefore we would like to see it sent to committee soon.

On a personal note, it would be wrong of me not to emphasize to the Prime Minister and the government just how important it is to have safe streets in our communities. During my first election to the House in the byelection, I had indicated that crime and safety was a high priority for me and that given the opportunity I would raise these issues in the House. I believe in fairness and in consequences to crimes. I also believe passionately that we need to do more to prevent crimes from taking place.

In debate from both sides of the House we heard members make mention of organized crime, which is a serious issue for many of my constituents. They want the government to take action. Most of my constituents recognize how important it is. I have the opportunity almost on a weekly basis to talk about this type of issue with my constituents. I put a lot of focus on preventing crimes from happening in the first place.

We talk about organized crime and gang activities, but many initiatives could be taken to prevent young people from entering into gangs in the first place. We need to look at our infrastructure, our resources from different levels of government, and have a higher sense of co-operation in terms of finding alternatives that would engage our young people and stop them from getting involved in gang activities. Young people get involved in gang activities for a multitude of different reasons. In the 1990s there were under a thousand young people involved in gang activities and now there are thousands. It is hurting a lot of communities, not only in Winnipeg North but in many communities across this country.

If the legislation ultimately passes, we hope to see a government that is more committed to resolving the gang-related problems that many of our communities are living with today. I have confidence that our police forces across the country would use this tool well and work with our courts and prosecutors. There are many other things we can do to prevent our young people from getting involved in gang activities.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to hear that the Liberals will be supporting the bill being sent to committee. Hopefully at committee they will continue to work with us to get this passed quickly. It is an important piece of legislation.

My colleague talked a lot about prevention, and I am wondering if he is aware of several initiatives that our government has funded in regard to crime prevention. First, there is the police officer recruitment fund, a one-time injection of funds for provinces to use. It was $400 million, and they have used it very well. Police departments have added police officers. That is one of the initiatives.

Another one is our national crime prevention strategy, $40 million. I am not sure if the member is aware of this, but he might want to let his constituents know that we are funding $7 million annually to go directly to helping stop young people, who are maybe vulnerable, from getting involved in crime and gang activity. This is a specific fund that deals directly with anti-gang strategies for young people.

I am not sure if the member was aware of those initiatives. Also, today the Minister of Public Safety announced another call for applications to our security infrastructure funding, which is helping different organizations. If they are being threatened for a number of reasons, we are helping fund them so that they can be protected.

These initiatives are helping to stop crime, whether it relates to gangs, drugs or guns. Sadly many times the opposition does not support this. I am wondering if the member was not aware of this funding, and why he would not have supported it when we brought it forward? His constituents were actually signing petitions on this issue.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Portage—Lisgar makes reference to a program that was introduced by the federal government.

I would like to emphasize why I talked a lot about a sense of co-operation and working with other jurisdictions. When the federal government came up with the program to hire more police officers in communities, there was a substantial amount of money put aside to hire more police officers in Winnipeg. I do not know if Manitoba has acted on it since but maybe between the two of us we can find out whether or not they actually did. However, as of a couple of years ago, they had not accessed that money.

One could say that we need to get a better understanding of why that money was not accessed, whether more police were put on foot patrol or whatever it might be. It is interesting to note that at the same time we had community police offices closing in Winnipeg North, on McPhillips Street and on Main Street. Those are things that have happened in the last few years.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I share the sentiment that there is a lot more we can do to prevent crime.

My question for the member is not a personal question of where he was but where his party was. When the legislation was passed in 1996, it was a Liberal government. It was around the time I first joined the police board and the problems with the witness protection program have been known since at least 1996. During that very long period of time when the Liberals were in power, they took no action. I know from my own personal experience that local municipal police officers were pointing out that they did not have budgets for this and they could not make use of the program.

My question to the hon. member is, in the broad sense, where was he and where was his party? The government has been slow to bring this forward but it is certainly faster than the Liberals were.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Speaker, that is factually incorrect.

In 1993 Prime Minister Jean Chrétien took office and within three years we had the actual core legislation, the legislation that is now being amended. The Conservatives have been in government longer than the Chrétien government had been at that time. At the end of the day, the Liberal Party of Canada and Prime Minister Chrétien responded quite quickly.

What I will recognize is that in my comments I made reference to the closing of those two community police offices, something that had a real negative impact. The provincial NDP did absolutely nothing. The provincial NDP did not access the resources being provided by Ottawa to put more police on the streets. If the NDP, heaven forbid, ever form government, I suspect it would be a disaster.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, we are having a wonderful history lesson here, so I thought I would chime in on this. I remember back in 1998, as a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police academy, under the leadership of the then Liberal government, we were told that the depot would be closed, that there would be no more recruiting of police officers. That is why into the future our government had to bring in the recruitment fund to deal with the major gap in policing numbers. The Liberals did that during a time when we knew that two-thirds of Canadian police officers were about to face retirement age, so there was absolutely no forethought or planning in that. Thank goodness we were able to recover that.

Let us skip ahead. In 2011, our government introduced crime prevention programs. The Liberal members voted against 138 grassroots projects, including in Winnipeg, in which 16,000 youth have participated.

I just thought I would add my two cents' worth into that wonderful history lesson we were having.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, part of history is reality. If we look at the actual numbers, if his programs were all so successful, one would ask why the gang-related issues of today are getting worse. They are not getting better. There are more gang members today than there were five or six years ago. If the initiatives the government has taken were actually worth the value it has assigned to them, one would think the numbers would be going down.

I want to leave it on a positive note. I suspect in 2015 a Liberal administration will make sure we get the numbers going in the right direction, and that is down. To make it relevant to the bill itself, I would suggest it was in fact the Liberal Party that initiated this whole process back in 1996, through former prime minister Jean Chrétien.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, just to continue this history lesson the way I would see it, my point, which I think the member for Winnipeg North has missed, is that when the program was introduced in 1996, municipalities and front-line police said right away that there were problems with it. The Liberal government was in power for another 10 years and never fixed those problems.

I admit this is a bit of a strange debate. The Conservatives took seven years to fix it and the Liberals did not fix it within ten years, so both are a bit slow. That is all I am saying here. The member has skipped over the fact that the criticisms we are trying to fix today were well known while the Liberal government was still in power.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I detect a bit of potential remorse, if we recognize the fact that with a couple more years it would have been amazing what the Liberal Party could have done. One could say we would have had a nice national child care program, a Kelowna accord and all sorts of wonderful things.

However, history will show that the New Democrats voted with the Conservatives, which killed those programs. Ultimately, maybe we would have had this bill a whole lot earlier had the NDP not supported the Conservatives back in 2005 or whenever that was.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will come back to the central point here. There is a witness protection program, whether started by the Liberals or fixed by the Conservatives or finally repaired by us. It does not seem to matter, because it is underfunded. I wonder how, even between 1996 and 2006, there was not enough money to do all the witness protection that needed to be done. Nowhere is that more evident than the Air India disaster.

Could the member actually comment on that?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it would be important to substantiate a comment of that nature with some sort of empirical evidence to show where the demand was and when it did not meet the requirements financially.

What we do know for sure is that this legislation would be expanding the witness protection program. If we were going to be expanding the program to include other things, we could anticipate that there would be a need to properly resource it. If we did not properly resource the expansion of it, at the end of the day, we would be limiting the ability of our different agencies to ensure it was effective.

Yes, we passed the legislation. One would like to think that the government would work with other jurisdictions to make sure there are adequate resources on the ground, so that we can fully utilize the program, because if we fully utilized the program it would have a positive impact for all Canadians.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, Employment Insurance; the hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, Foreign Investment; the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood, National Defence.

The hon. member for York South—Weston.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to a piece of legislation that we actually support. We support the notion and the direction of this legislation, but we are concerned about whether or not this will be resourced. That is going to be the $30 million, $50 million or $100 million question. When it comes time for the Minister of Finance to bring forward a budget, will he bring forward a budget that will put money where the Conservatives' collective mouths are? It is all well and good to talk about witness protection, to talk about protecting victims and to talk about reducing crime in Canada, but unless money is provided to actually do those things, they are not going to happen. To this point, the Conservative government has not shown a willingness to put real money into real crime prevention and getting at the roots of crimes before they actually happen. I class witness protection as partly crime prevention.

Generally, we in the NDP support the direction this legislation is taking. We are pleased that the government listened to our request to expand the witness protection program. It would be expanded to include other items such as organized crime. National security agencies would have access to this program, including national defence, CSIS and so on, so there could be the possibility of witness protection for more than what is currently covered.

We are counting on the government to provide funding. We are going to be paying close attention to the budget, whatever day it happens, whether it is the beginning of March or the end of March, to see if it will put forward the funding required to do what the bill intends to do.

The member for Winnipeg North suggested earlier that I have to come up with figures. We do not have to go much further than last year, when there were 108 requests but only 30 were approved. Not a lot of money was spent last year. It was something like $9 million. That is a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of money we spend on crime in this country. That is a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of money we spend on jails and jets. A tenfold increase in that spending would be good for Canada, for Canadians, for solving crimes, for finding and punishing criminals. We hope and pray that the Conservatives come up with that money.

In Toronto, where I am from, several serious problems of gang violence have gone on for a number of years. While generally violent crime is down across the country, there are still gangs. The Toronto police force has a guns and gangs unit, and it has an organized crime unit that does reconnaissance, that actually hunts down criminals. I have spoken to Toronto police officers and to the superintendent of 12 Division, which is where my riding is. They told me they are looking for the ability to find witnesses. The problem they face is that witnesses will not come forward. Why will they not come forward? It is because they are afraid or in some cases it is because they have taken some oath. In most cases it is because they are terrified that there will be repercussions, that they cannot be protected, that they cannot be sheltered from harm. In the case of organized crime, this legislation would provide the police with the opportunity to offer protection to potential witnesses of violent crime in my city.

I go back to the Danzig shootings of last year where 24 people were shot, two of whom were killed, at a simple neighbourhood barbecue as a result of gang violence. The police have had extreme difficulty in finding people who will come forward and testify. The police know that many people know what happened, but there is a climate of fear and of intimidation and of it not being possible to be protected. The bill might go some way in allowing police forces to offer a sense of security to people, which they cannot offer now, particularly in the case of gang violence and gang-related crime. We suspect there is some measure of gang involvement when 24 people are shot at once and two of them are killed.

In addition, there is a significant-sized Somali population in my riding and in the riding of Etobicoke Centre immediately to the west. That Somali population came here over the course of the last 15 years from a country that was riddled with unrest, that had no effective government. Those people came here as undocumented refugees. They still cannot get documentation and so, in some cases, it is still not possible to completely finalize their status as immigrants to Canada.

That community is terrified of some of what the current Conservative government has done to it since the beginning of the majority government. I am referring of course to the immigration changes that have come from the immigration minister. The mothers of those children are terrified that those children, who have only ever known Canada, as a result of falling into a bad crowd, would not just go to jail but would be deported to a country they have no connection with whatsoever, to Somalia, where it is dangerous just to be, let alone to grow up. These mothers of these boys, and most of them are boys, have pled with me and with the member for Etobicoke Centre to change that law, to fix that law, to fix that big hole that is causing their children to be in such terrible jeopardy.

Yes, it is true they have fallen into some bad habits. “Bad habits” is probably too small a word for it. They have done some seriously bad things. The mothers believe that part of the reason is that they have been abandoned by the system over the course of the last few years.

There was, put in place by the current government when it was a minority, a series of measures aimed at tackling youth violence before they got to gangs, with intervention programs, mediation programs and mentorship programs funded in part by the Minister of Public Safety, to allow community agencies to get at these kids before they joined these gangs and went afoul of the law. There have been tremendous successes in some of those agencies and some of those programs, but they are being cut back. They are being ended.

The answer we get from the Conservative government is that was a three-year program, the three years is up and, therefore, we do not need to do this anymore.

The people running the program know that the program is successful, but they also know that if the government ends the program, the next generation of kids is going to fall off the wagon.Those kids are going to end up in crime, have a propensity to join a gang and are not going to succeed.

In addition, we have had, in my riding anyway, huge cutbacks to the immigrant settlement services that were being provided over the past 10 years, to the point where whole agencies have had to shut their doors. One agency was urged by the ministry, by CIC, to sign a five-year lease. Six months later, after it signed the five-year lease, it had all of its funding cut. Now it is sitting, holding a five-year lease for something it cannot afford to do.

That is the kind of event that is going on in the community now. That is the kind of reality that this community faces. What ends up happening is the kids end up in gangs. The kids do not see hope. They do not see jobs. There are not a heck of a lot of jobs in my riding. There is not a heck of a lot of choice.

One youth said to me, “I can either go work part time at something like McDonald's or some other small retailer for $10.25 an hour and maybe work 20 hours a week and maybe make 200 bucks. Or, in five minutes, I can go on a street corner and make $400 by selling drugs. What choice would you make?”

It was not because he was trying to give me a lesson in morality; he was trying to give me a lesson in economics. These kids cannot afford to live or eat, and they know they do not have access to the good jobs that remain in Canada. Those jobs are disappearing. The industrial heartland of Ontario has been under attack over the past few years. Hundreds of thousands of good-paying industrial jobs have disappeared and been replaced by service sector jobs, at $10 and $12 an hour. No one can feed a family on $10 and $12 an hour.

I am not condoning the selling of drugs. My point is that it becomes very easy and economical for these kids when they are faced with these dire choices to choose a life of crime. We are trying to prevent that. One of the ways we hope to prevent that is by making it more difficult for them to succeed in a life of crime by making it easier for witnesses to come forward. When it is easier for witnesses to come forward—

[An hon. member]

Wow, you brought it back to the bill.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

We are back to the bill. Exactly. We are making it easier for witnesses to come forward, but we have to provide the resources to make it easier for them to come forward. We have to provide the money.

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime has published a good practices document for protection of witnesses in criminal proceedings involving organized crimes. It consists of 124 pages and is well worth reading. That document talks about how best to set up one of these programs. One of the things it talks about is funding. I am going to read part of the document. This goes back to the period 2005-06 when the Liberals were in power. It states that “the Witness Protection Program of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police dealt with 53 new cases involving 66 persons”. The cost of the program was $1.9 million.

There are slightly more people in Italy than in Canada, but to give everyone an idea, there were 4,000 witnesses and family members in the year 2004 and the budget was close to $84 million U.S. That is an enormous difference. That is 40 times more money for a witness protection program in a country that clearly understands that in order to defeat the omertàs and try to deal with organized crime in an organized way, the funding has to be provided to protect the witnesses who come forward. Until the government actually does that in its next budget, we are going to react with some skepticism to the intent behind this bill. It is not that we do not doubt the veracity of the words. The words are there and they are good words. It says the bill should cover more people, events and crimes and the system should work better. However, it cannot work better if we starve it.

A constituent of mine has run into the starving of the RCMP in his personal dealings. He has discovered that because the amount of money involved in the crime committed against him is less than some magic number that the RCMP deems appropriate, it will not investigate. He is going to be left dangling in the breeze because the RCMP does not have the resources to investigate the crime. In his case, it is $70,000 that was essentially stolen, and the RCMP does not have the resources to investigate a crime involving that amount. It said it has bigger fish to fry. That is the problem with the government's funding of the RCMP: it is not sufficient to do the job the government has given it to do.

New Democrats agree with the government giving it this job, but it has to be given the resources. We cannot starve it and tell it to exist on the budget it has. It does not work that way. People like the constituent in my riding who is now out $70,000, plus all kinds of legal bills over the years, is being told by the RCMP too bad, so sad; it is not going to do anything about it because it does not have the budget to deal with smaller crimes. This smaller crime involving $70,000 to this individual in my riding is two years' salary for many people in my riding. It is four years' salary for some people.

This is a situation where the RCMP is under-resourced in many ways, and threatened with even smaller budgets by the Minister of Public Safety, suggesting they are overpaid. However, at the same time with this bill, there is a bigger demand being placed on those resources. We agree there is nothing wrong with this bigger demand. We like it. However, please put the money in the budget to pay for an appropriate level of witness protection that will ensure Canadians can come forward to testify safely in good conscience, and protect other Canadians from crime by making sure the bad guys, not those people on EI, but the real bad guys, are the people being put in jail. That is the whole point of this legislation, and I agree with it.

The other part of the report from the United Nations is a good disclosure of what kinds of things it considers to be organized crime. Organized crime is not just drug running. Organized crime, which is part of what is covered by the bill, includes the smuggling of persons into the country. I would hope that the bill would help police forces stop the organized criminals from smuggling people into this country. It is not done by putting the victims in jail, which is what the Conservative immigration bill has done; we do it by ensuring we find ways to catch the criminals. If the bill includes in its mandate such crimes as human smuggling, I am all for it.

Terrorism is one of the crimes the United Nations defines as organized crime. The United Nations also considers corruption to be part of organized crime. As we have seen in Quebec in recent weeks, there is enough of that to go around for all of Canada, and it is spreading to other places. Since corruption is part of organized crime, does that mean the bill will allow witnesses to come forward in the corruption investigation in Montreal and be protected by the government and the RCMP from fear of retribution as a result of disclosing the corruption that may be happening in that province, and may be in other provinces as well.

There is a lot to say that is good about the bill. However, I will come back to our central point. Unless we put the money in the program, it is not going to have teeth. It is not going to have the ability to do the job. We can say all we want about protecting witnesses, but if we cannot afford to do it then witnesses are not going to come forward. We are going to be right back where we started from and we will not be any further ahead.

Members on this side are hopeful. There may be some minor issues that we need to deal with in terms of the language of the bill at committee, but we want to see it expeditiously passed. We want this measure to reach royal assent in a hurry, so we do not have any intentions of stalling it. However, we will be paying close attention to what the finance minister will be saying in his next budget about the funding of programs like this, and other programs that are designed to make Canada a safer place.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, if there were a recurring theme in that intervention, it was spend, spend, spend. The NDP members stand often and speak about spending, and they have a big chequebook over there. I think they have found the magical mystical money tree because there is money for everything.

I am not aware of any budget suggestions that the NDP has sent to the Minister of Finance. We have expanded the amount of money we are spending on the RCMP and come forward with a number of very comprehensive measures aimed at safe streets and communities, but how much more money should we give to the RCMP? What is the dollar figure that the NDP feels the RCMP is being shortchanged? I am not aware that it is being shortchanged.

When we present a budget and ask the NDP members to seek efficiencies and work as efficiently as they can given their responsibilities, that is a responsible way to operate government. I would like to hear how much more money the member feels the RCMP should get.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. I would ask the member if the Conservatives have costed the bill. Do they know exactly what the bill is worth in terms of dollars and in terms of the number of people who would be able to be witness protected as a result of the bill coming forward? I do not see a costing attached to it. However, when we are in power, we will be costing everything and will be making sure that we do not overspend or spend more than what Canadians expect a reasonable and responsible government to spend.

We want enough money in the budget for measures such as these. They are such good measures that they ought to be endorsed with a financial amount from the Minister of Finance. If it means that less subsidy goes to a big oil company, that is a decision the Minister of Finance is going to have to make.

When legislation is put forward that expands the purview of the witness protection plan, the government cannot then say that it is not going to spend another nickel on it. It just does not work.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, some provinces have their own programs, but I believe that there is a strong obligation for the national government to provide leadership. Part of that leadership means that the government would have to work with the different provincial entities to further develop the program.

Expanding the witness program will mean a need for additional resources. To achieve success in the program, the federal government will need to work with the provinces and territories to develop the program so that it really hits its peak. That includes the issue of properly resourced funding. I wonder if the member might want to provide comment on that.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, clearly there would need to be proper accountability in terms of funding, both at the provincial and federal levels. I hope this is not going to be another exercise in transferring the cost to another level of government such that the federal government announces a program but makes somebody else pay for it. That seems to be a recurring theme on the other side. I hope that is not the case.

I hope that when we have measures brought forward to increase public security on a national scale that a national government will actually provide national resources for it. In a situation where we create a system that a provincial entity would have to follow, the province would have to consider those things. The bill before us deals with crimes that have national implications, and it should be nationally resourced.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to expand on the costing. The parliamentary secretary asked how much we would spend on it, but this is a government bill. We have not seen any figures. We have not seen how much the government intends to put into this. Yet Conservative members are asking us to tell them how much we would spend.

I think it is important that we understand how much a bill like this would cost. We think it is an important bill. We think it is something that needs to be done.

What does the member think about the government sharing information with us?

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it has been very difficult. As members know, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has had to go to court to try to get budgetary information from the government. It is very difficult to get actual financial details on what the government intends to spend or on how it is spending money.

We would hope that when a government puts forward a bill that is clearly going to have a cost attached to it and that clearly expands the scope of a federal program, it would come up with the actual figures on the cost of the bill, perhaps in committee, and would put those figures before Parliament so that we could all look at them.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, these hon. members, with due respect, and I am sure with great intentions, have kind of missed the mark on this.

We are talking about the witness protection program and the legislative changes that have to be made to it. Nobody is asking for more money. The RCMP is not asking for more money. It spends about $9 million a year.

[An hon. member]

How much more money—

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

The member did not listen to my hon. colleague's question, and that is okay.

We are talking about the witness protection program administered by the RCMP. It costs the RCMP about $9 million a year. The range of entries into this program varies. For example, the year before last, there were 16 admissions. The following year, there were 30 admissions. It changes all the time. The RCMP does a great job of budgeting, and within its operational budget, it is prepared for this legislative change.

Let us start with this premise. It seems that there is no issue the NDP would not throw money at, whether it is needed or not. Nobody is asking for more money. The RCMP is not asking for more money. It is asking for legislative changes. Police officers and provinces are asking for these changes. We have responded.

We appreciate the support and the comments from the critics for public safety for the NDP and the Liberals. We understand that they may have some concerns coming to committee.

I am very happy that other members are speaking to this bill, but some are getting way off topic in terms of cost. Have those members consulted any of their constituents with regard to the witness protection program and these necessary changes?

Again, nobody is asking for more money for this. No more money is needed.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there were 108 requests, and only 30 were granted. I would hope that this was not because there was not enough money. What this line of discussion is about is whether there will be enough money for the significant expansion of the scope of the witness protection program.

The RCMP's own website states that “[t]here are instances when the costs of witness protection may impede investigations, particularly for smaller law enforcement agencies”. The costs means budget.

Whether or not the RCMP has its hand out asking for more money, it is up to us as parliamentarians to determine how the expansion of this service, the witness protection program, will actually be funded. If it costs more than $9 million, does that mean that there are going to be fewer police officers in Esquimalt? Is that how it is going to be funded?

I would like to know where the money is going to come from. If it is not going to come from a redirection of priorities by the government, from something into public safety, then we would like to know how it is going to happen.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River.

In addition to telling us about the nature of our world and our origins, astrology also serves as a wonderful time marker. Much like two orbits crossing, on this rare occasion, my opinions are crossing with the Conservative government's. I will support Bill C-51. But much like two stars that align but do not touch, I want to add that the government could do much more to ensure that the witness protection program is successful.

To be clear: I applaud this bill. It is certainly a step in the right direction. However, time will tell if it goes far enough. I think that, after the provisions are in force for a few years, there will be three things the public will think are insufficient: the expansion of the eligibility criteria, co-operation with the provinces and the adequacy of funding.

Since the NDP called on the Conservatives to review the witness protection program in 2007, the earth has travelled around the sun six times. As they say, all things come to those who wait. All things? That is what we will see.

In 2007, the NDP started urging the government to address the problem of coordinating the witness protection program with the provinces. We repeated the demand a number of times, notably in 2009 and 2012. I am pleased that the Conservatives were open to our ideas, but I deplore the fact that the funding was not there so that these changes could be implemented properly.

Buying fighter jets is not the only way to protect the public. We also protect them by doing whatever we can to help people help us. This is the case with street gangs, for example. Naturally, a gang member would want to be assured of safety before testifying. The same should go for every first-hand witness. These people are key elements in the government's fight against threats to public safety. If the money is invested properly, I am positive that this can work.

The witness protection program makes communities throughout the country safer. In fact, witness protection often guarantees the success of an investigation. My fellow Quebeckers know something about that. Witness protection gives the police access to useful, first-hand information. It is deplorable that we have had to wait so long to extend protection to street gang members, for example. But we have had to wait a long time. In 2012, 108 potential witnesses tried to sign up for the witness protection program. Of the 108 people prepared to divulge important information to investigators, only 30 were accepted by the government. The government will probably say that those 30 people cost millions of dollars. That is true, but that is what our taxes are for.

Since coming to power in 2006, the Conservatives have increased the deficit by almost $150 billion and reduced corporate taxes by about $50 billion. Clearly, it is mainly about how we choose to spend the money.

Were dozens of cases closed due to a lack of money or poor procedure? That is really what we should be asking with regard to 2012.

Are we talking about 78 cases that could have been solved, but were not for lack of evidence? If the answer is yes, it was high time for action from this law-and-order government.

We also really wanted to review another problem raised by the program: coordination. At present, offences pertaining to national security are excluded from the witness protection program. We saw what happened with the Air India investigation.

One man, Mr. Hayer, was killed in 1998, and a number of others received threats. Mr. Hayer was therefore unable to testify, and the affidavit he gave the RCMP in 1995 became inadmissible.

Could this man's death have been prevented with better protection? I think so. Could the inquiry have gone further if there had been better protection? I think so. Mr. Hayer was the editor of the Times of India, in British Columbia. It is absolutely outrageous that we were unable to protect him.

I wonder why it did not occur to the Liberals at the time to look at the issue of witness protection a little more closely when that tragedy occurred. It is also sad to see that the Conservatives have not included more of the recommendations that came out of the Air India inquiry in their bill.

It should also be noted that in 2010, the RCMP submitted a report calling for beefed-up witness protection. It was December 2012 before we even found out about that report and a few months after that before the Conservatives did anything with it. It has been a long haul. It was high time.

The Conservatives do not seem to realize the magnitude of the costs being incurred right now by local police forces for witness protection. Several Canadian provinces have programs in place to ensure witness protection, but unfortunately, there is not enough money and federal-provincial co-operation is lacking.

Since Bill C-51 does not include any budget increases, I really have to wonder how we will achieve results that are any better.

The government should acknowledge the viewpoints of the RCMP, the provinces and the official opposition. There is no room for partisan politics on this issue. This is not the time to be dilettante. If the government wants to ensure witness protection, it must do so with all the necessary financial investments; otherwise, the proposed changes will remain but empty rhetoric.

One recommendation that came from the Air India investigation involved an eligibility process that is more transparent and requires greater accountability. Bill C-51 does not include any provisions in that regard. Why will the government not commit to making the program more transparent?

The bill contains no provisions allowing for an independent organization to administer the program based on the recommendations made in the Air India investigation report. The RCMP will continue to bear the responsibility for the program, which will eventually place it in a conflict of interest, because it will be both the investigating body and the one to decide who benefits from protection.

That said, I am giving this bill the benefit of the doubt, and I will support it at second reading, in the hope, of course, that the government will not disappear when it is time to pay.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her support of this bill.

We have heard a couple of times, and again in the member's speech, that resources are going to be an important factor in dealing with this program. However, there is one thing that has been missed in all the presentations by members of the opposition. That is that appropriate sanctioning and sentencing is also a key element. While our government has moved forward in Bill C-10 to put in meaningful sentences and sanctions for people who commit crimes, the faster removal of foreign criminals act and other like legislation, those are the kinds of things, partnered with resources, that encourage witnesses to come out.

I know, as a front-line police officer dealing with victims and witnesses, that if I am a witness, and I do not think there is a substantial likelihood of the person getting any meaningful conviction, I am not likely to move forward as a witness to testify. It is not solely the resources that need to be put forward; it is meaningful sentences. Our government is doing that.

Instead of continually pounding on the government to throw more money at it, I wonder if the member will support future bills our government puts forward to make sure that this important element of protecting witnesses and victims is covered and that we actually complete the circle by providing meaningful, appropriate sentences for people committing crimes, .

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that increasing sentences will encourage people to testify.

I wholeheartedly disagree with the member across the aisle. Increasing sentences will not protect witnesses.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member would recognize or provide comment on what we believe is the need to have a separate body to oversee the admissions to the witness protection program and possibly even something to deal with disputes between the protectees and the RCMP, which was something the Liberal critic talked about.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yes, it is important to have an independent body so that the entity overseeing witness protection is not judging itself.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for shedding some light on the subject we are dealing with today.

I could understand why, at first, she was enthusiastic about this bill. But now I am somewhat confused. The members on the other side of the House are telling us that there will be no extra money to put new measures in place.

In her speech, my colleague said that the number of people put in the witness protection program is low compared to the number of requests. At the other end of the spectrum are all of the community organizations that are working to prevent crime by tackling its root causes. They have had their funding drastically cut. It is clear that the Conservatives are singing that familiar refrain of “cuts, cuts”.

How can we hope that the bill will get the funding it needs to meet its goals?

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I do not know. The government gives and then it takes. It is cutting funding to the organizations that help people. If we want more witnesses, we would absolutely have to increase funding for the organizations that help people with problems.

When we have 30 out of 108 witnesses receiving protection, that is not a lot. Perhaps more than 108 people would want to become witnesses if they had better protection.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the bill today and to let the members opposite know that I will be supporting it, at least at second reading. It is an important bill. I have some reservations, which I will speak to in a moment, but I will also speak to some of the good things in the bill and why we need to get it to committee for discussion.

First, the NDP has long called for the government to enter the witness protection program and to ensure the safety of all Canadians who are in potential danger. Since 2007, the NDP has specifically called for better coordination of the federal and provincial programs and better overall funding for the program. Our demands were repeated in 2009 and again late last year by our member for Trinity—Spadina. If I have time, I will speak to that.

I certainly support Bill C-51 and the government's efforts to improve the witness protection program. There is a bit of history there, which I will also talk about in a moment. For people who are following the debate in the House and those who may be watching at home, we have heard about costing. Money has become a point of debate, and I would also like to bring it up at the risk of having a couple of questions from the members opposite, particularly from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety.

The parliament secretary has said that the government refuses to commit to any new funding. She also mentioned there were 30 Canadians in that program in the last year, but that only represents about a quarter of the people who actually applied to get into the program. That would indicate to me that there were probably more than 30 last year who should have been in the program, and the police forces could have used the program to a better end by including more people in the program.

It seems to me that saying there is no new funding for the program means that it would come from elsewhere. I suppose $400 million a year from the Senate would be helpful to expand the program, but that is another whole debate that perhaps I will not get into right now. However, we are concerned that this Conservative requirement that the RCMP and local police departments work within their existing budgets will hinder the program and hinder a bill of legislative changes that are good.

Bill C-51 would expand the eligibility criteria of the witness protection program to include gang members as well as witnesses who are recommended by CSIS and the Department of Defence. This is a good expansion of services, but how would the money situation be sorted out when there is no new funding for it?

One of the glaring things in the bill, which I hoped would have been addressed, is provisions for an independent agency. My friend from Winnipeg mentioned an independent agency to operate the program in one of his questions. This was recommended in the Air India report.

The RCMP would continue to be responsible for the program. That leaves the RCMP in a potential conflict of interest by being both the agency that is investigating and also the organization that decides who gets protection. There are some conflicts. I do not think they cannot be worked out, but just to make the government aware, these are some issues in the bill that we will be bringing up and talking about during the public safety committee and with the witnesses we see there.

To recap, New Democrats are pleased to see that the government is listening to NDP requests to expand the witness protection program. It is a little late in coming. There has been some give-and-take over the last number of years. If the Conservatives want to ensure the success of this new expanded witness protection program, they are going to have to commit to some funding. The NDP has always been committed to safer communities and one way to do that is through the witness protection program. It keeps our streets safe by giving police services the extra tools that they require to fight street gangs, for example.

The Witness Protection Program Act was first put forward in 1996 but unfortunately governments of the days in between have really done nothing to respond to the criticisms of the system. Overall, it is a positive step but we need to see if the Conservatives are going to provide the resources that really count for communities. In my riding of Thunder Bay—Rainy River, we have seen services cut. We have seen Service Canada cut to the absolute bone. Lots of jobs have been lost in Service Canada. We have seen our veterans office closed. We have seen immigration close. I do not know if the government has a good track record in terms of making sure that the resources are there to make these programs work, so naturally there is a concern about Bill C-51.

The government front benches are mostly Mike Harris throwbacks from the earlier Ontario years. That is in fact what the Conservatives did in Ontario. Downloading became the order of the day and Ontario is still trying to recover from that. I am concerned that is the direction the government might be going in.

For the folks at home, let me talk about Bill C-51 and some of the good things that are there. It proposes a better process to support provincial witness protection programs and expands the program to include 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, including such people as gang members, and covering a whole new group of people who give assistance to federal departments. The federal departments and agencies with a mandate relating to national security, national defence and public safety would also be able to refer witnesses to the program. These are good things. 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, for example, have been pushing for a national revamp of the witness protection program for some time, including more recognition of their existing programs. Bill C-51 provides for the designation of a provincial or municipal witness protection program so that certain provisions of the act apply to such programs. That is also a good thing. It also authorizes 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 into the designated program.

Lots of Canadians of course would think of witness protection in American media, movies, television shows and so on. We have quite a different system here. It is certainly not as widespread or as widely used. I am concerned when so many people apply for the program and police services give value to the people who are applying, and only a few, a third or a quarter of them, are accepted into the program. I can only assume that is because of the limited financial resources that are available.

I welcome questions from my hon. colleagues and perhaps we can flesh this out a bit more.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, before I ask a question of my hon. colleague, I just want to remind him that sometimes assuming something can make us look not as good as we should. I would caution him not to assume that the reason the RCMP is not admitting every single person who wants to be admitted into the witness protection program has anything to do with money. It has to do with the RCMP doing what it does well, which is operational activity, law enforcement. It looks at and assesses the threat, and it makes a decision based on whether an individual and his or her family need protection or whether there are other ways to deal with the individual as a witness.

I would just caution the opposition. I know today its members are really going on that line. They want us to throw more money at the situation, when what is being asked for are changes to the legislation. I appreciate the member's support for the bill. I am looking forward to his co-operation during committee and with moving it through.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure there was a question there, but I would like to continue along the vein that the parliamentary secretary outlined.

The Conservatives have been in government for almost seven years, and in that time we have heard repeated calls from the RCMP and the provinces for change. It has taken a long time to bring some of these changes forward, and I am glad to see these changes.

As far as costs are concerned, let me just quote something from the RCMP website if I may. “There are instances when the costs of witness protection may impede investigations, particularly for smaller law enforcement agencies”, and yet the Minister of Public Safety said it needs to do this within its existing budget. The reason I brought up the whole idea of costs in my part of the debate is that it seems to be a big concern.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I heard with interest the parliamentary secretary say there was danger in assuming things. I would like to ask the member what he thinks about the minister's assumption that we can expand this program without additional resources. It seems hard to figure out how we can admit more people and more kinds of people to this program within the existing resources.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that was a good question. Personally I like it when a bill comes forward that we can support, at least at second reading. I like it when we can get a bill to committee where we can talk about things and pinpoint one or two particular issues of great concern if we want a program to work well. If the government is going to introduce a bill, if it is going to change some legislation, then it has to make sure it will be successful or there is no sense in bringing it forward in the first place.

If I do have the opportunity, I would like to ask the government a simple question, like one we would hear in question period. Is the government going to invest, yes or no?

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River focused a lot of his presentation on making the money available and on jobs. I find that ironic because he is a member of a party that has been working with some radical groups to slow down every resource project we have been developing in this country, and that is starting to show some negative results. Alberta has a deficit now of about $7 billion. That is going to start reflecting directly on the revenue coming in to the federal government. On the one hand the NDP keeps asking for money, and on the other hand it keeps working with radical groups to slow down development of the resource sector. The member has to answer to this. He has to bear some responsibility for this.

I would like the member to comment on that.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my friend across the way tries really hard, but he is often confused. That was a good example of a confusing question. The parliamentary secretary was concerned about making assumptions, and yet that member was making assumptions. We are doing quite well and moving ahead with resource development in northern Ontario, thanks very much. I do not really know what the member is talking about.

We talk about money and resources, because we want to make sure that changes happen and that they happen for the benefit of all Canadians, and also so we can all work together in the House. People in my riding are constantly asking me why we do not work together in the House, why we are not trying to bring forward the best legislation possible. I am standing in this debate to say to the other side that I listen. Let us make this work. Let us make this the best possible legislation, but let us be transparent about it. Let us talk about the things in this legislation about which we are concerned.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will try to be as brief as possible.

I am pleased to rise in the House to say that I support a government bill—at second reading, at least. It is a jewel, and I hope we will see bills like this more often.

The government has a very hard time consulting people and developing bills that truly address the realities of everyday life. We have seen that over and over with all kinds of bills. I could name a few, but I would rather focus on Bill C-51 right now.

This bill addresses certain points. What is most obvious is the lack of money. We have heard many times in the House that the program will not be funded.

It is very worrisome that this government claims to be a good manager of the economy but cannot see the need to have resources available when it proposes changes. The government has missed the mark.

Once again, I condemn the government for failing to hold enough consultations. If it had taken the time to consult people, especially the provinces that have been calling for a new witness protection program, it would have seen that resources are needed and that the provinces need support.

The fact that we have gotten to this point today is due in large part to the Air India inquiry. The Air India bombing was devastating. Many lives were lost. It took years, decades, before we could begin to understand what went wrong and what could be learned from this tragedy.

After Justice Major released his report on Air India, the Government of Canada presented its game plan. In its 2010 action plan, it spoke specifically about witness protection:

“Witness Protection -- Delivering better and more effective protection for witnesses.”

The bill before us today stems in large part from the fact that the Conservative government read the report and is trying to find solutions. I commend it for that.

The Conservatives said:

To further enhance its federal Witness Protection Program and address current challenges, the Government will: introduce more transparency and accountability into decisions concerning admission to the Witness Protection Program; promote the fair and equitable treatment of protectees by focusing more on their needs; and enhance the way sources of mutual interest to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) and the RCMP are handled.

Perhaps what is missing here is, again, financing all of these goals. It is great to list them, but it would also be great to finance them.

To understand what the government is trying to accomplish with the bill before us, we must go the Public Safety Canada website, which provides a definition of a witness entitled to protection under the witness protection program:

Definition of Witness

A witness is defined [by the witness protection program] as someone who gives or agrees to give information or evidence, or agrees to participate in a matter relating to an investigation or the prosecution of an offence. Generally, there are three categories of people who may need protection under the federal [witness protection program]: agents, who are directed by the police to accomplish certain tasks in the course of the investigation and are compellable witnesses; witnesses, including “innocent bystanders” who have information about a crime and decide to come forward, or individuals who, because of a relationship with the witness, may also require protection; and repentant witnesses or co-accused individuals who agree to testify against a fellow accused.

That is all very nice. However, let us not forget that during the Air India inquiry, one of our witnesses was killed before he could testify.

I think that proves how urgently this program needs to be overhauled. Because of the program, a key witness at such an important inquiry was unable to testify and was killed as a result.

Quite frankly, witness protection is not too much. We must not forget that there have been expenditures under the program before us. I will come back to that because it is important. The program accepted only 30 people out of 108, at a cost of $9 million. Therefore, for the year that ended in March 2012, $9 million was spent to protect 30 people. For an investigation such as the Air India investigation to be conducted properly, quite frankly the $9 million would have been a good investment at the time. We missed an opportunity to better protect people.

We have before us a bill that could help us, give us some avenues to explore and even offer solutions. It is not a bad bill. We can even applaud many of the measures. However, since the Witness Protection Program Act was passed in 1996, there have been few improvements.

In the past, the Liberal and Conservative governments did little to respond to criticisms. When Bill C-223 was introduced by a Reform member in 1999, we supported it. The NDP also wanted to move forward. Unfortunately, the Liberal government at the time thought otherwise and defeated the bill.

Once again, I congratulate the members of the House who really wanted to improve how witnesses who need protection are treated. The members across the floor will recall that the Reform Party has a lot in common with the Conservative Party. At least they will agree with me on that. A consensus among us would have been nice, so we could move forward with this bill. It is too bad the Liberal Party did not move forward on this when it had the chance.

Since then, there have been many calls for improvements. We must not forget that the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina introduced a bill on this in November 2012 in response to the problems that the Toronto area was having with street gangs.

The new bill would definitely help address these issues. It is important to keep moving forward, but we need to do so in co-operation with the provinces. Co-operation is seriously lacking. Provinces like Ontario and Alberta that have many Conservatives members—who, incidentally, should listen more—have been pushing for the program to be renewed and improved for quite some time now.

Based on the provinces' requests, the changes set out in Bill C-51 are simply inadequate. They need to go a lot further.

Inter alia, Bill C-51 does the following:

(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....

What I was saying is that the person's identity must be changed. But the provinces simply are not in the position to be able to do that themselves.

But the RCMP is able to help people change their identity. They need licences, a new ID card, a new social insurance number and perhaps even a passport. Many federal documents are required. And no organization is in a better position to help these people than the RCMP.

All this is funded by the federal government in co-operation with the provinces, and that is what I dislike. It is critical that we find a way to better fund the bill before us today.

I hope that when this is debated in committee, the government members will propose improvements to the bill so that the programs will be better funded in co-operation with the provinces. The request that the provinces are making, that the program be better funded, is key.

An article was recently published in Maclean's. I want to quote certain parts of it that support what I have been saying and the claims from the provinces and other stakeholders. We hope to see these claims when the bill is studied in committee.

In December 2012, the Conservative government made the following announcement:

The Conservative government plans to introduce long-anticipated legislation today to modernize the federal witness protection program...

Revelations five years ago that a protectee committed murder while in the program triggered a wave of review and discussion.

Très inquiétant.

The legislation is expected to include a more independent process for deciding who gets into the secretive program, as well as improved training and more sophisticated practices for handling protectees.

Some members have sued over the program, while others have been kicked out.

The proposed federal changes follow recommendations from a Commons committee, an inquiry into the 1985 Air India bombing and extensive consultations with the provinces.

Several provinces have their own witness protection programs, but often they provide only short-term assistance. In addition, obtaining new federal identity documents for protectees requires co-operation with the Mounties.

The proposed changes to the Witness Protection Program Act, passed in 1996, are expected to simplify the process of obtaining these crucial documents and generally improve relations with provincial agencies.

Ontario and Alberta have been pushing for more federal recognition of their witness programs as part of the national revamp.

I want to emphasize that there were consultations and that the problems raised during those consultations were, for the most part, related to expensive technical issues. Once again, there is no support to move ahead with what needs to be done. I think that the government could come up with a bill that better meets the needs if it were to take the provinces' comments seriously.

We would like to see a more transparent system, a system that does a better job of meeting needs for the purpose of determining who is eligible for this program. So far, this is not necessarily clear because even the government has a hard time answering the question. Still, this is a step in the right direction. We want the Conservatives to start providing the necessary resources to ensure that the current program meets the needs in our communities.

Many have stated that the need to protect people is greatest right in communities, in street gangs. We want people affected by street gangs to feel comfortable testifying so that, ultimately, our streets can be safer. To make that happen, people need easier access to this program. They have to know that they will be protected. I doubt that is the case now. I am not sure that they would put their faith in the bill before us. Once again, this bill would benefit from more thorough debate in committee.

To date, the government does not seem to have recognized that operating a regional police force is very expensive. The fact that it costs the provinces a lot of money and that no money will be coming from the federal government is a problem. Unfortunately, that is often the case with the government. It legislates changes at the provincial level or drops a federal responsibility hoping that the province will pick up the slack. Then the province has a hard time paying for a program it does not have the means to pay for. In the end, the federal government will tell people that it has conquered the deficit because it has decreased spending when all it will really have done is transferred costs to the provinces and municipalities, which will have to find ways to make up the shortfall.

The Harper government is terrified of increasing taxes. That is all well and good, except that it leaves the provinces no choice but to increase their own taxes.

For the taxpayer, provincial and federal taxes are all the same: they are taxes. The Harper government has nothing to brag about. I would even say that it should be ashamed.

In the provincial witness protection programs that involve crimes of a federal nature, the RCMP takes over and charges local police departments the full cost, something that many local departments cannot afford. The RCMP's own website states that there are instances when the costs of witness protection may impede investigations, particularly for small law enforcement agencies.

The municipalities I know that have their own police force and smaller municipalities with smaller police forces will find it very difficult to fulfill the obligations that the federal government is imposing on them, or at least that the bill we are studying in the House plans to impose.

Once again, it is an improvement, and I congratulate the government, but we must do much more. Unfortunately, this government has a great deal of difficulty understanding just how great the need is and how crucial it is that the need be met.

Our society is protected by the combined efforts of the federal, provincial and municipal governments. Together, we can help solve the problems we face. However, it does not help to impose new criteria without providing the resources required to enforce or even implement the criteria. The government is creating a situation that is doomed to failure. This must be avoided at all cost.

The NDP has long been calling for better co-operation between the federal government and the provinces. We are pleased to see an improvement in that regard. That being said, without the necessary funds, it will be hard to ensure that the programs being proposed here today will get very far. I think this is going to create even more problems for the local police forces, which will have a hard time meeting the obligations imposed by the federal government. We must prevent that. Closer co-operation would have truly improved the situation, but that is not what we are seeing today.

I am very pleased to vote in favour of this bill, at least at second reading, but it is time for the Harper government to start realizing that we need better co-operation.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. I remind hon. members not to refer to other members by name. You can refer to them by the name of their riding or by their title, but not by name.

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

Mr. Speaker, you are absolutely right. I accept your admonishment and I will do my best to avoid using proper names. The members of the House of Commons sometimes have difficulty obeying this rule, because we have to speak in a strange way in order to obey it, so as to avoid addressing the person directly and instead speaking through you, Mr. Speaker. We will continue to respect this time-honoured tradition.

As for witness protection, although we began this debate as a result of the Air India inquiry, I think today's debate should focus on protecting Canadians from the street gangs that exist primarily in large urban centres, where the need is greatest. We see that. People are being injured or even killed by these gangs. It is crucial that young people be able to co-operate with police forces as much as possible, but this is posing a problem right now.

I would like to quote part of an article by Jim Bronskill that appeared in The Canadian Press on February 12, 2012:

Youth gang members—not just mobsters, bikers and other traditional protectees—should be allowed into the federal witness protection program as part of a sweeping modernization, says the RCMP.

The RCMP says that this protection needs to be expanded. Bill C-51 responds to the RCMP's request to a certain extent, which is good. However, no one seems to know where that money will come from. Let us not forget that this program is not very costly. In 2011-12, the program cost only $9 million.

If we want to improve the system, it is going to cost a little more. The Conservatives are keenly aware of this. It is important that they realize this and that they provide additional resources.

During the committee examination, what resources will they add to their plan?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, in the few short minutes that I have I want to bring the debate back to the actual bill and its contents.

My hon. colleague, in his remarks, talked a lot about what the provinces that have their own provincial witness protection programs have asked us, the federal government, to do. We have responded to those requests. What they did not ask for was more money to implement their programs. What they asked for were some changes so that they could get identity documents changed for the people under their purview and protection. We have responded to that by saying that they could be federally designated. There is no cost associated with that. I wanted to clear that up.

However, I also want to ask my hon. colleague if he has looked at how the legislation has broadened the way that people involved in the witness protection program can be protected. Right now it is only their name and address that is protected, which is a very narrow and small amount of information.

Has my hon. colleague looked at that part of the bill and would he comment on whether he supports that?

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

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, the bill includes a lot of improvements. I congratulate the government for having brought forward a number of improvements.

I do not think the provinces are in any way naive here. When they ask for more services and more resources, everyone understands that those resources do not come for free. Quite the contrary, I think the government needs to put forward a serious plan of action, one that would bring forward the programs that it is proposing and realize them concretely, but also that we can fully discuss at committee how these resources are going to be paid for.

I would love to hear the government, which always tells us how well it manages our economy, tell us exactly how it will manage to provide resources to our provinces that require the help. Again, unfunded mandates are a problem that we see an awful lot of in the United States. I would like to see Canada buck that trend and actually start working in partnership with our provinces. That is something that I think—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Honoré-Mercier.

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier, when I asked the member opposite a question, I said that protection involves costs. People need to be protected; they might need to be moved, professionals may need to be paid.

In this bill, the eligibility criteria for this program would be expanded. That looks great on paper, but there are costs involved. To those who say that their government has done a lot to protect witnesses and that it has tried to take action, I would say that the government needs to put its money where its mouth is. A great bill without the necessary budget to make it work is nothing but smoke and mirrors.

I would like my colleague to talk about the lack of funding, when it is funding that is needed to make this program work.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member and congratulate her on the work she does in her riding.

To answer her question, this government does nothing but boast. It says that it is bringing in programs, that it wants to help people. But when it comes time to pay the bills, the government is nowhere to be found. It is completely against raising taxes, and it is so ideologically driven to reduce the federal deficit that it finds itself in big trouble.

The Conservative government must consider how it will pay for the programs it is introducing. Employment insurance is a good example of how this government simply did not understand that saving money at others' expense is no way to operate and no way to work with the provinces. It is just moving spending from one level to another, but there is only one set of taxpayers. This government is having a hard time understanding that cutting at this level creates a nearly dollar-for-dollar increase at the provincial level.

It is truly unfortunate that the government has decided to transfer this responsibility. It is a bad idea. I do not think that this is what the provinces asked for during the discussions. They did not ask the government to give them additional responsibilities without covering the cost of those responsibilities. This is critical, but unfortunately, the Conservative government is having a very hard time understanding it.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the questions asked and the continued insistence and focus of the NDP members on the RCMP resources, and what questions they are going to be asking at committee. The parliamentary secretary assured the House that money was not the focus of the bill, that the focus was on regulations.

Does the member and his party intend to hold up the bill at committee, in spite of assurances that this is a regulatory change and not about money? Are they are losing focus on supporting the bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for that question but I am perplexed as to why she came to that conclusion. We are here to collaborate and to help. Everyone agrees the bill needs to be brought forward and needs to be put into effect as soon as possible, subject to the discussions at committee.

As for which party is going to be causing any kinds of delays at any particular level, I do not see how any party at this point is creating delays. The Conservative Party should be looking at why it took so long to bring the bill forward in the first place. The Air India inquiry started many years ago and the requests from the RCMP have been known for years. Again, I applaud the Reform Party member who brought the private member's bill forward ages ago, which we supported. The government had ample opportunity since to bring changes forward and it simply has not. As far as delaying tactics, I do not think they come from this side of the House.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is aware that the primary purpose of the legislation is to enhance a program that was established in the nineties in regard to the witness protection program. We recognize the value in terms of witnesses who are compromised by testifying, whether it is against organized crime or a potential terrorism act. In order to get them to testify, the idea of expanding the program through the legislation will provide an additional tool for our police agencies across the country.

I wonder if the member would comment on just how valuable that is in terms of supporting our police forces, in this case the RCMP, by giving them yet another tool to use. This could be a very valuable tool in terms of being able to secure prosecutions in the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right that more tools presented to the RCMP is going to lead to a better success rate as far as our prosecutorial ambitions are concerned. I have a certain difficulty with the Liberals telling us how we can improve the bill when they had so many opportunities to improve the situation in the past. I do not understand why today they are now saying this is the right way forward, when in the past, when even small modifications were proposed, they were always refusing it.

I congratulate the Liberals for finally moving forward. Perhaps being the third party has helped them realize that they need to present concrete ideas to the Canadian people. I am happy that we are all moving together and I look forward to the debate at the committee stage.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-51, which is intended to make witnesses in Canada safer.

Naturally, the NDP will support the underlying principle so that the bill can go to committee. However, the NDP is once again asking the government to broaden criteria for witness protection program eligibility to ensure the safety of all Canadians who might be in danger.

To that end, my colleagues in the House will recall the remarks made by the member for Trinity—Spadina last November. She stood up, as I am standing today, to urge the government to support the work of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and our local police forces. The federal witness protection program does not have enough funding, its selection criteria are too narrow, and there is not enough co-operation among the three levels of government when it comes to protecting witnesses.

My colleague from Trinity—Spadina also pointed out that our local police forces and the RCMP have a very hard time convincing witnesses to speak out against street gangs, a scourge that also affects my riding, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

The NDP is committing to building safer communities. One of the ways we plan on doing that is by improving the federal witness protection program and giving police forces additional tools to combat street gangs. I speak from experience with the urban context in my riding, but it is just as important to protect potential witnesses who live in the suburbs or in rural areas across Canada.

In Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, the police are working hard to combat the influence of street gangs. My riding is a suburb of Montreal. We are talking about Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Uptown and the suburbs of Lachine and Dorval. Street gangs and human trafficking are serious problems in an area of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce. There is a lot of prostitution, drugs and $25-an-hour hotels, if you know what I mean.

Eastern Lachine also has a lot of problems with drugs and street gangs. Members of the Dalbé-Viau high school community, which is in the area, are afraid because people often come to recruit students after school. The police are very focused on the issue of street gangs in my riding.

When the local population feels safe, it co-operates with the local police force in order to better serve the neighbourhood. However, our police forces do not have enough resources. For local communities in Canada, strengthening the federal witness protection program will improve co-operation with local police forces and the RCMP in their efforts to fight violence and will increase the safety of our communities.

I am talking about the lack of resources. The east end of Lachine has a big problem with street gangs. However, we are lucky because the local newspaper, Le Messager Lachine & Dorval, publishes two pages every week where police station No. 8 provides information about crimes that were committed and asks for help from the community.

I believe this is a good example of a local newspaper working together with the police force. However, it also shows that the police force really must lack resources, since it has to go through the community newspaper to ask for help from witnesses to crimes involving street gangs. This does not happen in other parts of my riding. When such crimes are committed in Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, the newspaper does not work with the police force. The police have to go out and find witnesses, because it is not easy and they are very afraid.

Earlier I talked about prostitution in Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine. As indicated by a Conservative member, one who has worked very hard on the issue of human trafficking, victims are often the ones who become prostitutes. It is very difficult to seek them out and get their testimony. These victims are afraid for themselves and their families. They do not always trust the police; they have to be sought out. If they are not given adequate protection, of course they will be less likely to give testimony.

Since 2007, the NDP has been asking the government for this on behalf of Canadians who do not have legitimate protection. We are thrilled that this is finally before the House today. We have been calling for this for some time, and as my colleagues have mentioned, this government has been in power for seven years. The Liberals did not take care of this matter either. We need to do something, and fast.

I would like to focus on three key points that, I think, still need to be discussed regarding Bill C-51: expanding the eligibility criteria, co-operation with the provinces, and insufficient funding.

As for expanding the eligibility criteria, for quite some time now, the federal witness protection program has been criticized for its eligibility criteria, which are too strict, because not many witnesses are admitted to the program.

According to a Public Safety report, only 30 of the 108 cases assessed for the program were accepted in the year ending on March 31, 2012. This translates into an admission rate of 28%. Since we are good parliamentarians, this compels us to really look at the program's shortcomings and ask some questions here today.

We are talking about witness protection. But the government says it is tough on crime. I do not understand. To be tough on crime, we need help from witnesses. That is the key to solving crimes. If there are no witnesses to provide information, charges cannot be laid. It is key that we protect witnesses because if we do not, they will not come back. No witnesses will ever come forward, and that will not set a good example for others. In the case of street gangs, it is often internal witnesses that come forward. If gang members know that one of their gang friends told the police about a crime that had been committed and then that friend is never seen again, it is a given that they will not want to testify.

The eligibility criteria have been expanded. Bill C-51 says the following, and I quote:

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;

Bill C-51 will expand the eligibility criteria for the witness protection program—and I am very happy about that—in particular, by including a new group of eligible people, those who assist federal departments.

Consider the case of a person who wants to testify against an organized crime group or a street gang. Think about the stress such individuals will experience and the courage they will need to testify. Add to this the fact that these witnesses will most likely be testifying against someone they know. This is where the federal witness protection program comes into play.

As I said earlier, federal departments and agencies that have a mandate related to national security, national defence or public safety will also be able to recommend witnesses for the program.

Human trafficking is a real problem in Notre-Dame-de-Grâce. Many young women work as prostitutes, often without earning any money themselves, because they have a pimp. The documentary Avenue Zero addresses this issue. It raises a number of questions and paints a picture of the human trafficking problem in Canada today. The documentary was filmed in various parts of the country and ends in my riding. It is not a Quebec production as such, but the closing scenes were filmed on Saint-Jacques Boulevard in Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, where a number of seedy hotels used by prostitutes are located.

I recall very vividly a victim who gave testimony to a female RCMP officer responsible specifically for human trafficking. The victim recounted how it had taken her a very long time to testify against the people who were abusing her and forcing her into a life of drugs and prostitution.

It makes my skin crawl. She initially testified that she did not always trust the police because it was hard for them to think of a prostitute as a victim. She stated that she was now very happy because she knew that the City of Montreal was working hard to make officers assigned to neighbourhood police stations more aware of the fact that, in the world of prostitution, prostitutes are not always the criminals, but rather the victims.

She explained how she needed a lot of time and courage, how she feared for her life, and for the lives of her sister and parents. She had to go to the police, but that was hard to do without being spotted. Once she arrived at the station, she had to tell everything she knew and the police recorded it all.

These actions require extraordinary courage. There is no denying the existence of vast sex trafficking networks in Canada. Proposed legislation on human trafficking is before the House right now because trafficking is going on around us and the victims require protection.

When I see that there were 30 people under witness protection, I have to ask myself some questions.

The same goes for drugs. Often, the people involved are young. The Polyvalente Dalbé-Viau is a high school in Lachine, which is in my riding. Lachine has a troubled history because of street gangs. There was once a cannabis café in Lachine. That brought a lot of problems to my neighbourhood. Since then, people have been going to the school and recruiting young people to sell drugs, recruiting young women to go into prostitution, and bullying. If nobody wants to testify against such people because there is no protection, as I said earlier, then what is the point of the program?

Another purpose of Bill C-51 is very useful:

(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;

I think that this is important too because the bill will extend the emergency protection period. It will eliminate some technical problems related to coordination among provincial programs.

The second point I want to discuss about the federal witness protection program is co-operation with the provinces. I think that is very important. As a number of my colleagues mentioned, a certain level of coordination is necessary, but right now, that coordination is not consistent. Ontario and Alberta have called on the government to revamp the witness protection program. Bill C-51 would allow for the designation of provincial and municipal witness protection programs so that some provisions of the act apply, which I think is very good.

It would also authorize the RCMP commissioner to coordinate, at the request of appropriate, non-political officials of a designated program, the activities of federal departments, agencies and services in order to facilitate a change of identity for persons admitted to the designated programs.

As I said, I think that is very important.

And, since the government does not seem to be paying attention, I will repeat what we have been saying all day: there is not enough funding.

It is clear that changes cannot be made and more people cannot be protected unless there is more funding. That makes no sense at all. How can the Conservative government improve the witness protection program if it does not allocate the necessary funding and personnel?

The government must invest money to bring these measures to fruition, as called for by the RCMP. Why did the Conservatives refuse to provide additional funding for this program? No one knows.

It will be very difficult for local police forces and the RCMP to work with the existing budget and effectively manage the growing demand for this program.

If I recall correctly, the current program cost $9 million during the 2012 fiscal year, which is not that expensive. However, if we want to protect people, we have to allocate the money needed. One plus one equals two. This will put a huge operational burden on witness protection groups.

As my colleague and friend mentioned earlier, it is difficult for local police forces to set budgets for protecting witnesses. The context varies from one city to the next. A city like mine, Lachine, has lots of expenses related to all kinds of other things. In my opinion, based on the new criteria, many witnesses will be accepted into the program. We cannot keep accepting people and then refuse to pay for them. That makes no sense. Perhaps the Conservatives do not realize how much money this could cost.

The RCMP websites states the following:

There are instances when the costs of witness protection may impede investigations, particularly for smaller law enforcement agencies.

The RCMP website states that, under the current criteria, there is not enough money to conduct in-depth investigations. There is a shortage of witnesses and no money to protect them.

Today, the Conservative government is telling us that it will admit more witnesses because it is expanding its criteria. That is a good thing; I agree. It is a step in the right direction. But they are telling us that they will admit more witnesses without providing more money. That does not make sense.

We are also concerned about transparency. In May 2010, the RCMP submitted a report to the Minister of Public Safety in which it requested that the witness protection program be enhanced. We were never informed of this. We managed to obtain a copy of this report in December 2012 through the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act.

The government has difficulty being transparent and this is another prime example of that.

In conclusion, this is definitely a positive piece of legislation. I am very pleased that the criteria are being expanded. I believe that protecting victims is the most important consideration in these cases but that this is an area that needs improvement, as proven by the fact that only 30 witnesses were admitted to the program in 2012. If we want to punish crime, we must first be in a position to call witnesses in order to ensure that a crime was indeed committed and that the investigation will be conducted efficiently. In my opinion, it will be difficult to use these new tools without the necessary funding. When the bill is studied in committee, I hope that the government will be open to discussing the possibility of making amendments.

Today, the parliamentary secretary often repeated that the objective of the bill is to expand the criteria. That is fine, but we have to be able to use these new criteria and apply them with the help of the requisite resources.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we have made reference to this bill throughout the day as one that brings us forward in recognizing the importance of the witness protection program. Ultimately, we would like to see it go to committee.

We had a couple of concerns or ideas on the issue and expressed those to the parliamentary secretary in hopes that the government would be open to ideas that might improve the legislation. One is the possibility of having a separate body created to oversee admission to the witness protection program. The second is a mechanism to deal with disputes between protectees and the RCMP.

Could the member provide some comment on those two thoughts?

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

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

When a Liberal member rises and says that we should create an independent organization to protect witnesses, I immediately have to wonder why this has not been done in the past. The Liberals were in power long enough to do something about it.

That said, if the Liberals propose this in committee, although I am unfortunately not a member of that committee, my NDP colleagues will definitely question the witnesses in that regard and try to ensure that better decisions are made.

We support this bill at this time, so that it can be sent to committee for further examination. I am sure that everyone will be open to these kinds of things.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question to my hon. colleague is with respect to the fact that parliamentary secretary after parliamentary secretary stands in the House and asks the NDP to applaud the work the Conservative government is doing. To this point the New Democrats have said good job on bringing witness protection measures forward, but, first, what took so long, and, second, we know the three important aspects of the witness protection program are the eligibility criteria, support to the provinces and funding. We see that the first two are being addressed somewhat in this bill.

The government is addressing some of the concerns raised in the Air India inquiry, as well as by the RCMP and the provinces, but how does my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine think the government plans to fund them when there are no concrete measures in this bill for funding allocations?

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her very relevant question.

My speech had three main points, one of which was co-operation with the provinces. I think this aspect will be improved. Another point was expanding the eligibility criteria for witnesses, and this aspect has been improved considerably.

In the case of Air India, one witness was ready to testify, but unfortunately he died. So, there were no more witnesses, because people were afraid. That is normal.

I am trying to imagine what it would be like to be young and get caught up in a street gang. By all accounts, if I were to testify and denounce someone, I would need to be absolutely certain that I would be protected. It is extremely stressful; it would take a lot of courage to do it.

It is important to provide the tools needed. It would not require much funding. We could compare this to other government spending: for instance, one minister orders photo ops that cost millions of dollars, while another uses a helicopter like a taxi cab. Then the Conservatives tell me there is not enough money to protect witnesses. Come on. What country are we living in?

To answer my colleague's question, there are flaws. The RCMP made three recommendations. It needed more money and the government has not come through in that regard. I hope that the government will be open during review in committee, that it will move forward and invest more money in this. If we want to protect witnesses, then we need money.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on my Liberal colleague's question with regard to the commission, so to speak, that would oversee the witness protection process. I am wondering if my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine would offer her thoughts on the importance of keeping that separate from the RCMP, in a way that does not put undue leverage in the hands of the RCMP in terms of bringing a witness forward.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague said, it is important to decide whether we want an independent agency to take care of that.

A study is absolutely essential. Witnesses can confirm this for us. Do we need an independent agency? I think so. We will have to study this matter further.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We have time for one short question and response.

The hon. member for Trois-Rivières.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening closely to the debate for hours. It is becoming increasingly clear that there is no funding set aside for this program. I would be pleasantly surprised to see something in the budget, but I will not count on it.

I am very disappointed to see that the government is asking everyone to do more with less. It is asking that of us, of the RCMP, of everyone except itself. The bill does not reflect any of the recommendations that came out of the Air India inquiry, for one. That inquiry recommended a transparent eligibility process and more rigorous accountability.

Finally, what is this wishful thinking? What are the Conservatives doing by giving us this bill and asking us to find a way to make it happen?

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member from Trois-Rivières for his excellent question.

That was the key part of my speech. The Conservatives do not understand the costs that will be incurred at the local level. If they did, this bill would not be before us today.

As I said, improvements need to be made in three areas. It is true that the Conservatives improved two of those, but they are basically asking us for a miracle. I am sorry, but these days we cannot do more with less. And that is exactly what the Conservatives are trying to have us believe. That is what they always say. They say that less money will be allocated, but the same services will be available and that more people will have protection with the same services. That is not possible. We can see it happening now. Ministers are telling us that everything is fine, that cuts have been made to very important departments—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order.

The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine will have two minutes for questions and comments when the House resumes debate on this motion.

The House resumed from February 11 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 second time and referred to a committee.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-51.

For years, the federal witness protection program was strongly criticized, in part because eligibility criteria were too strict, which prevented many witnesses from benefiting from it. The program was also poorly coordinated with other federal initiatives.

Even though this system was implemented under the Liberals in 1996, the Conservatives also did not try to address the criticisms by improving it. Since then, the system has not been working well. In 2012, only 30 of the 108 applications reviewed were accepted.

It must be recognized that several attempts were made to reform the system and to correct the flaws of the Witness Protection Program Act. A private member's bill dealing more specifically with family violence was debated in 1999 and supported by the NDP. The Liberal government of the day wanted at all cost to prevent that bill from becoming law. Moreover, fundamental issues relating to program eligibility were not examined, nor issues relating to coordination and funding.

It is often difficult for police forces to find witnesses to testify, because these people are not adequately protected. That was the case with the killings at a block party on Danzig Street, in Toronto, where the police department had a very hard time convincing witnesses to come forward.

That is why, in November 2012, the NDP member for Trinity—Spadina asked for more federal support to ensure that the program can meet its ambitious goals.

In the case of the Air India bombing, even the judge admitted that he was unable to provide the necessary protection to witnesses. One of the witnesses had been assassinated in 1998, thus making his sworn affidavit made to the RCMP in 1995 inadmissible in court. During the 2007 investigation, other witnesses did not want to testify, because they feared for their safety. That was understandable, since they could not get adequate protection.

Bill C-51, which we are discussing here, largely addresses these concerns. It expands eligibility criteria for the witness protection program to include members of street gangs, for example. In addition, federal departments and agencies that have a security or defence mandate may propose witnesses for admission to the program. It also extends the emergency protection period and eliminates problems that arose in coordinating with provincial programs.

Provincial programs are essential to our system, but the present act does not adequately acknowledge that fact. That is why Ontario and Alberta insisted that the witness protection program be restructured at the national level to provide greater recognition for what was already being done.

Bill C-51 also addresses those concerns. It provides for the designation of a provincial or municipal witness protection program so that certain provisions of the Witness Protection Program Act apply.

Bill C-51 also authorizes the RCMP to coordinate the activities of federal departments to facilitate a change of identity for persons admitted to the program.

I will be frank: I have one fear about this bill. I am concerned about the fact that funding for the witness protection program is not addressed in Bill C-51.

This kind of act is popular. No one is opposed to greater protection for the people who make it possible for us to fight crime every day. However, Bill C-51 does not provide enough details on funding that would be granted for the new measures to be implemented.

Why did the government not consider that before introducing this bill in the House? This is really something that concerns us on this side of the House.

However, having discussed the matter with them, I must acknowledge that Bill C-51 enjoys strong support among the general public and first-line workers.

Many people engaged in the fight against organized crime say this bill is absolutely essential. Expanding the program will help fight street gangs, in particular. As we know, street gangs are particularly violent and quick to use intimidation to prevent their members from going to prison. Those who decide to testify against them are very often in danger.

The same phenomenon occurs in south Asian communities. We will recall that several witnesses in the Air India affair were attacked. Those witnesses were not eligible for the protection program. Why? Simply because matters of national security are not eligible for the program.

A third issue would finally be addressed by this bill, and that is coordination between the federal and provincial governments. The provinces, as hon. members know, have been calling for a review of the witness protection program for a very long time. Their main complaint was that coordination was lacking. They have programs that encroach on the federal program in some instances. Consequently, witnesses are sometimes caught in a bureaucratic mess that completely jeopardizes their safety.

Those are three shortcomings that will be corrected by Bill C-51. Members of street gangs who want to make amends will be able to testify against their former cronies without fear of reprisals. People who are called to testify in cases involving national security will also be better protected, and the provinces will finally know where they stand.

Before I move on to my next point, I would like to raise a question that I have. A little earlier, I spoke about the Air India case. Clearly, Bill C-51 greatly improves the witness protection program for such cases. However, the process for accessing the program will still be too obscure, even after the changes made by the bill. The accountability process is still insufficient as well. The government is aware of the problem since it has already admitted that such is the case. I am therefore wondering why it has not taken the opportunity presented by this bill to resolve the problem once and for all.

In summary, I think that the measures included in Bill C-51 are a step in the right direction and will bring about very positive results. However, the bill is still flawed. When an investigation pertains to a crime that involves drugs or falls under federal jurisdiction, the RCMP takes over the case. Yet, the federal police force passes on the cost of witness protection to local police departments, which often do not have the budget to cover it.

I would like to quote the RCMP website, where it states:

There are instances when the costs of witness protection may impede investigations, particularly for smaller law enforcement agencies.

This shows that this prohibitive cost is a hindrance to establishing a truly effective system. As I was saying a few moments ago, this bill sweeps the issue of funding under the rug. That is a major concern for me.

Before I continue, I would like to ask my colleagues from the other parties a few questions. Since 2007, the NDP has been asking for changes to be made to the witness protection program. It took six years for the Conservatives to finally respond to our request. During that time, we repeated our request again and again. Why did it take so long for the government to take action? As I explained, no additional funds are included in this bill. Why is the government changing the rules without providing adequate funding? These are vital questions that require clear and specific answers. Can the government confirm that it will provide adequate funding for the measures set out in its bill? Can the government guarantee that the witness protection program will receive adequate funding, particularly in the long term?

I also have a few thoughts I would like to share with my Liberal Party colleagues. The Liberals are claiming today that the program needs a major overhaul.

That is all well and good and, frankly, I share their point of view. The Liberals were in power for several years before the arrival of the current government. They even had a majority in the House. Why did they not take advantage of the many opportunities they had to carry out this reform? The many criticisms levelled against the program date back to when the Liberals had their majority. They had the power to change things at the time, but unfortunately they chose to do nothing.

There is something else that raises eyebrows. Today, they are proposing amendments to Bill C-51 that they do not consider generous enough, but they do not specify exactly what should be done. Empty rhetoric is fine and dandy, but before taking a stand, there needs to be some substance. I invite them, therefore, to immediately disclose the details of their proposals.

Let me take a moment to go over the ins and outs of this bill. It is my opinion that this legislation is extremely important to the witness protection system. These things must not be taken lightly. This is a question of life or death. The bill will have major ramifications, so we need to take the time to go over it carefully.

Before going any further, I repeat that I am glad that the government has finally decided to address this issue. I am happy to see that the government has heeded the demands that my party and I have been making for years. The simple act of broadening access to the program is already an excellent decision.

As I said, it is nevertheless important that sufficient funds be allocated to the program, otherwise—and this would be regrettable—these wonderful initiatives will not come to fruition. The government’s intentions are good, but it needs to put its money where its mouth is.

The NDP has always been committed to building safer communities. One key way of doing this is by improving the witness protection program. Doing this will respond to an urgent demand being made by police officers across the country.

That is why, despite my reservations, I support the adoption at second reading of Bill C-51. I will do so on behalf of all the people, organizations and associations that share these very same concerns. When we work together, we can achieve tangible results. Bill C-51 could prove a very good example of this.

I am thinking in particular of the provinces that have long been calling for the adoption of a bill of this kind. I am also thinking of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police that recently called on the government to support it in its fight against organized crime. The RCMP has also argued for an enhanced psychological evaluation of beneficiaries, which this bill will allow.

Police officers whose job it is to fight street gangs are particularly enthusiastic about this bill. There is also Justice O’Connor’s report, which in the wake of the Air India attack, issued recommendations along the lines of what the bill proposes.

It is quite evident that all the organizations involved in the fight against organized crime support the adoption of this bill. It comforts me to know that this is a good initiative, despite its faults.

Overall, Bill C-51 is a step in the right direction in the long march in the fight against crime. The bill is a good initiative from this government and, in all honesty, I am quite pleased to support it. I do hope, however, that my colleagues from all parties will take note of my criticisms. This is not an instance where we should be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, as the saying goes. Rather, we should pause for a moment and think about everything that can be done to ensure that the protection program performs optimally.

These brave men and women who appear in the witness box exhibit courage at all times. They make our society a safer, more welcoming place. In so doing, they often take enormous risks. Bill C-51 will provide better protection for them, but we can also do more.

I therefore take this opportunity to appeal to my colleagues. We have already taken a step in the right direction with Bill C-51, but perhaps we should go a little further.

As I mentioned, Bill C-51 contains some promising measures that have been approved by police officers across the country, particularly for the fight against street gangs, which is extremely important in my riding, Alfred-Pellan.

Part of the riding is mainly agricultural, but Alfred-Pellan is in fact very close to Montreal Island. So we have highly urbanized centres throughout the agricultural area, and that yields quite an eclectic mix.

All the police officers in Laval try to make our streets and our community as safe as possible. We New Democrats are committed to working with all those players to build safer communities.

The witness protection program is reassuring for the people who live in my neighbourhood or who are caught up in street gangs. There are unfortunately a lot of them on Laval Island. Because of this program, people know that they have a chance to pull through. At the same time, it provides police forces with additional tools to fight street gangs.

I am talking about tools because I see this as a big toolbox that we can offer our police forces and our justice system in order to fight crime. It really is necessary to work with these tools and to use them as much as possible. Bill C-51 is one of those tools.

Unfortunately, I would also like to criticize my colleagues opposite. They are doing something good with Bill C-51, but they have also done some more regrettable things. For example, the Conservatives recently announced that they would stop funding the police recruitment program. A budget of $400 million was set aside for the police recruitment fund, and they decided not to renew it in 2013.

We in Quebec have benefited from that budget. We received approximately $92.5 million over five years to establish joint forces and to combat street gangs. It was an additional tool for fighting street gangs in Quebec. In the very first year, there were more property seizures and fewer street gang crimes and murders.

There were tangible results as of the very first year. The $92.5 million budget granted to Quebec over five years made it possible to build those squads. The municipalities are working together. There is a major team effort among various cities such as Gatineau, Montreal, Laval, the north shore, the south shore and Quebec City. Everyone works together. Sherbrooke is also involved and is benefiting from the joint forces program. Everyone benefits from it. It is a very good thing.

It is sad to see that this tool is to be taken from our toolbox. We had funding for these joint forces in our toolbox. Bill C-51 adds an important tool, plugging gaps in the Witness Protection Program Act, and some extremely important things, but does not provide any funding.

I can see all the good intentions behind this bill, but I hope the federal government will pony up and allocate a significant budget to this bill so that the municipalities and provinces do not have to absorb the cost. The public safety committee is studying economic parameters for police services. Police forces across Canada are already struggling to manage their funding in the most efficient way possible. We must not give them an additional burden.

This is our opportunity not to do that. I would ask my colleagues opposite to ensure that the funding will be there in the next budget. I honestly hope it will be, because I have the extreme pleasure today of rising with them to support Bill C-51.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her comments and the fact that her party will be supporting this legislation.

I am a little confused though, because when I look at the bill I see it as making administrative changes primarily. It gives the provinces what they have asked for, to be able to designate their program as federal, which will actually save them time, energy and certainly monetary resources. As well, it would expand their criteria, which need to be protected as far as information is concerned, and lengthens the time of emergency protection for people under the witness protection program.

The NDP members talked a lot yesterday, and I am assuming they will today, about the costs. They somehow keep thinking there will be a huge ballooning in the number of people entering the witness protection program. Have they done research on this? I am just wondering, because I have not seen anything to that effect.

Can the hon. member tell me where she is getting these numbers? We have not seen any of those numbers, and I dare say that it is not a good idea to just make assumptions when it comes to important legislation.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for her question.

I did in fact mention it briefly at the beginning of my speech. I gave an example from 2012 about the percentage of cases considered and accepted. That goes with the funding here, however.

I do not want anyone to be alarmist and say that there will be ballooning or anything like that. It is important to mention that. All we are asking is that this bill be supported by adequate funding.

The government has probably done fairly extensive research to find out how much it could cost. I know that my colleague has heard various witnesses testifying before the committee. We just have to ensure that we have the resources and the money to pay for changes brought about by Bill C-51, which is seemingly going to work very well. Nevertheless, the resources must be there.

During the committee study now under way, we have seen that police forces are already struggling. We must not give them more to cope with. We must not place an additional financial burden on the provinces and municipalities. The costs must be borne here.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we all need to understand very clearly that Bill C-51, the witness protection program and its enhancement via the bill, will have an impact in our communities.

The member referred to a tool belt. Yes, our police services across Canada have all sorts of tools they can use, and this is just but one of those tools, in co-operation with crown attorneys and others, they will be able to have access to.

I do believe that it is fair to assume that there will be an increase in demand for the program. Would the member not agree that it is a safe assumption to make and that there needs to be co-operation among the different levels of government on how they will best be able to meet that particular demand for resources, because I hope that we can avoid some duplication that way?

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for his question.

I am not suggesting that people applying to the witness protection program are going to rush the doors, or anything like that. What we are asking for here is to have the means of paying for what we are asking for, the resources to get what we want.

We must ensure that the cost is not passed on to the provinces or the municipalities; the government is already doing enough of that. We must not burden them once again with something like that, by offering nice things that in the end cannot be put in place, because the means to do so are not there.

I will therefore say to my colleague that all I am expecting is that there will be something for the witness protection program in the next budget, which the Conservative government is to present in the coming weeks. I really am expecting it. Quite honestly, I shall be extremely disappointed if there is nothing for the witness protection program or for the joint forces that combat street gangs across Canada.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety said. I was quite surprised to hear her ask us for a cost analysis. I thought that was the government's job.

One thing seems to have escaped the parliamentary secretary. She truly has not done her homework if she believes that broadening the definition of a witness eligible for the program and extending by an additional 90 days the period during which emergency protection can be granted, as stated in the bill, will not result in any additional costs.

Does my colleague believe we should invest new funds given that the number of eligible witnesses will increase and that the period during which emergency protection can be granted will be extended by 90 days?

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Sherbrooke for his important observation.

We try to be good managers. Every member of the House strives to manage public funds as efficiently and effectively as possible. That is the parliamentary secretary and the Minister of Public Safety's overriding duty. I do hope they fulfilled this duty when they drafted Bill C-51. If they neglected to undertake a feasibility study and a financial analysis of the measures included in their bill, I do believe members on this side of the House will be quite disappointed, more so if it turns out they have not yet given any thought to the matter. I hope they have at least begun the process. I do believe I speak for all my colleagues on this issue.

I sincerely hope that new money will be earmarked for this in the next budget. Even if demand stays the same year after year, the cost of the witness protection program is sure to increase.

We need to be good managers. The Conservatives remind us daily that they reign supreme in that regard. I can only hope that they will walk the walk and increase the program's funding in the next budget.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague, who also sits on the public safety committee with me, where she does a very good job in asking the right questions from her perspective. However, I would just like to clarify a couple of things before I ask my question. One of them was prompted by the NDP.

Mr. Speaker, I know that you and I served on the justice committee at one time, but we may also have served on public safety committee together. I recall that we brought in the changes to the witness protection program because there had been rather negative, publicized incidents with that program, resulting in a need for us to make some technical changes to the program. If I remember correctly, some mention was made of the monetary side of the issue during those hearings but that it was secondary to some of the changes that are being proposed in this legislation before the House. Nonetheless, I am glad to hear that the hon. member and her party are going to support this.

In short, I know the history of this, and it is not as much the doing of the NDP as it is a result of a collaborative approach. Therefore, let us try not to take too much party credit for these things and just do the right thing.

Does the hon. member not agree that the current legislation would vastly improve the previous regulatory regime around the witness protection program, and that we should continue to move in the right direction? We do not always get things perfect, but we move in the right direction. Does she believe that this legislation would move in the right direction in protecting people who come into the program?

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The hon. member for Alfred—Pellan has only 30 seconds to answer the question.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

It is a pity, Mr. Speaker.

I thank my colleague for her question.

Members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security do not agree on everything, but the work is truly interesting. People have different points of view and that is excellent, as long as discussions are respectful, as they are between members from various parties who sit on our committee.

As I mentioned in my speech, it is only one tool in the toolbox, but we need it to fight crime. My colleague opposite would probably agree. However, that tool alone is not enough to fight crime effectively. We also need to ensure that our police forces have adequate funding. We need to live up to our responsibilities and be very good managers, once and for all.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying that I will be sharing my time with the member for Sherbrooke. I am looking forward to his remarks. He has been asking very pointed questions so far, so I am very interested in what he has to say.

Mr. Speaker, you will know this very well, because I know that you were involved in some of the activities that were happening in 2007 relative to the witness protection program.

Since 2007, people from the NDP and perhaps even the Liberals have been calling for the government to expand the eligibility for the witness protection programs, to ensure the safety of all Canadians who are in potential danger because they have taken up their duties as responsible citizens. They have stood up and put themselves in jeopardy at times, and we have what I would call a valuable program to help protect them.

However, we have specifically called for better coordination of federal and provincial programs and better overall funding for the program. That is an area members will hear more about further on in my remarks.

That call that went out in 2007 for coordination and an improvement in coordination was echoed in 2009 and again in 2012.

Notwithstanding the fact that the NDP supports the government's attempt with Bill C-51 to improve the witness protection program, we remain concerned that the Conservative government has not committed any new dollars to the system to support an increase in use.

The world has changed very much in the last 10 years—for example, the situation around street gangs and the young people who get caught up in them. Getting them back out of that very concerning behaviour oftentimes only comes about when they are put before the justice system and we have the opportunity to use their evidence in court. However, they are reluctant unless they have the protection of our government.

We are also concerned that the RCMP and local police departments are quite unreasonably being asked to work within their existing budgets. Clearly, that is unrealistic. It should be obvious that it would clearly impede any substantial increase in participation in the program. I believed that part of the purpose was to open the doors wider to the program. However, if it is not funded how can that be accomplished?

We are satisfied with Bill C-51 overall and that it would extend the period of emergency protection and clear up some of the technical problems that have been brought before both the Liberal government before this and the current government. However, we believe that for it to be effective, Bill C-51 should include provisions for an independent agency to operate the program. That was recommended in the report that came out of the Air India inquiry. We are quite surprised that it was not included in Bill C-51. As a result, the RCMP would continue to be responsible for the program, and I will leave this point with the House: that would put the RCMP in a conflict of interest by being the agency both investigating the case and then deciding who would get protection.

Even though I have raised some of Bill C-51's shortcomings and the fact that the Conservatives were late to respond, in fairness to them, they have not been the only ones who have been late. I would go as far as to say that the previous government was even negligent in this.

The New Democrats are pleased that the government has finally listened to our proposals. It has been said that within the committee there was a collaborative effort to try to get to the right place on this. However, I cannot stress enough that, if the Conservative government truly wants to improve the witness protection program, it must also commit the necessary funding. It is required to ensure that those improvements have a chance of working, especially in that new area relative to street gangs. As a society, we cannot put ourselves in the position of telling young people that we want to take them out of the gangs and use their evidence in court but that we would leave them high and dry afterwards, because we know that some of those gangs can be particularly vicious in how they respond to anyone who stands up and tries to do the right thing.

All members of the House on both sides are concerned with making our communities as safe as possible. I believe the witness protection program in particular is one of the more important tools in fighting street gangs. I have talked a bit on that already.

I would remind government members that the federal witness protection program has long been criticized because of its very narrow eligibility criteria. Again, the Speaker and others have raised these concerns previously. There have been continuing complaints of poor coordination with provincial programs and of the low number of witnesses who actually get access to the program.

In 2012, only 30 out of 108 applications considered were actually accepted. I would suggest that very much undermines the program's value. We had 78 witnesses who put themselves at risk but did not get the follow-up protection that was believed to be their right and for which it was worthy of applying. To my mind, that is very concerning.

Changes to the witness protection program have been called for by the NDP since its very inception in 1996. There were glaring omissions in it. Majority Liberal governments and subsequently this government to date have done little. However, I must add the proviso that with Bill C-51, the Conservatives have made some fairly reasonable moves, but there have been few bills over that long period of time that actually got introduced into this House. One was way back in 1999, which was Bill C-223, regarding witness protection during domestic violence cases. I would add, because it is quite often said in this place that the NDP does not support the government's crime bills, that back in 1999 we supported that bill to protect people in domestic violence cases.

The overarching issues of eligibility, coordination and funding still have not been significantly addressed. The NDP is on record for repeatedly asking the government to address these three key issues, and the previous speaker spoke to that to some degree. The criteria for eligibility must be expanded even further. The co-operation that has been criticized between the provinces and the federal government has to be addressed. Of course, the underpinning of the whole process, like every other government program, is based on funding, and if that funding does not increase it is not going to be effective.

In 2012, the member for Trinity—Spadina called for more support for the federal witness protection program. That member pointed to the difficulty Toronto police were having in trying to convince witnesses of the summer's mass shooting at a block party in Danzig Street, which we all heard about, to come forward.

I would reiterate that some aspects of the bill we do support, and because of those aspects, we support the bill overall. It is not as comprehensive and does not go as far as we would like, but it is a reasonable effort, and I acknowledge that.

We are pleased that the bill modestly—and I stress the word “modestly”—expands the eligibility, which was at the direct request of the RCMP. I am quite satisfied that when the government gets advice from organizations like the RCMP, it gives credence to it.

Going back one more time to street gangs, it is good that street gangs were included in the bill. It is a new group of people giving assistance to us. We do not think of street gangs as giving assistance, but within them are some young people who have made mistakes. They have recognized those mistakes, have stood up and have tried to make amends in their own way, and we do need to support that.

Federal departments and agencies with a mandate relating to national security, national defence or public safety would now be able to refer witnesses to the program. I am curious about the words “refer witnesses to the program”. I would like to see stronger words such as “recommend them to the program”. Hopefully we are opening the door for sustained use of the program, which will be of value in that particular area of national security.

I mentioned earlier the emergency protection and the clear-up of some technical problems of coordinating with the provinces.

For emergency protection, we are talking about situations where we are saying people must give evidence in support of a case that is going to help the courts deal with very negative situations, situations of violence. Emergency coverage for those people is really essential.

I see my time has run out, so I will wrap up. I have much more to say, but this time I will leave it to the next speaker.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about the RCMP program and the expansions we made within the witness protection program to include referrals from other agencies like the Department of National Defence and CSIS, for example. In way of explanation, the federal witness protection program is run by the RCMP, so it makes operational decisions. Obviously there is no political influence on how it decides who is eligible for the witness protection program. When 180 people ask to be part of the program and only 30 are accepted, it does not have to do with resources. It has to do with operational assessment of the risk factor and whether those individuals actually need full witness protection program coverage.

I also want to let the member know it is the recommendations that came out of the Air India inquiry that suggested we expand the program. I am sure the RCMP is supportive, but the suggestions did not come from the RCMP. We did get suggestions from the provinces. We have followed and respected those recommendations.

I am sure the member has done consultations within his own riding. Has he heard from stakeholders in connection with the Air India inquiry or anyone else who might be involved with witness protection?

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in my community of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek I have a fairly large South Asian population and, to be quite frank, they were very discouraged over the length of time the Air India inquiry took. I think all Canadians were troubled by that.

I would like to go back to the comments the member made about the RCMP. The only thing I would raise relative to the RCMP that is a little concerning is that, when an organization has to work within its own budget and there is going to be a change in what is administered but it does not get an increase in its budget, that opens the door to a problem. We are asking it to take more witnesses in, and I would hate to think that a lack of funds would cause the organization to decline people who needed protection.

[Jean-François Larose, NDP, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are in a crisis situation. I was a correctional officer for eight and a half years. The people in our institutions, in our prisons, were street gang members.

According to a report released three weeks ago, street gangs, biker gangs and the Mafia have decided to work together more and more. Police forces are already stretched and cannot function effectively. In prisons, support services for informers are inadequate.

We now have an interesting measure that is going forward. But there is no logic in investing one dollar when we need 10 dollars, when we are in a crisis that police services have been unable to resolve. We need to help them as soon as possible.

Can my colleague comment on that?

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the member that it is refreshing to have people in the House who have worked in the correctional facilities, have worked out there one-on-one with those situations we are talking about. It brings a certain gravitas to what we are doing here on a day-to-day basis.

Yes, the world has changed. I tried to stress that during my speech. Regarding longstanding organized crime, we tend to think of the Mafia, but it has changed dramatically. In fact, in the city of Montreal we see that the old guard is being assassinated. There is all kinds of turmoil. It indicates that there may well be a coordinated effort of other criminal organizations coming together in a way that is really troubling, and we will need to protect people who come forward as witnesses dealing with those cases simply because of the extreme level of violence it seems to generate.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be speaking in the House today about Bill C-51. I was also pleased to read the Witness Protection Program Act and Bill C-51, which would make substantial changes to the Witness Protection Program Act, or at least to many of its sections.

Before I begin, I would like to remind those who are watching of the proposed changes in this bill. It is important that I do this before I explain my position.

As I mentioned earlier, broadening the definition of “witness” is a fairly important point. The definition has been changed in the relevant part of the bill. Federal security and defence organizations and services have been added to section (a) of the definition of witness. This is a technical point and I ask those watching at home to forgive me if it is difficult to follow, given that they do not have the current act in their hands.

There is another interesting change that has not been mentioned very often. In the current act, a witness's acquaintance can be protected. For example, a witness's child can also be protected. Under the current bill, someone who knows someone who knows the witness can be protected. That is another small but meaningful change. There are many types of people who could be protected. Again, that is an example of how the definition of witness has been broadened. We assume that these changes will mean that more witnesses will be able to access the program.

Another important change that I mentioned earlier when I asked a question has to do with the possible 90-day extension.

Currently, subsection 6(2) reads as follows:

Notwithstanding subsection (1), the Commissioner may, in a case of emergency, and for not more than ninety days, provide protection to a person who has not entered into a protection agreement.

In this bill, a very important phrase has been added at the end of this subsection. If an agreement has not been signed after the first 90 days, there is a possibility of extending the protection for another 90 days. So it is possible for a witness who has not yet signed an agreement with a protection agency to receive extended emergency protection. That could lead to extra costs for witness protection agencies.

Another interesting point is that, following section 8, the bill adds section 8.1, which concerns the termination of protection. This affords more clarity on how the commissioner may terminate the protection of a witness and also how the witness may request termination of protection. This whole aspect is thus clearer.

A change is also made to section 10, which requires the commissioner to provide the reasons why he refuses to admit a witness to the protection program. The commissioner will now be required to inform several persons whom he was not previously required to inform. Decision making with regard to the program is thus more transparent.

The title "Protection of Identity" will now read "Protection of Information". This will harmonize the protection of personal information under our current federal system. It will also harmonize this entire aspect with provincial legislation. Several consequential changes to section 11 will bring the legislation in line with all the known programs in certain Canadian provinces already doing this work.

In short, these are the major changes made to the Witness Protection Program Act. Now I would like to discuss our position on those changes. As my colleagues have already mentioned, we will support Bill C-51 at second reading. The NDP has been asking the government to make these kinds of changes for a long time. We have asked it to expand witness eligibility for protection programs to guarantee the safety of all Canadians who may be in danger.

The NDP has been insistently calling for better coordination of federal and provincial programs and improved overall program funding since 2007.

That leads me to an important point: funding. I referred to this earlier when I put a question to my colleague from Alfred-Pellan.

We may assume that costs will increase once we understand the amendments that have been made, such as expanding the definition of "witness" and possibly extending emergency protection by 90 days.

According to the statistics, it cost $9 million to protect 30 witnesses in 2012. We are talking about an average cost of approximately $300,000 per witness. By expanding the definition of "witness" in this way, adding a few witnesses will be enough to generate additional costs. It is important to mention that fact. It is also important to realize that these changes could result in costs. I hope the government has conducted an impact study on the costs that would be generated by this bill, to ensure that the necessary changes are made to the budget by allocating a little more money for this purpose, because we must also consider the broader duties that will fall to the witness protection agencies.

Although the NDP supports Bill C-51 because its aim is to improve the witness protection program, it deplores the fact that the Conservative government has so far refused to add additional funding to the system.

On the issue of funding, it is important for the government to realize that costs are likely to increase, as I said earlier. If that is true, then perhaps we need to allow some time for witness protection agencies to adjust to their added workload. If we disregard the capabilities of the RCMP or provincial and municipal agencies, then this bill will not amount to anything.

In the words of my colleague, the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, the proof of the bill is in the funding. Bill C-51 will move forward if the government commits the necessary funds. Otherwise, this initiative will fail.

Speaking of crime, each time the subject comes up for discussion, I like to point out to the government that the NDP has a broader view of crime in general. We made that clear during recent parliamentary sittings. The government always accuses us of being on the wrong side, whereas we know very well that our approach is very different. That is why we sometimes oppose government bills. Their approach is based more on punishment than on prevention. Our party’s broad position on crime is that crimes should be prevented before they are committed. As part of our broader vision of the fight against crime, it is equally important that resources be put in place to prevent crime.

I like to refer to comments made earlier by members in the House. Before we address the House, it is important to understand our colleagues’ position. Therefore, I would like to repeat what my colleague, the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, said yesterday:

Most criminals do not sit at home thumbing through the Criminal Code to see which offence to commit based on the length of the sentence.

This is a rather strong statement to the effect that a criminal will not look up the length of the sentence before committing a crime. We are not going to prevent crime by imposing lengthy sentences. What we need are crime prevention programs at the front end.

That is all I will say about the subject of crime in general. Each time the subject arises, I like to remind the government of our position so that one day it might share our vision.

In conclusion, since my time is up, I will say again that the NDP will be supporting this bill. We are hopeful that some worthwhile amendments will be made when the bill is studied in committee and that it will be improved as much as possible.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his comments and for his party's support of the bill.

One of the changes we would be making is in how the provinces operate their witness protection program. Currently, it is very difficult for them to get identity documents for people under provincial witness programs because they have to go through quite a difficult process with the RCMP. We would be changing that so they could now be federally designated, which would have no costs associated with it. In fact, it would save the provinces money, time and resources.

I wonder if my colleague would be able to comment on that and how he feels it would affect the people he represents, specifically in the province of Quebec.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her question.

In my speech, I may have forgotten to mention a change that affects designated programs. It is an important component of Bill C-51, which modifies the Witness Protection Program Act.

The bill allows for better information sharing with designated provincial and municipal programs.

Obviously, this was difficult recently. Because of bureaucracy, information was not always shared as it should have been. In some cases, this kept witness protection agencies from acting effectively. It interfered with procedures.

The bill creates a better alignment with provincial and municipal agencies, so that information can be shared while remaining well protected.

If I remember correctly, all these changes applied to section 11 and the subsequent sections, 11.1 to 11.3. All the processes are being greatly simplified and harmonized, to eliminate the red tape agencies were faced with previously.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for a top-notch speech.

If I understand correctly, the NDP is determined to build safer communities. One can achieve this by improving the witness protection program and by giving police forces the added tools they need to deal with street gangs.

I would like my colleague to comment on what I read on the RCMP's website, which says:

There are instances when the costs of witness protection may impede investigations, particularly for smaller law enforcement agencies.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

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

I totally agree with its premise, namely the NDP's commitment to make our communities safer for all Canadians.

The member also asked about something he found on the RCMP's website. It is undoubtedly true that the cost of witness protection sometimes impedes the work of local and provincial police forces. It is appalling to learn that some organizations charged with protecting our communities are unable to adequately protect witnesses.

Whenever a witness refuses to co-operate with police, investigators or a judge for fear of reprisals, law enforcement may be unable to obtain the necessary information to lay criminal charges.

It is very important that every witness feel safe and free to supply information without fear.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise to speak to this bill today. I have found the debate and all the preparatory work that we have done in my office in advance of me speaking today very interesting.

Many of the impressions we have about witness protection come from south of the border. We have watched American television and American crime shows for so long that we are very familiar with the concept of witness protection. Most Canadians probably think the system in Canada is as robust, well-developed and tightly coordinated as it appears to be in the United States through those representations we have seen on television.

I was very curious to discover that the program was not that old. I thought I would do a little rundown of the history of the program in Canada, just to give some background to the debate.

At the federal level, the witness protection program only began in 1984 as a series of internal RCMP guidelines and policies. It was designed at a time when the fight against drug trafficking had become a major priority. Its intent was to encourage the co-operation of witnesses who could provide information on organized crime. We can see that the witness protection program is tightly associated with the rise or further expansion of organized crime, specifically in relation to the drug trade.

There were protective measures for those who co-operated with law enforcement in the provinces. Some provinces and municipalities, including British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec already had their own witness protection programs that provided a variety of protection measures, such as relocation for the duration of a trial, for example. However, admission to the federal witness protection program, which is run by the RCMP today, was, and still is, an extreme measure only used in the most severe cases.

The first legislative basis for the witness protection program came with the passing of Bill C-13, Witness Protection Program Act in 1996. The bill sought to strengthen the program by including a clear definition of admission criteria for witnesses and a more public and accountable structure for the management of the program. It provided clearer lines of authority than existed in the program prior to the legislation, which, as I mentioned, was essentially a policy, making the witness protection program the clear responsibility of the RCMP commissioner.

According to 2008 data, there were approximately 1,000 protectees in witness protection program; 700 managed by the RCMP and 300 by other law enforcement agencies. About 30% of these protectees had not themselves acted as witnesses, interestingly, but were in the program because of their relationship to a witness.

Under the Witness Protection Program Act, the commissioner is required to conduct an annual report, outlining statistics about the program, without disclosing details that could compromise its integrity or the identity of protected witnesses.

The 2011-12 annual report showed that of 108 individuals considered for admission to the witness protection program during that period, 30 were accepted, which surprises me. I thought the rate of acceptance would be higher. Twenty-six of the thirty came from RCMP investigations, while four were admitted on behalf of other Canadian law enforcement agencies. The total cost of the program, including RCMP and public servant compensation, totalled $9.1 million.

Under the current Witness Protection Program Act, the RCMP is responsible for making all decisions related to admission and all potential protectees must be recommended by either a law enforcement agency, namely the RCMP, or a provincial or municipal force.

Individuals are admitted to the program based on a number of considerations outlined in the legislation such as: the nature of the risk to the security of the witness; the likelihood of the witness being able to adjust to the program; the cost of maintaining the witness in the program; and whether alternative methods of protecting the witness are available. Once it has been determined that the witness protection program is the best option, a protection agreement is be signed between the RCMP and the protectee, outlining the obligations of both parties. Admission to the program involves a total identity change and relocation. Therefore, when individuals are admitted to the program, it is assumed that they will remain lifelong protectees.

However, protection can be terminated by the RCMP if the conditions of the protection agreement are not met, such as, for example, if the protectee commits a crime, associates with gang members or uses drugs. Protectees can also choose to terminate their protection voluntarily. In either case, their families continue to be protected. It cannot be stressed enough that admission to the witness protection program is the last resort.

There have been some controversies in recent years surrounding the program. In 2008 the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security conducted a review of the federal witness protection program. A few years later, an entire chapter of the Air India inquiry conducted by Commissioner John Major focused on the need for adapting the witness protection program to terrorism cases. Essentially, this bill would update a system that began before the advent of terrorism or before terrorism became an issue in our country and on our continent. This is why it is important that we update the program to take account of these new realities.

Under Bill C-51, recommendations for admission to the program could also be made by federal departments, agencies or services. Bill C-51 would make it possible for federal agencies or services other than the RCMP that might be involved in national security, national defence or public safety to make recommendations for admitting individuals to the program. However, under Bill C-51, the power to determine whether a witness should be admitted to the program and the type of protection to be provided would remain with the RCMP commissioner. This very important change would address the urgent need for the protection of witnesses involved in the investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences.

The need for organizations such as CSIS to be able to offer protection to witnesses was made abundantly clear during the investigation into the 1985 Air India bombing, as outlined in Commissioner Major's 2010 report. The report highlighted the issues surrounding the reluctance of witnesses in the Air India inquiry to co-operate with CSIS investigators who, under the Witness Protection Program Act, could not offer them adequate protection. This bill obviously comes from a recommendation from that inquiry, which is significant in the history of our country and has spurred many changes to public security legislation.

The other interesting aspect of this bill is that it would provide for better coordination with police forces other than the RCMP. This seems to be a recurring theme in the area of public safety, namely the idea that it is becoming more and more important in this complex world in which we live and in this complex reality, that police forces across the spectrum work closely with each other. That has not always been the case, but there is a recognition today that more and more this is part of the need to create a seamless web of national and public security in Canada.

Clause 11 of Bill C-51 states that the Governor-in-Council may, by regulation, add to the schedule of the bill a provincial or municipal program that facilitates the protection of witnesses. Once it is listed in the schedule, this program will become a designated program. By becoming a designated program, it means the federal government can better coordinate the activities of federal departments and agencies whose co-operation is required to provide the protectee, for example, with the proper papers, a new identity and so on. This is a very important part of updating our witness protection regime in Canada and making it much more efficient and effective.

Bill C-51, interestingly, would also extend the period of time during which the commissioner might grant emergency protection to a witness who had not been admitted to the witness protection program. Therefore, there are cases where it is obviously important to provide some kind of interim protection to a witness and by virtue of the bill, the commissioner will be able to offer longer interim protection. Under the current provisions of the Witness Protection Program Act, emergency protection may be granted for no more than 90 days, but Bill C-51 would allow for an extension of that time period by another 90 days, bringing the total time of interim coverage to 180 days.

This is a good bill but there are some issues in it that have not been properly addressed and I would like to outline a couple of those.

Both the Air India inquiry and the 2008 House of Commons committee report on the subject of witness protection recommended that decisions relating to the admission of witnesses to the program and the resolution of disputes arising between protectees and the RCMP be handled by an independent body. In other words, the objective was to provide a third-party view to resolve any disputes between these two parties. In the Air India inquiry, this was envisioned to be in the form of a new position, a national security witness protection coordinator, whose mandate would include assessing the risks to potential protectees, who would work with relevant partners to provide the best form of protection based on the situation and to resolve disputes between the protectee and the program, as I mentioned earlier.

The 2008 committee report recommended that this body be an independent office within the Department of Justice, consisting of a multidisciplinary team that could include police officers, crown attorneys and criminologists. In other words, as in many areas of public policy or many areas of life today, we are moving toward a more holistic approach to issues, which allows us to deal with the many sides of a particular situation using many different kinds of specialists. This office within the Department of Justice, as I mentioned, would have a multidisciplinary team.

Another of the recommendations in the 2008 House of Commons committee report was that potential candidates for admission to the witness protection plan be offered the aid of legal counsel during the negotiation of the admission and the signing of the protection contract. This recommendation arose from testimony about the powerlessness of many prospective protectees when it comes to negotiating their protection agreement. Protection agreements have a huge impact on the lives of protectees or their families and, at present, are negotiated between the RCMP, which has years of experience in such negotiations, and protectees who are unfamiliar with the process and may not understand the implications and scope of the document they are signing. The House of Commons committee therefore felt that the presence of a lawyer would help ensure that negotiations are more fair and equitable.

These are two reasonable recommendations that fit within the widely accepted view that people need support when they are dealing with such complicated issues. One can just imagine the stress that someone contemplating going into the witness protection program would feel. He or she may not be thinking clearly about the issue, may not be familiar with that side of police work because of their always being on the other side of the police-criminal divide. It would seem to me that having the person negotiate without support would leave him or her somewhat helpless, and that is not the Canadian way. We believe in counter-balancing situations so that things are not entirely one-sided. In that perspective, this recommendation makes a fair amount of sense.

Like the NDP we will be supporting the bill. It is really a housekeeping matter in some ways and it would help build another defence against the threat of terrorism. The witness protection program in its current form has provided an effective tool to fight organized crime but it has not been updated to take into consideration cases involving terrorist threats. There is other legislation before the House today, Bill S-7, that is also meant to update our defences against terrorism. This bill connects very well and very logically with that other initiative and with the general vigilance that we are exhibiting in our society to make sure that our communities are safe and secure.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy that the Liberal critic for public safety has indicated that his party will be supporting this very important piece of legislation. I would once again remind the House that we have been working on this since a previous Parliament, so it is good that we finally get something done. That means quite a bit.

I know the member talked about where some of the issues have emanated from, that being the Air India inquiry. Here I will refer to some of the comments that I do not think I heard the hon. member mention in his speech, one by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of British Columbia, who stated:

In the fight against crime, protecting witnesses effectively is essential. We look forward to reviewing the amendments and working constructively with our Federal counterparts to ensure that any changes minimize the risk to witnesses.

I think this piece of legislation does that.

As well, Tom Stamatakis, President of the Canadian Police Association, on behalf of the over 50,000 law enforcement personnel the association represents across Canada, encouraged us to pass the bill quickly and said that he looks upon it as a positive step, as does William Blair, Chief of Police in Toronto.

Does the member have any comments on some of the positive things he has heard regarding this piece of legislation? I did hear him mention that there were some housekeeping perspectives to this, so I wonder if he could elaborate.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in fact the hon. member quoted some very authoritative voices in the policing world, which is very important because our police officers and police agencies need to work together. If police agencies across the country are suggesting or saying quite explicitly that this is needed, I do not see any reason why we should not give a lot of credence to their statements. Obviously, this bill is needed because Police Chief Stamatakis has spoken in support of the bill and so on.

Within the context of our study at the public safety committee on the cost of policing, again I go back to what the witnesses said at committee, that more and more police forces need to work together. This is one good avenue for encouraging collaboration among our law enforcement officers and agencies.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear my colleague on the costs of implementing this bill.

As regards witness protection, with the new technologies that facilitate communications and access to information all over the world, increasingly better coverage is needed to protect witnesses, because information can travel very quickly.

Is it fair to say that, even if this bill had not been implemented, witness protection costs would still have increased, because better coverage is required? Is it logical to think that increasing eligibility will most certainly push up costs?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, as technology evolves and society becomes more complex, whether we are talking about the security industry, if we can call it that way, or the health care system, costs are skyrocketing. Therefore, I do not see why witness protection services would be immune from this trend.

I assume that more resources will have to be allocated to this initiative to ensure that people are adequately protected. Otherwise, a lack of funding would undermine the system's effectiveness and make society less safe.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I know this issue has been canvassed, but I do find it disturbing that even on the current RCMP website, it says there are instances when the cost of witness protection may impede investigations, particularly for smaller law enforcement agencies. Provincial witness protection programs do not apply if the crime is federal in nature, involving drugs for example. The RCMP takes over those cases and charges the local police departments with the full cost. That is disturbing.

In the last year ending March 2012, only 30 people out of a total of 108 considered for the witness protection program actually got to benefit from it.

These seem to be significant problems. Is the member convinced that this legislation solves those problems?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

That is a very interesting point, Mr. Speaker. Resources can always be a constraint on the proper functioning of any kind of system. I was surprised as well that out of 108 requests by individuals to be considered for admission to the program, only 30 were accepted, according to the 2011-2012 annual report. I look forward to discussing that issue at committee, because if the reason people are not getting the protection they need is the cost and if that is impeding law enforcement, then it would be incumbent upon the government, which obviously claims to care so much about police forces and pretends to be so supportive of our police forces, to consider ensuring that adequate resources are available so that the program can be as effective as it can be.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, organized crime is a serious issue in many communities, large and small, across the country. Many jurisdictions look at the potential of the witness protection program to help or assist in addressing some of the issues that organized crime brings to our communities and streets. The program will have a direct impact on that.

Could my colleague comment on how this particular program could benefit police in fighting organized crime?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as the program currently exists, it is tailored to the fight against organized crime.

As I mentioned in my speech, one of the objectives of the bill is to bring the fight against terrorism into the purview of the bill. The way it helps to fight organized crime is by making it easier for the local police forces who are fighting organized crime and who may have a person they would like to see protected to do the paperwork they need to do at the federal level. That is because the bill has a coordinating mechanism that would make it easier for all the federal departments whose co-operation is required to come together and get the paperwork done quickly so that the person can obtain their new identity.

By making the system more efficient, it helps fight organized crime all the way down the line in communities large and small across our great land.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the member for Vancouver Kingsway, Foreign Investment; the member for LaSalle—Émard, Foreign Investment.

Resuming debate. The member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant.

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River.

Today, I am very pleased to be debating a bill to amend the Witness Protection Program Act. It will be somewhat of a change to debate a public safety bill that, unlike what the government has brought in since the beginning of this Parliament, will not increase sentences. It is good to introduce other types of legislation.

Today, we are debating a bill that will give our public safety officers other tools to fight crime. We have to protect people, but we also have to protect repentant former criminals who want to leave crime behind and who, because of their knowledge of the criminal world, give our peace officers information needed to conduct investigations and, ultimately, prosecute criminals.

Make no mistake: if we do not enhance the witness protection program, we will unfortunately reduce our chances of enlisting important witnesses, which unfortunately has happened in the past.

Some people wonder why they should testify if their life is in danger and they are not offered any protection. That is a good question. That is why, in November 2012, my colleague from Trinity—Spadina rose in this House to demand more funding for the federal witness protection program.

For a few years now, the NDP has been calling on the government to expand the eligibility criteria for witnesses in protection programs to guarantee safety for all Canadians who bear witness and who are potentially in danger. We are also calling for better coordination between the federal and provincial programs, but most importantly for increased overall funding for the witness protection program.

In May 2010, the RCMP gave the Minister of Public Safety a report calling for the witness protection program to be enhanced. The government unfortunately waited quite a while before taking action. It is unfortunate that the government did not consider the budgetary implications of expanding the witness protection program.

I think it was the RCMP that best explained that sometimes the costs of witness protection may impede investigations, most specifically in the case of small law enforcement agencies. The government should acknowledge these budgetary implications.

In the case of drug-related crimes, for example, the RCMP takes over the case and charges the local police force for the whole thing. The government needs to understand that offloading these problems onto the provinces only impedes their ability to deliver programs such as the witness protection program.

This is not the way to go about protecting our communities or strengthening ties among federal agencies and provincial and municipal police forces.

True to form, the government decided to take action as soon as the issue started blowing up, instead of acting pre-emptively, before any problems came up.

The federal witness protection program has been the subject of criticism for several years as a result of its strict eligibility criteria, poor coordination with federal programs and the small number of witnesses who are accepted to the program.

I would remind members that in 2012, only 30 out of 108 applications that were examined were accepted. So we have to wonder: did the 78 applications that were rejected have a negative impact on the related legal cases? That would be an interesting question to look at. If these witnesses had been protected, would we have had more convictions?

Since the Witness Protection Program Act was passed in 1996, the Liberal and Conservative governments have done very little to address criticisms of the system. The basic issues of admissibility, coordination and funding have never been addressed.

As a number of my colleagues said earlier, we will support this bill. However, we are extremely disappointed that the government has decided not to provide new funding for the program.

Bill C-51 proposes a better process for supporting provincial witness protection programs. The bill would also make the program available to other organizations with national security roles, such as CSIS and the defence department.

We should remember that, during the Air India investigation, attempts were made against the lives of some witnesses. The law did not permit groups of witnesses for national security cases to be admitted to the program. One witness, Tara Singh Hayer, was assassinated in 1998, and the sworn statement he had given the RCMP a few years earlier was ruled inadmissible. Two other witnesses subsequently refused to appear at the Air India inquiry in 2007 because, unfortunately, they feared for their safety.

At the time, Justice Major had already admitted that he was unable to provide the protection needed by these witnesses. This must never happen again. We must be able to guarantee the safety of our witnesses. Otherwise, our sources of information will dry up, and not enough witnesses will have the courage to testify in court. In such cases, it often takes courage to testify at a criminal trial relating to national security. Therefore, we have to provide them with adequate protection.

This bill will expand eligibility criteria for the protection program to include members of street gangs, which are increasingly prevalent in our large cities. Including them in the witness protection program will give our police another tool to eliminate this scourge.

Federal departments and agencies responsible for national security, national defence or public safety will also be able to refer witnesses to the program, which could help avoid problems such as the ones encountered during the Air India inquiry.

Another important point was raised by the RCMP during the Air India inquiry, and Justice O'Connor made a related recommendation in his report. The bill does not include any provisions that would allow an independent body to oversee the program as per the recommendations made in the Air India report.

A transparent program eligibility process that requires more accountability is another important aspect to highlight and implement. Even the governments recognize that this is a serious problem, although they have not tackled it yet.

An independent body would help prevent any conflict of interest within the RCMP, while supporting a transparent process. There could be a conflict of interest within the RCMP given that it would continue to assume responsibility for the program, which could place it in a conflict of interest situation in the future, since it would be both the investigating body and the one to decide who benefits from protection.

In late 2009 and early 2010, the federal government consulted the provinces and territories regarding the witness protection program. Some of the provinces expressed their concerns at that time. Many provinces have their own witness protection programs. However, for budgetary reasons, they can provide only short-term protection.

As I mentioned, this is a huge expense for the provinces. As we so often hear these days, we have to do more with less. Furthermore, for legal reasons, the provinces need the RCMP in order to obtain new identification documents for the people being protected. Thus, there is a lack of coordination and we really hope to be able to resolve this situation when this bill is examined at committee.

So, one important aspect that this bill will improve is coordination with provincial witness protection programs.

In closing, we are pleased that the government has finally taken a serious look at this problem and that it is responding not only to the RCMP's calls, but also the NDP's calls regarding this matter. We have been calling for these changes since 2007. This bill is not perfect, but it is very good and we will support it so it can be sent to committee for a thorough examination.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I hear members from across the way. First, I want to thank them for supporting the bill. It is something we have been working on. As we previously mentioned not too long ago to another member, this matter was before this House in a previous Parliament. For the edification of my friend, there is something called an election that slowed things down in that regard. This just follows up on that.

With regard to his party taking credit for all the good things in the bill but not the bad, I recall very clearly sitting on committee. It was as a result of some problems identified with the program through the RCMP that we all, as parliamentarians, agreed that we had to do something about it.

If I were the member I would be a little more hesitant before heaping praise on themselves. Sometimes we just do the right thing. Sometimes we just roll up our sleeves and work together in the right direction.

He talked about whether there is sufficient funding. I have been around this place for seven short years. Quite frankly, no matter what the government does, it is never enough. If the government spends too much, the criticism is that it is irresponsible and is throwing money at everything. If the government does not spend enough, according to the opposition, it is too stingy.

Let us dampen this and let us be fair with one another. This is a good piece of legislation. It addresses the inadequacies found in a previous government. We heard from witnesses, and not only Canadian witnesses but also witnesses from the United States. We looked at the American witness protection program and at others.

I wonder whether the member read the debate that occurred at committee concerning this bill and read the positive observations made by witnesses from other jurisdictions, not Canada, that we were moving in the right direction. Maybe he could comment on his observations after having read the testimony of those witnesses.

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question and for the work he has been doing.

I would like him to know, however, that I did not come up with the amendments that were brought forward in the House to improve witness protection.

With regards to the costs he mentioned, I would add that last year, only 30 witnesses were eligible under the current criteria. One can surmise that, in the short term, a greater number of witnesses will be eligible and that tens of thousands of dollars will have to be spent on their protection.

One can also predict that, in the medium term, the program's uptake will increase as people will come to understand they have a greater chance of being eligible for witness protection.

Given that the cost of the program is sure to increase, it would be appropriate to give more resources to the RCMP and other stakeholders so that they can adapt to the new standards and requirements called for in the bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that most Canadians probably think the witness protection program has been in place for many decades, when, in fact, it is relatively new. It was not put in place until former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien saw the value of bringing in the Witness Protection Program Act. We have now seen legislation to make some changes to the program. I think all political parties can safely say that we see the value of the program.

My question for the member is similar to the one I asked my colleague. Could the member comment on the benefits of the witness protection program in addressing the street gang activity found in many of our communities across Canada? I think Canadians want us to do what we can to make our streets that much safer. In fact, the legislation, which enhances what was done back in 1996, would potentially go a long way if it were allowed to continue to grow and evolve to include more things. Would he not concur?

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question and his remarks. This bill will certainly make our communities safer.

Basically, the bill will expand the eligibility criteria and enhance co-operation between provinces. For that to happen, there must be adequate funding.

Organized crime changes constantly. In my community, near Montreal, street gangs do not always work alone anymore. We see increased collaboration between members of organized crime. This makes it harder and harder for police forces to penetrate criminal organizations. Ensuring that witnesses from criminal gangs can now testify under the protection of the law will help police officers bring criminals to justice. This can only make things better.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to share my views and add Scarborough's voice on the bill. However, more important, I am pleased to see that the government is finally taking action on strengthening a program that is so vital to the safety of our communities.

The NDP, front-line community workers and Canadians have been calling upon the government to improve our witness protection program to ensure the safety of all Canadians. Since 2007, the NDP has repeatedly pushed for the expansion of the eligibility criteria, better coordination of federal and provincial programs and better overall and adequate funding of the program. While it is concerning that a government that consistently purports to stand up for the safety of our communities has refused to commit any new funding for this program, the changes included in Bill C-51 have been long awaited and are greatly needed.

Bill C-51 proposes a better process to support provincial witness protection programs and expands the program to other agencies with national security responsibilities. In the bill, the eligibility criteria would expand to requests from the RCMP to include street gang members. In addition, federal departments and agencies with a mandate related to national security, national defence or public safety would also be able to refer witnesses to the program. The bill would extend the period for emergency protection and clear up some of the technical problems that were occurring in the coordination with provincial programs.

Provinces such as Ontario have been pushing for a national revamp of the witness protection program, including more recognition of their existing programs. The bill would provide for the designation of a provincial or municipal witness protection program so that certain provisions of the act can actually apply. It would also authorize the Commissioner of the RCMP to coordinate, at the request of an official of the designated provincial or municipal program, the activities of federal departments, agencies and services in order to facilitate a change of identity for a person admitted into the designated program. Overall, this is a positive step.

I represent a riding where community safety is top of mind and, sadly, a recurring concern for many in the community. Scarborough—Rouge River is a diverse, dynamic, successful area to live. However, areas in Scarborough have been tragically affected by street gang violence. The tragedy that happened on Danzig Street in Scarborough this past summer is something that is not far from my mind or the minds of many Scarborough residents. The death of two young people and 23 wounded while enjoying a neighbourhood barbecue is something that should never have happened or be repeated. We have seen ongoing efforts by courageous and committed Danzig residents, Scarborough residents and organizations, as well as city officials, to help the community recover and avoid any future tragedies such as this.

The NDP is also committed to building safer communities and one way is through an improved witness protection program that keeps our streets safe by giving police additional tools to fight street gangs by allowing for more members of the community to feel safe in coming forward as witnesses. I am proud that for years the NDP has been pushing the government to action to strengthen this program by expanding the eligibility criteria and providing adequate funding to support such a vital piece of our justice system, as well as better coordination of the federal and provincial programs.

New Democrats have also been pushing for crime prevention strategies and support for programs that seek to engage and empower our youth. It is amazing to see a Toronto resident donate his own money for resident development projects such as after-school projects and programs. In turn, however, we should have federal funding and leadership to support our youth, and prevention programs that discourage youth from getting involved in crime.

While late to respond to these growing issues, New Democrats are pleased to see the government listening to our requests to expand the witness protection program. In the year ending in March 2012, the federal witness protection program admitted only 30 people out of a total of 108 considered, with a cost of just over $9 million. The expansion of the program is not only important to New Democrats, but the RCMP, the provinces and people on the ground working to combat street gangs all agree. An extremely important addition to this is allowing those seeking to leave gangs access to the program. These improvements would help to improve co-operation with local police and the RCMP in the fight against gang violence and to make our communities safer.

We know there are challenges with our current witness protection program, some of which are addressed in the bill. Since the Witness Protection Program Act passed in 1996, both the Liberal and Conservative governments have done little to respond to the criticisms of the system. For example, the inability to protect witnesses was an obstacle to the prosecution in the Air India bombing case. As we know, witness Tara Singh Hayer was assassinated in 1998, making his affidavit inadmissible as evidence in the court. Two other witnesses refused to appear before the Air India inquiry in 2007, citing fear for their safety and feigning memory loss.

Moreover it is sad and certainly frustrating from the point of view of the Toronto police that they experience challenges and resistance from witnesses to come forward when investigating crimes, such as the shooting on Danzig Street and the shootings that have taken the lives of many members of my community. The government needs to provide local departments with the support they need and the support that is necessary to make sure that witnesses come forward. While we would all like to believe that the government is committed to improving this important program, without the necessary funding to carry out the changes, we fear that the improvements that are needed for our communities may not actually happen.

We are concerned that the Conservatives seem to be assuming that the RCMP and the local police departments would work within their existing budgets, which would hinder the improvement of the program. There is already a high cost to the local police departments. While there are provincial programs, if the crime is federal in nature or involves drugs, the RCMP takes the case and charges the local police department the full cost, which many local or small police departments just cannot afford. The RCMP's own website states, “There are instances when the costs of witness protection may impede investigations, particularly for smaller law enforcement agencies”.

If the Conservatives truly want to improve the witness protection program, they must commit the funding to ensure this happens. The NDP will continue to push the federal government to work with the RCMP and the provinces to dedicate funding to the witness protection program and ensure that local departments can continue the important work that they do.

It is also disappointing that the bill does not include more of the recommendations that were included in the Major report from the Air India inquiry, including provisions for an independent agency to operate the program or to have oversight of the program. It was recommended that an independent agency operate the program. This would allow for a more transparent and accountable process for admissions into the program. This is something that the government also identified as a serious problem, but as we see in Bill C-51 it has done nothing to address it. Transparency seems to be a persistent issue for the current government, but it is still curious why it will not commit to making the process more transparent.

Once again, the changes in Bill C-51 are an important step forward for the community and for the safety of all Canadians. Front-line workers in my community and across the country have long awaited these improvements. Moreover, we see the government listening to the NDP who have always been committed to building safer communities through an improved witness protection program.

Conversations with the local police department in Toronto and with other front-line workers who I talk to on a regular basis have very clearly indicated to me, as well as to my staff, that if the witness protection program were improved, we would see many more people in our communities willing to be witnesses. If our witnesses are taken care of, then they will not be victimized. We want to make sure that those members of our community who are bravely coming forward to be witnesses are not being victimized and that their families are not being victimized.

I hope to see more bills such as this in the future that demonstrate that the government is starting to listen to New Democrats and Canadians, and that we can actually work co-operatively and support the system we have in our Parliament.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was going to get up and say, “Holy smoke, I have not heard that before”. After 30 years of policing, I still have contacts with many members, especially being a resident of what is considered southeastern Ontario. I have never in my time in this place heard of a member of a police force tell me that improvements to the Witness Protection Program Act would have solved a particular case, or more witnesses would have come out, or that someone who qualified to be protected under the witness protection program was not. I am not saying that does not occur. I am not saying that the hon. member has not heard that. I am just saying that in working with the Canadian Police Association and as a member of the Conservative police caucus, of which there are more than 10 of us, I have never heard that. From various regions in Canada right across the country and various police forces, I have never heard that.

I ask the hon. member, if that is occurring with the Toronto Police Service, would she please give that information to us and we will be sure to bring that to the attention of the Minister of Public Safety.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his comments on his own experience and for his interest in Toronto's specific needs.

I have been a member of the House for just under two years. From day one, a very sincere concern of my community has been the safety of the community. Speaking with members of the community, with front-line workers, as well as with police officers on the ground and administrators within the Toronto police, time and time again, I heard the concern that if there were a better witness protection program, if people in the community had better protection measures to be witnesses, we would be able to get more people involved.

I thank my hon. colleague for the service he has provided to the southeast region of Ontario. Maybe the needs of southeastern Ontario are different from Toronto's. I have not been a police officer in either one of those regions, so I cannot speak to that. What I can speak of is what community members are saying to me and what police officers and front line-workers are saying directly to me, and that is that we would have more people.

I have spoken with people who have witnessed crimes but are too scared to speak of them because they are scared that the gang member is going to attack their own mother next or that their own sister will be attacked next. A direct quote I can say from many, many people is, “I'm not going to be the snitch, because then it's my family that's next”.

Therefore, if people knew they had better protective measures, they would be coming out to be witnesses in cases.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I took an interest in the exchange that took place about the amount of resources and about enticing people into this program for the sake of their own safety.

One of the issues that has not been discussed is the issue of human trafficking. At least I have not heard it yet. There are examples in the United States and other jurisdictions around the world, where victims of human trafficking were made more aware of programs that exist in witness protection programs to allow them to escape the system they are in. Let us face it; human trafficking, especially in a large international organization, is incredibly oppressive. There really has to be that strong incentive and that system has to be strong enough not only to allow these people to escape the organization they are in, but they also have to have confidence for it to result in a prosecution of that international ring.

I think I understand what the member is getting at, but does this program specifically help in the area of human trafficking? Perhaps this could entice some victims to become involved.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my understanding of the proposed changes is that, because human trafficking with an international ring would be a federal issue, it would be something the RCMP would investigate. If someone is seeking protection, my understanding is that the RCMP investigates because it is a federal jurisdiction.

The changes with Bill C-51 would actually improve the eligibility criteria to allow more people who seek protection to see that protection made available to them.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Manicouagan.

Bill C-51 concerns the witness protection program. It is a vital element in the fight against organized crime and, increasingly, crime involving street gangs. It offers significant benefits for the public. The co-operation of key witnesses means valuable support for law enforcement agencies and helps to enhance the safety of Canadian communities.

Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, makes long-awaited changes, and we are glad it was introduced. The NDP has in fact been calling for these new legislative measures for a very long time. My colleague from Trinity—Spadina also called for more support for the federal witness protection program in 2012. She pointed to the difficulty experienced by the Toronto Police Service in persuading witnesses to the killing that took place at a neighbourhood party on Danzig Street to come forward.

The NDP is committed to building safer communities, and one way of doing this is to improve the witness protection program, bringing peace to our neighbourhoods and giving the police additional tools to enable them to combat street gangs.

The NDP has repeatedly asked the government to broaden witness eligibility for protection programs in order to guarantee the safety of all Canadians at risk. In 2011-12, the federal witness protection program accepted only 30 out of 108 candidates, at a cost of just over $9 million.

Bill C-51 would thus broaden the eligibility criteria for the witness protection program to include street gang members, as well as witnesses recommended by CSIS and the Department of National Defence.

Federal departments and agencies whose mandate involves national security, national defence or public safety will also be able to refer witnesses to the program. Those working to combat street gangs believe that providing access to the program for gang members who wish to leave will represent an important addition to the tools they need.

Although the Conservatives have taken their time in acting, we are pleased that the government has listened to our requests to expand the witness protection program. Since 2007, the NDP has been strongly urging better coordination of the federal and provincial programs.

Provinces like Ontario and Alberta have pressed for the restructuring of the witness protection program at the national level, in particular by requesting better recognition of the programs in operation. A number of provinces run their own witness protection programs, which in many cases provide short-term assistance only.

Moreover, obtaining new federal identity documents for program participants requires co-operation from the RCMP. Bill C-51 provides for the designation of a provincial or municipal witness protection program, as a result of which some provisions of the legislation will apply to such a program. At the request of the designated official of the applicable provincial or municipal program, it also authorizes the RCMP commissioner to coordinate the activities of federal departments, agencies and services in order to facilitate a change of identity for a designated program protectee.

Lastly, the bill proposes extending the period of emergency protection available to a witness from 90 to 180 days, which is substantial.

For some time, the federal witness protection program has been criticized for its overly strict eligibility criteria, its poor coordination with federal programs and the low number of witnesses admitted to the program. This bill attempts to address these shortcomings, and although the NDP supports the bill, we believe that the government failed to include a number of measures that would have led to genuine reform of the witness protection program.

Here are a couple of examples. To begin with, we are dismayed that the Conservative government refused to inject new money into the system. If the Conservatives really want to improve the witness protection program, they need to allocate funds so that these measures can be implemented. Moreover, insufficient funding could compromise the positive results that would stem from enhancing the process of supporting provincial programs. The Conservative government does not acknowledge the significant costs incurred by local police forces.

There are provincial witness protection programs, but if the crime is a federal offence, or if it is drug-related, the RCMP is responsible for the file even though the local police forces have to foot the bill, which many cannot afford to do.

For example, in my riding, Beauharnois—Salaberry, which is on the U.S. border, in one particular place there is a lot of drug and weapons trafficking. In fact, there was a report in the Quebec media on the problem in 2011.

The Minister of Public Safety was even asked to go to Dundee, a municipality in my riding, where people, especially farmers, receive a lot of threats. They get offered money and do not really have any choice but to accept. They are afraid to report what is going on and they talk about it with their municipal council.

In winter, the traffickers move about over the lake. In the summer, they go into the fields and destroy crops. It is very difficult to do anything about it because the RCMP do not have enough money.

Furthermore, a border crossing in Franklin was closed in 2010. So there are fewer officers on patrol, which only makes surveillance more difficult. The RCMP said as much on its website:

There are instances when the costs of witness protection may impede investigations, particularly for smaller law enforcement agencies.

Yet, the Minister of Public Safety stated that the RCMP and local police services must make do with their current budgets. How does the Conservative government intend to improve the witness protection program, and make people safer, when the RCMP has already made it known that it does not receive adequate funding?

In order to improve the safety of communities, local police forces must receive the support they need to recruit witnesses regarding matters involving street gangs or drug and weapons trafficking.

The NDP is also dismayed by the fact that the government did not adopt a number of important recommendations from the investigative report on the Air India affair. In his report, Justice O'Connor stressed the need to create an arm's-length organization responsible for the witness protection program in order to make it more transparent. He also recommended that an independent advisory panel be created to play the role of watchdog and increase accountability.

Since this bill makes no changes in this regard, the RCMP will continue to assume responsibility for the program, which exposes it to a potential conflict of interest given that it is responsible for both conducting investigations and deciding who will receive protection.

The Air India Commission is not the only body to have highlighted the need for an overhaul of the witness protection program. In 2008, a committee of the House of Commons also recommended that the program be transferred to an independent organization.

Why is the Conservative government refusing to commit to making the program more transparent? The RCMP has also called for the establishment of an independent advisory panel in order to provide greater transparency.

Although the Conservatives took their time introducing this bill, we in the NDP are glad that the government is listening to our call to expand the witness protection program. However, it has not gone unnoticed that Bill C-51 does very little in terms of the changes that are required.

Some of the government's decisions, including the decision to not provide additional funding to the RCMP and local police forces, jeopardize the improvements that Bill C-51 would make to the program.

I urge the Conservative government to provide police forces with the resources they need in order to properly run this program, which is so important for the safety of our communities. I also call on the government to do everything in its power to increase the transparency of the program.

On our side of the House, we will continue to push the government to address the legitimate concerns of a number of stakeholders, including the RCMP and local communities.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, again, this bill would primarily make administrative changes that would actually save the provinces money, time and resources, because it would be federally designated and they would be able to get information and identity changes much more quickly for the people under their witness protection program. It does not actually expand the program. There is one criterion that would change, that being that individuals who are involved, whether it be in public safety, national defence or CSIS, could be referred to the witness protection program.

I have asked all day if the New Democrats could cite any kind of reference, study or documentation saying that the witness protection program costs would go up. We have done a lot of work on this bill. We have talked with RCMP and with public servants. There has been no cost associated with this. Is this something the hon. member has looked at herself, or is this just something that someone suggested she say?

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her question.

I would like to take the opportunity to ask her that same question, given that it is the Conservatives who are in power and who introduce bills.

Did they conduct their own studies and assess the costs that would be incurred? Did they assess the cost of extending emergency witness protection from 90 days to 180 days?

Did they then provide additional funding so that the police can do their job?

Did they read on the RCMP website that the organization already has trouble carrying out investigations because it lacks the funds to get people to testify?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, crime prevention is an important issue for the constituents of Winnipeg North. The bill would move us forward on this issue in the sense that it would allow for an enhanced witness protection program, or the potential growth of the program. I agree that additional resources might be necessary in order to meet the future demands of the program.

We want to see a program that ultimately will assist our police agencies and our crowns in getting the type of convictions that are necessary, while also protecting those individuals who take a chance by coming forward and testifying with possible ramifications. It is important to my constituents that we prevent crimes from happening in the first place.

Could the member provide comment on what she believes the real impact of the program would have on organized street crime in many communities across Canada?

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this bill is a step in the right direction. As we have all said today, it is a step in the right direction for witnesses as well as for the safety of our municipalities.

However, it is somewhat disappointing that the Liberals, who are in agreement today, did not do anything when they were in power and had the chance to take action.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, because of the member's response, I want to make note that it was the Liberal Party that introduced the program back in 1996. Our party introduced the idea and the concept to the New Democrats. Maybe the member might want to reflect on her last answer.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would say that even after something has been created, it can always be improved upon.

Since this program was created years ago, changes have been needed to increase the safety of our municipalities.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the motivation behind my speech in the House regarding the changes to the Witness Protection Program Act has to do with the need to address issues related to the involvement of a disadvantaged youth population in criminal and marginal activities in response to discrimination based on ethnic and cultural origins.

As I have already indicated in a previous intervention, all too often, young people become involved in criminal groups or gangs in response to imposed marginalization and because they have accepted the role that has been assigned to a certain segment of the population or to certain individuals. My arguments are based on my own personal experience as a criminal lawyer and on my experience dealing with young people who have a record with Quebec's director of youth protection.

This premise opens the door to a summary examination of the context of anomie that leads to group mentality and the predominance of an artificial authority figure exerting undue influence on a certain stratum of youth, thereby perpetuating the downward spiral that exists in many societies dealing with the scourge of street gangs.

I will now clarify the concept of anomie. I will simply define the terms used in the field. The term “anomie” is used to describe societies or groups within a society that are unstable as a result of a lack of commonly accepted standards, whether implicit or explicit, or, worse, as a result of the presence of rules that promote isolation or even predation rather than co-operation.

My arguments and comments will be based on my professional experience, as they have been in the past. The group mentality phenomenon among young people, as seen in street gangs—if they can be referred to as such—on Indian reserves in northern Quebec, is related to the social upheaval in and dysfunctionality of the broader community.

The problem is that there are too few professional role models and very few parental role models. When we look at the reasons why a young person joins a gang or a criminal movement, a lack of supervision and the lack of a positive parental role model are often at the root of the problem in most, but not all, cases.

In short, to fill this void, young people often turn to negative role models. Some somewhat older role models in the community who were also caught up in the group mentality and who were also members of street gangs when they were young, have become the mentors—if I can use that expression—and leaders of these groups, which perpetuates the cycle of crime on Indian reserves. These negative role models make sure that their needs and addictions are taken care of by basically placing younger members of the gang at their beck and call.

I submit this respectfully, and I will talk more about this in the future.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #614

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)