This bill was last introduced in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session, which ended in September 2013.
Vic Toews Conservative
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.
This is from the published bill.
This enactment amends the Witness Protection Program Act to, among other things,
(a) provide for the designation of a provincial or municipal witness protection program so that certain provisions of that Act apply to such a program;
(b) authorize the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to coordinate, at the request of an official of a designated provincial or municipal program, the activities of federal departments, agencies and services in order to facilitate a change of identity for persons admitted to the designated program;
(c) add prohibitions on the disclosure of information relating to persons admitted to designated provincial and municipal programs, to the means and methods by which witnesses are protected and to persons who provide or assist in providing protection;
(d) specify the circumstances under which disclosure of protected information is nevertheless permitted;
(e) exempt a person from any liability or other punishment for stating that they do not provide or assist in providing protection to witnesses or that they do not know that a person is protected under a witness protection program;
(f) expand the categories of witnesses who may be admitted to the federal Witness Protection Program to include persons who assist federal departments, agencies or services that have a national security, national defence or public safety mandate and who may require protection as a result;
(g) allow witnesses in the federal Witness Protection Program to end their protection voluntarily;
(h) extend the period during which protection may, in an emergency, be provided to a person who has not been admitted to the federal Witness Protection Program; and
(i) make a consequential amendment to another Act.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.
The Speaker Andrew Scheer
There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.
The Speaker Andrew Scheer
The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members
Agreed.
No.
The Speaker Andrew Scheer
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:)
The Acting Speaker Bruce Stanton
I declare the motion carried.
When shall the bill be read a third time? By leave, now?
Some hon. members
Agreed.
Vic Toews ConservativeMinister of Public Safety
moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
Candice Bergen ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise and speak in support of Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act.
At the onset, I was going to thank the opposition members because up until this point they have been supporting this very important piece of legislation. However, it is very disappointing to see the games that we have just witnessed and their delay tactics in trying to stop this important piece of legislation from being advanced.
It is important that witnesses be protected. It is important that police officers and front-line officers be protected. That is why we have brought forward this legislation, and it is very disappointing and troubling to see the opposition members delay this important legislation as they have been doing.
Strengthening our federal witness protection program should not be a partisan issue. Rather, it is an issue of public safety and effective justice.
In general, we are all in agreement on the critical role that witness protection plays in our criminal justice system. I believe that most Canadians understand that in order to give our police and courts the best chance to apprehend and convict offenders, we need individuals to feel confident in moving forward to help with investigations. In fact, protecting witnesses is vital to our justice system. These are individuals who have agreed to help law enforcement or provide testimony in criminal matters. Their input and help is vital.
The end goal is to remove criminals from our streets and indeed make our communities safer. In many cases, these individuals have inside knowledge about organized crime syndicates or the illicit drug trade because they themselves are involved in these elements. The information that they have agreed to provide to authorities may be invaluable, and it could place their lives at risk.
Witness protection is recognized around the world as an important tool that law enforcement agencies have at their disposal to combat criminal activity. In the case of organized crime in particular, these witnesses are often the key component to achieving convictions. To ensure a fair and effective response to organized crime, terrorism and other serious crimes, government and police agencies must provide protection to informants and witnesses who could face intimidation, violence or reprisals. The safer witnesses act contains a number of proposed changes to the Witness Protection Program Act that would do just this.
These changes fall within five broad areas, and I will speak on those areas.
First, the bill would promote greater integration between the provincial and federal programs by enabling the provinces to have their respective programs designated under the federal act. There would be some very positive benefits to the provinces' programs with these changes, but chief among those benefits is that the provincial protectees would be able to receive a secure identity change without having to be admitted to the federal program. As members know, under the current system, provincial witness protection programs provide a range of services on a case by case basis, including short-term protection and limited financial support. In cases where it is determined that provincial protectees require secure identity changes, they must be transferred into the federal program. That is the way the process works now. This can cause delays. It can be very difficult for these individuals to get the documentation they need and it can take a very long time.
As we consulted with stakeholders, these problems were identified and it was deemed necessary to make these changes that are proposed in Bill C-51 to address this concern. Stakeholders from the provinces indicated that the requirement to transfer their protectees to the federal program for secure identity changes was cumbersome and time consuming. With Bill C-51, we would address this concern. We would do that by allowing the Minister of Public Safety to designate a provincial program, thereby allowing the RCMP to work directly with that designated program to help obtain secure federal identity documents for a protectee. Again this would eliminate a lot of red tape and process, and instead ensure that these individuals who are under the witness protection program receive the identity documents that they need in a timely manner. We would also provide a more efficient and secure process for obtaining these documents by identifying a single point of contact for each designated provincial witness protection program, again eliminating red tape and redundancy, making the process proceed in a more timely manner.
The second change under Bill C-51 relates to secure identity changes as well. Federal organizations would be required to help the RCMP obtain secure identity changes for witnesses in both the federal program and in designated provincial programs.
To ensure a streamlined process, the RCMP would continue to act as a liaison between the provincial and federal programs. Again, it would be a better and more streamlined way to get the important identity documents that witnesses who are under the protection program require.
Third, Bill C-51 would broaden prohibition disclosures, ensuring protection of provincial witnesses and information at both the federal and provincial levels. Again, it is a very important change that has been needed. We heard about it at committee many times in consultation with stakeholders. We heard that broadening the prohibitions of information that could be released was an important part of the witness program that had to be changed. This change addresses calls by the provinces to ensure that witnesses in their programs are protected from disclosure of prohibited information throughout Canada. I will speak more to this important change in a moment, because it really is a very critical part of the bill.
The fourth change proposed under the safer witnesses act is to expand which entities are able to refer individuals to the commissioner of the RCMP to be considered for admission into the federal program. Currently, only law enforcement agencies and international criminal tribunals can make such referrals. Bill C-51 would allow federal organizations that have a mandate related to national security, defence, or public safety to refer witnesses to the federal program. These organizations may include CSIS and the Department of National Defence. This was a recommendation that came out of the Air India enquiry and the recommendation that who would be allowed or considered for this program be expanded. Our government responded by making these changes and by introducing Bill C-51.
We feel it is so important that bill is passed, and we really hope that the opposition will stop playing any kind of games and work with us to get this important piece through. They are laughing, but it is really not a laughing matter at all, not when we are talking about protecting witnesses, which, in the long run, protects Canadians. We are talking about gangs, drugs and organized crime. It is not a laughing matter at all. It is very serious.
The bill addresses a number of other concerns raised by federal and provincial stakeholders, such as allowing for voluntary termination from the federal program and extending emergency protection to a maximum of 180 days, up from the current 90 days. Right now, under the current legislation, someone could be under an emergency protection order for 90 days, but we want to extend that so that they could be protected in an emergency situation for up to 180 days. This received broad support from the witnesses as well as stakeholders.
Together, these proposed changes would serve to strengthen the current Witness Protection Program Act, making the federal program more effective and secure for both the witnesses and those who provide protection. This is the goal of the program, to keep those involved and their information safe and secure.
As I mentioned, I want to go back to one of the changes that is related to the disclosure prohibitions. Before I go into that, I want to say that we heard in testimony, whether it was from the police, Tom Stamatakis of the Canadian Police Association, or other law enforcement agencies, that the protections required are certainly not just for the witnesses who are involved in the witness protection program. We are extending that to cover the law enforcement people who have been organizing and working with them. These are sometimes undercover police officers or other law enforcement individuals who currently are not protected under the prohibitions for information. Bill C-51 would give front-line officers and law enforcement workers the protection that they need. Again, the Canadian Police Association is very grateful and supportive of this legislation.
Currently, the act prohibits the disclosure of information about the location or change of identity of a current or former federal protectee. That is basically the only current prohibition. In stakeholder consultations, some provinces requested that these disclosure prohibitions be extended to include information about provincial witness protection programs and those they protect. The safer witnesses act addresses this concern with changes that would broaden the prohibitions on disclosing information in a number of ways.
We are going to extend and broaden what kind of information cannot be released. I think all Canadians, including all members, would agree that when someone's identity needs to be protected, there are so many pieces of information that, unfortunately, could tip off somebody who would want to do them harm. Therefore, it is very important that we broaden the information that is prohibited from being released.
First, the safer witnesses act would prohibit the disclosure of information related to the individuals who are protected under designated programs, and we are going to expand it to designated provincial programs.
Second, it would prohibit the disclosure of any means or method of protection that could endanger the protected individual or the integrity of the programs themselves. Again, that broadens it. The language is within jurisprudence and other language in the Criminal Code. This includes information about the methods used to provide or support protection and record or exchange confidential information as well as data about the location of secure facilities.
Third, it would prohibit disclosure of any information about the identity or role of persons who provide, or assist in providing, protection for the witnesses. That is where law enforcement comes into play. Part of their job is to assist and protect witnesses. They need to be protected too. That is why the bill is so vital and why law enforcement and stakeholders across the country have been asking for it and why it is important that we pass the bill.
Further, the bill would clarify language in the current act to ensure that these measures apply to situations where a person directly or indirectly discloses information. I want to stress that the bill also specifies that one must knowingly reveal this information for it to be an offence. This means directly and intentionally releasing information with the knowledge that one is releasing information that is prohibited. The bill specifies that if someone does it unknowingly, it would not be an offence.
As with many laws regulating privacy and personal information, there are exceptions to these disclosure prohibitions. Bill C-51 includes changes that would further strengthen the legislation in this regard. For example, as stated in the current act, a protectee or former protectee can disclose information about him or herself as long as it does not endanger the life of another protectee or former protectee and if it does not compromise the integrity of this important program. Under Bill C-51, the wording would be changed to remove the reference to the integrity of the program and to clarify that the protected person can disclose information if it could not lead to substantial harm to any protected person.
The current act also allows for disclosure of prohibited information by the RCMP commissioner for a variety of reasons: if the protected person gives his or her consent; if the protectee or former protectee has already disclosed the information or acted in a manner that results in disclosure; if the disclosure is essential to the public interest for purposes such as investigations or the prevention of a serious crime, national security or national defence; and finally, in criminal proceedings where the disclosure is necessary to establish the innocence of a person. There are some good safeguards in place regarding the prohibition of information.
Under the safer witnesses act, we would change the wording as it relates to the RCMP commissioner disclosing prohibited information for the public interest. Instead, under Bill C-51, the commissioner may only disclose this information when he or she has reasonable grounds to believe that it is essential for the purposes of the administration of justice. Furthermore, we propose a change in the wording related to disclosure for national security purposes. Under Bill C-51, the commissioner could disclose prohibited information if he or she “has reasonable grounds to believe that the disclosure is essential for...national security or national defence”.
Along the same vein, Bill C-51 contains several proposed changes that would authorize the RCMP commissioner to disclose information in specific situations. He or she could disclose information about both federal and designated program protected persons for the purpose of providing protection to federal protectees or for facilitating a secure change of identity for provincial protectees. The commissioner would also be able to disclose information about federal and designated program protectees in situations where a protected person either agrees to the disclosure or has previously disclosed information, such as if the protected person has revealed his or her change of identity to family or friends. Again, some of the same safeguards are in place.
Additionally, the commissioner would be authorized to disclose information about the federal program itself, methods of protection and the role of a person who provides protection under the program. This would only be done when the commissioner had reasonable grounds to believe that the disclosure was essential for the administration of justice, national security, national defence or public safety.
This is a good and concise overview of those elements of Bill C-51 that relate to safeguarding and disclosing information that would compromise the safety of a protected witness or those who provide protection for that witness.
I would like to close by taking a few minutes to talk about some concerns raised in committee. We heard some concerns from the opposition that this would mean rising costs. However, we heard directly from witnesses, including the RCMP, the Minister of Public Safety, the Assistant Commissioner of the RCMP and other stakeholders that rising costs were not anticipated.
We also heard some concern that there would be a great influx of witnesses coming into the federal program. Again, witnesses and experts told us that the prediction was that there would not be a great influx. The number of witnesses accepted into the program fluctuates from year to year, but a huge number coming in now is not anticipated. Admission to the program is based on a set of criteria found under section 7 of the act. Only one of those is cost.
Todd Shean, the RCMP Assistant Commissioner, stated, in his committee testimony, “since my time in the chair, never have I denied an entry because of costs”. Therefore, we were able to clear up the concerns some opposition members had. It was clear that no witness has ever been denied access to the program because of cost. Costs are not expected to rise under this new legislation.
Regarding who would be administering the program, there were some concerns about whether it should be the RCMP. There were some recommendations that it could fall under the Department of Justice. We looked at this recommendation and conducted extensive consultations. It was determined that the RCMP was best suited to managing the program.
There would be a clear distinction between investigative and protective functions to ensure objectivity with respect to witness protection measures, so there would be two separate organizations within the RCMP. One would manage the actual witness protection program and decide who should be involved in it, and one would be the administrative part, which would be completely separate.
As I said at the outset, a strong federal witness protection program is critical to keeping our law enforcement and justice systems working effectively. We need to take these steps to ensure that individuals are protected and that our communities are safe. That is why our government is committed to strengthening our federal witness protection program. That is why we are committed to doing this to address the threat of organized crime and drugs in our communities and to make sure that informants and witnesses can collaborate with law enforcement. As such, it is vital that we pass this piece of legislation in a timely way so that it can become law and we can give law enforcement organizations the tools they need to keep Canadians safe.
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Speaker, at the outset, I would like to state my objection to the suggestion by the member that anyone on this side was laughing about the program. I do not know where the idea came from. Nothing could be further from the truth. Since 2007, the New Democrats have been calling for the government to take action on the Air India justice's recommendations.
Yes, it should be expeditious. We have been waiting six years. The government has finally brought it forward. Our members have co-operated fully, made good suggestions and been supportive all along.
As I understand it, one of the issues with costing is that on some occasions, and maybe more occasions now that the ambit has been extended to gangs, the costs for the witness protection program can be downloaded to local enforcement agencies. It is fine for the RCMP to say that it does not need any more funding and does not expect more referrals, which seems a little odd, given the fact that the whole point of expanding the program is so that there can be more referrals. Even if the RCMP does not anticipate that, I have worked in enforcement agencies myself and know that it is something one cannot anticipate. I wonder if the member could speak to that. Could she also speak to the fact that the Air India justice also recommended an independent agency to review this because of issues that arose, including at Air India, and why the government is so adamant that it does not want an independent agency?
Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Mr. Speaker, to address my hon. colleague's first question, I was just beginning my speech, and in fact, there was a lot of laughter from the other side. I was disappointed, because the opposition has been very good working with us to get this through committee, and I was looking forward to it moving quickly at this time.
I will address a couple of her questions. First of all, just to clear something up for my hon. colleague, this legislation does not expand the program to include gang members. The witness protection program has always included gang members. I have heard that before, and there seems to be some misconception. The legislation would expand the program to enable referrals from national security, national defence and public safety. Certainly, gang members have always been a part of the witness protection program.
Again, with regard to cost, we heard testimony from the RCMP and others. By the way, this is a federal program, so when we were talking about cost, and there were concerns about it, we wanted answers from the organization that administers the program. They were clear time and time again. I know that my hon. colleague was not able to be at the committee hearings, and I respect that, but her other colleagues were. It was very clear that cost is not an issue.
There is a whole set of criteria set out when individuals are going to be accepted into the program, and cost is only one of them. No one has ever been refused because of cost.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I think most people recognize the value of the witness protection program.
We are talking about the federal component. Is there a concern on the government's side regarding other jurisdictions that provide witness protection programs and the general direction they are going? Is the government relatively comfortable that they are well enough resourced? Are their numbers going down? Could the member give us some insight on that aspect?
Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Mr. Speaker, we certainly are working together and consulting with the provinces regarding their provincial programs, which is why one of the most important pieces of this legislation is allowing provincial programs to be designated so that they do not have to go through the cumbersome process, which is sometimes a very long process.
Right now, when provinces are trying to get secure identities for those involved in their provincial programs, it can take a very long time, which is obviously a safety concern. We are now allowing them to be easily designated. Upon that designation, the RCMP will then work directly. That is one aspect of the work we are doing with the provinces and why we brought this legislation forward.
We are doing a study on the economics of policing. Provincial witness protection programs work directly with the RCMP. The cost of all policing is escalating, but we are looking, even provincially, at some great examples of how things are being done more effectively.
I think the witness protection program, being a separate entity, appears to be working well. These changes would help both the provinces, and of course, the federal program. The RCMP works very closely with the provinces, and we will continue to work closely with the provinces on their programs and ours.
Jean Rousseau NDP Compton—Stanstead, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out to my colleague from Portage—Lisgar that I did not mean to laugh at the bill. In fact, these are very serious bills dealing with protection, privacy and, most importantly, public safety. I would never dream of laughing at that.
However, I am laughing because we are being accused of obstructing and delaying the work of Parliament. I cannot help but laugh since this is coming from a government that has imposed over 30 gag orders to shut down debate on bills. That is not very serious and that is why I laughed.
We were talking about funding for the program. Over the past few years, about 20 or 30 witnesses have been admitted to the program, whereas about 100 witnesses were on the list. Now, the criteria are being expanded, which is perfect. We really hope to see some changes to that.
That being said, if the criteria are expanded, more witnesses will need protection through the program, which will require funding. However, the RCMP and other police forces are facing cuts.
How are we going to pay for this? Will the provinces be responsible for part of the funding?
Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for acknowledging that he was indeed laughing. When we were talking about something this serious, laughter is not what is needed. Real work and real focus is what is required.
I am very proud of the fact that our government has increased funding to police officers. We have the police officer recruitment fund. We invested $400 million across the country. As well, we are just seeing Bill C-42 passed, getting through the Senate, no thanks to the opposition that voted against it, which will help provide, among other important things, more funding to the RCMP.
In terms of the witness protection program, it is funny how the NDP do not like the answer. When the NDP members asked witnesses directly if they needed more money, the witnesses said no, but they do not want to believe it. They would rather take taxpayer dollars and spend them frivolously instead of spending them where they are required.
If we are told by the RCMP and by the witness protection program organization that they do not need funding, I for one believe them. It is really disappointing that the member, who was at those committee meetings, is saying that those witnesses were not telling the truth.
I believed those witnesses when they told us that this is good legislation. In fact, I will read what Tom Stamatakis, president of Canadian Police Association had to say. He said:
Mr. Chair, members of the committee, [this]...legislation...will help better coordinate...[it will] promote at least some efficiencies in a system that is badly in need of reform....the Canadian Police Association supports the adoption of the bill.
We heard from the RCMP that it will not be an additional cost.
Let us get this passed. Those members said they supported it. They introduced no amendments. They support the spirit. They support the legislation. Let us quit playing games and get this passed.
The Acting Speaker Bruce Stanton
We have time for a short question and a short answer.
The hon. member for Saint-Lambert.
Sadia Groguhé NDP Saint-Lambert, QC
Mr. Speaker, strengthening the witness protection program will improve co-operation between local police forces and the RCMP. In terms of the fight against street gang violence, strengthening the program will make communities safer.
However, according to the RCMP website, there are instances when the costs of witness protection may impede investigations, particularly for smaller law enforcement agencies.
How do the Conservatives plan to increase the funding for enforcement, while also taking into account the insecurity caused by street gangs?
Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Mr. Speaker, I will read what Todd G. Shean, assistant commissioner, Federal and International Operations, Royal Canadian Mounted Police had to say. He said:
Mr. Minister, Mr. Chair, as the minister has stated, with the changes this bill brings about, the RCMP is comfortable that we have the resources within our existing resources to run an effective witness protection program.
He also went on to say that those who needed protection, received the protection if the program was the appropriate one for them to receive that protection in.
Again, there is seven criteria. Finances is really the lowest part of the criteria. There is a number of other things.
We will continue to work with the RCMP to give it legislation like this one and others and we hope the opposition will support it.
The Acting Speaker Bruce Stanton
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 Saanich—Gulf Islands, The Environment; the hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, Agriculture; the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, The Environment.
Mathieu Ravignat NDP Pontiac, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to split my time.
The Acting Speaker Bruce Stanton
Does the hon. member for Pontiac have the unanimous consent of the House?
Some hon. members
Agreed.
Mathieu Ravignat NDP Pontiac, QC
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Compton—Stanstead, who works very hard to serve his constituents.
I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-51 at third reading. This bill contains measures that have been long called for by the NDP. Among other things, it will: expand the eligibility criteria for informants and witnesses; extend the duration of emergency protection; and speed up the process for obtaining new pieces of identification. Those are all good things.
The Witness Protection Program Act, passed in 1996, sorely needed to be strengthened. In fact, we have been insistently calling for better coordination of federal and provincial programs and improved overall program funding since 2007.
Even though we support the bill because we believe that it will further improve the program, we still deplore the fact that the Conservative government refused to provide additional funding for the program, knowing that the announced changes may well increase the number of beneficiaries, which will certainly increase the financial burden on municipalities and police services, because of the downloading of costs.
At the committee hearings, some witnesses expressed their fears in this regard. On March 7, 2013, a commissioner with the Canadian Association of Police Boards said:
...we see problems with the ability of municipality police services to adequately access witness protection because they lack the resources... I want to emphasize that, while we support the intent of Bill C-51, CAPB has a duty to its members to ensure that legislation passed by the government does not result in a downloading of additional costs to the municipal police services that we represent.
It is important to provide the resources needed to implement our changes. When a new piece of legislation has an impact on criminal justice, we must always look at the costs and budgetary implications. Our police officers look after the well-being of Canadians every day by protecting them without their even realizing it. It is our duty to give them the tools they need to do their jobs. I need to say this.
To combat organized crime, it is obviously necessary to update and modernize our laws. That is what Bill C-51 does. Doing undercover work in the underworld is complicated, time-consuming and dangerous. The police need informers and informants if they are to infiltrate criminal organizations.
Bill C-51 improves protection for witnesses and informants who help the police, and it also improves the ability to make use of these sources of information. This is important. We want those who combat street gangs to know that giving gang members who want to leave the gang access to the program will be an important additional tool to help them eliminate the problem.
Organized crime is growing with alarming speed in Canada, particularly in Quebec, where my riding is located.
Through this support, the NDP is committed to building safer communities. One way of doing this is to improve the witness protection program to ensure that our constituents can live in safe neighbourhoods and cities and to provide the various police forces with additional tools to combat street gangs and organized crime. It might also provide added protection for our police officers.
Needless to say, the more information is available to the police, the better they will be able to do their jobs and the better they will be protected.
The federal witness protection program has long been criticized because of its strict eligibility criteria, its poor coordination with federal programs and the small number of witnesses admitted to the program. Furthermore, only 30 of the 108 applications examined were approved in 2012.
Since the Witness Protection Program Act was passed in 1996, the Liberal and Conservative governments have done very little to respond to criticism of the system, even though a number of bills have been introduced in the House of Commons to deal with some parts of the protection program, including the protection of witnesses in cases of family violence, which was supported by the NDP, but rejected by the Liberal government of the day. The basic issues of eligibility, coordination and funding have never been addressed.
That is why this bill is essentially positive. We hope that the Conservatives will offer the support that local police organizations need to ensure that witnesses will come forward in matters such as street gangs. The safety and welfare of the whole population is at stake. The more informants feel that they are protected, the more likely they will be to come forward and work with the police. We will give these people a real chance to change their lives and contribute to the well-being of their families and the community by attempting, through the information they provide, to rein in and perhaps even eliminate street gangs.
The government is responsible for giving people the tools they need to achieve their full potential. However, we need to be able to act upon our convictions. I want to reiterate that additional funds would have enabled municipal police forces to do more. I nevertheless maintain that the witness protection program is often an essential tool for encouraging people to work with the police.
We recognize that the bill is proposing significant improvements and a better process for supporting provincial witness protection programs. The bill would broaden the scope of the program to include national security agencies. That is another good thing.
Our view is that strengthening the witness protection program will improve public safety and help the various police forces to combat violence. It is therefore because of my desire for change that I endorse Bill C-51 and give my full support to all the police officers in my riding who help to make the towns and cities in Pontiac safer.
Pierre Jacob NDP Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Pontiac for his very fine speech.
The Liberals have every right to criticize the Conservative government, because it has not done enough with Bill C-51. However, with respect to eligibility and lack of funding, why did the Liberals not respond to criticism of the witness protection program when they were in power and had the chance? In other words, why do they continue to say one thing and do another?
Mathieu Ravignat NDP Pontiac, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.
It is customary for the Liberal Party to say one thing and do another. I cannot really say why. It is an oversight. I imagine that the Liberals were distracted by the string of scandals that hit their government. It is difficult to focus on real issues, important issues, when you are continually in trouble.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I always find it somewhat interesting being dated, quite possibly, by the New Democrats as they try to rewrite history.
It is important to recognize that it was the Liberal Party that brought in the witness protection program legislation that was required. I suspect he will find that even the former leader did not ask the types of questions to enhance the legislation back then. He has to be very careful when dealing with the issue of ethics. All he has to do is look at his own front bench, where there is a question mark today.
My question to the member is this. I wonder if he could provide some thoughts on whether New Democrats feel there was a need to make amendments to this legislation, or do they think about the legislation now as they would have likely done back in 1994 or 1996, when the legislation was first introduced, and they did not feel it appropriate to bring in amendments?
Mathieu Ravignat NDP Pontiac, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his rather pointed question. I guess I could call it that. If it was introduced by a Liberal government, then why not give credit where credit is due? It was introduced, but we cannot just introduce legislation without perfecting it. We cannot be like the golden goose, kind of lay the egg and then leave it to rot. It seems to me that is not the right approach.
If we want to talk about ethics, the member is grasping at very few straws. All I need to do, given that I am from the province of Quebec, is put a couple of words together and talk about the sponsorship scandal.
Kevin Sorenson Conservative Crowfoot, AB
Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the New Democratic Party for being part of this and working with the government. I have the privilege of chairing the committee, which is now studying the economics of policing. The committee is looking at a trip right now. The gentleman sitting behind the member, whose constituency I cannot recall, has done some good work on this.
The member's party had two concerns. The first concern was the money. Through the speech that the parliamentary secretary gave today, we know that everyone who appeared before the committee said finances are not an issue. The RCMP and a number of witnesses said that if ever there is a need, the government has always responded by providing the finances required.
The other question at the time was in regard to the number of applicants for this program. Canadians need to know that last year there was an acceptance into the witness protection plan of 38. There were 108 cases examined by the RCMP and 38 were accepted. At that time, the RCMP made it abundantly clear that if the 108 needed to go into the program, the finances would have been available. Maybe he could respond to his party's seemingly ongoing concern.
Before we get to that—
The Acting Speaker Bruce Stanton
Mathieu Ravignat NDP Pontiac, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his well-balanced question, a question that recognizes that New Democrats are, indeed, standing up on this side of the House to protect witnesses and that it is something we feel strongly about, though we have some minor disagreements. The member will not be surprised that I have a minor disagreement with the numbers. I have 30 of 108.
I find the comments of the member on financing somewhat encouraging. One would hope that financing would come forward to ensure this.
Also, perhaps 30 of 108 is low because the admission to the program is so strict. That is part of our point, that we need to look at the criteria and make sure they are flexible enough to ensure that more people can take advantage of the program and the financing that the member across the aisle says is present.
Jean Rousseau NDP Compton—Stanstead, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague from Pontiac on his excellent speech.
Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, would amend and update the witness protection program. Many people familiar with the system have been saying for a long time that it needs to be expanded and modernized.
On the other hand, the task is not an easy one, given the enormous changes that have occurred in computer espionage technology and the inexhaustible ways of obtaining information about people today. Just think of how many times a scandal has come to light where information was obtained more or less legally or a document containing information was lost. Similar things can happen when the time comes to protect witnesses in extremely important trials like the Air India trial.
We must not forget that criminal organizations are highly skilled at making arrangements to infiltrate various government and public agencies. Once again, how many times have we heard about a person who obtained information or managed to get their hands on a hard drive or CD containing encrypted information?
In the course of the fiscal year ending in March 2012, the federal witness protection program accepted only 30 applications out of 108, at a cost of just over $9 million. That is only 30% or 40% of applicants.
Once again, families and various players in the system have been saying for a long time that the program needs to be expanded because there are trials under way that cannot be completed because of a shortage of information and evidence.
For instance, in Quebec, evidence against criminal gangs is difficult to obtain because there are so many friends and family members. It is extremely difficult. As its short title indicates, the bill therefore redefines several provisions to make witnesses safer.
For example, it provides for the designation of a provincial or municipal witness protection program. It authorizes the RCMP commissioner to coordinate, at the request of an official of a 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.
This is extremely important, because when someone's identity is changed or a witness is assigned to a location, the municipality and province in question are responsible for that person and also for that person’s protection.
The bill adds prohibitions on the disclosure of information relating to persons admitted to provincial and municipal programs, to the means and methods by which witnesses are protected and to persons who provide or assist in providing protection.
Even RCMP and Quebec provincial police officers have told us that they or members of their family involved in the program are at risk. The program therefore needs to be broadened to ensure that everyone is protected.
The bill will also specify the circumstances under which disclosure of certain protected information is permitted. It exempts 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 the program. It also expands the category of witnesses who may be admitted to the federal witness protection program to include persons who assist federal departments, agencies or services. This is extremely important.
It allows witnesses in the witness protection program to end their protection voluntarily. The testimony suggests that people sometimes ask to end their protection. They say everything is okay, that there is no problem. However, there were still some reservations about that.
The reverse is also being proposed, namely to extend the period during which protection may, in an emergency, be provided to a person who has not been admitted to the federal program or who would like to put an end to it in a situation where the federal program comes to an end. Finally, it also proposes to make a consequential amendment to another act, namely the Access to Information Act.
Bill C-51 proposes a better process to support provincial witness protection programs and expands the program to other agencies with national security responsibilities. This could mean a department, a municipality or an agency. They really need the support.
The bill will expand the protection program eligibility criteria by including street gang members and by accepting a new group of people who assist federal departments. 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, as I was saying, and clear up some of the technical problems that were occurring in relation to coordination with provincial programs. This is extremely important, because the lack of coordination between the stakeholders at the provincial, federal and municipal levels, especially in large municipalities such as Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver, was causing serious problems.
There are also a few other changes, but there is one in particular that I find worth mentioning, specifically the change to the definition of “protection”. This definition would be replaced by the following in clause 3 of the bill:
...protection may include relocation, accommodation and change of identity [which is quite legitimate] as well as counselling and financial support for those or any other purposes in order to ensure the security of a person or to facilitate the person’s re-establishment or becoming self-sufficient.
This is extremely important. When you change someone's identity or place them in the protection program, at some point they will have to integrate into society and resume living their lives. This paragraph alone may have more financial implications than one might think.
What about loved ones? This is not clearly defined. It is one of the questions that remain to be answered. The loved ones of witnesses in the protection program are not clearly defined, if they are defined at all. Are they the immediate family, or more distant relatives? Are the gang members still considered loved ones? There is no way to be sure.
If the Conservatives truly want to improve the witness protection program, they should commit the money needed to implement the measure. They should also truly want to protect everyone involved in the program, including the officers, as I already mentioned. Officers have told me that when they participate in witness protection programs, their loved ones can sometimes be in danger. That is important to keep in mind.
Bill C-51 makes enough positive changes that we will support it at third reading. I think that everyone, regardless of their political affiliation, agrees with expanding eligibility for the witness protection program.
Authorities who work on combatting street gangs say that it would be an improvement and would help them do their job if gang members who are trying to leave that lifestyle could have access to the program.
However, there is one thing we must never forget. People are what matter to the NDP. Everything we do, we do for the people of Canada. We are committed to building safer communities and neighbourhoods for seniors and the general public, so that everyone feels comfortable being out and about in this country.
We can also improve the witness protection program by bringing peace and justice to our neighbourhoods. We can do so by giving federal, provincial and municipal police forces the additional tools they need to combat street gangs and organized crime groups, which are becoming increasingly better equipped in terms of technology and information, as I mentioned.
The government has cut nearly $190 million from the RCMP and over $140 million from the Canada Border Services Agency. The government will not create a free and peaceful Canada by making cuts to our police forces and to public safety.
Kevin Sorenson Conservative Crowfoot, AB
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his speech today and also for his service on the public safety and national security committee. The member for Compton—Stanstead has been there and has been contributing to the committee.
One of the issues that I know that our committee looked at when we dealt with this and did a study on it is the fact that other jurisdictions have something fairly similar in witness protection programs, including the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec.
I know that everyone in government is very conscious of infringing upon provincial jurisdiction on certain issues. I know that this government was also very cautious in how it approached programs like this one. We heard from all involved that all these jurisdictions were very supportive of the changes that were made here.
When we draft legislation, I think we want to draft is as perfectly as we can. In the previous speech, the question was asked, “Why did the former government not draft it perfectly”? As time goes on, we see ways that things can be changed. It was not against the legislation in the past, but those involved stepped forward and said that we could improve this legislation by doing these things.
Maybe this member of the committee would talk a bit about the provincial jurisdictions and how this would work hand in hand with his province, Quebec, and make the witness protection program even stronger. It is what law enforcement is asking and I think what all those involved are asking. He may want to elaborate a bit on that.
Jean Rousseau NDP Compton—Stanstead, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question.
With regard to jurisdictions, Quebec has its own witness protection program, as do some large municipalities, such as Montreal.
That is why it was so important to hear the testimony of police chiefs at all levels—national, provincial and municipal. This was extremely important because we have to coordinate this effort and work together. There are procedures in place across the country, whether in Quebec, Alberta or British Columbia. Cases are heard, and this really involves all jurisdictions.
The Criminal Code falls under federal jurisdiction. The witness protection program must absolutely expand its criteria for certain crimes. We must work together. That is why we have been saying all along that municipal, provincial and federal governments must reach out to one another in a spirit of partnership while respecting each others' jurisdictions. We need to standardize the rules in order to protect the individuals involved.
Sadia Groguhé NDP Saint-Lambert, QC
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech. He dealt with a number of issues.
I would like to ask him a question. One recommendation that came from the Air India inquiry involved establishing a more transparent and more accountable eligibility process. Simply put, Bill C-51 does not include any provisions in that regard.
What can our colleague tell us about the government's refusal to really commit to making the program more transparent?
Jean Rousseau NDP Compton—Stanstead, QC
Mr. Speaker, a lack of transparency is the kind of bad habit we have come to expect from this government. There are blatant examples in a number of bills and in the government's failure to act on a number of issues.
Unfortunately, in addition to Air India, there have been other major cases like that. What does a lack of transparency mean? It sometimes means losing trials or cases. It means that justice is not being served the way it should be in a trial.
Transparency is fundamental. When there is transparency in the proceedings and procedures of this sector and other Canadian sectors, we ensure that a degree of integrity is maintained, both by the justice system and the politicians who implement all these laws.
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Mr. Speaker, to start, I would like to read an excerpt from the Library of Parliament's legislative summary of Bill C-51. I think that this excerpt provides a good summary of the purpose of the federal witness protection program.
Protecting witnesses against intimidation, violence or retaliation is crucial to maintaining the rule of law. The experts agree that without effective measures to protect vulnerable witnesses and their families, many would be reluctant to cooperate with the authorities.
The federal witness protection program is a key tool in the fight against organized crime. When a person testifies about the activities of a group with which he was once associated, some members of that group may hold it against him. The program is therefore an effective tool in the fight against organized crime.
I would also like to commend the police and peace officers who work in the witness protection program. They do extremely dangerous and difficult work. These police officers often have to live a shadowy existence and lead parallel lives. A witness told us that he sometimes had to rent an apartment for himself because he could not work from his own home where his family lived. He had to stay away from his family to do his work. We must therefore commend these peace officers who are doing a great service for Canadians and our society.
This bill will allow us to expand the witness protection program and make it more effective in the fight against terrorism. It does not seem as though anyone mentioned this in the speeches that I heard. To date, witnesses of terrorist acts or potential terrorist acts do not benefit from the protection offered by this program. We therefore expanded the scope of the program, which is a good thing.
It is important that the federal witness protection program be as efficient as possible in terms of streamlining and expediting the process of admission to the program.
Some provinces and municipalities also operate witness protection programs, so it is not just the federal RCMP. These provincial and municipal programs must co-operate with the federal government in order to have witnesses' identities changed, for example. Those programs would have to deal with Passport Canada and perhaps Human Resources and Skills Development Canada to get social insurance numbers changed and so on and so forth.
Up until this point, the problem has been that if a provincial program identified a witness it wanted protected, it would have to not only accept that the individual should be protected, meaning that the person would essentially be applying to the provincial or municipal program, but that if the person was admitted, the provincial or municipal program would then have to go to the RCMP and ask for admission to the federal witness protection program. Only once the admission was accepted would the paperwork get done that would allow the person to assume a new identity and a new personal history, if one may put it that way.
As a result of this bill, that would not be the case anymore. There would be designated provincial and municipal witness protection programs, and once the witness would be accepted in that designated program, that witness would not have to apply to the RCMP federal program. He or she would simply be able to get the paperwork done by having been admitted to the provincial and municipal program. This is a step forward. This is a step toward making the system more timely, because in these matters we know that time is of the essence.
Speaking of time, the bill would also extend the period during which a potential candidate for the witness protection program can receive emergency protection. It is a very difficult decision to decide to go into the witness protection program. It requires a lot of thought and consultation with family members and so on. Up until now, candidates for witness protection could get some kind of witness protection for 90 days while they made up their mind about whether they wanted to go through with this major step. Now, as a result of Bill C-51, people would have the possibility of a 90-day extension, which would take the emergency protection to a maximum of 180 days. That is a very practical change.
As I said before, the bill modernizes witness protection to assist in the fight against terrorism. The fight against terrorism is an ongoing process of updating the relevant public security tools at our disposal in order to adapt them to the needs of this not-so-new yet ever-evolving challenge.
Witness protection is one area where changes were recommended most notably by the report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Investigation of the Bombing of Air India Flight 182. The commission found that the federal witness protection program “is not fully attuned to the needs of sources and witnesses in terrorism investigations and prosecutions”. The report concluded that CSIS, for example, should have access to programs to protect vulnerable witnesses and sources. The report also concluded that the federal witness protection program is too rigid and is based on the assumption that most sources and witnesses have criminal backgrounds.
In a terrorism case, it would be very likely that a witness would not have a criminal background and as a result would not be admissible to the program and would therefore essentially be discouraged from handing over information that could stop a terrorist incident. It is very important that the concept of witness protection be broadened to include not necessarily people who were involved in a crime but people who were witnesses to, say, a terrorist plot. That was the recommendation by the Commission of Inquiry into the Investigation of the Bombing of Air India Flight 182. That was the second recommendation.
It is interesting to point out that the bill passed a report stage vote 200 and some votes to none. It obviously is clear that all parties in the House support strengthening the witness protection program.
I should also mention that there were no amendments adopted at committee. That says something as well. It says that this is a non-controversial bill, that it is more of an administrative or procedural enhancement kind of bill. It was quite obvious what needed to be done, and it has been done.
Again, this points to the fact that this is really a technical matter, and I am not sure that it really warrants the kind of partisan debate that we have witnessed so far this afternoon, but so be it.
There are other changes that have been recommended to the witness protection program that are not in the bill, but that we were told the government would implement outside of the bill. There are three particular improvements that have been recommended to the witness protection program: one, separating investigations and decisions about admission to the federal witness protection program; two, offering legal counsel to those negotiating entry into the program; and three, offering psychological assessments to program candidates.
In 2008, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security recommended that a clear operational distinction be made between the investigations and prosecutions function of law enforcement on the one hand, and the decision-making function for admitting a candidate to the federal witness protection program on the other, making “it plain [to the candidate for witness protection] that protection is not a reward for cooperating with the authorities”.
Until now, basically it was the same group within the RCMP that was providing protection, but also making the decision about whether the witness should be admitted to the program. One can understand that would put certain individuals in the RCMP in a bit of a contradictory situation or a potential conflict of interest situation. Therefore, it was recommended by the House of Commons committee in 2008 that a separate department be created to make the decision about whether somebody should be admitted to the witness protection program, separate from the RCMP whose main function and concern would be to provide protection. That was not done. A separate agency was not created, but we got assurances from the minister and the government that these two functions would from now on be separate within the RCMP, and that is a very good thing.
The second item was not in the bill but it is germane obviously to the witness protection program going forward. Negotiating entry into the program is a complex matter, as is negotiating a contract with the RCMP for witness protection. Therefore, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, in 2008, recommended offering candidates the aid of legal counsel during the signing of protection contracts to increase the likelihood of fair and equitable negotiations. Again that is not in the law, but something the government has committed to do.
On the third item, as I mentioned, entering a witness protection program is not an easy decision. It is not easy to live the rest of one's days under a new name, identity and personal history. In recognition of these pressures, which can lead some people who enter the federal witness protection program to voluntarily terminate their participation in the program down the road, the government would now apparently be offering candidates for the program psychological assessments to determine if they are likely to remain in a program over the long term. This would be a very constructive change and new way of doing things that would reduce the likelihood that someone would enter the program and then leave it. It is worth noting that the provision of psychological assessments was a recommendation of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security when it did its review of the witness protection program in 2008.
There has been talk about how the program may need additional funding. It is true, the RCMP did say that lack of funding would never lead them to refuse a candidate for witness protection and I believe that. However, the funding issue is not really about that. It is a little more complex and it bears mentioning.
We did have one witness who came to the committee and spoke to the funding issue. Micki Ruth, of the Canadian Association of Police Boards, appearing before the committee, highlighted the fact that the RCMP can charge back to municipal police forces the costs of witness protection. To quote Ms. Ruth:
Currently, when a municipality does make use of a provincial witness protection program and the crime is federal in nature or involves drugs, then the RCMP takes over and charges the local police services the full cost, which is an expense that many services cannot afford.
We know this, and it was mentioned previously by the hon. member from Portage la Prairie, that the committee on public safety is conducting a study on the rising costs of policing in order to determine how we can contain those costs. We can see that police forces around the country are cash strapped. It would be a concern to them that they would bring someone into the federal witness protection program because the crime involves a federal crime and then find that they are going to have to pay for putting that person into the witness protection program. That might discourage a local police force from pursuing the option of seeking the co-operation of a witness under the understanding that that person would enter the witness protection program. Cost becomes a factor.
It is not right to say that cost is not at all a factor in the matter of witness protection. In fact, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, in 2012, also noted that one of the difficulties associated with the federal witness protection program is a lack of resources. It recommended that the federal government allocate dedicated resources to managing the federal witness protection program. We have three reports that have been recommending changes to the witness protection program.
Regarding the comments from the member for Pontiac that it is so obvious that there were improvements to be made in the legislation and wondering why these improvements were not made right away, that is not how it works in the House. We have to study the situation and that can take time. Out of those studies that call witnesses to appear and provide expert opinion we develop recommendations for change. That is what has happened with witness protection.
There have been three committees that provided input into what kinds of changes are needed to the program: the House of Commons public safety committee in 2008, the committee on justice and human rights in 2012, and the Major inquiry in the Air India bombing. These changes are rooted in careful study and that is what makes it a good bill. That is probably why there is no dissent on the bill. Everyone here today voted for it at report stage.
There are some issues that I would have liked to touch on if I had had more time. There is probably a need for the government to look at another aspect of witness protection, which is not the witness protection program narrowly defined. In other words, there are some people who do not want to go into the program, who do not need to go into the program, but they need to testify and they are going to be intimidated. We need to find better ways to allow people to testify in court proceedings where their anonymity can be ensured. This is something the government needs to look at.
There are ways that anonymity can be partially protected. People can testify on closed-circuit television, behind a screen and with their voice changed through synthesizing processes, but we are told that more needs to be done to really make sure that criminal elements do not discover who these people are who are testifying.
Paulina Ayala NDP Honoré-Mercier, QC
Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague’s speech.
One point struck me as very sensitive. It is all very well to draft all kinds of magnificent bills for society, but without the means to apply them, they never amount to anything. That worries me and my colleagues, because in the end, the municipal police end up footing the bill. This restricts the amount of field work they can do.
I would like the member to go into expand on this and talk more about the fact that a bill can be drafted and passed, but in the end remain ineffective unless the means are available to apply it.
There is also the fact that the federal government enacts laws that the provinces or municipalities must pay for. They already have to pay for too many things, and cuts are being made to social programs. It seems to me that this is a contradiction. We want to protect people, and that is fine because we want justice, but the resources needed to take action must be provided too.
I would like the member to talk more about this.
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Mr. Speaker, in fact, those are two separate questions, because when a bill is introduced, there is no budget attached to it. The question of financial resources is a separate one. That does not mean that it is not an important question, but it is a separate question to be addressed when dealing with budgetary matters.
The bill is a good one. It makes administrative improvements. However, particularly in the case of small police forces, it is possible that a shortage of resources would discourage them from making full use of this witness protection tool. I do not believe that it would really be a problem for a police force the size of Montreal’s. The police service in Montreal is rather large. If the bill helps it to successfully conduct an investigation, then it will find the money and arrange to protect the witness.
Discussion of financial resources is necessary, but it should not prevent the passage of this bill, which is nevertheless a rather good one.
Pierre Jacob NDP Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.
I understand that the witness protection program deserves appropriate funding. My colleague agrees with that. However, if I understood correctly, the bill is not sufficiently generous.
What specific amendments would my colleague suggest?
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the bill is highly effective and very good with respect to the provisions designed to streamline the steps so that an applicant can be admitted more quickly and can make an identity change more rapidly.
Perhaps what is needed is an independent federal fund that could be used if a police force in a smaller community did not have the money to pay all the costs involved in admitting a witness into a provincial or federal witness protection program, for example. At times like these, the small municipality or small police force could draw upon the fund. It would be a good idea to have a reserve fund for that purpose.
There is nothing to prevent the government from moving in that direction, perhaps in the next budget. However, where public safety is concerned, the government should think twice or perhaps even three times before slashing spending or voting against the idea of channeling new resources to these areas.
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Mr. Speaker, the question I have for the member is around funding. I know there were some witnesses who said additional funding was not necessary.
However, if I look at some of the testimony that was given, there was definitely an emphasis from some of the witnesses that additional funding was necessary.
How effective does the member feel this legislation is going to be without the provision of additional funding to ensure that the tools we purport to give are there in reality?
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. Some witnesses did say additional funding was not required and a minority of witnesses, actually one who I recall, said that the lack of resources could be a problem. However, they were talking apples and oranges.
The RCMP came and said that if it needed to protect a witness, it would find the money. I believe the RCMP. I believe that will be the case.
However, the point that Ms. Ruth brought up was not related to whether the RCMP had the budget to accept all the witnesses who needed to be protected. It was more to the fact that a separate fund was not available, created by law for example, that smaller police forces could access if they brought someone into a provincial witness protection program. They may find that the matter is taken up by the RCMP and the RCMP then sends them a bill for protecting that witness.
That is a very different issue than the RCMP saying that it will protect all witnesses who apply directly to the federal witness protection program.
The witnesses were not necessarily on the same wavelength and were not necessarily talking about the same thing when it came to funding.
It will be effective because it will be more timely. I really do believe that will help. However, if we are going to include witnesses to potential terrorist incidents or plots, we may need more funding because we are bringing in CSIS, National Defence and so on and so forth.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, could my colleague comment on the value of the program itself, whether it is related to gang activity or other larger organizations and whether we will potentially be able to prevent crimes from taking place going into the future?
Not only are we delivering justice, quite often, but we are also preventing crime. The bill has the support in principle from all parties inside the chamber. All parties recognize the value of a witness protection program.
Could the member comment on that? I know he did in his opening remarks, but and he might want to reinforce that.
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Mr. Speaker, I found the hearings quite interesting because we all know that witness protection exists. We know it through popular culture.
However, I had never really stopped to think about how the program works. It is a very small program within government. It is part of the crime agenda that is never really discussed. We have talked about more sensational issues than the witness protection program.
It is very much a lynchpin program. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, the point of the program is to combat group crime, whether that be organized crime selling drugs or whether it be a group of people who might want to commit a terrorist act.
It is a very effective tool against group crime. The fact that everyone supports the legislation speaks loudly that everyone in the House wants to combat crime. It is not a partisan issue.
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to rise to speak in support of the bill. Indeed, this is an area that is really critical and one on which the NDP has been pushing really hard. It is good to see the government has listened to our requests to expand the federal witness protection program.
The criteria has been criticized, not just by us but by community members and organizations across our country for its narrow eligibility criteria, for poor coordination with provincial programs and low numbers of witnesses actually admitted to the program.
Before I get into the resourcing, which I might have to leave until we meet again or until I get to continue this dialogue, I really want to talk about the importance of the expansion of the criteria. There are some issues and our history informs us that these steps have to be taken.
I cannot help but stand here and remember the tragedy called Air India, an act of terrorism in Canada that killed hundreds of Canadians on a plane and that led to hundreds of families being impacted for a very long time. We saw whole families being annihilated. I recently met a gentleman who lost his wife and his children on that flight. A man who lived in my riding lost a sister and her family as well.
I also live in a riding in the city of Surrey, the riding of Newton—North Delta, where, if witness protection had been available, maybe the trial on the Air India disaster would have gone differently. I am not the first person to say that. That was said by the judge at the time. As we know, there was a great deal of fear about giving evidence. In fact, people who agreed to give evidence, then pulled back.
Then I have to mention the tragic murder of one of the witnesses. It was our inability to protect witnesses that really ended up being a real barrier and an obstacle to prosecution in the Air India bombing case. A witness, Tara Singh Hayer, whose son and daughter live in Surrey, was a publisher of the B.C. based Times of India. He was assassinated in 1998, making the affidavit he had given to the RCMP in 1995 inadmissible as evidence. Here is the stark reality of why the criteria for the federal witness program absolutely needs to be expanded, and we are pleased it has been.
Two other witnesses refused to appear before the Air India inquiry in 2007, citing fears for their safety. As a result of our failure collectively, what it has meant is that those families live in anguish even today. Yes, because they lost their loved ones, but more because they feel justice has not been done. For that reason alone, this legislation is really critical. At the time, Justice Major acknowledged he was unable to provide the necessary protection.
My heart goes out to the families that were impacted by that disaster and we mourn today because we failed to mete out justice to those who did great harm to the nation.
The Acting Speaker Bruce Stanton
The hon. member for Newton—North Delta will have 15 minutes remaining for her comments when the House next returns to debate on the question.
It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members’ business as listed on today's order paper.
Bill C-51—Time AllocationSafer Witnesses ActGovernment Orders
York—Simcoe Ontario
Conservative
Peter Van Loan ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
moved:
That, in relation to Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the third reading stage of the Bill; and that, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
The Deputy Speaker
Pursuant to Standing Order 67(1), there will now be a 30-minute question period.
I invite all hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate.
Questions and comments. The hon. member for Gatineau.
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
Mr. Speaker, what a surprise to arrive here this Thursday morning to find another time allocation motion. I have lost track of how many there have been. That will be part of my question for the Minister of Public Safety because we have lost count.
This has become a habit. This is the fifth time allocation motion on as many bills that the government has moved and tried to ram down our throats.
I would like to read something to the minister. One of his former colleagues said:
A columnist wrote something interesting today. He wrote that in his view the decision to invoke closure on the bill represented in some ways the death of the true meaning of parliament. Parliament is the ability to gather together as elected representatives to talk, discuss, debate and hopefully do things that can enrich the lives and in this case the safety and security of Canadians. The federal Liberal government has failed Canadians.
That was Stockwell Day in the House of Commons on November 28, 2001.
I wonder what has changed with the guys in front of me. They seem to have forgotten all of the basic rules of democracy. The fact is that a party might support a bill that is, by the way, long overdue. I am sure the minister will use that fact to say that if it is long overdue, we should adopt it quickly. Just because they have suddenly realized the urgency or the need of something does not mean that they have to shortcut democracy.
Does he not feel a bit ashamed to say to the people of Gatineau, let us say, or Sherbrooke or people from the Conservative side that he is not interested in hearing examples that we have concerning the witness protection program? We have crimes that cannot be solved. We have situations because we cannot have access because it is not funded enough. The bill is not perfect.
Maybe the minister needs to hear these things, but no. They shut down debate. If it was not urgent in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 or 2013, why is it urgent now? At what number are we on those closure issues?
Bill C-51—Time AllocationSafer Witnesses ActGovernment Orders
Provencher Manitoba
Conservative
Vic Toews ConservativeMinister of Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the amendments the member is talking about, which she is concerned have not been brought forward.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I am not too sure exactly what it is that could be said that would be a little bit different in regard to commenting on time allocation, for the simple reason that I have now stood in my place more than 30 times to talk about the issue of time allocation.
If we think about it, the government has invoked time allocation more than any other government before it, in a very short window. Ever since it has had a majority Conservative government, it has had a new attitude. It is an attitude that is shameful in regard to what takes place inside the House of Commons. It is very anti-democratic.
We have spent more time on invoking time allocation than we have on the bills for which time allocation has been invoked. We are quickly approaching 40 hours of time allocation.
I recognize that I put my question to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, but he is so predictable now that we know he will not even answer the questions I am going to pose. Therefore, I recognize that it will be a different minister standing up to answer my question.
I reflect on the days of Clayton Manness, Jim Ernst and Jim McCrae , individuals with whom I negotiated in my former life as a member of the Manitoba Legislature. There was a sense of House leaders getting together and working on a legislative House agenda to try to pass things through in a normal fashion, so that closure would not have to be introduced.
My question is for the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, of course, and I would love to see him actually address the issue. He is the one who is responsible for time allocation. It is he who ultimately has to defend the government.
My question to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is: Does he feel it is appropriate to make time allocation a part of normal procedure? That is quite the opposite of what they used to argue for in the days when they were in the opposition.
Vic Toews Conservative Provencher, MB
Mr. Speaker, let me just summarize the facts that relate to the procedural aspects of this particular bill, as I understand them.
The NDP and the Liberals have supported the legislation at all stages. More important, no amendments were proposed. It was studied at five public safety committee meetings. This is the fourth day of debate. There are no amendments to debate. There has been support at all stages.
I think it is very clear to Canadians what is happening here. The opposition is simply being obstructive.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Speaker, I noted a tone of defensiveness in my hon. colleague—
Kevin Sorenson Conservative Crowfoot, AB
What? Back and forth on that side. Is that the way we are doing this?
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to understand how the person who is debating will be going.
The Deputy Speaker
I have the point of order by the member for Crowfoot. The standing practice in the House is that the opposition parties get the priority of time almost exclusively for this 30 minutes of debate. That is the practice. That has been the tradition in the House for many years. One or two members get recognized from the government side, and that has been the pattern by both the current Speaker and chair occupants and the previous number of Speakers going back 20 years at least.
The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Speaker, that is a very important thing to point out. I see the defensiveness of my colleagues on the other side. Not only do they want to shut down debate, and it was their decision to shut down debate, but they want to dominate what little time is left of the opposition's opportunity.
Canadians know what is going on here. The government is mired up to its neck in scandal. The Conservatives appointed Arthur Porter, a criminal, and then because he gave them money, they appointed him to oversee the spy agency of Canada. The justice minister seemed to think Arthur Porter was a great guy when he was giving money. We have the same situation in the Senate.
The Conservatives are doing everything they can to get out of town as quickly as they can and hide out at their cottages for the summer and hope this issue will go away—
The Deputy Speaker
The hon. member for Crowfoot has a point of order.
Kevin Sorenson Conservative Crowfoot, AB
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I accept your response in regard to the almost exclusive number of questions, but I would ask that they remain relevant.
What we are debating is time allocation on Bill C-51. On one hand, the NDP wants to talk about certain methods of moving it through when they want to expedite it and, on the other hand, now we are hearing about everything other than Bill C-51.
If we are going to have questions, then they should be questions in regard to the debate and to the bill we are discussing.
The Deputy Speaker
Let me make the determination. The debate that is going on at this point is not exclusively about the bill that is before the House. It is also about the procedure that is being used, the time allocation motion. That is primarily what this debate is supposed to be about. The comments by the member for Timmins—James Bay are in fact very relevant to that part.
The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would like it to be also noted that this is an attempt to walk the clock down and I think that every time the government interferes with our right to speak, the clock should be stopped, because this is an attempt to intimidate members of the House.
I will go back to the issue. The issue here is not the bill, because those members do not want to debate the bill. The issue here is their decision for the 37th or 38th time to shut down debate in the House of Commons. The Conservative government does not believe in accountability. The Conservative government will use the tools of power to undermine basic democratic processes. The government will take convicted fraud artists and put them right into the heart of the Prime Minister's Office and use them for advice.
The government is again shutting down the democratic right of the House. The government spies on people like Cindy Blackstock. The government has shut down numerous independent bodies. Whatever happened to the party that promised accountability, that told us that people like Stockwell Day and Deborah Grey represented accountability? Now we have the member for Nepean—Carleton; that is the government's idea of accountability. Now we have Patrick Brazeau; that is their idea of accountability. Now we have Pamela Wallin and Mike Duffy. The government promised to Canadians that it would bring a standard back to government. The government made a promise to Canadians and it broke it.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
I hear their defensiveness, Mr. Speaker. They sound almost crazed over there. I know they want to get home, but they are accountable and they cannot shut the House down again to escape accountability.
Vic Toews Conservative Provencher, MB
Mr. Speaker, I think all of us want to get home at some time or another, but the point is that I was here until one o'clock this morning. I was here prepared to debate the bills and speak to matters. In fact, I asked questions last night.
Vic Toews Conservative Provencher, MB
The member across the way is chirping, as she usually does, but what I would like to say with regard to the issue of accountability is that the member who just spoke promised his constituents that he would vote to abolish the long gun registry. He promised every one of them whenever he could, because he realized it was a contentious matter. However, when he came back to Ottawa he changed his mind, so I do not need any lessons from that individual about accountability.
Let us get to the issue of this particular bill itself.
The Liberals and the New Democrats have supported this legislation at every stage. They have not proposed one amendment, not even a technical amendment. What they want to do is drag out the clock. Then when we say we should add 20 hours of debate to the week, what is their response? No.
Jean-François Larose NDP Repentigny, QC
Mr. Speaker, becoming a member of Parliament was a very proud moment for me.
From the time I was child, I had watched the Hill operate as part of a democratic system. I did not always agree with the debates, but there was certainly a process that commanded a great deal of respect. Since I have been here as a member of Parliament, I must say that I am truly ashamed. I am ashamed to see how things work. I am ashamed of the process. I do not understand.
My question for the minister is quite simple. When did he lose faith in debate and decide it was not important? He is talking about a motion. He has some nerve.
When do the Conservatives ever make any sort of effort? When they decide to control the situation, then things go their way. As far as we are concerned, we want to have an ongoing, constructive debate. We are always prepared to work with the government. Unfortunately, they do not listen to anyone. They cut off debate and rhyme off all sorts of excuses every chance they get.
I would like to understand where the minister is coming from because I no longer understand the government. Personally, I think some therapy is in order—for the government, I should say.
Vic Toews Conservative Provencher, MB
Mr. Speaker, I can see how sensitive the members are on the other side. If they will not listen to me, let us listen to the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. What did he say about the bill?
Vic Toews Conservative Provencher, MB
He is their lead critic, as the member for Crowfoot points out.
He said:
Also, of course, we have committed to expediting its passage through the House. We believe it's important legislation. It's something we've been interested in since the time of the Air India inquiry...
They have been on this since the time of the Air India inquiry. What has their response been? Zero amendments.
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member across the way talked about faith. Something I have faith in is the police forces of our country.
I have a quote from Tom Stamatakis, the president of the Canadian Police Association. He said:
The Canadian Police Association strongly believes that this proposed legislation will enhance the safety and security of front-line law enforcement personnel who are engaged in protective duties.
Unfortunately, the disclosure of identifying details can present a real danger to police personnel themselves as well as their families, and we appreciate the steps being taken today by the government of Canada to address those concerns
He added:
On behalf of over 50,000 law enforcement personnel that we represent across Canada, we ask Parliament to quickly move to adopt this bill.
I wonder if the minister could respond to the necessity. I think there has been a plea. There is agreement in the House that we should pass this bill, but more importantly, there is agreement among the 50,000 law enforcement officers across the country to move this bill forward. It is not because they have something to gain from this, other than their own personal safety and the safety of their families.
I wonder if the minister could speak to the necessity of moving this bill forward quickly so that we can protect the interests, the lives and the safety of over 50,000 law enforcement personnel, as well as their 50,000 families.
Vic Toews Conservative Provencher, MB
Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate the comments, I am not going to get into the specifics of the bill because that is not really the purpose of this discussion.
However, I would note the comments of the Canadian Police Association, which has been very supportive of the initiatives we brought forward as a government. In fact, many of the initiatives we brought forward have been inspired by consultations with the Canadian Police Association and the chiefs of police. We want to thank them very much for that.
Getting back to the comments of the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, he indicated that he had been interested in this file since June 2010, when the Air India commission of inquiry released its report. For three years the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca and his colleagues have been working on this file. They have committed to expedite it. They have said that it is very important and it should be expedited. The government has said, “Fine”. The police also want to move this bill quickly. However, the question that comes to me is this: what substantive changes need to be made, while still respecting the principle of expediency that the NDP is advancing here?
There have been zero amendments proposed by the NDP.
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
Mr. Speaker, here we are debating a motion for closure just after a very passionate presentation by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands with respect to how these motions for time allocation impact on individual members.
I am a new member of Parliament here, but in my previous career I had occasion to work with the hon. minister when he was general counsel with an insurance company. Back then, one of the principles by which he guided his career was that a negotiated resolution was always better than one imposed.
Given the minister's previous work history, my question for the minister is this: what measures were taken to try to come to a negotiated resolution and try to come to a compromise in terms of debate limits before this draconian measure was imposed yet again?
Vic Toews Conservative Provencher, MB
Mr. Speaker, I think that is an important question and one that was very well put.
It is indeed a principle that I have always accepted. We should negotiate when there are differences of opinion in respect to a bill. Mr. Speaker, I think you, as legal counsel, understand the importance of that approach as well.
However, one of the things I found out is that if one side is negotiating and advancing a position and the other side has zero response in terms of objections, it is difficult to negotiate. We can state our position, but when everybody on the other side says that is a great position, then that is the end of the negotiation.
We are not against negotiations, but there has been nothing to negotiate with. There have been no amendments put forward. This is not an issue of the government saying that it does not want to negotiate; this is the other side saying that since 2010 it has wanted this measure to be passed on an expedited basis.
We have waited patiently, but there has been no sound coming from the other side in any substantive amendments. Therefore, we are left with the unsettling feeling that this is not about bona fide negotiations but just an attempt to drag this matter out.
That is my concern here.
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
Mr. Speaker, it saddens me to speak to a time allocation motion yet again. Earlier, my colleague from Gatineau asked how many of these motions we have had to date. It seems that this the 38th.
The minister is interested in debating this particular bill that we are now studying, but we have to keep in mind that this is the 38th time that the Conservatives have cut debate short in order to give members, on both the opposition and government sides, as little time as possible to discuss the bill before voting. As legislators, the least we can do is be conscientious and effective. The Conservatives do not need to cut debate short every time so that as few people as possible can participate.
I was wondering why the government is using this strategy to limit debate for a 38th time, as though everything were urgent? In some of those 38 cases, there was no urgency.
Vic Toews Conservative Provencher, MB
Mr. Speaker, it is not the government itself that has said this is an urgent matter, but the members across the way.
If the members across the way are saying that this is an urgent matter, then the questions become, “What issues need to be determined in the context of this urgency? What needs to be clarified? What needs to be fixed?”
The response of the opposition is a deafening silence. There is nothing in respect of this bill.
I cannot comment on the other times that closure has been invoked in this House, but from my point of view, when I stand up to respond to arguments being made, there has to be some kind of substantive argument. In this case, zero amendments have been proposed.
I have to take the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca at his word that the opposition members want to expedite this, yet everything that I hear them say says they want to drag their feet. They have to explain to the people of Canada that they want to have a vigorous debate about nothing.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, as this is not a discussion on Bill C-51 but on yet another time allocation, I have been doing research.
I cannot find any time in the history of the Parliament of Canada when time allocation was used as it was this week, twice in one day. The government is setting a new record, not only for time allocation in general but for the number of times in one week that time allocation has been used on bills in the history of the Parliament of Canada.
I wonder if that is a record of which the hon. minister is proud.
Vic Toews Conservative Provencher, MB
Mr. Speaker, let us talk about this specific bill, because that is the one I am focused on.
The people of Canada expect that I will justify why this process is being utilized in this particular case. I have commented very clearly about why it is justified in this case, noting that there has been vigorous debate over no amendments for a long period of time. This bill has been brought forward in committee, and it has resulted in absolutely no amendments.
I know the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands is concerned that as an independent member she does not get enough time to speak from time to time. I dispute that. I think the government has brought more to the floor for independence than any government has.
Be that as it may, why would that member want to see a debate over nothing prolonged, knowing that it will have an impact on her future ability to speak in this House?
Jasbir Sandhu NDP Surrey North, BC
Mr. Speaker, the minister talks about what Canadians expect. What the people from Surrey North expect is the opportunity for me to represent them here.
I came to Ottawa two years ago. We learn throughout our lives, and one of the terms I learned under the government is “time allocation”. It took me a few times to figure out what it was. I want Canadians to know that basically it shuts down the ability of the members of Parliament from all across Canada to represent their views.
I see a number of members in here who are from western Canada. I remember when they used to talk about how they were going to bring transparency and accountability to Ottawa. What I see here is exactly the reverse.
I see a government that wants to run away. The Conservatives are fearful today. They want to run away back to their ridings so they do not have to face the scandals that are plaguing them here, the scandals of the Senate, the CSIS scandals and other scandals that are taking place.
My question to the hon. Minister of Public Safety is this: what are they afraid of? Why are you afraid of debating this in the House of Commons and of giving members of Parliament opportunities for debate?
The Deputy Speaker
I would direct members to direct their questions and comments to the Chair, not to each other.
The hon. Minister of Public Safety.
Vic Toews Conservative Provencher, MB
Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for the member. What I fail to understand is that he indicates somehow that expanding debate by 20 hours a week is somehow running away from an issue. Twenty hours a week is a substantive amount of time that I might point out members opposite voted against.
I am not exactly sure what he means by saying we are running away from debate. Debate on what? I appeared in front of the committee. I responded to every objection that was raised. At the end of the day, the NDP raised no amendments. New Democrats were obviously satisfied with the position that our government had taken, that my presence at committee and the comments of my colleagues in the House had satisfied them that the bill was as good as it could possibly get.
An hon. member
Oh, oh!
Vic Toews Conservative Provencher, MB
The member across the way is chirping because she does not have anything substantive to say on the record, but the issue is I just do not understand, how do I respond to zero amendments, an admission by the opposition that the bill is a good bill? It needs to be expedited, but members want to stand in the way.
The Deputy Speaker
Order. It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.
The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members
Agreed.
No.
The Deputy Speaker
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
The Deputy Speaker
All those opposed will please say nay.
The Deputy Speaker
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:)
The Deputy Speaker
I declare the motion carried.
I wish to inform the House that because of the debate on the time allocation motion, government orders will be extended by 30 minutes.
The House resumed from May 23 consideration of the motion that Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, be read the third time and passed.
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to rise and speak in support of Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act.
Before I get going with my speech today, I want to recognize the stellar work done by my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, the critic for public safety. He is such an impressive member of Parliament and does incredible hard work out in his riding, but also right here. When it has come to public safety, he has been on the job, working with the government where he can or where they let us, and then being the best advocate he can be to build strong, safe communities right across Canada.
That is our primary aim and our goal. We are committed as a caucus to building strong, safe communities right across this country for everyone. It was for that reason, when time allocation was moved at committee, that our committee members on this bill actually co-operated. To hear them being smacked in the House today was a bit rich. It seems that when we try to co-operate we get smacked around anyway. That is really unfortunate, when we have a parliamentarian who works incredibly hard to build bridges and work together with others to put forward the public safety agenda. Also, I do not know if it is coincidence, but I notice that out of all the times for the witnesses, the NDP witnesses were left to the end, right before the report was written.
Once again, I fail to understand why these games get played in this Parliament. It is to that end that I find it quite astounding that here we are again today, moments before I started to speak, having to vote on another time allocation motion, number 38, and number 5 within a week. We really have to wonder what the Conservatives have to hide. What do they have against parliamentary democracy? What do they have against parliamentarians from right across this country, from every single party? I am talking about all parliamentarians. What do they have against parliamentarians' right to represent their communities and speak to legislation? That is a key concern.
If I were not sitting in these hallowed halls of Parliament, and I were outside trying to teach people about parliamentary democracy, this would be a classic case of a government that is trying to shut down the democratic processes. It gives me great concern. What kind of a model are we setting for our youth? What are we saying to them? That our Parliament is not where people go to parler, not where they go to speak and debate and discuss issues, but that Parliament is now a place where a majority can use a hammer to silence the voices of members of Parliament. That is a shame, and a damning comment on the current government at this time.
However, getting into the piece of legislation before us, once again we are here to talk to a bill that we support. Because we support it, we are still very concerned about MPs I know on this side of the House who want to speak to this issue and raise concerns from their riding. They want to share with other members of Parliament how constituents in their riding feel about this legislation and how this is a step in the right direction, but more needs to be done. Once again, what we have is the hammer being used by a majority government to silence duly elected members of Parliament.
It is no surprise that even on this bill the Conservatives are late to the game. The NDP has been working on this file for years. We have been one of the critics of the eligibility criteria for witness protection, the poor coordination with provincial programs and the low numbers of witnesses admitted into the program. As an example, in 2012, out of 108 applications considered only 30 were accepted. That is what we need to debate, discuss and address.
The witness protection program was passed in 1996. Both the Liberal and Conservative governments have done little to respond to the criticisms of the system and the program. Some bills have been presented in the House of Commons and the NDP has supported them, especially those in 1999 relating to domestic violence. However, the Liberal government helped to defeat them.
Therefore, what has yet to be addressed is the overarching issues of eligibility, coordination and funding. The NDP is on record of repeatedly asking the government to address the three key issues I have identified. I am not making that up.
In November 2012, the NDP member of Parliament for Trinity—Spadina called for more support for the federal witness protection program, pointing to the difficulty the Toronto police faced in convincing witnesses to the shooting that summer at a block party on Danzig Street to come forward, because without protection people are scared. They are scared for themselves and their families. We really need to address these issues.
We are pleased to see that this legislation, Bill C-51, does expand the eligibility criteria for the witness protection program to include witnesses recommended by CSIS and the Department of National Defence. It would also extend the period of emergency protection and clear up some technical problems with respect to coordinating with provincial programs. That coordination does not go far enough. There is far more that could be done.
When we look back on our history, there is a lot we can learn. It pains me every time I bring up the Air India disaster, one of the worst terrorist acts to take place against Canadians. Thousands of families were impacted and are still finding it very difficult to come to terms with the fact that the people responsible for that tragedy and heinous act of terrorism are still out there. I can still remember the artistic portrayal and a poem written about the bodies and body parts that were discovered. Whole families were wiped out. A husband lost not only his wife but both his children. A brother lost his sister and her whole family. There are many such stories and many of those constituents live in my riding. Recently, I had the privilege of meeting one of the victims of that tragedy at a committee meeting. The words he said really haunt me even now. He said that it hurts today as though it were yesterday and that the biggest hurt of all was that the country he lives in has still not been able to mete out justice. Finding and punishing the people who did that heinous crime will not bring back those who have passed away. However, it will give people some peace. That story has a direct link to the witness protection program.
After that tragedy, people were very unwilling to come forward and be witnesses. Even those who gave testimony then withdrew it. As a result, we have very little resolution, despite a very intense inquiry with pages and pages of recommendations.
One of the most hurtful things for those surviving members, and for us as Canadians, is that many of the recommendations from that inquiry, which I have heard both the government and others parties say were laudable, are not part of this report. We are very sorry that they are not here, but in order to expedite this particular piece of legislation and to get this part through where we have at least some expansion of the criteria, we co-operated. However, it was with a heavy heart that we did so.
I look back at Mr. Tara Hayer, a distinguished gentleman who lived in my riding and who was shot. He was shot because he gave an affidavit and was willing to be a witness in the Air India trial. We can imagine that after his tragic murder, there was an even further reluctance for anybody in the community to speak up. It is because of this that we have to have this expansion of criteria and a way to extend emergency protection, even if it is not everything we were looking for.
The key thing here is that it is easy for us to pass bills that look good on paper. We get moved by emotions at times and we can pass bills for those reasons as well, but one of the things that I have learned is that unless we provide the resources, it is very difficult to see how the already stretched authorities will be able to fulfill this new mandate.
We have an amazing RCMP and it will do whatever it is asked to do with the resources it is given. This is not a criticism of our RCMP. It is a criticism of us as parliamentarians, who have not built additional resources into the bill or the budget because we are expanding the criteria and we are expanding a certain level of co-operation with the provinces. We have to make sure that we do not download more of these costs onto the provinces, which I would say are already stretched.
We as a party are very committed to building safer communities. One way to do that is through an improved witness protection program and improving its criteria. The other way is to give the police additional tools to fight street gangs and organized crime. This is a huge issue in my riding and many ridings across the country. One of the key things we need if we want to get into prevention and proactive programs is to ensure that our front-line service providers have the tools they need. If they do not have the tools they need, we know that there are some serious struggles to be had.
There have been validators of our position and the RCMP. In late 2009 and early 2010, the federal government actually consulted the provinces and territories on the program and a number of provinces expressed concerns. Several provinces have their own witness protection program, but they often only provide short-term assistance. There is a need out there. Allowing street gang witnesses into the protection program has been a long-standing recommendation of those working to combat street gangs, in addition to a recent RCMP request to the government. The RCMP has also advocated for intensive psychological examination of potential protectees.
To finish off, we are going to support this bill. We are very strong supporters of strong, safe communities. To that end, we are expediting this piece of legislation through the House.
David Wilks Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Mr. Speaker, one of the frustrations the police have with regard to the witness protection program is that, from time to time, witnesses do not realize their obligations under the act as well. Some of those obligations are that they must sever their ties with everyone they have known. It is a difficult process. As a result of that, sometimes there is a compulsion to go back to meet a friend or a family member. At the time, they do not think it will cause any problems, but it can.
Would the hon. member agree that the witness protection program does, for the most part, work very well, but there is also a requirement for the witnesses to fulfill their obligation?
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree that responsibilities and rights go both ways. This is where the request by the police for additional funding or resources to look at the psychological impact and to provide counselling and support really becomes critical. When we are removing people and putting them into protection, we are protecting their lives and doing it for very good reasons. However, once witnesses are cut off from their support system, it can lead to a huge vacuum and all kinds of psychological problems as well. We absolutely need to educate the witnesses and provide them with support as they adjust to being in the protection program.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize the benefits of the witness protection program in delivering results and making our communities a safer place to live. In certain areas of our country there is a very high level of gang activity, for example. To break into organized gangs to cause the destruction of them, we likely will have to go to individuals within those gangs to get the type of prosecutions necessary to break them up.
If we are successful at doing that in certain regions of our country, it will make the communities much better. To get that informant, we need to have a healthy, confident witness protection program so we can hopefully be more effective at destroying gangs from coast to coast to coast.
Could the member comment on the potential of the destruction of gangs by having an effective witness protection program?
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Mr. Speaker, the impact of gangs in our communities is a concern to all of us no matter where we sit in the House. We need a multi-faceted approach. We need education. We need a proactive rehabilitation. Part of that rehabilitation and also trying to insert ourselves into gangs and trying to break up some of them has to be a witness program for young people, although gangs can have people of all ages, who have faith and believe they truly will be protected. If there is any doubt or any question to our ability, then there will be that fear again.
It all goes back to resourcing. It is not enough to remove people from a certain environment, give them new IDs and put them into other locations. It is about the kind of psychological aspects, like looking for a job, education and counselling support we provide for those people to settle into their new lives and live productive lives in different environments.
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Surrey North for her very kind comments about my role as public safety critic. Her speech illustrates the importance of representation in Parliament. She represents a riding in which witness protection and the lack thereof have played a very critical role in something which is very much a deeply felt issue in the community, and that is the Air India tragedy.
I want to take this opportunity to thank her for reminding us how we were unable, as a justice system, to address the concerns of the community and to bring people to justice who caused such great harm in their communities.
The minister in his comments earlier today implied that we did not have anything to say on this. In her opinion, does the bill make enough improvements on the question of dealing with things like the Air India tragedy?
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Mr. Speaker, this is definitely a movement in the right direction. It does expand the criteria. However, it does not set up an independent advisory board, which we will have to look at in the long run. Otherwise, the RCMP will be questioning itself and that puts it in a terrible position.
The member is absolutely right. I live in a riding where it is not unusual to have guns fired every week. People are scared and very concerned about their safety. For us, it is very important to have a robust and well-resourced witness protection program.
My big concern with the legislation is the lack of resources, as well as the independent panel that we hoped would be established.
Notwithstanding all of that, we support this because it does expand the criteria. That expansion of the criteria is enough to get the NDP support. We have been pushing for this for a long time. I am so pleased to see the government has come to that conclusion as well.
Kevin Sorenson Conservative Crowfoot, AB
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all those who have spoken to the bill.
I have the privilege of chairing the public safety and national security committee. Our committee did the study and research on Bill C-51, which is why I am pleased to rise today and speak to the safer witness act.
If members would indulge me for a moment, I would like to paint a picture of what I believe most Canadians, indeed most people across North America, think the witness protection program is about and how it works. For that, we can thank Hollywood with the movies it puts out, TV shows, reality shows, cop shows and shows about crime. To a certain degree, the image of witness protection has almost been glamorized.
For example, in a typical movie, the underappreciated subordinates in some gangs or crime rings decide they will step away from their gangs and go to the police to spill the beans about the gangs' criminal undertakings and talk about the bosses of the crime rings. The movie shows the informants receiving false IDs and law enforcement taking them to new cities where they begin new lives as a different people. They are given new jobs and acquaintances who hopefully will become their friends, and that is where they now live their new lives.
Being a Hollywood movie, their real identities are eventually discovered by the old crime gangs and they pull out all the stops to silence them before they get to trial. Indeed, if they do get to trial and spill the beans, then the gang finds them and they get some payback for the testimony they gave against their former colleagues.
Thankfully, that is not reality. Quite frankly, the Hollywood version is oversimplified. It certainly makes for a good movie, but it is not the way the witness plan works.
In real life, being part of a witness protection program does not mean a life of bodyguards stationed outside one's door or home, or being drawn into wild action scenes such as being followed while running down the street, avoiding gunshots and, thankfully getting back to the safe hiding place. That is not the way it is. However, this is not to say that protecting witnesses is not important or dangerous. After all, there is a reason why witnesses need protection and the police understand that. I think Canadians also understand it.
These individuals have generally agreed to help law enforcement or provide testimony on criminal matters with the end goal of removing criminal elements from the streets and making our communities safer. The inside knowledge they have agreed to provide to authorities may be invaluable, but could place their lives at risk.
Witness protection is recognized around the world as one of the most important tools that law enforcement may use and should at least have at its disposal to combat criminal activity. If we cannot provide adequate protection in our country to those individuals who agree to come forward, despite the danger they face, we lose a very critical source of information in getting to the bottom of the criminal charges and crime.
In the case of organized crime in particular, these witnesses are often the key components in achieving convictions. To ensure a fair and effective response to organized crime, terrorism and other serious crimes, government and police agencies must provide protection to informants and witnesses who can face intimidation, violence, reprisals and indeed, the loss of their own lives. Offering protection to these informants and witnesses allows law enforcement to obtain and sustain their collaboration. For this reason, we must ensure that we have the best system in place to protect these individuals.
Here in Canada, we have two separate witness protection programs. We have the programs run by the provinces and the federal witness protection program. While informal witness protection has been practised since 1970 in Canada, the federal witness protection program was officially established only in 1996. It is administered by our national police force, the RCMP. The provincial programs, found in Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan, typically provide shorter-term protection and could include relocating the person temporarily or providing limited financial support.
In cases where provincial protectees require secure identity changes, they must be transferred to the federal program. At the federal level, the Witness Protection Program Act provides a range of emergency protections to witnesses under threat, from temporary protection to permanent relocation to, in some cases, complete identity changes.
As members have heard over the last several years, extensive consultations and studies of the federal witness protection program indicated a clear need to modernize the current legislation and to improve how the federal and provincial programs intersect. The safer witnesses act contains a number of amendments to the Witness Protection Program Act that do just that. They fall within five broad areas.
First, the bill would enable the provinces to have their respective programs designated under the federal act, thereby allowing their witnesses to receive secure identity changes without having to be admitted into the federal program. This measure would cut back on duplication. It would mean that they could continue without beginning the program and then having to move to the federal program. They would now be part of their own provincial plans.
In stakeholder consultations, some provinces indicated that having to transfer their protectees to the federal program for identity changes can be cumbersome and time-consuming. Bill C-51 addresses these calls for change. Any time we have duplication and cumbersome, time-consuming regulations for an act, it costs money. The provinces have recognized this and have asked for this part of the enablement to be done through the provincial program.
Second, the federal organization would be required to help the RCMP obtain secure identity changes for witnesses in both the federal program and designated provincial programs. It would give the federal organizations or departments the requirement that they will help provide these for the provincial plans. The RCMP would continue to act as the liaison between the provincial and federal programs.
Third, Bill C-51 would broaden the prohibition against disclosure, ensuring the protection of provincial witnesses and information about both the federal and provincial programs. This measure addresses calls by the provinces, again, to ensure that witnesses in their programs are protected from the disclosure of prohibited information throughout Canada.
Fourth, the legislation proposes changes that would expand which entities could refer individuals to the federal program. Currently, only law enforcement agencies and the international criminal tribunals can make referrals to the witness protection program.
Under Bill C-51, it would be broadened to include other organizations, such as national security, defence and public safety organizations. They would be able to refer witnesses to the federal program. When we heard witnesses, all parties said that it should not just be the RCMP. Indeed, in some cases, it needs to be the Department of National Defence or CSIS that steps forward. We are just broadening the groups that can refer to this program.
Fifth, the bill addresses a number of other concerns from federal and provincial stakeholders, such as allowing for voluntary termination from the federal program and extending emergency protection to a maximum of 180 days. I think it is currently 90 days. This says that in this day and age, temporary emergency protection timelines may have to be doubled.
Together, the proposed changes would serve to strengthen the current Witness Protection Program Act, making the federal program more effective and secure for both the witnesses and for those who provide the protection.
The crux of the program is to keep those involved and their information safe and secure. Our committee was taken with this. As we heard this morning, already five meetings have been held, because there is a need to extend protection.
Mr. Speaker, I know that the parliamentary secretary, in her speech, highlighted these points, but as this is a matter of importance to front-line police officers and witnesses, I would like to turn your attention to the proposed changes to disclosure prohibitions.
Currently, the act prohibits the disclosure of information about such things as the location or change of identity of a current or former federal protectee. A concern was brought forward that these disclosures be extended to include information about provincial witnesses and about the provincial witness programs and those they protect.
The safer witnesses act addresses this concern with changes that broaden the prohibition on disclosing information in a number of areas. First, and maybe most important, it prohibits the disclosure of information related to the individuals who are protected under the designated provincial program.
Second, it prohibits disclosure of any means or methods of protection that could endanger the protected individuals or the integrity of the programs themselves. This includes information about the methods used to provide protection or support. It also includes information about the methods used to record or exchange confidential information as well as data about the location of secure facilities.
Third, it prohibits the disclosure of any information on the identity or role of persons who provide or assist in providing protection to the witnesses. Not only is the witness going to be protected, but the person who organizes providing the secure identity and location and so on will be protected. This would broaden the prohibition to include not being able to disclose information about those involved in changing identities.
Further, the bill clarifies language in the current act to ensure that these measures apply to situations in which a person directly or indirectly discloses information. The bill also specifies that one must knowingly reveal this information for it to be an offence. Mens rea applies. It has to be willing disclosure. That would become prohibited.
Bill C-51 includes changes that would further strengthen the legislation in this regard. For example, as stated in the current act, the protectee or former protectee can disclose information about him or herself, as long as it does not endanger the life of another protectee or former protectee and does not compromise the integrity of the program itself.
Under Bill C-51, this wording would be changed to remove the reference to the integrity of the program and would clarify that the protected person could disclose information if it would not lead to substantial harm to another protected person.
The current act also allows for disclosure of prohibited information by the RCMP commissioner for a variety of reasons, such as if the protected person gives his or her consent or if the protectee or former protectee has already disclosed the information or acted in a manner that resulted in the disclosure. If the disclosure is essential to the public interest for a purpose such as investigations or for the prevention of a serious crime, national security or national defence, the Commissioner of the RCMP may be able to disclose it. Most people understand that in those cases, under certain conditions, the RCMP commissioner may have the ability to disclose if that disclosure is going to protect our society. In criminal proceedings where the disclosure is necessary to establish the innocence of a person, again, the RCMP commissioner may be able to disclose under certain conditions.
Under the safer witness act, the wording would be changed as it relates to the RCMP commissioner disclosing prohibited information for the “public interest”. As such, under Bill C-51, he or she could only disclose this information when it was essential to the administration of justice. I think all parties recognize that reasonable grounds include disclosure to uphold justice.
Furthermore, we propose to change the wording for national security purposes. Under Bill C-51, the commissioner could disclose prohibited information if he or she had “reasonable grounds to believe that the disclosure is essential for...security or national defence”.
Along the same vein, Bill C-51 contains several proposed changes that would authorize the RCMP commissioner to disclose information in specific situations. For example, he or she should disclose information about both federal and designated program protected persons for the purpose of providing assistance to federal or provincial protectees in need of secure identity changes. The commissioner would also be able to disclose information about federal and designated program protectees in situations where a protected person either agreed to the disclosure or had previously disclosed information. For example, the protected person may have revealed his or her change of identity to family or friends.
According to the bill, the commissioner would be authorized to disclose information about the actual federal program and methods of protection and about the role of a person who provided protection under the program. This would only be done when the commissioner felt there were reasonable grounds to believe that the disclosure was critical for the administration of justice or for national security, national defence or public safety.
Other changes relate to the disclosure of information about protectees under the provincial designated programs and to issues related to the disclosure of information by an official of a designated provincial program. The RCMP commissioner does have some leeway here if it is for the protection of Canadian citizens.
This is a good overview of those elements in Bill C-51 that relate to safeguarding and disclosing information that could compromise the safety of protected witnesses.
To recap, the bill would broaden the prohibition on the disclosure of information beyond name and location of federal protectees to include protected persons in the designated provincial programs. It would also extend disclosure prohibitions to include information about all witness protection programs and the people who administer them. The bill would also provide exceptions to the disclosure of information to permit disclosure in certain circumstances, such as when it is in the interest of justice or public safety.
As I said at the outset, individuals who decide to become informants and to testify against crime organizations can face intimidation and danger. In his 2010 report entitled “A Review of Selected Witness Protection Programs”, Dr. Yvon Dandurand noted that the overwhelming majority of witnesses enrolled in witness protection programs are either involved in criminal activity or are somehow connected with criminal elements.
I see that my time is up. I thank all other parties for working with us on this. It was a good time going through this at committee. We appreciate the support of the House for the bill.
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech on this very important bill. It has already been through several readings and will soon be examined by the Senate.
My question is very simple. I would like to know whether he thinks that the NDP and all the other parties worked together well as they debated this bill. In addition, why does he think it is important to pass this bill?
Kevin Sorenson Conservative Crowfoot, AB
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to chair a committee that really wants to accomplish some things. I give credit to both the NDP and Liberal members on this committee, as well as the government members. We worked well.
To be quite frank, there are times in committee, as here, that politics may want to be played, but there has to come a time, especially at committee, when we say we want to accomplish something. I do not know the constituency of the Liberal member who sits on the committee, but the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca and others on the committee worked together with the government on this bill.
We heard from some very good witnesses. We heard different individuals ask us to move this bill forward as quickly as possible. We heard from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Assistant Commissioner Todd Shean. We also heard from Sergeant Abraham Townsend, who said, “On behalf of those I represent, I wish to thank the government for advancing Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act, which will in turn advance the public safety interests of all Canadians”. He said he wanted to thank “the government” for advancing Bill C-51, but I think we can look back and say he wanted to thank Parliament for advancing it, because we are moving it through quickly, and all of those involved in this very important legislation understand the importance of doing that.
Scott Andrews Liberal Avalon, NL
Mr. Speaker, it sounds as though the committee he chairs has done a lot of hard work and has had a lot of input.
During his speech, he mentioned that this bill would also help protect individuals who are protecting those getting new identities, in other words, the members of the RCMP who find people new identities and work in that field. I think I heard that in his speech and I was wondering if he could elaborate a little on how this bill would protect officers who are helping people get new identities.
Kevin Sorenson Conservative Crowfoot, AB
Mr. Speaker, obviously the member was listening to my speech, and I appreciate that.
Yes, that was one of the pieces of information that came out. We have a very specialized police force, and its members are very professional. There are many on this side of the House who have served in the RCMP and other police forces. They all say that individuals within the departments, the RCMP, the Toronto metro police or any metropolitan or municipal police force all have their areas of expertise. All of a sudden, someone is renowned in the force as being one of the individuals in charge of the witness protection plan. These individuals have their connections, their people and their locations, and pretty soon they have a real expertise.
People come and go on the forces, and as the old saying goes, loose lips sink ships. It may not necessarily always occur in the police force; it may come from some of the witnesses who have been protected. All of a sudden the talk begins, “Constable X or Sergeant Y or so-and-so did a great job”, and now these folks become targets.
It is important for the law enforcement officers who help provide this major service to our justice system that we put a further stamp on the important jobs that they do and in legislation and statute say that they need to be protected even more.
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the member's speech. He mentioned one of the changes, which was to move from 90 days to 180 days, and he suggested it was a good change.
Since he is on the committee and heard from these expert witnesses, does he see any other changes that would be beneficial to these people and would be necessary to ensure that they are protected and kept safe in particular instances involving organized crime, et cetera? Would he suggest anything further we could do to keep them safe?
Kevin Sorenson Conservative Crowfoot, AB
Mr. Speaker, that is one of the things that I am not certain was expanded on in committee, the extension from 80 days, I think, to 180 days.
Basically, what the different witnesses talked about when they came forward were the provincial requests. The provincial requests were about the length of time it took to move from the provincial program, which a number of our provinces have, into the federal program or the federal department in order to secure identities. The main thrust of what the provinces were pushing for was streamlining. I think they felt it would help save money and time for the provinces and for the police forces if we could have this type of thing streamlined. That was one of the big ones.
Another was disclosure. Most witnesses brought forward the idea that we should toughen up on those who would disclose who they were or where they were hiding or were relocated to. Those were some of the issues.
It was good legislation before, and it is better now. It has evolved to this point. It has taken a few years from both governments, but we have taken all the things that needed to be done that had been brought forward and included them in this bill. There are no gaping holes. That there were no other amendments attests to that. We worked well together with the other political parties.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Speaker, some of the issues and questions that are coming up in dealing with witness protection, particularly given the complexity of crime all across Canada, are about the need to expand the eligibility criteria, especially with the issues of youth gangs that we are dealing with now. Much of that is also under provincial jurisdiction.
I would like to ask my hon. colleague what steps are necessary to work with the provinces to ensure we have a better-integrated system. Do we need to expand the eligibility criteria for this program in order to deal with the issue of youth gang violence?
Kevin Sorenson Conservative Crowfoot, AB
Mr. Speaker, all groups are included in this program. Youth are also included in the program.
The problem with the witness protection program, as far as youth are concerned, is that in most cases we are now not talking about the relocation of one young individual. We very well could be talking about the entire family.
Although youth are included in this, I think we asked the RCMP if anyone had been not permitted into the program because they were youth. The answer was no. The RCMP said that anyone who needs to be in this program gets into it.
In a few cases when witnesses understand the severity of what the program would entail, they do not always want to then move into that program. Not everyone who is bringing forward testimony against crime wants to give up the life they have now, their circle of friends and in some cases their family. They do not necessarily want to be in this program. However, for the most extreme measures, even for a short term, there is a need enter the program.
To relocate an entire family becomes difficult, but if that is what is needed, I think the answer is that it would happen.
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to speak on this bill today, and with a lot of relief, in that the government seems to be in an even greater rush to pass this bill and has trampled right over our co-operation in this case.
I want to review the timing that we are dealing with. This legislation was introduced on December 11, 2012, just before the Christmas break, so unfortunately it could not be dealt with at second reading until we came back.
It was dealt with at second reading on February 12, 2013. Then it was sent to committee. At committee, the government moved a motion suggesting that we should deal with the committee and hear our witnesses within four weeks.
We in the NDP agreed to that motion. We accepted a motion to limit our time in committee and to bring this back to the House in a timely fashion, so it came back here on March 26.
The first day of debate was less than a week ago. What we intended to do on this side of the House was to point out our concerns about the bill, but not to hold up this bill unnecessarily.
What we got was two speakers on the bill before the government decided it was time for time allocation. No one had threatened to put up every single member on the opposition side to speak, but we did have members who wished to speak on the bill.
I did hear some of the minister's comments on the imposition of time allocation, and I frankly cannot understand them. He was saying that we did not move any amendments at committee and that therefore we must have nothing to say.
At committee, we agreed to a number of witnesses so that we could bring this bill back in good time, have the debate and pass it in a timely fashion. In a way, what I heard the minister saying is that when we try to co-operate on the bill, he is going to punish us for that as well by restricting debate in the House. The comments from the Minister of Public Safety were nonsensical.
The member for Crowfoot, the chair of the public safety committee, acknowledged in his very good speech that we worked together in committee to talk about the problems with the bill but that we had agreed that the bill had taken too long to get here. The NDP has been calling for action on the witness protection program since 2007.
We agreed not to go into an extensive process of disagreement over amendments and call a lot of other witnesses. We agreed to get this back here because we on this side of the House do believe that there are improvements in this bill sufficient to allow it to proceed.
It is hard for me to understand how the minister could say we have nothing to say when he has not heard us yet. It is one of those odd comments: “The opposition must have nothing to say about this bill; therefore, we will not let them speak.”
Before the session this morning, I was very privileged to speak to a group of young, very politically active gay students, organized by Jer's Vision. There were two members of Parliament there, and we were explaining to them that we would have to leave and come to the House in order to discuss and vote on a motion.
They asked what the motion was, and I have to say it was embarrassing to say to these students who are very involved in learning about politics and democracy that we were going to vote on cutting off debate for the 38th time.
The response from those students was, “But is it not your job as a representative to go there and speak? How can they suggest you should not have the right to go there and speak? Is it not your job to bring up criticism to the government? How can they say you should not have the opportunity to do that?”
It was clear that even those who are very new to the political process seem to have a basic understanding of what we are doing here in debates in the House of Commons, which is representing our constituents and bringing forward alternative points of view. It is not always about the technicalities of a piece of legislation. It is not always about amendments.
We heard the member for Newton—North Delta talking about the concerns in her riding, both with the Air India tragedy and with youth gangs and youth violence. She has a very important perspective to bring forward on this bill. It is not about amending the bill; it is about getting the public to understand the importance of the bill and the fact that on this side of the House we think there are further things we could do in this area.
Bill C-51 is not the be-all and end-all for witness protection; it is the beginning of some reforms that we need to make.
Again, it is very difficult to face, 38 times, a government that seems addicted to shortcuts. We have seen how taking those shortcuts has got the government into trouble on other things. Examples are the chief of staff to the Prime Minister and the Senate. It is not always a good idea to adopt the shortcuts.
However, here we are again. To me, that is what closure is, an attempt to shortcut the process and shortcut democracy. The government is saying, “We have a majority. We know what is best. We are just going to do it anyway, so you on the opposition side should be quiet, get out of the way and let us go.” The government does this even when we are co-operating to get the bill through this House of Commons in the best form possible.
It does not make any sense to me.
I do not mean to belittle or diminish the importance of the word “addiction”, because I know many people in our society have severe addiction problems, but it does seem like an addiction when it happens 38 times, 5 times in one week, and this week it even happened twice in one day. It seems like a solution in search of a problem. Everything that comes up has that same solution.
I have heard other members use that old adage, that when all one has is a hammer everything looks like a nail. However, it is not true in this House that the only thing the government has is closure. The Conservatives could actually come in and engage in debates and represent their constituents, and we could still get the public's business done in good time. So I am very disappointed that we have time allocation on this.
As the critic, I was travelling with the public safety committee last week. I almost did not get a chance to speak to the bill, and I am supposed to be the NDP's spokesperson on it. Only two speakers spoke. We had less than an hour and a half of debate in this chamber before time allocation was used again, for the 38th time.
Turning to the substance of the bill, I will talk first about why the NDP is supporting this bill, and then I will talk about what we see as the deficiencies in the bill.
First, as many members have noted, probably the easiest thing to understand is that the witness protection program, as it exists, has very narrow criteria for its admission, and it left out the important areas of national security. In an age when we are faced with the threat of terrorism and we are trying to combat that threat, being unable to offer witness protection to those in national security matters is an important gap in our legislation. Therefore, we on this side do support Bill C-51 because it would take that important step to allow the Department of National Defence and CSIS to recommend people to the witness protection program. This may be a very useful tool for those investigating and prosecuting terrorism cases. The other area in which I believe the criteria would be expanded is that it would explicitly allow the use of witness protection for those involved with gangs. Some members on the other side insist that this was always possible, but it certainly was not explicit. This legislation would provide that reassurance that we can use the witness protection program, which may be essential in cracking some gang activity.
The second aspect which is very positive and which has received much less attention is that it would provide better protection for those staff who are involved in the witness protection program in providing things like new identities. In particular, if witness protection is used, as it often is, in the case of organized crime, if members of organized crime are trying to find out what has happened to that witness, they may attempt, and have attempted, to learn who provided the new documents, and then place pressure on that public servant or that public servant's family in order to get access to the new name that was provided to someone and find out where he or she is. Therefore, this bill very clearly would provide additional protection to those other staff members outside the police who often facilitate the witness protection program, and that would be a very important improvement.
Third, one of the things we in the NDP have always been calling for is better co-operation and coordination of witness protection with the provinces. This bill would make it very clear and would remove some of those legal hurdles that made it difficult for the provinces to make use of witness protection. In particular, it made it difficult for those who, at the provincial level, wanted to use witness protection to get new documents quickly for those who needed a new identity for their protection. This bill would do a very good job in setting up the ability to designate provincial programs and would remove a lot of that red tape for co-operation between the two programs.
The fourth reason that I believe this bill is worth supporting is that it would extend the period provided for emergency protection for those who may need witness protection. This a formal program where people are assessed and their lives are completely reorganized. However, quite often there is an intervening period before they are formally in the program, when people may not even have yet given their testimony, when they need this protection. That originally was 90 days but it would now be 180 days. Given the delays in our justice system, it is very important that we expand the ability to have this emergency protection.
Why is the NDP providing support to a bill that it does not think is perfect? I have given four reasons at this point. They are the expanded criteria, the broader protection of staff working in witness protection, better coordination and the extended emergency period. We think that is enough to proceed with this bill and on that basis, we did agree to expedite the bill. We co-operated at committee and said yes, we can make our points in five meetings of the committee and we will do that.
However, we did not expect, in return for that co-operation, to have our ability to comment on the bill cut off at third reading through time allocation. If I had been dealing directly with the minister, I would have said it was a case of bad faith. However, I was dealing with the parliamentary secretary and the committee chair. I think they entered into that co-operation on good faith and they may, in fact, be as surprised as I am to find that time allocation was needed for a bill on which the opposition was co-operating.
What do we think is remaining that could have been in this bill? There are two things that I want to focus on. One of those was raised by the member for Newton—North Delta, and that was the recommendations of the Air India inquiry. At the end of the inquiry, Mr. Justice Major pointed to the very obvious thing that had happened, which was that one of his key witnesses in the inquiry had been assassinated. He was killed. Obviously, he could have been able to make use of the witness protection program, although knowing Mr. Hayer as I did, he was a very brave individual and I doubt he would have gone into the witness protection program. He had been threatened many times. He had also actually been physically harmed many times before he was eventually killed.
However, there were other witnesses, as Mr. Justice Major said, who would have gone into the witness protection program had it been available. This bill took that first step by expanding the criteria. What it did not do, which Mr. Justice Major recommended, was establish an independent authority, perhaps in the Ministry of Justice, but somewhere outside the RCMP, to determine the eligibility for entry into the witness protection program.
If we think for a minute, most people can figure out the problem here. The RCMP is doing the investigating of these cases. At the same time, it is the group that decides whether a person gets into the witness protection program. It creates an obvious conflict of interest when the investigators can dangle or hold out the acceptance or rejection from the witness protection program in front of the witness. Therefore, Mr. Justice Major's recommendation was that there be some independent agency within government, but not within the RCMP, that would make those decisions on witness protection. It did not have to be some completely separate agency.
We did not move amendments in that case, as we said, to expedite the bill, but also for a second reason. The RCMP recognized the spirit of that recommendation and it has now separated the decision of witness protection from the investigators. It is not a perfect solution, and we will see how it works, but going forward, the investigators will not make the decisions on the investigations. There will be a separate office within the RCMP Commissioner's office, which will make the decisions on acceptance into witness protection.
It is a step forward, but on this side, we think that when someone as distinguished as Mr. Justice Major makes a recommendation in a very critical area, we probably should have pursued it.
There are several other things that I could talk about, but I will only focus on a second one. That is the question of funding. This is not a budget bill, so we are not saying on the question of funding that the bill should have allocated x dollars to the witness protection program. However, I want to quote from the minister's statement when he introduced the bill, because it did raise a very big red flag. He said:
It is important to note that it is not anticipated that there would be any need for additional funding to accommodate this change. The program is currently funded by the RCMP from existing operational resources, and that will remain the same under Bill C-51.
That would be okay, except that it ignores one very large problem, which is that he is only talking about the witness protection program operated by the RCMP. When any other police force in the country uses the witness protection program, it is billed back for the entire cost of the program. If the provincial police in Quebec or Ontario or a municipal police force uses the witness protection program, it is going to get a bill.
Therefore, the witnesses we heard before committee were the RCMP's, saying that they did not have a problem with the budget and that they have never denied anyone using this program. However, we had some other witnesses, who the government ignored. I want to take a bit of time to mention one of those: the RCMP.
The RCMP website states, “There are instances when the costs of witness protection may impede investigations, particularly for smaller law enforcement agencies.” The minister said that we have no problem with funding. The RCMP states that while it does not, other police forces do have problems with funding of the witness protection program.
We had a very persuasive witness who is the vice-chair of the Halifax Board of Police Commissioners. Her name is Micki Ruth. I want to take a moment to tell members what she had to say about this funding question. It is an extensive quote. I do not normally read extensive quotes in my speeches, but this is worth listening to.
Commissioner Ruth stated:
Like many issues facing government today, funding is one of the biggest and toughest ones to find solutions for. The problems identified back in 2007 with the adequacy of funding for the current witness protection program are not addressed in Bill C-51. Unfortunately, we see problems with the ability of municipality police [forces] to adequately access witness protection because they lack the resources.
I want to emphasize that while we [the Canadian Association of Police Boards] support the intent of Bill C-51, CAPB has a duty to its members to ensure that legislation passed by the government does not result in a downloading of additional costs to the municipal police services that we represent. This is an important element of our work on the economics of policing, a subject with which you are already very familiar.
Therefore we urge you to appreciate our position that unless the issue of adequate funding is addressed, the legislation will not produce the result that is intended.
That important testimony that we heard at committee contradicts what the minister had to say when he introduced the legislation. It draws attention to the fact that not just small police forces but police forces in Halifax, Toronto or Victoria, my own community, do often face this tough question. Could they make progress in a very serious investigation by using the witness protection program? We would need a big bill. Can they really afford to take on organized crime and gang crime in their community if they would get several hundred thousand dollars billed back? There is no mistake about it. The witness protection program is not a one-time cost. It is an ongoing cost for those police departments. They do not just get one bill. As long as those witnesses are in witness protection, they will get bills for any of the costs associated with that. The initial costs are high and the ongoing costs are lower. Nevertheless, it is something they have to think about when making a decision on what kind of crimes they can successfully investigate in their community.
When the minister, in imposing time allocation, said that we had nothing to say, I am afraid what he meant was that he was afraid of what we might say if we had the chance to debate the bill.
The minister said at committee that no concerns were raised. With due respect, the minister was not present at all the committee sessions and seems to have a faulty memory because when he did appear at committee we did ask him about these concerns. These concerns were raised at committee. Therefore, if he does not have a faulty memory, then perhaps he has a selective memory about what happened in committee with respect to this bill.
It is frustrating for the opposition when we say to the government that we are prepared to work with it and try to get a bill through in an expeditious manner to then have the minister stand up in the House and say that somehow we are dragging our feet and that we are ragging the puck on the bill when what we want to do is make the public aware of the issues that remain outstanding.
We will be supporting the bill and will work to move it through Parliament, not instantly and not without debate but in an expeditious manner. The bill will have been passed in very few months. Had the government introduced it earlier in the term it would already be enacted. However, for some reason, even though it was aware of the concerns from 2007, it only brought the legislation forward just before the Christmas break of 2012. Therefore, if anyone is responsible for delays in getting this bill passed and getting these important improvements made to the witness protection program, unfortunately it is the government that will have to take responsibility for that.
David Wilks Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca for his very good speech and his very good work on the public safety committee. You were just speaking of downloading with regard to municipal forces, and it is of interest to me because from the perspective of the witness protection program, the witnesses do not just come out of the blue. That is now how it works. I have worked with several witness protection program cases, and most of these people are cultivated by the police to ensure they have a good result at a trial. That is normally what happens. So the police go in wide open, understanding that there is going to be a cost involved.
From the perspective of municipal police forces, whether it is Victoria, Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal or you name it, they recognize what is going to come down the pipe should they use the opportunity of the witness protection plan.
Do you not think that municipal police forces recognize this is a tool, so when they do take it, they also accept the responsibility that comes with it? Part of the responsibility is understanding that the cost is going to be quite significant, but also the reward will be immense, should that witness come through for them in court.
The Acting Speaker Barry Devolin
I want to remind all hon. members to direct their questions and comments to the Chair rather than to their colleagues.
The hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Mr. Speaker, the member for Kootenay—Columbia was an RCMP officer, and I know he knows a lot about this on the ground. There is a sense in which I agree with the comment he just made, and it is in fact reinforcing our point. That is what we heard from police services at the municipal level. They do understand there is going to be a cost. However, what they also said is that it sometimes makes them make decisions based on that cost factor. This is what they told us. The member can shake his head, but this is what they said in testimony before the committee, that they are sometimes constrained. Even the RCMP website on the witness protection program has a statement saying that for smaller police agencies, costs often impose constraints.
There is a sense that police understand that when they are taking on the witness protection program there is a cost, but sometimes it affects their decisions. When the benefits come, they come to society as a whole for breaking down gangs. They do not just come perhaps to the Victoria police force, in my case, but maybe to everybody who lives on Vancouver Island, yet they have to make the decision to shoulder those costs themselves.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I believe it is understood and widely accepted that there is a need for a witness protection program, and there is no selling job required. People can appreciate how important it is as a tool to acquire prosecutions. By doing that, we are able to not only stop crimes, hopefully, but prevent crimes from taking place.
In one of the areas of support, the member made reference to how the legislation would provide additional support for those who are responsible for the administration of the program, which is an important element of the legislation. I wonder if you might want to provide further comment on that aspect.
The Acting Speaker Barry Devolin
Once again, I will not provide further comment on that, but possibly the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca could.
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Winnipeg North for his frequent questions.
We often forget that there are many people other than police involved in policing. It is not always just the uniformed officers who are helping us build safer communities. There are often a lot of civilian staff of the RCMP, in particular, but also civilian staff of municipal police forces. In the case of witness protection, oddly enough, it is those who often work in the vital statistics offices who get involved in helping provide this new protection.
It is quite important that the bill recognize that there needs to be protection not just for the witnesses but also against disclosing the identity of those who would come under pressure for having assisted in the witness protection program.
Jean-François Larose NDP Repentigny, QC
Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of comments. I thank the committee members for all the work they have done. Being a former police officer and corrections officer myself, I have seen a lot of the problems we have, and I find the dynamic they had to open their hearts and look at all the tools and what needs to be brought forward was excellent.
That being said, I have seen so many opportunities and so many situations where we ended up having the tools, but because we did not have the budget, we could not actually use those tools. Time and time again, be it training, be it powers of arrest, even the equipment, the uniforms and so on, it is stacked up. It is not being used.
The fact is that we have municipalities saying they want the tools, they need the tools, but there is a problem concerning the finances. I have seen in this House where even the Criminal Code was amended and we have given more tools to police officers, but when it came to transfers to help those professional divisions, they were not there.
I do not think the fact that we are supporting this but saying, “What about the money?” is bad. I think it is an excellent point. We need to listen to the professionals who need that help.
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his intervention, because I think he is reinforcing what we heard literally from across the country. We heard it from one end of the country to the other. All the municipal police forces and the Association of Police Boards said the same thing. It is very difficult to dismiss that when we hear it everywhere.
If there was only one police force that came forward and said that it had one case where it could not afford this, that is not a problem, probably. However what we heard universally from all of them and from the Association of Police Boards was that this is a problem for the municipal police forces.
Therefore, it behooves the government to pay attention to that if it actually wants to build safer communities. If that is actually its goal and that is what this tool is supposed to help us do, then we need to pay attention to that problem.
David Wilks Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Mr. Speaker, duplication between the provincial and federal programs had been mentioned in committee.
I wonder if the hon. member could speak upon what he spoke to at committee and what was mentioned by the chair of the committee as well: the importance of limiting the duplication, not only for the safety of the witness but also for the continuity by police and their overseeing of the witness.
I wonder if you could talk for a bit on duplication.
The Acting Speaker Barry Devolin
Once again, I will not comment on that, but I presume the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca will.
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Mr. Speaker, given the topics before the House this week, I think duplication in general is a topic about which I would love to speak.
We have another House that seems to duplicate what we do and spends a lot of public money in its duplication, and perhaps even misspends public money in its duplication.
However, that is not the question from the hon. member, and I do think that one of the positives of Bill C-51 is that, by allowing a designation of provincial programs as recognized witness protection programs, it would eliminate a lot of the back and forth and to and fro between the two programs and eliminate the possibility—and the member is quite right that it might endanger the safety of witnesses. However, it would make a much more efficient use of resources. I think that is one of the positives of Bill C-51.
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague about something that I remember talking about during previous readings of the bill, which is the fact that these measures could create additional costs for police forces.
Does the government plan on helping police forces at all levels do their jobs? I would also like to know whether there will be any additional costs.
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Sherbrooke for his question, but I actually want to jump back to the question he asked the member for Crowfoot, because I think he put his finger on something very important in that question when he asked about co-operation in the committee.
Again, I want to pay tribute to the member for Crowfoot as the chair of the public safety committee, because he has been a very fair and accommodating chair who has worked very hard to make sure we can make progress on things like the bill.
It seems as if our problems only come when the PMO extends its tentacles into the committee and starts trying to interfere or direct the Conservatives in the way things ought to go.
It seems in the bill we made great progress in co-operation until we came to this sudden decision that we need some kind of restriction on the amount of debate we can have, which came out of nowhere. It did not come from the chair of the committee. It did not come from a parliamentary secretary. It blew in with the minister on some kind of strange wind this morning.
I think the member for Sherbrooke was right in his question about the importance of co-operation in committee.
LaVar Payne Conservative Medicine Hat, AB
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to add my voice to the discussion on the safer witnesses act.
It is encouraging to see support for the bill coming from all quarters. We have heard the merits of the legislation and how it would strengthen the federal witness protection program.
Thanks to television and the movies, people in our country often think they know all about what is going on with witness protection programs. The concept seems straightforward. However, when a witness is offered protection in order secure his or her help in investigating and prosecuting a criminal act, sometimes it is just a truly innocent witness to a crime, who has agreed to come forward to help the courts convict the offenders, and sometimes a witness may have formerly been involved in criminal activity, and in fact, it may surprise some people to learn that these are the vast majority of witnesses who require protection.
The range of protection can vary from a secure hotel room during a trial, for example, to a secure identity change. For the more serious cases that require providing witnesses with a secure change of identity to avoid retaliation from criminal organizations, witnesses must leave their communities, friends and jobs and essentially make a complete change in their life circumstances. It is, therefore, critical to have a robust program in place for those witnesses to feel safe in coming forward.
Witness protection is recognized by experts across the globe as one of the most critical tools that law enforcement has to combat terrorism and organized crime. We continue to see the benefit of the witness protection program in supporting national priorities, including the dismantling of organized crime groups here in Canada. Indeed, one of the prime purposes of the federal witness protection program is to enhance public safety by protecting persons who, as a result of providing assistance to law enforcement or providing testimony in criminal matters, are deemed to be at risk.
The federal program is used not only by the RCMP but also by law enforcement agencies across Canada. There are also provisions within the current act to allow for protection of foreign witnesses in cases where they can no longer be protected in their own country.
As we have heard, the Witness Protection Program Act was introduced to improve accountability and consistency in the protection practices at the time, but it is time to modernize that legislation.
The commissioner of the RCMP is the administrator of the program. Certain responsibilities for various processes, such as admission and termination from the program, are delegated to the assistant commissioner of federal and international operations. Furthermore, there are specifically trained witness protection coordinators who operate at arm's length, as we have heard, from investigative teams. This separation helps to ensure that a standardized and objective approach is used when assessing an individual's suitability to become a federal protectee.
There are a number of factors outlined in the act that must be considered to determine if a witness should be entered into the program. These include the degree of risk to the witness, the degree of danger posed to the community, the nature of the inquiry and the importance of the witness, the value of the information or evidence that law enforcement believes would be given by the witness, the likelihood that the witness would be able to adjust to the program, the estimated cost required to protect the witness, consideration of alternate methods of protection and other factors deemed to be relevant to the RCMP commissioner.
It is interesting to note that there is no specific list of offences for which witness protection is offered. In fact, each case is considered on an individual basis depending on the nature of the inquiry and the investigation or the prosecution. If there is a real threat to the life or safety of a witness as a result of his or her involvement with law enforcement or the justice system, a request can be made by the police force of jurisdiction for the witness. In other words, a provincial or municipal police force might decide that a witness needed a secure change of identity. That leads me to the legislation before us.
One of the key benefits of this legislation is to address the need for better streamlining of federal and provincial programs.
Let me turn now to Bill C-51 to examine this and the other proposed improvements to the current Witness Protection Act.
As we have heard in the debate, the legislation would make the federal witness program more effective and secure. It would improve interaction between federal programs and designated provincial and municipal programs. It would better protect those individuals who put their lives on the line to provide testimony against criminal activity.
The changes proposed in the legislation fall within five broad areas. First and foremost, the bill will address the issue I just mentioned. It will promote streamlining between federal and provincial programs by allowing provinces to have their programs designated. A province will make its request to the Minister of Public Safety and then be designated by the Governor in Council.
Currently, the only way for the RCMP to provide documents for a secure identity change for provincial or municipal protectees is through a process where the provincial witnesses requiring federal documents for secure identity changes are temporarily admitted into the federal program. This process has been widely panned by provinces as it means their witnesses will have to meet federal criteria to receive federal documents. As well, it can add further red tape and delays to the process. In consultations with the provinces, this government heard that it was cumbersome and inefficient.
The proposed solution is to have these programs designated so provincial witnesses do not have to be transferred into the federal witness protection program in order to receive a secure identity change. Under this framework, once the program is designated, an official can contact the RCMP, which is now required to assist in obtaining secure federal documents for these witnesses. Through this new process the, bill would create a more efficient and secure process for obtaining these documents by identifying a single point of contact, namely, the RCMP.
The next proposed change under Bill C-51 is to put in law an obligation for other federal organizations to help the RCMP in obtaining secure identity changes for these witnesses both in the federal program and the designated provincial programs. The RCMP will act as liaison between the provincial and federal programs.
Let me turn now to the third element of Bill C-51, which relates to the broadening prohibition of disclosures. In other words, the changes would ensure a more robust protection of provincial witnesses and information at both the federal and provincial levels. It would also protect officials involved in the process.
Permit me to delve into this third section a bit more in-depth as a critical part of the legislation. As it stands currently, the Witness Protection Program Act prohibits disclosure of information about location or change of identity of federal protectees only, both those currently in the program and former protectees. The proposed changes will extend the disclosure prohibitions to be broader and include information about those providing protection and how they provide it, as well as information about designated provincial witness programs.
Bill C-51 would do this in a number of ways, including prohibiting the disclosure of information related to the protectees who are under the federal protection designated provincial programs, prohibiting the disclosure of the means and methods of protection information that could endanger the protectees or the programs themselves for both the federal and designated programs and prohibiting disclosure of any information about persons who actually work in the federal or designated provincial programs.
The bill also proposes to amend the language found in the current act. To this end, it will make it clear that any measures apply to situations when a person either directly or indirectly discloses information. Furthermore, Bill C-51 would make it clear in order for a person to be charged with an offence, it must be proven that the person knowingly revealed this information.
Along with these enhancements, the bill would provide for exceptions to when protected information could be disclosed. The wording in the current legislation states that a current or former protectee has the right to disclose information about himself or herself as long as the information does not endanger the lives of other protectees or former protectees and as long as the disclosure of the information is not considered a risk to the integrity of the program itself.
The government proposed to change this wording in two critical ways. First, it would remove the reference to the “integrity of the program”. Second, it would clarify the protectee would be allowed by law to disclose information if it could not lead to “substantial harm” to any other protectee.
Further, the legislation before us outlines a variety of situations in which the Commissioner of the RCMP can disclose prohibited information. As the law reads today, the commissioner can currently disclose prohibited information in situations such as if the protected person has given the consent for the information to be disclosed, or if the current or former protectee has already disclosed the information or has acted in a way that has resulted in the information being disclosed if the RCMP commissioner determines that disclosing the information is essential to the public interest, such as instances where it could prevent a serious crime or have implications for national security or national defence. Finally, if during criminal proceedings, the disclosure is deemed necessary to establish the innocence of a person.
Bill C-51 proposes to change this wording as it relates to the commissioner disclosing prohibited information when it is seen as in the public interest. Under the legislation, the commissioner will only have the authorization to disclose prohibited information when there are reasonable grounds to believe the disclosure is essential for the purposes of the administration of justice.
Bill C-51 also proposes changes regarding disclosure of information for national security purposes. If the bill is passed into law, the commissioner will have the authority to disclose prohibited information if there are reasonable grounds to believe the disclosure is essential for national security or national defence.
Similarly, the legislation has a number of other proposed changes to the disclosure of information as it relates to specific situations. For example, in order to provide protection to federal protectees or allow for a secure change of identity for provincial protectees, the RCMP commissioner will be able to disclose information about both federal and designated program-protected persons. The commissioner will also be able to disclose information about federal and designated program protectees if the protected persons agree to the disclosure or have already disclosed the information themselves. This can include situations when a protectee has revealed his or her change of identity to family or friends.
Furthermore, the bill addresses situations in which the commissioner can disclose prohibited information when he or she believes the disclosure is essential for reasons of the administration of justice, national security, national defence or public safety. In any of these cases, if necessary, the commissioner can disclose information about the federal program itself, the methods and means of protection, as well as about the individuals who provide protection under the program. These measures will work together to provide a strong framework to ensure the information of protectees in designated provincial programs is equally protected.
Let me move on to the fourth main set of changes proposed under the safer witnesses act. The bill proposes to expand which organizations can refer individuals for consideration for admission to the federal witness protection program. As the law reads today, the only organizations that can refer an individual to the federal program are law enforcement agencies and international criminal tribunals.
Under Bill C-51, all federal organizations with a mandate related to national security, defence or public safety would be able to refer witnesses to the federal program. For example, CSIS and the Department of National Defence would now be authorized to refer individuals to the program.
Finally, Bill C-51 contains a number of measures that would improve the current program by allowing individuals to voluntarily leave the federal program by extending emergency protection from the current 90 days up to a maximum of 180 days.
In summary, the changes detailed within the safer witnesses act will do a number of things. They will help make the federal program more effective and secure for both the witness and those who provide protection. They will streamline the interaction between provincial, municipal and federal programs. They will more clearly define when prohibited information must be safeguarded and when it may be needed to disclose for reasons of national or public security. In short, these changes will enhance the effectiveness and security of the witness protection system in Canada, ensuring it remains a critical law enforcement and criminal justice tool well into the future.
I hope all my colleagues on the other side of the House will support this common sense legislation to keep our streets and communities safe.
Jean-François Larose NDP Repentigny, QC
Mr. Speaker, once again, I thank the committee, which did an excellent job of developing an absolutely necessary tool.
I am a former corrections officer and peace officer, so I quite often had the opportunity to see the tools at our disposal. However, there was no budget associated with these tools. Members of the House often have good intentions, but, unfortunately, the money is just not there.
There are plenty of witnesses we could have heard from. I hope that the Senate will do its job and that these witnesses will come talk about the problem.
What does my hon. colleague have to say about how the Conservatives plan to help local police services that do not have the money for this?
LaVar Payne Conservative Medicine Hat, AB
Mr. Speaker, I can talk about the assistant commissioner, Todd Shean, who was one of the witnesses. He said:
It's not a question of resources; it's a question of the assessment that's done. Once the assessment is completed...during the assessment process the person may decide that they do not want to enter into the program, they don't want to proceed on the route they're on, or we may assess that they're not suitable for the program.
It does not necessarily mean a total additional resource. It would all depend on whether the individuals needed the protection, wanted the protection or were actually suitable for protection under the witness protection program.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on that question. Where there are other jurisdictions that have a witness program and they would like to work in co-operation with the national program, my understanding is there is a financial obligation that they would have to provide in order to get them into that federal program or to get that co-operation. Could the member comment as to whether that is the case and, if so, to what degree?
LaVar Payne Conservative Medicine Hat, AB
Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with each municipal police force and what its funding requirements is, but it still comes down to the fact of whether the individuals need protection and whether they are suitable for it.
One thing another member indicated was that police might not proceed with it because it was too costly. My guess is the police would proceed if the witness needed protection. Otherwise, the police are probably not doing the job needed to protect the witnesses who in turn would help to reduce crime.
John Carmichael Conservative Don Valley West, ON
Mr. Speaker, as I was reading about the bill, and Bill C-51 is clearly a very important bill, I found a quote from Tom Stamatakis, president of the Canadian Police Association and I would like to read it. He said:
The Canadian Police Association strongly believes that this proposed legislation will enhance the safety and security of front-line law enforcement personnel who are engaged in protective duties...Unfortunately, the disclosure of identifying details can present a real danger to police personnel themselves as well as their families, and we appreciate the steps being taken today by the government of Canada to address those concerns.
Would my colleague comment on this and whether he sees any further detail in this that he would share with the House?
LaVar Payne Conservative Medicine Hat, AB
Mr. Speaker, we did have a number of witnesses and Tom Stamatakis, the president of the Canadian Police Association, came forward and had high praise for the bill. He sees it as an opportunity to expand not only from the federal point of view of being able to add national defence and CSIS, but also provincially.
This is a really important step to enable our provincial and municipal police forces to enter the federal witness program with less rules, regulations and hassle. However, they would still have to go through the process of determining whether the individual was suitable for protection.
Élaine Michaud NDP Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Mr. Speaker, I found the speech given by my colleague from Medicine Hat very interesting. I have been fortunate to work with him for the past few weeks on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.
I want to come back to the issue of costs because I have not heard a satisfactory answer. My colleague said that even though there is no new money to accompany the new provisions in the bill, we will not necessarily see an increase in costs or service demands in the various police forces.
Yet, we already know that some municipalities spend 50% of their budgets on their police. This is huge. The police are short of resources. My colleague could see this as well as I did, in the work of the committee.
If we increase eligibility for these programs, there will be an increase in service. Can my colleague really tell the House that there is no need for new federal funding, just as police forces are undergoing massive cuts? I am specifically thinking of the elimination of the police officers recruitment fund, among other cuts.
In light of this situation, how can he continue saying that there is no need for new federal funding to help our police forces?
LaVar Payne Conservative Medicine Hat, AB
Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I did travel together on committee business, and it was an excellent trip.
What I would like to say is that each municipal police force is responsible for its own budget. The provinces were consulted in this whole process. From that standpoint, the provinces were quite fine with the way the program was being laid out. They are on board. The municipal police forces, through their cities or municipalities, must provide the appropriate funding for police services.
It is not necessarily up to the federal government to provide funding for anyone other than federal agencies.
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
Mr. Speaker, just to reiterate, the hon. member is quite correct.
I have been on the public safety and national security committee for a good seven years now in three different Parliaments. The member is quite right, police forces and provinces have been consulted, and they prefer to maintain their appropriate jurisdiction because provinces are responsible for policing.
Any time the federal government works in conjunction with them, of course they say they would like more money. There is never enough. I have been around this place for seven years, and I could probably count on one hand the times when people said they had enough money or did not want more.
This is a question for most police forces, that some changes were needed to the witness protection program. The committee heard from those various players in policing, including police associations, who lauded these improvements to the Witness Protection Act. Indeed, that is probably why the opposition is saying that they are reluctantly going along with this, because it has been universally accepted as the right thing to do.
I wonder if the member could comment further.
LaVar Payne Conservative Medicine Hat, AB
Mr. Speaker, I travelled on the trip with hon. member as well. It was a very productive trip.
Indeed, the member is correct. When we look at municipal police forces, their budgets have to be provided by those municipalities. The provinces were consulted, and the municipalities were consulted.
I have only been here for four and a half years, but I do not believe that there has been any occasion when someone has said that there is enough money, enough funding from the federal government. Everybody would like to have more money, but one has to remember that there is only one taxpayer.
Annick Papillon NDP Québec, QC
Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to indicate that I will be sharing my time with my wonderful colleague from Vancouver Kingsway.
I rise today to speak to Bill C-51, the purpose of which is to better protect witnesses who help the police in the fight against organized crime and terrorism.
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. Only 30 of the 108 applications examined were approved in 2012.
The NDP has been asking the government for years to broaden witness eligibility for protection programs in order to guarantee the safety of all Canadians at risk. The NDP has been insistently calling for better coordination of federal and provincial programs and improved overall program funding since 2007.
Although the Conservatives have taken their time in addressing this growing problem, we are pleased that the government has finally listened to our requests to expand the witness protection program.
That is why we are going to support the safer witnesses act. One consequence of this bill is that it will allow federal departments and agencies with a mandate related to national security, national defence and public safety to use this investigative tool.
Bill C-51 also proposes extending the amount of time for which emergency protection can be provided to witnesses while they are working with the police or testifying in court.
Finally, the bill also seeks to further limit the public dissemination of information that could compromise the safety of witnesses and informants. Some of these measures were recommended in 2010 by a House of Commons committee that examined the problems with the investigation and legal proceedings related to the 1985 Air India attack.
The Canadian Press obtained a detailed document from the RCMP dated May 2010 on the reform of the witness protection program. In that document, the RCMP indicates that, regardless of whether the provinces choose to go with their own program, the RCMP must still ensure that the witness protection program is able to better respond to current challenges, such as street gangs and violence. The RCMP also proposed broadening the program eligibility criteria in order to make it easier for potential witnesses to qualify.
The NDP believes that Bill C-51 does very little with regard to some changes that need to be made to the witness protection program. The NDP will continue to push the government to address a host of concerns. Bill C-51 is a step in the right direction.
However, the witness protection program, run by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, costs around $9 million a year. Even though more people could be eligible under the proposed changes, the RCMP will not receive any additional funding.
Although the NDP supports Bill C-51, it deplores the fact that the Conservative government has refused to allocate additional funding. We are also concerned that the Conservatives' requirement that the RCMP and local police services work within their existing budgets will prevent the program from improving. If the Conservatives really, truly, sincerely want to improve the witness protection program, they should also commit the money to make that happen.
Here is what Commissioner Micki Ruth, from the Canadian Association of Police Boards, had to say when she appeared before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security:
Like many issues facing government today, funding is one of the biggest and toughest ones to find solutions for. The problems identified back in 2007 with the adequacy of funding for the current witness protection program are not addressed in Bill C-51. Unfortunately, we see problems with the ability of municipality police services to adequately access witness protection because they lack the resources.
Although we support the idea behind Bill C-51, we must ensure that the legislative measures being passed by the government do not burden municipal police services with additional costs.
In our opinion, the bill will not be effective unless the problem of adequate funding for the witness protection program is resolved.
We on this side of the House are also disappointed that this bill does not contain more of the recommendations from the Air India investigation, namely a more transparent and accountable eligibility process.
What is more, the bill contains no provisions allowing for an independent organization to administer the program, as recommended 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.
We also hope that the government truly intends to work with the provinces in order to facilitate the administrative process for changing the identity of individuals in the witness protection program. In late 2009 and early 2010, the government consulted the provinces and territories about this program. A number of them expressed concerns. However, now that the Conservative government has a majority, it thinks it can do whatever it wants and, unfortunately, it does not often listen to its provincial counterparts.
Many provinces have their own witness protection programs, but they often provide only short-term assistance. What is more, they need to co-operate with the RCMP to get new identity documents for witnesses. That is why the NDP will keep pushing the federal government to continue working with the RCMP and the provinces to provide funding for the witness protection program so that local police forces can continue their important work.
The NDP is committed to building safer communities. One way of doing this is to improve the witness protection program to ensure that our streets are safe and to provide police forces with additional tools to combat street gangs and organized crime. Need we remind the government of all the spending scandals?
Three billion dollars earmarked for the fight against terrorism is missing. If the government had invested all that money in a program like this, things would be different now. We could perhaps move forward and assure our local police forces that the federal government supports them, not just in word but in deed, by providing them with funding. Perhaps that is the problem, because this government does not seem to understand the importance of adequate funding for this program.
That is what I have been trying to say throughout my speech. The people and experts actually doing the work are saying that Bill C-51 will allow us to move forward but that, unfortunately, the funding is not there. That is too bad.
To conclude my speech on this bill, I would like to talk about the police forces in my beautiful riding of Quebec City. The city is very safe and is a great place to live. That is likely because community groups, such as Pech, which provides support and housing assistance, are doing such great work.
Pech also works with the Quebec City police service, which attends every event. That is what social and community involvement looks like. That is the kind of support they expect from the federal government. Many positive initiatives start at the grassroots level and are run by people who work on the front lines—police, volunteers and people working in community organizations, for example—and who tell us what they need.
It is our duty, at the federal level, to respond to the needs they express and see how we can help them. This bill is one example, but the funding needs to be there. Otherwise, it may completely miss the mark.
The government could end up implementing legislative measures without adequate funding.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, we need to recognize that the number of gangs in Canada has dramatically increased over the last number of years. In fact, gang membership in communities, for example in the province of Manitoba, is well into the thousands today. This is in comparison to the nineties, where gangs were virtually non-existent.
It is becoming more and more apparent that one of the ways we are going to have to deal with a lot of the street crime that has spread throughout many different communities from coast to coast to coast is to deal with the issue of gang violence. In dealing with that issue, I believe we will find that there are law enforcement officers who will reinforce the fact that quite often, in order to break into a gang, they have to get an informant who is a part of these gangs. To be able to do that, we need programs such as the witness protection program.
All members of the House will be supporting this bill, as I understand it. Would the member agree with the idea that there is a very strong correlation between making our streets safer by addressing the issue of gangs and the benefits of this particular piece of legislation in being able to assist the police and prosecution to make our streets safer?
Annick Papillon NDP Québec, QC
Mr. Speaker, we will in fact be supporting this bill. All parties will because it is a necessary bill that is long overdue.
I think it is a shame that the government across the way has been in power for seven years and is only now realizing that it is time to introduce something like this. It claims to make public safety its personal business and its top priority. However, we are here today because it finally decided not just to deal with major terrorists, but also to take care of witnesses. That is what is important. It is time to protect the witnesses. Some questions remain to be answered and then we will have to think about funding for this program.
David Wilks Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Mr. Speaker, I will try and get this right. I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong and if I am speaking to the wrong person.
One of the interesting things that I hear from the opposition all the time is that we need more money. Municipalities fund themselves through municipal taxation. They do not get funding through the federal government. It is done individually through every community.
One of the things that is of real interest to me about the witness protection program or any witness, for that matter, is that the side opposite has not in any way supported any of our crime initiatives, mandatory minimums or anything to do with crime. Despite that, it wants to keep throwing money at things. The fact of the matter is that witnesses who are victims also want to be ensured that criminals stay in jail for a long time or have mandatory minimums.
Could she tell me that her party is going to start supporting our crime initiatives before we start throwing around more money that witnesses do not necessarily understand from the perspective of the witness protection program?
Annick Papillon NDP Québec, QC
Mr. Speaker, that is a very Conservative attitude.
The NDP believes in a balanced approach. We listen to our provincial counterparts, local police forces and municipalities. By working together we can find programs that work and adequate funding. I am not talking about unrealistic funding, but adequate funding.
Unfortunately, the Conservatives believe, and will always believe, that they do not have to listen to anyone, that they are right and that they know what to do, whether or not there is funding. Sometimes they introduce legislation without providing the funding and, better yet, sometimes they spend $3 billion to combat terrorism. How do I explain to Canadians that the government has wasted $3 billion and does not know what happened to it? Three billion dollars. People working for minimum wage will never be able to earn that much in a lifetime. How do we explain that to them? Then the Conservatives say that the NDP is incapable of putting together a fair and decent budget. Quite frankly, they should be ashamed.
The Acting Speaker Barry Devolin
Resuming debate.
There is seven minutes remaining in the time for government orders.
The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand to speak on Bill C-51 and to speak in support of the bill at third reading on behalf of the official opposition, the New Democratic Party.
The NDP has long called for the government to expand the eligibility of witnesses to enter protection programs to ensure the safety of all Canadians in potential danger and, more important, to secure the participation and obligation of citizens of this country to co-operate and participate in the justice system. Since 2007, the New Democrats have specifically called for better coordination of federal and provincial programs and better overall funding for the witness protection program.
Contrary to what I hear from the Conservative side of the House, effective crime prevention and crime interdiction measures require resources; appropriate funding, not just spin, not just talk, not just rhetoric, but actually public resources put behind those words. New Democrats have long understood that connection. Our demands were repeated in 2009 and, again, by the NDP member of Parliament for Trinity—Spadina, in November last year.
Bill C-51 would expand the eligibility criteria of the witness protection program to include witnesses recommended by CSIS and National Defence. This is a positive development.
It would also extend the period for emergency protection and clear up some technical problems that have plagued witness protection programs, with respect to federal-provincial relations.
I think we should say that these are laudable achievements and the government deserves credit for bringing these forward.
Having said that, while the NDP supports Bill C-51 as it attempts to improve the witness protection program, we are concerned that the Conservative government has refused to commit any new funding for the system. We are concerned that the Conservatives' requirement that the RCMP and local police departments work within their existing budgets would hinder the improvement of the program.
I will pause here just to bring to all Canadians' attention the testimony that we heard before the public safety committee. We learned that the RCMP would administer the witness protection program at the request of municipal and provincial police forces and the RCMP would then bill them for those services.
So, while the RCMP does not perhaps need more resources to implement the provisions of the bill, local municipal and provincial police forces do need more resources because if they want to access the provisions of this program, they have to pay for them and the RCMP would bill them accordingly. We heard that from municipal police forces across this country.
The bill also would not include provisions for any independent agency to operate the program, as recommended by Justice Major in the Air India inquiry report.
The RCMP would continue to be responsible for the program. This would leave the RCMP in a precarious situation and a potential conflict of interest as they are often the agency both investigating the case and deciding who may or may not get protection.
As we have heard on all sides of this House, often the people who are requiring witness protection are people who have engaged in criminal acts themselves. They are often the subject of investigation at the same time they are co-operating with police in the prosecution of crimes, and so New Democrats believe that potential conflict should be addressed. Unfortunately, it has not been in the bill.
While some RCMP and public safety department witnesses at committee said that they did not see funding the program as an issue, once again, it was clear from other witnesses that funding is in fact a real problem for municipalities and police forces and that Bill C-51 would place an even heavier burden on them through downloaded costs.
I would like to now summarize a few key points.
While the Conservatives are late to respond to this growing issue, New Democrats are pleased to see the government listening to our requests to expand the witness program and the requests of police forces and provinces across this country.
Second, we want to emphasize that if the Conservatives truly want to improve the witness protection program, they must be prepared to commit funding and the resources to ensure that would happen.
New Democrats are committed to building safer communities. One way to do that would be through improved witness protection programs that would keep our streets safe by giving police the tools that they need to fight street gangs and organized crime.
I want to address the background of the bill. The federal witness protection program has long been criticized for its narrow eligibility criteria, for poor coordination with provincial programs and low numbers of witnesses actually admitted to the program.
Here are the real numbers. In 2012, only 30 out of 108 applications considered for witness protection were accepted. That is less than a third. Since the witness program passed in 1996, both the Liberal and Conservative governments have done little to respond to the criticisms of the system. While some bills have been presented in the House of Commons to address small components of the protection program, the overarching issues of eligibility, coordination and funding have not been addressed.
The NDP is on record repeatedly asking the government to address the three key issues in the witness protection program, that is, expanded criteria eligibility, co-operation with provinces and adequate funding. As late as last year we called for these very things in the House and we pointed to the difficulty that Toronto police were facing at that time in convincing witnesses to come forward in response to the summer's mass shooting at a block party on Danzig Street.
Similarly, in Vancouver, the city I am privileged to represent, organized crime and criminal gangs have long been a problem. Effective, efficient, accessible witness protection programs will be a key component in giving our British Columbia police forces the tools they need to apprehend those who are responsible for serious crime in our communities.
Mr. Speaker, I see you rising--
The Acting Speaker Barry Devolin
Yes. The time for government orders has expired. The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway will have three minutes remaining when this matter returns before the House.
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, be read the third time and passed.
The Speaker Andrew Scheer
I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded division, government orders will be extended by seven minutes.
The hon. member for Edmonton Centre.
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to lend my support to Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act.
At the outset, I will point out that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Kelowna—Lake Country.
Without question, the federal witness protection program continues to serve Canadians well. However, there is no denying that there have been sweeping changes in the landscape since the Witness Protection Program Act was first passed 17 years ago. At the same time, various stakeholders have made constructive suggestions for improving the program. For all these reasons, the time has come to bring Canada's witness protection program into the 21st century both for the sake of protectees, as well as the ones who protect them.
Having carefully reviewed Bill C-51 and as a member of the public safety committee, I am confident the safer witnesses act would make federal witness protection programs more effective and more secure.
Before highlighting the proposed amendments, let me reflect on the rationale for the changes. There are three main catalysts for this bill: the evolving nature of crime and technology, the recommendations of several key reports and the needs of our stakeholders. I will address each in turn.
The revolution in information technology, which continues unabated, has been an double-edged sword. On the one hand, the law enforcement community has new tools to track down criminals. On the other hand, organized crime can now track down, intimidate and threaten witnesses more easily. Canada's witness protection program needs greater flexibility to keep one step ahead of the criminals. In other words, we need to better protect and secure information about witnesses, programs and the administrators of those programs. Bill C-51 addresses those concerns.
Against this backdrop, we must also acknowledge that two major reports have recommended changes to how we protect our witnesses. In March 2008, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security made several important recommendations to enhance the witness protection program. In its response, the government committed to consult with affected stakeholders and the bill we are discussing today is informed by those wide-ranging views.
Members may recall the Commission of Inquiry into the Investigation of the Bombing of Air India Flight 182 also recommended changes to the witness protection program. The Government of Canada responded, and I am pleased to note the safer witnesses act reflects priorities in the government's Air India action plan.
The third major catalyst, which is connected to these reports, is the evolving needs of our stakeholders, including the provinces and territories and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. In particular, there has been a resounding call for improved interaction between and among different levels of government.
I am pleased to say the safer witnesses act has provisions to enhance communication between federal departments and between federal, provincial and territorial governments. On that note, let me review the main elements of the bill, beginning with how it would streamline management of the witness protection program.
Members may be aware of differences between the federal program and programs that exist in Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Essentially, the federal program, which is run by the RCMP, provides long-term protection for witnesses. This could involve moving a family to another location and changing the identities of its members.
Provincial programs are often generally focused on more short-term protection. This could include making sure that witnesses are safe and secure before they testify in a major trial. However, there are times when the provinces need support from the RCMP. Unfortunately, there are also times when that support gets bogged down by bureaucracy. For example, sometimes provinces must obtain new identities for the protectees. To do so, the provinces must currently enrol them in the federal program. This process can take time and when lives are at stake, obviously time counts.
To address this problem, Bill C-51 would change this process. Ultimately, once designated, provincial programs could deal directly with the RCMP for secure identity changes without transferring protectees into the federal program. The proposed amendments would enhance interactions between and among federal agencies and departments. Now, when the RCMP needs help with an identity change for a provincial protectee, federal departments would be duty bound to co-operate.
The second major set of amendments in this bill concerns disclosure of information. Currently, the act prohibits only the disclosure of information about the location and identity of federal protectees. Bill C-51 would broaden the scope of protection to include sensitive information about how the program is run and about those who administer the program.
Moreover, in response to concerns by stakeholders, the bill would extend these prohibitions to designated provincial programs. Bill C-51 would also clear up vague wording in the current act about the nature of direct and indirect disclosure. It would prohibit, for example, revealing anything about protectees that could even indirectly identify them, such as medical conditions or distinguishing marks.
This government strongly believes that protectees have a right to know when their new identities might be compromised. That is why the proposed amendments will broaden the government's duty to notify witnesses about any relevant disclosure.
At the same time, the bill reserves the right to a full notification if the disclosure might compromise national security. There is always a need to balance the rights of protectees and the needs of the public. In certain parts of the existing legislation, however, the pendulum swings too far away from the protectees.
For that reason, Bill C-51 would specify the RCMP Commissioner must have reasonable grounds to believe national security or defence was at risk before he or she could disclose a protectees identity.
At the same time, the proposed legislation would authorize the commissioner to disclose information if it would better protect witnesses in both federal and provincial programs.
Disclosure would also be allowed if protected persons gave their consent, if they had already disclosed their real identities themselves or acted in a way that revealed their identities.
This brings me to the question of what happens if a protectee no longer wishes to be protected. Currently, only the commissioner may end protection for witnesses in the federal program. Bill C-51 proposes a change that would allow protectees to voluntarily terminate their involvement. Not only would this protect the rights of protectees to leave, it would also protect the integrity of the program. If a protectee no longer follows the rules, it jeopardizes the entire program, including the lives of its administrators. These witnesses are very different and we must try to accommodate them as best we can.
As I mentioned earlier, we must recognize that witnesses may need protection from a terrorist rather than a simple criminal. For that reason, the bill proposes to open the witness protection program to referrals from federal institutions with a Public Safety, National Defence or National Security mandate.
Bill C-51 is a thoughtful and comprehensive approach to bring the federal witness protection program into the new millennia. It has been well received by many provincial jurisdictions as well as by law enforcement communities, and takes into consideration the needs of other concerned groups.
Let me quote from Tom Stamatakis, who is the President of the Canadian Police Association:
The Canadian Police Association strongly believes that this proposed legislation will enhance the safety and security of front-line law enforcement personnel who are engaged in protective duties. Unfortunately, the disclosure of identifying details can present a real danger to police personnel themselves as well as their families, and we appreciate the steps being taken today by the government of Canada to address those concerns. 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.
The NDP and Liberals have supported this legislation at every stage. No amendments were proposed. Bill C-51 was studied at five public safety committee meetings, and this is the fourth day that Bill C-51 has been debated in the House.
It is time to get on with it. I would urge all hon. members to join me in giving Bill C-51 their full and unconditional support.
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting bill. A number of New Democrats have promoted the principles behind this bill in the past and more recently.
However, money is the crucial issue. Police forces, especially smaller forces in smaller communities, will not necessarily have the resources they need. There are some serious concerns about this.
Although we agree with the spirit of the bill, we want to know how the government plans on helping these police forces protect witnesses who are in danger, when they do not have as many resources at their disposal.
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, the fact is that all the witnesses who came before the committee, when asked the question about financing, said that they were more than comfortable that there were sufficient resources within the program to do that.
If there is some smaller community out there that has some difficulty, certainly it could approach and appeal for assistance in some way. Without knowing any circumstances, it would be currently hypothetical to say it would be or would not be accepted, but the process and the openness is there to listen to anybody who needs help.
Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet NDP Hochelaga, QC
Mr. Speaker, here is what Andy McGrogan had to say. He is the chief of police of the Medicine Hat Police Service, which serves a city that is not exactly tiny:
Provincially, they're working on witness protection legislation, as well. Again, the chiefs across the province are concerned about the costs that are involved. Right now we're looking at how to absorb those costs. If you look at a community such as ours, the protection of one witness, if funded through the municipality, has a major impact on our budget.
Small cities are not the only ones having problems, according to this chief of police.
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, again, I cannot recall all of the testimony off the top of my head, but the overwhelming response was that the funding is there to run these programs. The provinces are running their programs now. This is not going to change markedly. There is not going to be a huge increase. None of the witnesses said there would be a huge increase in the number of people seeking protection. Everybody who is seeking protection is carefully analyzed. Not everyone who asks for it gets it because there are criteria that have to be met. That is done provincially and federally, depending on which program people are in. There are no suggestions and no suggestions from any of the witnesses that there would be an increase in the number of people in the program.
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, originally when the act was brought into force, I believe that the only things that could not be disclosed were a change of name or the actual address or location. I know the member touched very briefly on how the changes we are making will better protect our hard-working men and women who serve our country through police agencies and so forth. Could the member speak to why it is so important to expand what specifically can and cannot be disclosed within the legislation before us?
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, it is not just about protecting the protectees. It is also about protecting the people who administer the program, the police and other administrators in the program who are also at risk. That is why we had to broaden the categories of items that cannot be disclosed. Part of it is due to the impact of new technology.
As I said in my comments, technology is a two-edged sword. On the one side it is great for people administering a program like this. On the other side it is also very “helpful” for the criminal element in bringing harm to the protectees and the people who administer it. When a police officer gets involved in this program, he or she and the family are at risk. We have to take extraordinary measures to make sure that we do not compromise their identity, which would then connect them to the protectees or vice versa. It is very important that we take every measure possible to protect the protectors as well as the protectees.
Ron Cannan Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege and honour to rise in the House this afternoon to share the speaking time with my hon. colleague from Edmonton Centre, my birthplace. I know it is well looked after by the hon. member, with his 30-plus years with the air force, and now serving this constituency as a member of Parliament.
It is a pleasure to speak specifically to Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, something that I know is vitally important for effective law enforcement right across Canada. It is of great interest to my constituents of Kelowna—Lake Country and many, if not all, members' constituents. They understand the bill's important role in helping to combat organized crime.
I suspect there are few individuals who have not at least heard of “witness protection”, whether it is a favourite CSI television show, or through high-profile court cases in which someone is offered protection in exchange for his or her testimony. We do not normally hear many details about how the program operates or about the people who are admitted into it. That is how it is supposed to work. Nonetheless, I believe all Canadians understand how important it is to have effective witness protection programs to combat organized crime.
Therefore, I appreciate this opportunity to join in the debate on our government's legislation, which would help to modernize and strengthen the federal witness protection program in Canada, while also making it more effective and secure.
The current Witness Protection Program Act, which we have heard from previous speakers, and my hon. colleague from Edmonton Centre, is about 17 years old and has not been substantially modified since it came into force. That does not mean we need to have a radical overhaul or alter the act in a major way, but we need to make some changes to modernize it. It is important that we have the proper tools in place to help us build safe neighbourhoods across Canada by keeping up with the changing nature of crime and criminal or terrorist organizations.
As members know, organized crime groups were certainly prevalent in 1996 when the current act took effect. However, their operations, their tactics and their make-up have changed significantly, and I think we would all agree on that.
Globalization has facilitated the diversification of organized crime groups and in many ways has allowed them to become involved in many more types of activities, serious activities that they are scheming together on across our country and around the world. The Internet has allowed many of these criminal organizations to avoid capture and detection in ways that seemed unimaginable when the Witness Protection Program Act came into force.
The Internet also provides organized crime groups with more ways to find people than before. This is certainly a big concern for individuals in witness protection, as well as for those who administer these programs. Looking after the safety of our witnesses is a key. All these changes make witness protection both more urgent and more difficult to perform. Reforms are therefore needed.
I would like to note that the changes proposed under Bill C-51 are the result of extensive consultations with the provinces, and we believe we are on the right track. I have the privilege of serving the great constituency of Kelowna—Lake Country in the province of British Columbia. The Hon. Shirley Bond is the minister of justice and Attorney General of British Columbia. We do not know what her portfolio will be after the recent May 14 election. However, when she was the minister she said:
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.
As members can see, we have consulted with our partners in the provinces and we believe that we are on the right track.
We were very pleased to see support from provincial attorneys general and from police officers from across the country, including the head of the Canadian Police Association, who said in a recent news article:
The Canadian Police Association strongly believes that this proposed legislation will enhance the safety and security of front-line law enforcement personnel who are engaged in protective duties...
Bill C-51 would first and foremost improve the interaction of the federal witness protection program with provincial witness protection programs. We are working in partnership to complement each other. At the moment, someone in a provincial program can only obtain a secure identity change if he or she is temporarily admitted into the federal witness protection program. This can result in delays in obtaining a new identity. It can also result in a number of issues for the RCMP, which administers the federal program.
Bill C-51 proposes to remedy this situation by establishing a process whereby provincial programs can become designated witness protection programs. Once again, the provincial programs would work together with the federal program and become a designated witness protection program.
A province would request this designation from the Minister of Public Safety, at which time the provincial authority would provide assurances of the program's capacity to protect both its witnesses and its information. It is important that it protects both the information and the witnesses. Once the program is established and designated upon the request of that program, the RCMP would be obliged to help in obtaining federal identity documents for a provincial witness without any need for him or her to be transferred temporarily into the federal program. That is one of the big changes.
In addition to being easier, the new system is also designed to be more efficient and more secure. Security and efficiency are other complementary assets of the new reform program. Under the designation regime proposed by Bill C-51, requests for federal identity change documents would be submitted by a provincial official from a designated provincial witness protection program to the RCMP, thereby limiting the number of individuals involved in the process and making the system more secure.
Bill C-51 also proposes to enhance the security of witness protection regimes in Canada by both enhancing and extending the current prohibitions against the disclosure of information concerning an individual in a designated witness protection program. The current federal Witness Protection Act prohibits the disclosure of information by individuals within the federal program. Section 11(1) of the act says "no person shall knowingly disclose, directly or indirectly, information about the location or a change of identity of a protectee or former protectee".
Bill C-51 would strengthen this prohibition in a number of important ways. Let me expand a bit on that.
Bill C-51 would not only prohibit the disclosure of information about individuals in the federal program, it would also prohibit the disclosure of information about how the program itself operates, as well as about those individuals who provide or assist in providing protection for witnesses. Both of these prohibitions would also extend to individuals in designated provincial programs. Such prohibitions against the disclosure of information currently exist only within the legislation of the particular provincial jurisdiction, not across jurisdictions. That is another big contributing factor to enhancing the existing legislation.
As we can see, Bill C-51 would also clarify the prohibition with respect to what and how information is being disclosed. Clarity is very important. As I mentioned earlier, Section 11(1) of the current act contains the phrase "no person shall knowingly disclose, directly or indirectly, information about the location or a change of identity of a protectee or former protectee". The phrase "directly or indirectly" was considered to be unclear. Bill C-51 proposes amendments to ensure that the prohibitions will clearly apply to cases where a person discloses information in a range of ways.
Let me share a few examples. It would include telling someone what a protected person's name is, leaving information about the protected person unguarded, telling someone where a protected person lives and revealing unique characteristics about the person that could, for example, identify a specific housing market that results in someone deducing the city to which the person has been relocated. Bill C-51 would prohibit all of the above disclosures by specifying that no one could disclose any information, either directly or indirectly, that would reveal the location or change of identity of a protected person or the information from which the location or change of identity could be inferred.
Finally, among other improvements, Bill C-51 would expand referrals for admissions to the federal witness protection program to sources assisting federal security, national defence or public safety organizations, such as the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. By extending referrals to this category of witnesses, we are also addressing one of the commitments under the Government of Canada's Air India inquiry action plan released in 2010.
The act has not been substantially changed since it came into force, despite the constantly changing nature of organized crime and calls for reform. The safer witness act would help to strengthen the current federal witness protection program, a program that, as I mentioned, is often vital to effectively combat crime, particularly organized crime.
Like my colleague from Edmonton Centre, I encourage all hon. members in the House to follow the example I would encourage on our side. I know that there was support at committee. Hopefully the House will support Bill C-51 and see it move forward to provide the tools for our men and women serving across the country and our witnesses as well.
Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet NDP Hochelaga, QC
Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague that criminals can use certain tools, such as the Internet, to find witnesses.
However, the NDP has been calling for changes to the witness protection program since at least 2007, and many other groups have been calling for changes for a long time. The Internet existed before 2007. It is not a new concept.
Why did the Conservatives take so long to introduce this bill?
Ron Cannan Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's support for this. I had the chance to sit in on one of the committee meetings. My understanding is the NDP did not actually bring forward any amendments to the bill. We have been trying to push the bill through for a long time and the NDP had forced votes and delays. I am hoping that we can agree that the safer witness protection act is important not only for our witnesses, but for the men and women who are serving, protecting our communities.
Assistant Commissioner Todd Shean, who works in federal and international operations with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, was a witness at committee and was very supportive. The RCMP has waited for the changes the bill brings. It is comfortable that we have the resources within our existing resources to run an effective witness protection program and it welcomes the changes.
Scott Andrews Liberal Avalon, NL
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure that the Liberal Party is also very supportive of this piece of legislation and worked in committee.
One of the things about this piece of legislation is that it protects our men and women in the RCMP who put people into the witness protection program. It protects them and their families. Could the member elaborate on what protections are in there for our RCMP officers who work within the department to put people into the witness protection program?
Ron Cannan Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Avalon, a beautiful part of the country. I had a chance to visit there a few years ago with my wonderful wife.
He raises a great point. In fact, my neighbour has been an RCMP officer for about 27 years. He is an outstanding individual and works day in and day out providing safety and security. He works in an integrated force. There is a very high-level court case going on right now in my community that he is involved in.
The fact is, we have to protect these men and women, our front-line officers who were exempt from the previous act. That is the biggest change and advantage of the bill. It not only protects witnesses who come forth from the community, but also protects the front-line officers.
Shelly Glover ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, I am just thrilled that my colleague is speaking to this very important bill. He is talking about the protection of my brothers and sisters in blue across the country. I know that the Canadian Police Association is very supportive and the president himself, who represents police officers across the country, has been very supportive.
Every time the government puts forward bills that give police another tool so they can keep our streets and our communities safe, I have to applaud the efforts by the government, and I want to applaud the member as well.
Could he tell us a little more about the stakeholders who have come forward to support the bill? There are several and I think it is important that he be allowed to put those on the record.
Ron Cannan Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
Mr. Speaker, first, I think all of us here in the chamber give great gratitude for our hon. colleague. She is not only serving as a member of Parliament, but she served many years protecting men and women in the community in Winnipeg. That deserves a round of applause as well.
The bill has had numerous consultations with the provinces and stakeholders. As the Minister of Public Safety alluded to earlier, the police association president, Mr. Tom Stamatakis had clearly shown great support at committee. He said:
Further on that point, the specific changes in this legislation that exempt a person from any liability or punishment for stating that they do not provide or assist in providing protection to witnesses will be a direct benefit to the law enforcement community in Canada that is tasked with these particular responsibilities.
As I alluded to earlier, we had Minister Bond from British Columbia. We also had Chief William Blair from the Toronto police. 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. We support the government’s initiative as a valuable step in protecting public safety.
The Acting Speaker Bruce Stanton
Before we get on to the hon. member for Winnipeg North on resuming debate, 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 Beauport—Limoilou, Health; the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona, Employment.
Resuming debate. The hon. member for Winnipeg North.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to talk about this bill before. I want to make an important thing fairly clear and it goes back to when I was first elected in the by-election. We need to think of the witness protection program as a tool to be used by our law enforcement agencies and our prosecutors that will ultimately make our streets safer.
I want to do what I can as an individual member of Parliament and as an advocate for the Liberal Party to make sure that we move forward on issues relating to crime prevention. This legislation is an initiative that not only deals with crimes, but it also goes a long way in preventing crimes from taking place in the first place.
During that by-election period, all three major political parties incorporated crime and safety into our election campaigns in a very real and tangible way. I suggested when I arrived in Ottawa that the crime and safety file would be one of the most important issues for me to deal with. With respect to this particular issue, I would be a strong voice on the floor of the House of Commons in Ottawa to express what is happening not only in Winnipeg North but the broader community of Manitoba and indeed from coast to coast to coast where there are many similarities in terms of issues that cause criminal behaviour.
I want to focus if I may for the next couple of minutes on the issue of gangs. Gangs do perpetrate many of the crimes that are occurring in Winnipeg on a daily basis. I do not want to be seen as being negative about the community I represent; it is quite the opposite. I feel very passionate about Winnipeg North. It has a great deal of rich cultural heritage. It provides all sorts of economic and social opportunities for everyone who lives there and in the broader community.
Government is not doing enough to prevent crimes from taking place on the streets. There is a sense that we need to do more. We need to work with the different levels of government when it comes to dealing with crime in order to have any impact.
Bill C-51 is a good example of how co-operation and determination can see good legislation ultimately pass. I have indicated before and I will reinforce it again that the Liberal Party supports this legislation. We want to see the bill pass in a relatively quick fashion, and to do that we just need to focus some attention on one aspect of the bill.
This legislation would enable Crowns and, in particular, our police agencies, to infiltrate gangs. It would assist us in minimizing the negative activities that are being committed in many different communities throughout our country.
It saddens me to drive around and see the result of the young children who are involved in prostitution or drug sales, or in addictions such as drugs or gambling. The negative impact it has on all of our communities is profound.
One of the ways we can deal with these important issues is to enable our police officers to infiltrate the different gang organizations.
To give a sense of to what degree it has become a problem, when I was first elected into the Manitoba legislature in the late eighties, and through the nineties, there was marginal, if any, real debate on gang activity in Manitoba. It was not until maybe the late nineties that we started to see some signs of it. Then at the turn of the century it really started to pick up. Nothing has come out with the impact of making a strong difference in the local community. The problem I see is if governments do not recognize that they need to start working together in a more co-operative fashion, the issues will continue to get worse.
When we think in terms of numbers, for instance, what used to be four to ten gangs in Winnipeg are now literally dozens of gangs varying in the type of violence or destruction they cause. Not all gangs are the same, but there is a certain amount of criminal activity occurring within most of those gangs. What we have seen over the last number of years is a dramatic increase not only in the number of gangs but also in the number of individual gang members. I remember sitting on the justice committee of the Manitoba legislature when we were trying to get a sense of just how many gang members there were in Winnipeg. Even though we could not be provided hard numbers because it was felt that was of a confidential nature, we were able to get a better sense. If memory serves me correctly, that better sense is somewhere just under 3,000. We know it is well into the thousands, but we could not get a tangible number.
Over the last number of years we have seen the number of people involved in gangs continue to increase. I appreciate the member for Saint Boniface, who was a north end police officer. She did a phenomenal job in dealing with the issue, of wanting to come to grips with it and help. I am sure she can sympathize when she drives around and sees the amount of gang graffiti that is out there. As best we can, we try to marginalize that. We know that when something gets tagged we have to get rid of it as soon as possible or it starts to really blossom and become an eyesore for our community.
I believe there is so much more that we could and should be doing. When I look at Bill C-51, I see a bill that does provide some hope for us. When we take a look at the origins, and here is a bit of a history on this, I would say that it came up in 1996. I believe it was former prime minister Jean Chrétien who formalized it. When I say formalized it, there has always been some form of witness protection program, but it was more of an informal type of thing. The legislation was actually enacted in 1996. At the time, people could sense the value of the program and what that program would be doing.
Back in 1996, I do not believe the authors of the legislation really had an understanding of the explosion of gang membership that was coming, in particular with our younger generations getting engaged in gangs.
At the end of the day, we are seeing is an expansion of scope, to a certain degree, in terms of who can be brought in as witnesses under the program. There is a general feeling among law enforcement agencies that with the amendments, at least in part, it is going to allow for additional discretion to deal with gangs.
I see that a positive thing. That is why I wanted to emphasize, in the best way that I could, just how serious a problem gang activity is today in Canada, and in a very indirect fashion to say that we need to give more attention to the issues of gangs, gang violence and the different types of gang activities in our communities across Canada.
This message is not only for members of the House of Commons. It is also important that this message be given to different law enforcement agencies, our court system and so forth. The message is that there is a great deal of concern in our population about what we can do to deal with the issue of gangs in our communities. I wanted to highlight that point before I got under way on some other comments.
On the bill itself, members will know I am somewhat sensitive in terms of the process, and maybe it is because of my capacity as the deputy House leader for the Liberal Party. At the end of the day we would like to have seen a process that would allow all members who wished to do so to participate in the debate.
The bill itself, in first reading, came back in late last year, just before the House rose for the Christmas break. The Christmas break does not mean holidays; it quite often means that members will be doing more of their work in their constituencies.
February 12 was when it came back to the House for second reading. It passed relatively quickly, and then it was fast-tracked, to a certain degree, through the committee stage. Now we have it here today.
At each stage, there was general support for the legislation, and there was good reason for that support. It goes back to when former prime minister Jean Chrétien introduced the legislation back in 1996.
People understand that serious crimes take place. Quite often in order to be able to bring justice to a criminal act, there is a need to tap into individuals who would put their lives or their family members' lives at risk if they get engaged.
Most people realize that we have some sort of witness protection program, but they may not know the details. I suspect most might think there is one national program, and if someone is in the program, that is it. In fact, there is a national program, there are provincial programs and there are even some more local municipal-type programs. There is a great deal of variance among them.
In order to ensure more consistency, more accountability and more transparency, it was felt that it would be best to bring in legislation to formalize it in a more tangible way.
It was brought in through the RCMP, an institution that is world-renowned for what it has done in the past, is doing today and will continue to do into the future. It has an excellent reputation.
We were given this opportunity in legislation to try to put into place better standards and some sort of guidelines, if I could put it that way.
If we look at the bill, we will see that clause 7 talks about some of the factors that should be considered prior to determining whether a witness should even be permitted into the program. It makes reference to risks to witnesses, danger to the community, the nature of the inquiry, the importance of witnesses, the value of information, evidence to be given by witnesses, the likelihood that witnesses could adjust to the program, cost, alternate methods of protection and other factors that the commissioner might see as relevant. It almost like a catch-all. These are the types of things that were put into the act in its original form.
Bill C-51 would expand that to include such things such as national security matters or national interests. Over the last eight or 10 years, the threat of terrorism has continued to exist in a very real and tangible way, so it only seems natural that there would be legislation that would attempt to deal with it. The former prime minister brought in the original legislation, so it is only natural that the Liberal Party of Canada would support making changes that would make it even better legislation, and that is what we are seeing.
Liberals have some concerns, of course. If we look at the budgets, we see a couple of interesting numbers that I would like to throw out. I read in one newspaper article that there was a briefing note that showed the 2009-10 budget was about $7.5 million. The annual report indicated that the budget had grown to $9.1 million in 2011-12, which demonstrates that there is an increase in the program.
The commissioner is required to produce annual reports, and the 2011-12 annual report showed that 108 individuals were considered for admission to the program during that period. Of those, 30 were accepted, of whom 26 came from RCMP investigations while four were admitted on behalf of Canadian law enforcement agencies. The total cost of the program, including RCMP and public servant compensation, totalled $9.1 million. It is an effective tool, and I would argue that it could be an exceptionally cost-efficient tool. If we effectively administer and use the program to meet its potential, it could prevent a lot of crimes from taking place.
I would like more co-operation to exist among the different administrations of the different levels of programs. We are starting to see that in Bill C-51. It is another good reason to support it.
It would also expand the temporary emergency protection from 90 days to 180 days. If people are in the program, it does not necessarily mean that they are in it forever. Quite often, it is just during a trial or while going through court proceedings. There is a much smaller percentage of people who need to change their identities, relocate their families, and so forth.
I appreciate the opportunity to address Bill C-51 today.
Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what my colleague from the Liberals has said. It is obvious that everyone recognizes that there was and is a need to improve the witness protection program. Since the Witness Protection Program Act passed in 1996, both the Liberal and the Conservative governments have done very little to respond to the criticism of the system. Here we have a program that is supposed to help protect people, but there need to be improvements and there is still a lack of funding.
Bills have been presented in the House of Commons to address small components of the protection program. For example, Bill C-223, from a Reform MP in 1999, dealt with witness protection in cases of domestic violence. It was supported by the NDP but was defeated by the Liberal government.
The overarching issues of eligibility, coordination and funding have not been addressed. The Liberals criticized the program when they were in government, and now they criticize the Conservative government as well for not doing enough in Bill C-51. I want to know why the criticism of eligibility and underfunding was not an issue they addressed when they were in government. They had 13 years to do it.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the member. She said we had 13 years to deal with it, but it was in 1996, halfway through that 13 years, that the legislation was passed to create the federal witness protection program, which means that if it were not for the Liberal government of Jean Chrétien, we would not have it here today. To say that the Liberal Party did not do anything in 13 years could not be further from the truth, because we created the program in 1996 through legislation.
After a program is created, we quite often find that there is a need to allow the program to establish itself, and after it has the opportunity to establish itself, there is an obligation to work with law enforcement officers and other stakeholders to look at ways in which it could be improved.
I, like the member, would have liked to have seen the bill brought in three or four years ago. I think it was in 2007 when Conservatives first came up with the recommendations for changes. At the time we were not in government, unfortunately, primarily because the NDP supported the Conservatives to defeat the Liberals, but that is another issue.
I believe there is always room for some improvement, and we are seeing that improvement made to the original legislation brought in by former prime minister Jean Chrétien.
Devinder Shory Conservative Calgary Northeast, AB
Mr. Speaker, I will ask a direct question to my colleague, which is whether he and his party will support the bill or not.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I thought that I had made it quite clear. Given our history on the witness protection program, it is very clear that not only did we create the program, we continue to support the program.
In regard to Bill C-51 at second reading, I said that the Liberal Party would be voting in favour of the bill. We will continue to vote in favour of the bill because we see it as yet another tool that can be used by law enforcement agencies, in particular our RCMP, along with other things. It is a valuable tool, and if it is used appropriately, there should be less crime on our streets and more convictions of individuals or groups who have committed crimes in our communities.
Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON
Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. The Liberals may have created the program, but there was still a deficit within the program. The fact of the matter is that they refused to address the difficulties that were still there and the humps in the road before them.
The member mentioned that it was the Conservatives and the NDP who defeated them. Let us be clear. It is Canadians who did not want to put them back because of the sponsorship scandal.
Although we can make improvements to the bills, we need to ensure that there is funding.
Here is a quote from the Dr. Alok Mukherjee, president of the Canadian Association of Police Boards:
Without the availability of sufficient funding, our ability to take advantage of the program will be limited. In places like Toronto, that's a big problem because, as you know, we're dealing with serious violent crimes and often rely on witnesses from the community, not informants and others but witnesses from the community. Their needs may not be significant, as was mentioned. All they may need is a little bit of protection, but that requires...sufficient funding for us...to be able to do it. That, for us, is a problem.
I think it is great that we are updating. However, how successful can it be if the funding is not in place?
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, the member raises two points. One is with respect to commitment to the program. I indicated that it was former prime minister Jean Chrétien who introduced the program. Obviously, it shows that the Liberal Party, has been very supportive of the program since its origin.
I do not know how the NDP would have voted back in 1996. Maybe one of her colleagues could update the House as to whether the NDP actually supported the creation of it. Hindsight is 20/20, of course.
Regarding money, at both second reading and report stage, we have raised concerns with respect to the money issue. At the end of the day, not only is it important that we have appropriate funding levels for our RCMP in the national program, but we need to be concerned about the other witness protection programs, whether they are provincial or municipal. We need to recognize that one can anticipate an increase. I tried to provide an example. We saw close to a $2-million increase in a very short period of time.
Today, it is a $9-million program. I suspect that the costs of the program are going to increase. If we really want to use it as an effective tool, I suspect that it will not be long before we will be getting into double digits to properly and adequately finance the program.
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Speaker, I previously addressed this question to the hon. member for Edmonton Centre. I would like to ask my colleague the same question.
It appears that we will support this bill, but we have many reservations about the lack of resources for the protection program.
Even though the Canadian Police Association says there are enough resources at the federal level, the fact remains that smaller police forces with fewer means are very concerned about having the resources they need to properly implement these provisions.
I would like to know whether the member for Winnipeg North would agree to working with the government to increase these resources if the police forces that are tasked with implementing these provisions ask for such an increase.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I believe that we are going to see an increase in the need for financial resources. That is the reason I made reference to it. I am not exactly sure how much.
However, I believe that in the 2009-10 fiscal year, it was $7.5 million. Only a couple of years later, in the 2011-12 budget, it was $9.1 million. With the expansion being proposed in terms of criteria and so forth, I could easily see the demand for financial resources going up. That does not even deal with the other witness protection programs in other jurisdictions that might have limited resources for providing the same sort of protection.
The government needs to properly and adequately continue to finance the program so that it can continue to be a success.
John Carmichael Conservative Don Valley West, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Calgary Northeast, this afternoon.
I am very pleased to have this opportunity to join the debate on Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act. As several of my hon. colleagues have mentioned, the legislation before us today would help to strengthen Canada's federal witness protection program in a number of very important ways.
I would like to focus my remarks on how Bill C-51 would help to better align federal and provincial witness protection in order to offer a more efficient process to secure new identities as well as enhanced and expanded prohibitions against the disclosure of protectee and program information.
One key to fully understanding the significance of the legislation before us is to understand how witness protection has evolved in Canada and how it operates today. I would like to first briefly talk about this and then direct my attention to how Bill C-51 would achieve the benefits I have just mentioned.
Witness protection has existed in one form or another in Canada for quite a number of years. Law enforcement has long recognized that witnesses would be much more willing to come forward and co-operate in investigations or prosecutions of crime, including of organized crime groups, if they could, in effect, disappear and thereby avoid dangerous repercussions from violent and often lawless organized crime members.
Lots of movies have picked up on this idea, and witness protection has become something of a household word, even though most people do not really understand or know how it works.
Originally, federal witness protection in Canada was an informal set of arrangements without any formalized structure or procedures to define how it should operate. It became more formalized in the 1980s when the RCMP put in place a series of internal guidelines and protocols. That was followed by the introduction, as we have heard today, of legislation in 1996 to provide, among other things, a clear definition of admission criteria for witnesses and a more public and accountable structure for the management of the program.
Provincial governments, however, are responsible for the administration of justice, and so many have more recently established their own witness security programs. Provincial programs now exist in Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Provincially operated witness protection programs provide protective measures ranging from short-term protection to witness management activities to full-fledged relocation and identity changes.
However, only the federal program is legislatively mandated to provide a national protection service to all law enforcement agencies in Canada as well as to international courts and tribunals. As well, federal documents required for secure identity changes are today only provided through the federal program, which is administered by the RCMP.
At the present time, we have a witness protection regime in Canada in which two jurisdictions share a common goal: protecting key witnesses who can assist in our collective efforts to combat organized crime. The programs to accomplish this might, in some cases, be complementary, while many others do not always operate as seamlessly as they should.
A good example is in regard to security identity changes in cases where a provincial Attorney General decides to place an individual in a provincial witness protection program. The way to obtain a complete and secure identity change in this circumstance is for the individual in question to be temporarily admitted to the federal witness protection program, where the RCMP will assist him or her with obtaining federal documents. Some provinces have argued that this process can lead to delays.
Bill C-51 would remove the need to temporarily admit individuals from a provincial program into the federal program, thereby allowing the federal and provincial witness protection programs to function more seamlessly. The bill would establish a process whereby provincial, territorial and municipal witness protection programs could be designated.
On an operational level, this would involve having the provincial authority responsible for the program provide an attestation to the Minister of Public Safety, assuring that the program had the necessary capacity to protect its information.
As well, Bill C-51 would broaden the current prohibition against the disclosure of information for individuals under the federal witness protection program and would expand the scope to include individuals under designated provincial programs.
Today, the Witness Protection Program Act prohibits the disclosure of information about the location or change of identity of a federal protectee or former federal protectee. Bill C-51 will broaden the prohibition of disclosure to include the identity and role of persons who provide or assist in providing protection, any means or method of protection that could endanger protectees and the integrity of witness protection programs, and protectees from designated provincial programs.
The current federal witness protection program has served the criminal justice system well. Today there are nearly 800 individuals under this program. In 2011-12 alone, the RCMP considered a total of 108 cases for admission to the federal witness protection program. Thirty protectees were admitted to the program, of which 27 were granted a secure name change. The RCMP also provided assistance to other Canadian law enforcement agencies over the same year, as provided under the existing witness protection program.
The fact that the witness protection program is serving the criminal justice system well does not mean that there is no room for improvement. The Witness Protection Program Act has not been substantially changed since 1996, despite the increasingly sophisticated and global nature of organized crime.
Ongoing consultations with provincial and territorial stakeholders have also helped to highlight some areas where stronger provisions are needed, including those I have mentioned today. I am very pleased to note that some provincial jurisdictions, as well as law enforcement organizations, have already offered public support for Bill C-51.
Bill C-51 addresses the need for modernization and enhanced information protection and integration with provincial programs.
Bill C-51 introduces reforms to the present witness protection environment that would build on our collective efforts to combat organized crime as well as terrorist organizations, and in that way, help us all continue to build safer streets and communities for everyone.
I will therefore be supporting Bill C-51, and I join my colleagues in the government in encouraging all hon. members to do the same.
Denis Blanchette NDP Louis-Hébert, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech.
We have already announced that we will support the bill although we do not think it goes quite far enough. I would like to move on to the practical aspects.
It is a good idea to improve the program, but that costs money. Moreover, it is not just the federal police that are likely to need funds.
I would like my colleague to tell the House what he thinks about the increased funding that will be required to support this legislation.
John Carmichael Conservative Don Valley West, ON
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to note that we have in this House of Commons 12 former police officers who have been integral in providing information during the deliberations and development of the bill. Some of them were high-ranking police chiefs who had great knowledge of what it takes to make a system work through development processes. Clearly, the cost issue, as my hon. friend opposite has brought up, was well discussed.
I would like to quote from the Assistant Commissioner of the RCMP, Mr. Todd Shean, who appeared before committee or commented twice on this very issue, on February 28 and March 5. He said:
[W]ith the changes this bill brings about, the RCMP is comfortable that we have the resources within our existing resources to run an effective witness protection program.
On March 5 he went on to comment:
I am confident that we have the necessary resources to conduct an effective witness protection program, even with what Bill C-51 adds.
Clearly, he demonstrated, as other police forces have, that the funding issue is not an issue at all, and within their own resources they will meet that requirement.
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am very excited about this bill moving forward and I appreciate the hon. member's speech. Certainly from watching movies, we all have our own impressions of witness protection, so I appreciate his giving us some of the history and also mapping out why he feels this is compelling legislation that needs to go forward.
Most people here want to have safety and security. We want to see a more efficiently run and more effective public safety system, and this is in our national interest. Sometimes we need to put aside partisanship. We have seen support at committee and the New Democrats and Liberals are in support of the bill.
Would the member reiterate why it is in our national interests, as Canadians, to see this legislation go forward?
John Carmichael Conservative Don Valley West, ON
Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question because our government is focused on keeping our streets and communities safe. An effective and reliable witness protection program is valuable in the fight against crime, especially organized crime and terrorism.
As I mentioned in my presentation, in today's world with technology moving at the rate it is and with the resources that organized crime groups have available to them, it is important that we provide our police forces and organizations with the tools they require to get the job done to protect our citizens and our constituents in our ridings, regardless of which party we represent.
Devinder Shory Conservative Calgary Northeast, AB
Mr. Speaker, today I rise to add my voice in support of Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act. As we have heard from my hon. colleagues, the bill would make important amendments to the witness protection program, which first came into effect in 1996. Before that time, Canada offered witness protection services to those who could provide critical information during a police investigation and court proceedings. However, it was practised on an informal basis. The 1996 act introduced more formality into the process.
As with many laws that have been on the books for a while, the original act is now in need of amendments to reflect our changing environment and to strengthen the protection provided to witnesses, as well as to those who protect them.
As we have heard in the House and at committee, the proposed legislation contains recommendations that have come from a few sources. They include the 2008 report by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, the 2010 Commission of Inquiry into the Investigation of the Bombing of Air India Flight 182, and stakeholder consultations with the federal departments and agencies, the provinces and law enforcement agencies.
I would like to focus my remarks today on a couple of areas of proposed changes within the bill, which directly address the concerns we heard from our provincial stakeholders.
There are witness protection programs in five provinces, namely Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec. The federal program differs from the provincial ones in some areas. Typically, the provincial programs are aimed at victims of violence who need support before and during a trial, which could include accompanying the witness to trial, temporary relocation or limited financial support. They have their own administrative criteria and are designed to meet the needs of their own law enforcement agencies.
The decision whether to refer a witness for possible admission into the federal program or provincial program rests with the individual police forces dealing with criminal investigations. They make their decisions on a case by case basis, depending on cost, threat level and the length of time the protection is needed. For complex federal cases, provinces may choose to refer their witnesses for consideration of admission into the federal program.
One of the loudest calls we have had from our provincial counterparts is the need to streamline the current process for obtaining secure identity changes for their protectees. The concern among the provinces is that the RCMP can currently only assist federal protectees for the purpose of obtaining the federal documents required for secure identity changes. What this means is that the provinces must temporarily admit their protectees into the federal witness protection program to allow the RCMP to assist in this process.
Many of our provincial stakeholders have asked that we change the current system, which they have told us can result in time consuming paperwork and delays. We agree. When we are talking about protecting individuals from potentially life-threatening risks, we cannot afford delays in processing their secure identity changes. We also agree that improving federal and provincial collaboration will help us move ahead with a more seamless witness protection service across the board.
As such, under Bill C-51, we propose to streamline this process through a new framework that will allow for provincial programs to be officially designated as witness protection programs. The designation process will work as follows.
First, a provincial authority responsible for the program, such as the Attorney General, would make a request to the Minister of Public Safety who, once satisfied that the program has the capacity to protect its witnesses and its information, may recommend to the Governor in Council to designate the program. Once the program has been designated, the provincial official will be able to send a request to the RCMP for assistance in obtaining the federal documents required for a secure identity change for a provincial witness without having to first admit the witness into the federal program. Designation would only need to occur once.
I would note that we have also heard calls to remove the RCMP from the process completely so the provinces can request the secure identity documents directly from the federal departments. However, we believe it is more prudent and safer to keep the RCMP as the single point of contact for all document requests of this nature. There are many benefits to keeping the RCMP as a single point of contact. It helps ensure efficiency and enhances the security of the information and the safety of all those involved in the process. For these reasons, Bill C-51 would retain the RCMP as a liaison between the provincial and federal programs for the process of secured identity change.
A second area of change that directly addresses concerns of many of our provincial stakeholders relates to expanding the prohibitions of this program. As it currently stands, the Witness Protection Program Act only protects information about federal protectees. This is a legitimate concern raised by our provincial stakeholders and one which we have addressed in Bill C-51.
Under the proposed changes, the prohibitions of disclosure would be extended to include information about the witnesses, their designated witness protection program, as well as those who provide protection to these witnesses. This prohibition will apply across Canada. I should note these measures have been strongly supported by organizations that represent front-line police officers.
In addition, exceptions to the prohibitions of disclosure would also be clarified, allowing authorities at both the federal and provincial levels to fulfill their mandates, while still being mindful of the need to ensure the safety of protected persons.
At the federal level, this authority is the RCMP commissioner, while at the provincial level it is the official in charge of the designated program. For example, federal agencies will be able to share information about those protected persons who are also offenders being considered for release. At both levels, authorities would have the power to disclose information about protected persons if it was essential for the administration of justice, including if a serious offence were about to be committed.
It is clear that the Witness Protection Program Act is in need of amendments on a number of fronts. Bill C-51 is practical and comprehensive legislation that would do just that.
The provincial programs are a vital part of our network of witness protection in Canada and we are pleased that this bill has received positive response from the Attorneys General of Saskatchewan and B.C. as well as the Canadian Police Association.
I am also pleased to hear today in the House that for a change the opposition parties have openly said that they will support the bill.
This legislation sends a clear signal that we are on the right track. I therefore encourage all hon. members to continue their support of the good measures this government brings from time to time.
Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet NDP Hochelaga, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech.
As he said, and as we have already indicated, the bill contains enough improvements to the program for the official opposition to support it at third reading, despite our concerns regarding funding.
I wonder if my colleague knows why the bill does not contain more of the recommendations that came out of the Air India inquiry, such as ensuring that the eligibility process is more transparent.
Devinder Shory Conservative Calgary Northeast, AB
Mr. Speaker, as recommended in the Air India report, the concerns over objectivity of entrance into the program has been addressed by changing the reporting structure of the witness protection program internally within the RCMP to increase its objectivity and independence.
These changes separate investigations and decisions on admission for the running of the program.
LaVar Payne Conservative Medicine Hat, AB
Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege to sit on the public safety committee, and I did hear a lot of the witnesses who came forward, including the police organizations.
Everyone seemed to be very favourable in terms of this bill and what we are bringing forward. I would just like to ask my hon. colleague, the member for Calgary Northeast, a question. He is my brother, actually. Does he in fact believe this is really a very good bill?
Devinder Shory Conservative Calgary Northeast, AB
Mr. Speaker, as the member knows—my brother from a different mother—our government is committed to providing law enforcement with the tools and resources needed to protect the safety of our families and communities, including an effective witness protection program.
An effective and reliable witness protection program is valuable in the fight against crime, especially organized crime, and terrorism.
Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I just want to make a comment, because we know that while the Conservatives are late in responding to this growing issue, New Democrats are pleased to see the government listening to our request to expand the witness protection program. It is something we had been requesting when the Liberals were in power, and now the Conservatives are in power. We are glad to see it.
However, just as with any other bill, there is room for improvement. Knowing full well that there is room for improvement, one would think we would want to take this on immediately.
Basically, the bill does not include provisions for an independent agency to operate the program, as recommended in the Air India inquiry report. I am just wondering if my colleague could tell me why that was not included in this bill.
Devinder Shory Conservative Calgary Northeast, AB
Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, consultations were made, and amendments are based on all kinds of consultations with the stakeholders, the police associations, other organizations and, specifically, with the victims.
Let me quote what the president of the Canadian Police Association said:
The Canadian Police Association strongly believes that this proposed legislation will enhance the safety and the security of front-line law enforcement personnel who are engaged in protective duties. Unfortunately, the disclosure of identifying details can present a real danger to police personnel themselves as well as their families, and we appreciate the steps being taken today by the government of Canada to address those concerns. 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 urge my colleagues on the other side to quickly move on this.
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise here to debate Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act.
As many of my colleagues have mentioned, we will support this bill at third reading, but not without reservations, because a number of the questions we raised in committee at second reading remain unanswered.
We see enough progress in this bill to support it. However, it would be nice if the government members, especially those who are making speeches, would answer our questions at third reading. I will come back to this.
The government is relying more and more on the principle of disclosure to obtain information in order to enforce its laws properly. Whether in relation to its tax policies, public health or the criminal justice system, the general public is a valuable ally in helping the government anticipate and manage crisis situations.
The people who witness a wrongdoing play a key role in reporting, solving or preventing an offence or a crime. These people live in the constant fear of reprisal and feel that disclosing what they know will turn their lives upside down. They must be treated with respect, since they are risking a lot to protect others.
That is why this bill has been generally well received. It will better address the needs of these people who often reluctantly become involved in investigations related to national security.
This is somewhat of a delayed reaction from the Conservatives, since the bill was designed in 1985 to address some concerns raised by the Commission of Inquiry into the Investigation of the Bombing of Air India Flight 182. I would like to quote one of the commission's findings:
A failure to provide adequate protection for witnesses threatens their safety and, sometimes, their lives. It discourages others from helping intelligence or police agencies. In the end, poorly designed witness protection measures can rob the justice system of crucial assistance.
Better late than never, though. We are happy that the government has listened to our calls to expand the witness protection program.
The ability to protect witnesses was one of the main reasons—one of them—the Air India investigation was mishandled. It was certainly mishandled. One witness, Tara Singh Hayer, the publisher of the Times of India, a newspaper in British Columbia, was assassinated. This meant that the statement he gave under oath to the RCMP seven years earlier, in 1995, was deemed inadmissible. Other witnesses refused to participate in the investigation in 2007 because they feared for their safety. I do not blame them.
At the time, Justice Major admitted that he was not able to give witnesses the protection they needed. The authorities must understand the importance of these people and the magnitude of what they are doing. Chapter 8 of the commission's report stated:
Witness protection also involves developing a “culture of security” within the institutions that reflects an awareness of the real risks to those who assist the authorities in guarding against terrorism.
A number of recent events have focused attention on the serious problem of information sharing between the various organizations involved in national security activities, including the RCMP, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, various departments and provincial and local police forces.
This problem was mentioned in the Air India commission report:
The processes and procedures by which decisions are made as to what information should be passed exchanged between the intelligence and law enforcement communities are seriously flawed and require substantial revision.
This problem still exists and is the reason behind this bill's objectives. Witnesses must be guaranteed protection so that information can be gathered and a crisis or crime prevented or managed. The sharing of that information amongst the various intelligence and security forces and governments transcends the whole issue of national security.
In the case of Air India, for example, some testimony was called into question, and various authorities had the different pieces of evidence or testimony in their possession. The commission concluded that:
Government agencies were in possession of significant pieces of information that, taken together, would have led a competent analyst to conclude that Flight 182 was at high risk of being bombed by known Sikh terrorists in June 1985.
The handling of sources and sharing of information is a key element, one that is central to the objective of this bill, yet no consideration is given to it in this bill, despite reports such as the Air India commission report, which is more than 20 years old, I might add.
I would like to quote some of the commission's other findings concerning the sharing of information. It is worth quoting them because they are at the heart of the problem that this bill will resolve, albeit quite imperfectly. Here are some excerpts from the commission's report:
The institutional arrangements and practices of information-gathering agencies were wholly deficient in terms of internal and external sharing of information, as well as analysis.
CSIS failed to include important information, such as the Duncan Blast, in the threat assessments it provided to the RCMP and Transport Canada.
The RCMP wasted resources creating a threat assessment structure parallel to CSIS'. The RCMP structure was itself ineffective—it failed to identify, report, and share threat information.
I have some more excerpts from the commission report:
The RCMP failed to transmit the June 1st Telex, warning about the possibility of bombing with time-delayed devices in June 1985, to either CSIS or to Transport Canada.
Excessive secrecy in information sharing prevented any one agency from obtaining all necessary information to assess the threat. Excessive secrecy also prevented those on the frontlines from obtaining information necessary to put in place security measures responsive to the threat.
There was a lack of cooperation and communication within the RCMP and between RCMP, Transport Canada and airlines in relation to airport security.
I will go on with some more excerpts:
Although Air India was operating under an elevated threat level, CP Air (the airline upon which the bomb was loaded in Vancouver) was not informed of this fact and was operating under normal security protocols.
On June 22, 1985, the security level in force at Pearson and Mirabel airports called for the use of an RCMP explosives detection dog (EDD). That weekend, however, all RCMP EDD teams were in Vancouver for training, leaving the Toronto airport without any coverage.
I will close with some other excerpts from the same report:
CSIS often failed to disclose promptly to the RCMP information relevant to the criminal investigation, particularly information from human sources, or it disclosed information without sufficient detail or in a manner that prevented the RCMP from using the information.
CSIS was mesmerized by the mantra that “CSIS doesn’t collect evidence,” and used it to justify the destruction of raw material and information. CSIS erased the tapes that caught coded conversations possibly related to the planning of the bombing, and CSIS investigators destroyed their notes that recorded the information CSIS sources provided in relation to the Air India bombing. Both of these actions compromised the prosecution’s evidentiary position at trial.
The RCMP failed to appropriately protect sources and witnesses.
And finally:
The RCMP, at times, failed to take threats against Tara Singh Hayer seriously.
This sharing of information must occur between the federal and the provincial levels, since many provinces have their own witness protection programs.
Greater collaboration between the two levels of government would not only ensure better service to witnesses and sources, but also provide for more effective management of the intelligence services. Bill C-51 now under discussion would address this issue, but only partly.
From now on, more individuals will be eligible for the program. The bill also provides for recognition of provincial programs in place—meaning that some provisions of the act will apply to these programs. The bill also authorizes the Commissioner of the RCMP to work with the appropriate federal and provincial departments and agencies to facilitate the change of identity of persons admitted to the program. This is great news, as witnesses and sources will not have to submit a second application to the federal program to be eligible. Indeed, their files may simply be transferred between programs.
Despite this important addition, a problem remains. Where a provincial protection program is in place, local police forces may have to cover the costs of the investigation even when that investigation is federal in nature and the RCMP is involved. That is one of our major concerns about this bill. We agree with the spirit of the bill but, if the resources are not available, it will be extremely difficult to move in the right direction. The government is trying to reassure us, but we have still not received clear answers to the many questions that have been asked, particularly those asked by the official opposition.
It is not surprising that, although “the costs of witness protection may impede investigations, particularly for smaller law enforcement agencies”—and that is a direct quote from the RCMP website—Bill C-51 does not provide for any new funding for the program. This issue is not addressed in the bill.
When the bill was introduced in December 2012, the Minister of Public Safety said, “[o]ur Government is committed to keeping our streets and communities safe. An effective and reliable witness protection program is valuable in the fight against crime, especially organized crime and terrorism”.
We also want citizens to feel safe. Still, I really do not see how the government can claim that the bill will be another instrument to accomplish this, since the program will be expanded but the resources will remain the same. If the Conservatives really want to improve the witness protection program, they must commit more funding in order to achieve their goals.
The opposition has asked many questions of various government spokespeople. We keep coming back to the question of resources. The answers we are getting are not really answers. The government says we should trust it. Apparently, the Canadian Police Association told the government that it has sufficient resources. Nevertheless, local police forces say they do not have the resources they need. The RCMP's website says, and I repeat the quote, “There are instances when the costs of witness protection may impede investigations, particularly for smaller law enforcement agencies.” That is what the RCMP says.
Unfortunately, the government has not allocated additional resources that might make it possible to respond to the RCMP's concern. There may be some former police officers and police chiefs among the Conservative MPs, but that alone does not address the basic question: if there are not enough resources to enforce Bill C-51's provisions and improvements, how can the situation get better? We would like an answer to this question or at least an assurance that the government members will agree to commit more resources if necessary as Bill C-51 is implemented.
Another element I have already mentioned and which is worth repeating concerns the Air India inquiry's recommendations. We have said several times that few of the recommendations in the commission's report have been implemented. One of the primary recommendations from the inquiry was that the process for entering the program be transparent and subject to more rigorous accountability. Bill C-51, which we are currently studying, skips right over that issue.
I hope the government will give us answers to our questions later. That is why we are having this debate.
We all agree, and all parties in the House have already indicated that they would vote in favour of Bill C-51 at third reading, because it is an improvement over the current situation. Still, we would like the government to take our concerns seriously and do something about them.
Having an eligibility process that is more transparent, rigorous and accountable should also be a concern for the government.
We have still heard no answers even though the questions have been repeated over and over. We will continue to debate Bill C-51 this evening. We will continue to ask questions until we get answers from the government.
I have a question that is rather significant. It is possible to have the best intentions in the world and want to improve the situation. However, we are now in a context where the government is making cuts to various services, such as the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Unfortunately that has very negative consequences.
The issue of witness protection and keeping witnesses safe should be taken seriously because these people have often put their lives in danger in order to do their civic duty.
I do not want to see the government strutting about in public, in front of the media, saying that it is taking care of witness safety, that it is looking after victims, and using that as a non-partisan issue when, really, these provisions will have no teeth because there is no money behind them. Money is crucial. In this bill, it is essential to give police forces the resources they need.
We want a commitment, here and now, on these additional resources. If it is not here and now, we would like to have it by the end of the debate.
I eagerly await the questions I will be asked in about an hour, after private members' business.
The Acting Speaker Bruce Stanton
The hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques will have three minutes for comments when the House resumes debate on this motion.
It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.
The Acting Speaker Barry Devolin
Resuming debate.
The hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques has the floor. He has three minutes left.
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Speaker, I had come to the end.
I spoke at length about the commission of inquiry into the Air India events. This was really one of the key events that gave rise to the bill now being considered, even though it took a long time for the various governments to act and ensure that witnesses were safer and better protected.
I repeatedly said that the bill, which is likely to become law, requires resources to be properly implemented. These concerns were raised by the RCMP and others, but downplayed by other police services. This is why I want the government to be aware of the importance of providing these resources.
I would also like to raise the issue of street gangs because it has not really been discussed within the context of Bill C-51. Offences that are related to drugs or street gangs should be dealt with by local police forces. However, since they are drug-related offences, they are sent to the RCMP.
The RCMP can make decisions about witnesses needing protection because it is an area of federal jurisdiction. However, the costs are borne by local police forces. There is no guarantee that local police forces will have adequate resources to ensure that witnesses are protected in a secure manner.
As well, when we talk about the need to protect witnesses, we need to remember that in 2012, of the 108 candidates eligible for the witness protection program, only about 30 were admitted to it. In addition to the criteria that were used to determine if the witness protection program should be used, there was also the issue of resources.
I want the government to really take this issue seriously and ensure that resources will be made available to the right people—the RCMP, for one—but I also want it to create a special fund for the witness protection program. I would also like government members to start addressing this issue when responding to questions.
We will not let it go. We will continue to ask these questions when Conservative members speak to this bill. However, as I said, because there has been significant progress in this situation, which was untenable, we will vote in favour of this bill. Our support is contingent on having the resources put in place to ensure that the bill is properly implemented.
Anne Minh-Thu Quach NDP Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques for his speech. He always provides us with facts and clear examples, so people can easily understand.
Although this bill is a first step towards ensuring enhanced protection for witnesses, it gives police forces greater responsibilities without giving them any additional financial resources. Drug enforcement falls under federal jurisdiction. Can my colleague elaborate on that?
My riding is close to the American border, and there is a lot of drug trafficking. The RCMP is asked to deal with these problems, but it does not necessarily have the financial resources to do so.
What impact does my colleague think this could have on the community?
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Speaker, indeed, this does have a serious impact on border communities.
Other matters that come under federal jurisdiction include immigration and terrorism. The issue of the border we share with the United States often comes into question.
For that reason, it is very important to ensure that the progress achieved through Bill C-51—although it should have come a long time ago—is done in a pragmatic way with adequate resources to guarantee the safety of witnesses.
It is clear that this government has no plans to increase the existing budget envelopes allocated to the various police forces responsible for guaranteeing the safety and protection of witnesses. As a result, although this is an important bill, it is merely wishful thinking, since it will be impossible to implement it.
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is really refreshing to see the NDP actually supporting some initiatives that will make our streets and communities safer.
A number of times in the last little while, we have heard reference to the question of whether there are the adequate resources to implement the bill. I want to remind my colleagues on the other side that on two different occasions, the assistant commissioner indicated that there were, in fact, sufficient resources. I will quote from a meeting on March 5, when he said:
I am confident that we have the necessary resources to conduct an effective witness protection program, even with what Bill C-51 adds.
He also said:
—with the changes this bill brings about, the RCMP is comfortable that we have the resources within our existing resources to run an effective witness protection program.
With those statements clearly on the record, could my colleague explain to Canadians why he thinks, in spite of this evidence, that there are not sufficient resources?
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the question.
In fact, the NDP does support good crime legislation. I believe we began with Bill C-2, immediately after the election, when we suggested working with the Conservatives to quickly pass a bill that would make it easier to hold megatrials for criminal gangs. We are not afraid to support good bills; we are proud to do so.
I understand the evidence that was presented in committee. However, we have to realize that it was somewhat ambiguous.
My colleague mentioned that the RCMP had enough resources. However, this is what it says on the RCMP website:
There are instances when the costs of witness protection may impede investigations, particularly for smaller law enforcement agencies.
Major police forces across Canada and the associations that represent them believe that the resources are generally available. However, in very specific local situations, there may not be enough resources, and this can compromise the safety and proper protection of witnesses.
The evidence is contradictory, and that is why we are asking for a guarantee from members of the government. They must assure us that, if there are not enough resources, they will be the first ones to fight for additional resources and to ensure that Bill C-51 is in reality a good law.
Denis Blanchette NDP Louis-Hébert, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
There are intentions and then there are actions. In his speech, the hon. member emphasized the issue of resources. In my opinion, if we want to go beyond intentions and take action, we definitely need the appropriate resources.
Ever since I came to this House, we have often voted on bills based on their intentions. One could say it has become a habit. We do not think about what is needed for our intentions to become reality, to move from intentions to actions.
Besides pointing out that the Conservatives did not consider this and are not talking about it, what can we really do to move forward and begin to calculate the costs, to see where the needs are, and in the end, to pressure the government so that intentions become actions?
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Louis-Hébert for his question.
There are many ways to get a more precise idea of the resources that exist at the local level—the micro level, we could say—compared to the whole country.
First, since the provinces already have their own witness protection plans, it would be wise to talk to them and find out about needs. Is there a need in Medicine Hat, for example? Are there enough resources to provide witness protection in a municipality of that size? The same goes for various municipalities in Quebec.
The provinces and the local police forces, or at least the provincial police forces, are capable of assessing their needs in this area. There are differences through the years and there are cycles. In some years more resources will be allocated because the police will need more resources. Some years they will need less. Thus, budgets are likely to fluctuate. The RCMP and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police are not necessarily equipped to make these estimates. They may consider the country as a whole but it is the local, regional and provincial authorities who are better placed to see the evolving needs for witness protection.
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC
Mr. Speaker, the challenge I have is the previous member asked a question about walking the talk. That party voted against doubling the victims' surcharge, which goes to the provinces so they can offer that.
On Bill S-9, the nuclear terrorism bill, that same party agreed with it at committee and then proceeded to put up speaker after speaker at third reading. I asked the member for Ottawa Centre why his party continued to put up members if they all agreed.
Those members complain about the lack of process. We give them process and they continue to filibuster. They continue to say they support the legislation, but they will not really work with us.
Could the member please leave the rhetoric aside, see the legislation as being in our national interest and let us secure the Canadian public through it?
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Speaker, we were having a good debate here. We were communicating, so I am sorry this tone is being used. Still, the questions are interesting.
He asked about process. I believe we could agree that if the parliamentary process were adequate, more than 0.7% of all proposed amendments would be accepted. Moreover, most of the amendments that were passed were not even debated by the government. The other 99.3% of proposed amendments to government bills, whether about crime, the budget or other issues, were rejected.
So I do not think we need any lectures from the government about the parliamentary process with respect to the various bills it has presented. When there are good bills that we agree with, we say so.
We will support this bill despite our reservations about the resources and about the fact that some recommendations from the commission of inquiry into the Air India bombing were not included. The inquiry recommended instituting a rigorous and transparent eligibility process for admission to the witness protection program. It was an important recommendation in the report, but was not included.
It is an improvement on what is there now, but there are important elements missing. That is why we need this time to debate the issues, tell the government about our reservations and hesitations and suggest that these recommendations could be included in a future bill, if not in this one. That is why we will be pleased to support this bill.
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for from Northumberland—Quinte West.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak about this legislation before us, which would make important amendments to the Witness Protection Program Act.
I would like to spend my time today taking a look at exactly how witness protection programs work in Canada, as well as who, in fact, is being protected.
Of course, there are things we do not know and cannot know and are not privy to because of the need to keep witnesses protected. The sensitive nature of this type of work means that witness protection programs and the law enforcement agencies with which they are associated are very careful about the information they make public concerning their operations and the methods they use.
However, there are still some things we do know. For instance, at the federal level, the program is legislated by the Witness Protection Program Act and is administered by the RCMP. Several provinces run their own witness protection programs, namely Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.
As we have heard, there are some distinctions between the provincial and federal programs. One example is that the federal program considers its protectees to be in the program for life, but in the provincial systems, protectees may be under the protection of the program for a shorter term, such as leading up to or during a trial.
As well, if a provincial program determines that its protectee needs a secure identity change, he or she must temporarily transfer into the federal program.
Third, only the federal program is mandated to provide national protection services to all Canadian law enforcement agencies as well as to international courts and tribunals.
This is how witness protection programs are structured in Canada.
Who, then, are these witnesses and what determines if they fall into the provincial or federal programs?
According to the Witness Protection Program Act, a witness is defined as:
(a) a person who has given or has agreed to give information or evidence, or participates or has agreed to participate in a matter, relating to an inquiry or the investigation or prosecution of an offence and who may require protection because of risk to the security of the person arising in relation to the inquiry, investigation or prosecution, or
(b) a person who, because of their relationship to or association with a person referred to in paragraph (a), may also require protection for the reasons referred to in that paragraph.
More details about program participants can be found in a report prepared for Public Safety Canada by Dr. Yvon Dandurand in 2010. The report, entitled “A Review of Selected Witness Protection Programs”, gives a clear picture of the type of individual who is referred to the federal witness protection program.
Interestingly, the vast majority of protected persons are not actual victims of crime, as one might imagine. On the whole, they are either criminally involved themselves or have connections to criminal organizations. This is due to the nature of those specific crimes.
One of the defining characteristics of organized crime groups and the gangs that run the illicit drug trade is their closed nature, which makes traditional investigative methods very difficult.
As such, law enforcement often relies on the help it receives from informants, who place themselves at considerable risk to co-operate with the authorities. In order to secure this collaboration, it is critical that we have in place an effective witness protection program that will keep these witnesses and informants safe.
As to the question of which program the witness ends up in, police can refer a person to either the provincial or federal programs, depending upon the complexity of the crime and the jurisdiction.
As stated previously, in some cases associates or family members of the witness are also admitted into the program.
A large number of witnesses in the federal program are former police agents who have infiltrated criminal organizations as part of an investigation. Once they disclose their information, they may be at risk of retaliation by that criminal group or organization.
The number of people admitted into the program each year varies widely, depending upon the law enforcement activities that year and the number of family members who may need protection along with the witnesses. For example, last year there were about 30 new admissions to the federal program, bringing the total number of protectees to approximately 800 individuals.
If the circumstances of the crime and investigation warrant, the individual may need a complete change of identity and location in order to remain safe.
Under the federal program, the RCMP can help the protected person undergo a secure identity change as well as help the person find new employment and housing as needed. Last year, for example, the RCMP helped 27 witnesses to undergo secure identity changes.
As I mentioned earlier, the federal program also assists witnesses from other countries in accordance with international agreements signed with foreign governments.
It is clear that these programs must deliver on their mandates to keep witnesses safe from reprisal for their actions. As such, law enforcement must have access to strong, reliable programs that offer a high level of comfort for those witnesses before they agree to share their information. Bill C-51 contains a wide range of changes that would further strengthen how the provincial and federal programs work, as well as streamline how these two levels interact.
The legislation covers several broad areas of change.
First, it authorizes the Governor in Council to designate provincial programs in order to allow the RCMP to provide secure identity changes to provincial protectees without transferring them into the federal program.
Second, it establishes the RCMP as a liaison for provincial requests for secure identity change documents.
Third, it expands the prohibition on disclosure of information to include provincial protectees, as well as information about both the federal and provincial programs themselves and those who administer them.
Fourth, it broadens exceptions to the prohibition of disclosure of information to permit disclosure in certain circumstances.
Fifth, it broadens the obligation of program authorities to notify the protectee before the prohibited information is disclosed, except in specific circumstances.
Sixth, it facilitates volunteer terminations from the federal program.
Seventh, it extends the maximum time that emergency protection is provided to the witness.
Eighth, it enshrines in law that federal institutions outside of law enforcement agencies, such as those with a mandate related to national defence, security or public safety, may recommend the admission of individuals into the federal program.
The safer witnesses act would encourage a more streamlined approach to witness protection between the provincial and federal governments, as well as between the RCMP and other federal institutions with a mandate related to national security or national defence.
We are pleased to see such strong support for this legislation from the Province of British Columbia and the Province of Saskatchewan, as well as the Canadian Police Association and the Toronto Police Service.
We were also very pleased to see broad support for the proposed changes among witnesses and committee members during a recent committee study of Bill C-51. They believe, as do we, that it would ensure a more effective and more secure federal witness protection program both for the witnesses and for those who provide protection to these witnesses.
Therefore, I encourage all hon. members of the House to support this important legislation.
Philip Toone NDP Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
Mr. Speaker, my colleague's intervention was quite informative and well researched. However, there are points that I still think need to be addressed.
The member did mention that last year there were 30 more people admitted into the program, for a total of over 800 people, but last year alone over 100 people applied. One of the points of this bill is to increase admissions into the program. How does she juggle the fact that there would be stable funding and increased admissions? How do we square that peg?
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, there have been quite a few questions today about how these changes would be funded. I know that numerous answers from witnesses at the committee have been quoted, and I will repeat those quotes because although the members of the NDP think that costing would be an issue, the witnesses themselves indicated they did not think so.
Also, I want to talk about the fact that the changes we have made would broaden the scope of who can apply, but the Assistant Commissioner, Todd Shean, said that he did not think that would be the case when he was pressed about whether there would be a flood of new applicants into the program. He also indicated that he felt there would be enough resources, even with the broadened scope of Bill C-51 and the changes in it.
I might add that when we talk about the changes in this bill, we are also talking about efficiencies in the program. Because I am not sure if I have heard this quote today, I will quote Mr. Stamatakis, the president of the Canadian Police Association, who talks about the changes. He stated:
I should also note that the parts of this legislation that deal with extending the authority to designated provincial or municipal protection programs and not just the federal program remind me of some of the testimony I recently gave to this committee around the economics of policing and the need for us to adopt and embrace operational efficiencies in order to deliver the best possible community protection at a reasonable cost to the Canadian taxpayer.
He went on to say:
I do believe that this legislation will have an impact on streamlining that work.
Therefore, the concerns of the NDP are not really justified.
Earl Dreeshen Conservative Red Deer, AB
Mr. Speaker, in the member's speech there was some discussion with regard to cost. I wonder if we have thought of the benefits of managing to get criminals off the street.
Part of what this bill is all about is the ability to set cases and get some of these people who are affecting individuals in this country off the streets and into incarceration.
I wonder if you could comment on that, please.
The Acting Speaker Barry Devolin
I will not comment on it, but perhaps the member for Scarborough Centre might.
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, yes, a large focus has been on the cost, but I think the important factor that we must remember is that this measure will help people come forward and offer testimony that will help to deal with people who are involved specifically in organized crime.
My riding of Scarborough Centre has had several incidents of gang-related violence in the past number of years. I want to quote from the Chief of the Toronto Police Service, William Blair. I think it is imperative that this quote be referred now to this House. He states:
In Toronto, we have seen the fear caused by intimidation and the threat of retaliation in gang investigations. Witnesses with valuable information are deterred from coming forward. We support the government's initiative as a valuable step in protecting public safety.
Coming from the GTA myself and being part of Toronto in the heart of Scarborough Centre, I agree wholeheartedly with Toronto Police Service Chief William Blair. I believe this will be a very effective tool to get more people to come forward in order to get those criminal activities and criminal organizations off the street.
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to join in this debate on the legislation our government has introduced to modernize and strengthen Canada's federal witness protection program.
I have listened with a great deal of interest to several hon. members who have spoken, some eloquently, about the need for Bill C-51 and about our government's ongoing efforts to combat organized crime. The message we have heard from right across the country is that the witness protection program continues to be an effective tool for law enforcement to combat terrorism and organized crime.
We continue to see the benefit of the program as an important initiative in support of national priorities, including the dismantling of organized crime groups in this country. We have also heard about the need for reforms, given the changing nature of organized crime groups and terrorist organizations.
Our government has undertaken extensive consultations with our stakeholders in provinces and territories as well as with law enforcement representatives. With Bill C-51, we are addressing these calls for reform and are moving ahead with strengthening our federal witness protection program.
I would like to briefly outline some of the ways our government is responding.
Some hon. members will know that the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security conducted a review of Canada's witness protection program through 2007 and issued a final report in March 2008. That committee heard from experts from the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada as well as from representatives from the RCMP, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Department of Justice and the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP.
The standing committee's final report made some keen observations about the federal witness protection program and made a number of recommendations. What the report noted is that, and I quote directly from the report itself:
[A]ll witness protection measures, whether at the municipal, provincial, territorial and federal level, are indispensable in the fight against crime....
One reason for this is, again in the words of the report:
[C]riminal organizations have, in the majority of cases, “many ways of gathering information” on their accusers. Traditional investigative methods are rarely effective in infiltrating these types of organizations because of their secret nature. Law enforcement agencies must, therefore, use informers and/or human sources who themselves are often members of the criminal organizations under investigation....
At the time, the standing committee noted the need for an effective federal witness protection program. It also identified several areas where the program could be enhanced.
I am very pleased to note that Bill C-51 supports in principle many of the standing committee's recommendations as well as other calls for reform from stakeholders from other levels of government.
The report from the standing committee noted in particular, and again I quote directly from the report, that:
[The organization] responsible for federal witness protection can enter into agreements directly with provincial and territorial governments...to accelerate the processing of witness protection files.
Bill C-51 supports the underlying intent of this committee recommendation, which mirrors a concern expressed by some provincial and territorial governments.
Bill C-51 would improve the interaction between the federal and provincial witness protection programs. This in turn will help accelerate and streamline the process of obtaining secure identity changes for provincial witnesses within designated programs.
Today, any provincial witness requiring a secure identity change must first be temporarily admitted into the federal witness protection program before the RCMP will assist in obtaining the federal documents required for that secure change of identity. Bill C-51 would change this by introducing a regime whereby provincial witness protection programs can be designated so that secure identity changes can be obtained without having to temporarily admit a provincial protectee into the federal program.
Bill C-51 would also enhance the security of both the federal and designated provincial witness protection programs.
First, it would broaden and clarify the federal Witness Protection Program Act's current prohibitions against disclosure of information.
Second, Bill C-51 would extend the prohibitions against disclosure of information to include individuals in designated provincial witness protection programs. This is significant, as provincial legislative prohibitions against the disclosure of information for individuals in provincial witness protection programs can only be enforced within that respective provincial jurisdiction. In other words, there may be limitations on provincial legislation applying a prohibition on witness information outside its jurisdiction. Bill C-51 would extend the prohibition across jurisdictions so that information is protected across Canada. Without this change, the provinces would have to rely on their own legislation, which is, of course, limited to within their borders.
Bill C-51 also extends and expands prohibitions against disclosure of information about the federal and designated programs.
The Standing committee on Public Safety and National Security also recommended in 2008 that psychological assessments of all candidates over the age of 18 be conducted prior to their admission to the program and that potential candidates should be automatically offered the assistance of legal counsel. I am very pleased to note that the RCMP has already begun to engage psychologists to conduct assessments of candidates as well as to offer counselling both to candidates and to protectees already in the program. In fact, the RCMP is implementing a wide range of other administrative changes to the federal witness protection program to enhance its effectiveness.
Today, the RCMP is taking steps to separate admission decisions from investigations by changing its internal reporting structures. It is also establishing memoranda of understanding with federal partners to enhance the secure administration, transmission and storage of protected information.
As well, the RCMP is introducing program enhancements within existing resource levels, including the use of risk management principles regarding admission decisions and protectee management practices; enhanced training for protectee handlers; and database development to better manage information about protectees.
The administrative changes the RCMP is implementing, in conjunction with the provisions within Bill C-51, would strengthen, modernize and streamline witness protection processes across Canada. They would enhance the capacity of the federal witness protection program to make consistent and fair decisions about the safety of witnesses and sources.
In addition to the changes I have mentioned, Bill C-51 would allow federal institutions with a national security, national defence or public safety mandate to make referrals of their sources to the RCMP for possible admission into the federal witness protection program. Such organizations include the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. This provision within Bill C-51, as well as improved and culturally sensitive training now being provided to individuals involved in the delivery of the federal witness protection program, will largely respond to an Air India inquiry recommendations related to the program.
For all of the reasons I have mentioned, I am pleased to support Bill C-51, and I encourage all hon. members to join me.
I am now prepared to take any questions that may be offered.
Pierre Jacob NDP Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his speech.
I would remind him that the RCMP has already spoken about underfunding of the witness protection program, but I am not going to talk about that.
I will talk about the recommendation that came out of the Air India inquiry, which recommended that there be more accountability and transparency around admission to the witness protection program.
My question is simple: why is the government not committed to increasing the transparency of this program?
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
Mr. Speaker, how wrong the member is. He says that the RCMP has already stated that it needs additional funding. I can quote one of the witnesses before the committee, as I have been a member of that committee for seven years. Todd Shean, Assistant Commissioner of federal and international operations of the RCMP, said:
[W]ith the changes this bill brings about, the RCMP is comfortable that we have the resources within our existing resources to run an effective witness protection program.
I have several other quotes that reflect similar sentiments.
The member talks about accountability and clarity. Had he been listening, that is what Bill C-51 actually does. The RCMP has increased its ability to protect information and has increased its ability to work with witness protection programs in those provinces and with those police departments that already have them. That was the purpose of it. I was on the committee when we did the initial study in 2007 and the report in 2008. It actually addressed these very concerns.
The member has asked a question that is being dealt with right in this piece of legislation, and I think he needs to refresh himself on some of the matters that came up in that report.
LaVar Payne Conservative Medicine Hat, AB
Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of serving on the public safety committee with my colleague. I know that he was a police officer for a number of years and has a very good understanding of police work and what is required.
We have heard from the other side numerous times that there is insufficient funding and about who is responsible for the funding. I would like to ask my colleague about provincial and municipal funding for police forces.
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
Mr. Speaker, we all know that funding for municipal police forces generally comes from municipal funds, and sometimes the provinces assist in that endeavour. However, essentially, provinces and municipalities handle the funding of their own police forces. For those provinces with RCMP, that agreement is pursuant to an agreement they have with the federal government.
There is something more important to police officers in this piece of legislation, and that is the protection of the people it is designed to protect and the protection of the handlers, who are generally police officers. This better protects the information they need to have.
Mr. Tom Stamatakis, president of the Canadian Police Association, articulated that very well. He said that the association strongly recommended its adoption. He said that it would be a benefit to law enforcement communities across Canada who are tasked with that information. He went on to say that it would also help protect the men and women he represents. That protection is a responsibility of his association and the government, because there are over 50,000 police officers in this country, and we want to make sure that at night they go home to their families.
Ruth Ellen Brosseau NDP Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île.
I am pleased to speak today in support of this bill. The issue is a very important one that the NDP has worked hard on for many years. I know that my fellow New Democrats who were members of previous parliaments often pointed out the need to expand the federal witness protection program.
In fact, ever since this program was created in 1996, the NDP has called for improvements. It has often called upon the government to act and protect the safety of all responsible Canadians who do their duty. I am pleased that the Conservatives have finally listened and that the government has finally decided to act. I might say their hearing is selective, though, because some elements are missing.
The people who need the witness protection program are people taking risks, putting themselves in danger and sometimes putting their very lives in danger, in order to help the police and ensure public safety. They must have access to a robust and effective program that will protect them.
For years we have been calling specifically for better coordination between the federal and provincial programs and better overall funding.
We are not the only ones who have pointed out problems. As I was preparing my speech I came upon quite a few criticisms of the rigid admission standards. Stakeholders have sounded the alarm about poor coordination with the provincial programs and the small number of witnesses admitted to the program.
Before this bill, witnesses in cases involving national security were excluded from the program. Justice O'Connor criticized this exclusion in his 2010 report on the Air India tragedy. The report revealed that a number of witnesses were afraid to divulge important information to the RCMP, fearing for their safety. He recommended broadening the admission criteria to include witnesses in cases involving national security. More than two years after the report, the government woke up and decided to take action.
Even though Bill C-51 is late, we are satisfied with it in general. It proposes a better process for supporting the provincial witness protection programs and applying the program to other organizations responsible for national security, as I mentioned.
The bill will broaden the criteria for admission to the witness protection program by including a new category of individuals who may come forward to help the federal authorities, for instance, street gang members.
Federal departments and agencies with a mandate related to national security, national defence or public safety will also be able to refer witnesses to the program.
The bill will extend the period for emergency protection and clear up some of the technical problems that were occurring in relation to coordination with provincial programs.
However, in order for it to be effective, the bill should also include provisions for an independent agency to administer the program, as recommended in the Air India report.
We were quite surprised that this recommendation was not included in Bill C-51. We see the Conservatives' selective hearing at work here. As a result, the RCMP will continue to be responsible for the program. This may be cause for concern since it could put the RCMP in a conflict of interest since the RCMP would be responsible for investigating the case and deciding who would get protection.
My biggest concern is related to funding. I listened carefully to the speeches given by my colleagues on both sides of the House, and I believe that we all agree on the importance of this bill.
However, I have a hard time understanding the arguments the members opposite are making about funding. How do they think they can expand a program without giving the RCMP and other police forces the money they need? That is not realistic. It seems as though this will prevent more people from participating in the program.
I thought that the bill was at least partly designed to expand access to the program. Will that be possible without the necessary funding?
We are not the only ones who have raised this concern. A number of witnesses addressed this issue when the bill was studied in committee. I want to share a quote from testimony given by Micki Ruth, from the Canadian Association of Police Boards, with my Conservative colleagues:
Like many issues facing government today, funding is one of the biggest and toughest ones to find solutions for. The problems identified back in 2007 with the adequacy of funding for the current witness protection program are not addressed in Bill C-51. Unfortunately, we see problems with the ability of municipality police services to adequately access witness protection because they lack the resources.
She went on to say:
Therefore we urge you to appreciate our position that unless the issue of adequate funding is addressed, the legislation will not produce the result that is intended.
If the Conservative government really wants to improve the witness protection program, it must provide the necessary funding. That is obvious considering last year's figures: only 30 of 108 applications were approved in 2012, mainly because of financial constraints. That undermines the program's value enormously. Seventy-eight witnesses were put at risk but did not receive the protection to which they rightly felt they were entitled. I really think that is a problem.
Adequate funding is essential if we want to bring about changes that yield tangible results, particularly as regards street gangs, a new group contemplated by this bill. We cannot tell young people we want to help them leave gangs, use their testimony in court and then leave them without protection. We know that gangs are very difficult to leave and that they can be aggressive toward individuals who decide to stand up to them and change their ways. Gang members are often youth who have made mistakes but are trying to right the wrongs for which they have been charged. We must support them in that effort.
I would also like to emphasize that this bill will help witnesses, but it will also ensure the safety of our communities. The NDP is always searching for intelligent and viable ways to ensure the safety of our communities. One way to achieve that is to improve the witness protection program in order to guarantee the safety of our streets by giving police forces additional tools to assist them in combating street gangs and organized crime.
In closing, I am pleased to see that the Conservatives have finally taken action on this matter and have selectively listened to the NDP's advice. Note, however, that, if the NDP were on the government side—and I can assure you that will be the case in 2015—we would go further. We would be sure to give the RCMP and police forces the financial and legislative tools they need to do their jobs and protect the public.
I will vote in favour of this bill, hoping that it will open the door to an expanded, more accessible program, which is necessary for the sake of national security and our public safety.
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Mr. Speaker, the member's presentation was excellent and I want to contrast some of her remarks. We have heard some very strong remarks from the other side, people with experience like the member for Northumberland—Quinte West, who was a policeman and recognizes this is a valuable tool. I think we all do and that is why we are supporting the bill.
However, it is very unfortunate that members on the other side are very selective in their quotes from witnesses at the committee and have ignored the voice of the Canadian Association of Police Boards. Civilians comprise it, for the most part, and represent the boards that oversee police forces across the country.
For example, Dr. Alok Mukherjee, the president of that organization, said, “Our chiefs have said to us that their ability to access fully, proportionate to their need, is not there”, and complained about the financing and lack of ability.
My colleague mentioned the fact that only 30 out of 108 people who applied in the year 2012 were able to get funding. That will get worse when we expand the criteria, which we have all called for and agree must be done, so others can apply, as was recommended by the Air India inquiry and many others. Does it not logically have to get worse if only a quarter are getting funded now and we are going to expand the criteria?
Ruth Ellen Brosseau NDP Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Mr. Speaker, that is right. With expanding the admissibility and allowing more people to apply to this program, common sense would say that more money would be allotted to this. More people would be applying; hence, more people would be accepted. I think that on both sides of the House there is general consensus. It is good legislation and we are definitely voting for it.
However, when the money is not there, it is something that bothers me. With more people applying for this, I would hope the government could at least ensure there will be financing for it to ensure these people are accepted and witnesses are protected. It is only right.
Bev Shipley Conservative Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for her presentation tonight on Bill C-51 and for indicating the NDP's support for something that, for six years, we have been pressing for in terms of a stronger justice system. This is not only about a stronger justice system, but also helping to protect the innocent and victims.
Going back to funding, the RCMP has said the resources are there. The federal government makes transfers each year to the provincial governments. We have increased those over our term, and I do not want to get too specific, about 25%. Some of those transfers go to social programs and education and some are general transfers to the provinces. Does she have any sense that the provinces may have the opportunity to use some of those transfers for the protection of victims?
Ruth Ellen Brosseau NDP Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Mr. Speaker, he said that the government has been waiting for this for six years. Why did it not act any sooner?
The member for Trinity—Spadina has been on record many times pushing for more accessibility and reform of the witness protection program for many years. We are very happy that it has come to fruition.
As I said, we could have a battle of quotes. I was not on the committee, but I could read more quotes. Just to keep it simple, 30 people were accepted in this program in 2012 and if we are to accept more applicants, I am really worried the funding will not follow. I do not want there to be too much downloaded on the municipalities when we know they do not have enough resources at times.
Ève Péclet NDP La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-51.
I would like to begin by citing an example of the Conservatives' financial logic. We are talking about programs designed to assist Canadians, whether they be victims, students or others. The Conservatives want to help them.
I have previously risen in the House on several occasions to speak about the Canada summer jobs initiative, which is an excellent job market springboard for students. Unfortunately, the program has not been adjusted for inflation or the increased minimum wage since the Conservatives came to power in 2006. As a result, fewer and fewer students have access to the program and fewer and fewer organizations have the opportunity to offer students work experience. However, the Conservatives say they want to help students and are concerned for their welfare. It would have taken twice as much money to cover all the student applications in my riding of La Pointe-de-l'Île alone.
I understand that the decision to take money and give it to Canadians who really need it is never an easy one for a government. I understand, but that unfortunately means that some students will not have the same opportunities as others and that there will be an unstable supply of jobs offered by organizations.
If I may draw a parallel with criminal justice, exactly the same thing is happening here. For example, the Conservatives introduced very strict criminal justice legislation a few months ago. Those bills provided for minimum sentences, which, as we know, were criticized by all organizations. Yes, it is true: they want to ensure that our streets are safer, and, yes, they will spend money to build prisons and cause delays in the criminal justice system. However, when it comes to trying to catch criminals, they may not have enough money.
What does Bill C-51 do? It enables people to testify, and it helps catch criminals. Am I telling you anything new here today? They invest billions of dollars to build prisons, create delays in the justice system and introduce minimum sentences. They have the money for that. However, when it comes to protecting witnesses and catching criminals, that is another matter.
They want to amend the act, except that they are going to offload the entire burden onto the provinces and local police forces. The Conservative government does not understand the connection between witnesses and criminals. The Conservatives want to catch criminals, but you need witnesses in order to do that. If there are no witnesses, there will be no one to put in prison. As I said, only about 30 of the 108 applications filed were accepted in 2012. We agree that something needs to be done.
We want to support the bill because it contains some very good measures. It implements some of the recommendations made by the court in the Air India affair. However, making a good law is not everything. That is the work of members. Parliament must also allocate the necessary resources to those who enforce the legislation. There too, one would think this is a principle the Conservatives do not really understand. Yes, it is good; we are going to pass Bill C-51, which is a good bill. We are going to support it. However, what will the local police forces do? What will the provinces do? Are we going to leave them with the entire economic burden?
That is what the Conservatives are doing, and we are very afraid.
It is all well and good to have a system that works on paper, but it also has to work in the field.
This program has been around since 1996. Yes, 1996. It is now 2013. I just wanted to point that out. From 1996 to 2013. It seems to me that all the changes needed to make the program a success could have been made long ago.
Unfortunately, it is thanks to our colleague from Trinity—Spadina putting forward bills and asking the government to act that we find ourselves in 2013 debating a suddenly urgent bill until midnight. A tragedy like the Air India tragedy had to happen first and an investigation had to be carried out before the government took any action.
It is a good bill. For example, it will ensure that members of street gangs who want to get out of that life and would like to testify can be protected. The issue of national security will also be covered. All of these recommendations were made by experts.
However, funding is still the main problem. I understand that this is a social choice and a government choice. I would like to be sure Canadians understand that what the Conservatives are proposing to us today is good, but that they will not take the next step for it to be even better. That is the government’s choice.
A political choice involves passing good legislation in Parliament. However, the legislation must also be enforced on the ground.
For instance, on its website, the RCMP acknowledges that there are instances when the costs of witness protection may impede investigations, particularly for smaller law enforcement agencies. They mean local police stations. The RCMP recognizes this problem on its own website. It is a shame that this problem exists.
Why ignore the most important facts? Why ignore everything the police are asking for? They need resources.
I think it is really important to pass this bill. However, resources are also needed on the ground to ensure the bill truly protects witnesses and makes our streets and our communities safer.
We know the government’s line about victims, among others. How can it claim to be protecting victims, if it does not even ensure that the police can arrest criminals thanks to information from witnesses?
As I said, it is a good bill, but it has to be enforced on the ground. I am going to say that ad nauseam, because it remains a choice to be made by the government. It is a government choice, but there is nothing there right now. There is only paper.
The NDP has been asking for these changes since before 2007, but it was not until 2013, at 8 o’clock in the evening, that the Conservatives decided to proceed with the changes.
Once again, one step is being taken, but one more step is needed. People can be sure that the NDP will keep on pressuring the government to make the streets safer for Canadians.
Philip Toone NDP Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's speech, and I really appreciated it. She raised a number of very relevant points.
I would like her to speak more about the lack of transparency in the selection process and in deciding who is eligible for the program.
Could she point out some of the flaws? How could the process be improved?
Ève Péclet NDP La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
Mr. Speaker, this is great: I spoke for 10 minutes, yet the government members do not even want to rise to ask questions.
Pierre Dionne-Labelle
They are quiet.
Ève Péclet NDP La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
Exactly, they have been very quiet for 10 minutes.
If it is so interesting and so important, why are they not capable of asking me questions about a bill they are trying to shove down our throats? They moved a time allocation motion after just two speeches. They cut debate short and are trying to shove this down our throats.
Chris Alexander ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, we are grateful to the hon. member and to the NDP for hounding us about this bill.
Does the member agree that the NDP will have plenty more chances and opportunities to support us in fighting crime more effectively, in helping victims in this country, in building a stronger police force across the country and in countering terrorism?
We have been working in those areas for the past six years, but the NDP just recently—as in five minutes ago—started to support us on these things.
Ève Péclet NDP La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
Mr. Speaker, if the parliamentary secretary thinks the NDP will vote with the Conservatives on a bill that violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that prevents Canadians from enjoying their fundamental rights, he can think again.
I would like to remind him that we supported the government on Bill C-2, on street gangs.
The government also has our full support when it comes to the current RCMP investigation into Nigel Wright's actions and the $90,000 cheque he wrote out to a senator. We support the government 100% on that.
They should let the RCMP investigate the fraud involving dealings between the PMO and the senators.
Annick Papillon NDP Québec, QC
Mr. Speaker, my colleague raised a good point and that is the importance of having a back-and-forth discussion on a bill as important as C-51.
I think it is great that my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île is willing to work with the Conservatives so that they might finally give us an explanation and answer a simple question. The Conservative government has been here for seven years. During that time, the RCMP and the provinces have repeatedly called for changes to the witness protection program.
Why has it taken so long to make proposals? Are the Conservatives finally prepared to invest the necessary federal funding for proper law enforcement? We want more laws, but we also want those laws to be enforced and that is what our police forces want.
Ève Péclet NDP La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
Mr. Speaker, there is a simple reason why this took such a long time.
It took a tragedy, an inquiry and recommendations to get here. Everyone knows how the government works: this is damage control.
However, I would like to know when the Prime Minister was first informed that his chief of staff wrote a cheque for $90,000.
How is it possible that the government, which claims to uphold law and order in Canada, cannot even call on the RCMP to investigate electoral fraud?
What I want to know is, what witness are they protecting in their cabinet?
The Speaker Andrew Scheer
I just want to inform the member for Oxford and the House that we are now moving on to the portion of debate where speeches will be 10 minutes and questions and comments will be 5 minutes.
The hon. member for Oxford.
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is my honour today to rise to add my voice in support of Bill C-51. As my colleague is leaving the room, I would like to remind her that we support the Charbonneau inquiry and truthfulness at that inquiry looking into the corruption in Quebec in the construction trades.
Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act, a strong federal witness protection program is critical to helping our law enforcement and justice systems work effectively. Over the years, the federal witness protection program has frequently proven itself to be a useful and important tool for effectively combatting crime, particularly organized crime.
However, the Witness Protection Program Act has not been substantially changed since it first came into effect in 1996. During that time there have been enormous changes in the nature of organized crime. It has adapted to become more transnational and pervasive. Organized crime groups are increasing in sophistication and becoming adept at using new cybertechnologies to avoid detection and arrest. These groups are known to be exceedingly secretive and difficult to infiltrate, often posing unique challenges for law enforcement officials.
Meanwhile, crimes committed by organized crime networks present a serious threat to the safety of our communities and are of great concern to police and to Canadians.
Many organized crime networks are involved with the illicit drug trade, a lucrative business that has been growing significantly. For instance, according to Statistics Canada, cocaine trafficking, production and distribution in Canada has grown nearly 30% over the last decade.
Bill C-51 is a practical and comprehensive piece of legislation that effectively addresses the need to modernize the witness protection program. It would amend the Witness Protection Program Act to improve the effectiveness and security of the federal witness protection program and make it more responsive to the needs of law enforcement from across Canada.
The bill was designed to do four main things: improve the process to obtain secure identity changes for witnesses from provinces and territories that have designated programs; broaden prohibitions against the disclosure of information; expand admissions for national security, national defence and public safety sources; and extend the amount of time emergency protection may be provided.
From day one, this government has been quite clear that keeping all Canadians and Canadian communities safe is one of our top priorities. We have taken strong action to address this priority by providing law enforcement officials with the tools they need to do their jobs more effectively. This government has provided law enforcement officials with more resources.
We have enacted legislation to stiffen sentences and to increase the accountability of offenders. We have taken steps to modernize Canada's national police force. We have enhanced the ability of all law enforcement officials to keep Canadians safe. Bill C-51 further builds on our track record and would go a long way to enhancing our collective efforts to combat organized crime. Not one of us here today would argue against the critical role that witness protection plays in the criminal justice system.
Most of us know that for many cases, law enforcement officials have had to rely on the co-operation of individuals formerly involved with organized crime organizations in order to combat their activities or to successfully prosecute ringleaders. In other cases, law enforcement has relied on the testimony of key eyewitnesses. These were individuals who agreed to help law enforcement or provide testimony in criminal matters with the end goal of removing criminals from our streets and making our communities safer.
In many cases, these individuals often had inside knowledge about organized crime syndicates or the illicit drug trade because they themselves were involved with these elements. The information they provided to authorities was often invaluable, but sharing it with law enforcement officials could often also place their lives at risk. Witnesses are all too aware of the risk and they fear not only for their own safety, but for the safety of their family and loved ones.
That is why witness protection programs in Canada and around the world offer protection, including new identities, for certain individuals whose testimony or co-operation can be so vital to the success of law enforcement operations. I believe most Canadians understand that.
In order to give our police and courts the best chance to apprehend and convict offenders, we need individuals to feel confident and safe in coming forward to help with investigations. In fact, protecting witnesses is vital to our justice system. Witness protection is recognized around the world as one of the most important tools that law enforcement has at its disposal to combat criminal activity. In the case of organized crime in particular, these witnesses are often the key component to achieving convictions.
The safer witnesses bill contains several changes to the Witness Protection Program Act that would help better protect informants and witnesses. Together, these proposed changes would strengthen the current Witness Protection Program Act, making the federal program more effective and secure for both the witnesses and those who provide protection, because this is really the crux of this program, to keep those involved and their information safe and secure.
As I said at the outset, a strong federal witness protection program is critical to helping our law enforcement and justice systems work effectively. We must take steps to ensure that individuals who decide to become informants or to testify against criminal organizations do not face intimidation or danger. This is why our government is committed to strengthening our federal program and to ensuring a stronger, more streamlined connection with designated provincial programs.
In order to address the threat of organized crime and drugs in our communities, it is critical that informants and witnesses collaborate with law enforcement. Therefore, it is vital that we continue to support an effective federal witness protection program and make it more responsive to the needs of law enforcement, while ensuring the safety of the program participants.
We believe very strongly that Bill C-51 does just this, and the response we have received from stakeholders and parliamentarians only increases our confidence in this legislation. Strong witness protection programs are invaluable to investigations and court proceedings. I believe we are on the right track with this legislation. The proposed amendments would modernize the act that is key in our collective fight against serious and organized crime, in collaboration with provinces and territories. They would enhance protection provided to key witnesses and those involved in administering witness protection programs across Canada.
The changes our government is proposing also respond to many of the needs of provincial and territorial governments. They respond to the needs of law enforcement officials and other stakeholders involved in the criminal justice system. They respond to the needs of Canadians from coast to coast to coast who wish to see our government continue to build safe communities for everyone.
I therefore encourage all hon. members to support Bill C-51 and help us keep our witnesses and all Canadians safe.
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Mr. Speaker, I truly respect the perspective and the career experience the member has brought to this House as a former police officer.
I would like to ask the member just one question, and it is not a surprise question. Many of us have had this concern. There seems to be underplaying from the government benches on the issue of resources for provincial and local police forces. Ultimately witness protection is bundled up with investigations, and even if the RCMP is involved, it bills back to the police at the municipal and provincial levels.
We have heard testimony in committee that at that level there are concerns about inadequate resources already. Does the member share those concerns? If so, would the member not agree that while this bill is first step, those issues have to be addressed later?
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
Mr. Speaker, I come from a community with a smaller police agency than many of the large communities have.
This particular program is actually one that assists us in our resources. It means that the RCMP will handle the witness protection. We are not able to do that with a smaller community and smaller police agency. This program, which is funded by the federal government and administered by the RCMP, is a great tool for police agencies across the country.
Police agencies are always concerned about resources, as they should be. There is never enough in any circumstance, but this particular program is one that I think will go a long way to providing that opportunity for smaller departments to have opportunities to deal with witness protection in conjunction with the RCMP.
Ted Opitz Conservative Etobicoke Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, the question of resources just came up with my hon. friend. However, the RCMP and the Assistant Commissioner, Todd Shean, who is involved with the federal and international operations at the RCMP, are comfortable that they have the resources within their existing base to run a very effective witness protection program.
Could the hon. member expand upon are his thoughts on how the provincial programs work more seamlessly with the federal program?
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
Mr. Speaker, some of the provinces have their own programs, which operate somewhat independently from the federal program and yet in conjunction with it. They are fairly seamless. They operate well and they provide the protection to witnesses that all of the programs are intended to do.
I heard numbers here a few minutes ago about how only so many people were admitted into the program. That may not have anything to do with the resources that are available. They may be folks who, for whatever reason, decide that when they understand what is involved and no longer wish to go into the program.
There has not been an issue about a lack of resources hindering the program itself. We are always cognizant that there are never enough resources to do all the things that we would like to do.
Matthew Dubé NDP Chambly—Borduas, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question about the recommendations made in the report that was produced following the Air India tragedy.
One of the recommendations had to do with the fact that witnesses who need protection are often themselves involved in crime. For instance, this is often the case with members of street gangs and organized crime. When the RCMP has to choose witnesses and protect them on the one hand, while also possibly investigating them on the other hand, this can cause a conflict of interest. The recommendation had to do specifically with the lack of independence in the process, which could be problematic.
I wonder if my colleague could talk a little more about that. Does he think this flaw in the bill will be corrected in the future?
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
Mr. Speaker, there will be a lot of discussion about who may or may not go into the program. He talks about someone who may be responsible for a crime, but that is one of the issues that the witness protection program has do deal with in one way or another.
Many of these people are the people who have been in the middle of the organized crime unit, drug unit or whatever it might be. However, we have to have them as witnesses, so the program provides that protection for them to be used as witnesses.
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying what I think has been fairly clear in the contributions from colleagues all along, that the NDP will be supporting the bill.
Bill C-51 does some important things, and nobody is going to claim that it does not. In particular, it adds to the categories of folks who might eventually receive witness protection. For example, those who have been assisting agencies in the federal security or defence or safety realms are added, as well as those associated with them: friends, family, et cetera, who may also need protection. There are any number of contexts that we could all refer to and know about that indicate that witness protection, if anything, is a growing need on the law enforcement side of government.
The Air India inquiry was one of the contexts in which we heard that the national security context was a gap in the system. Surely that has to be the case with other forums and other terrorism investigations, which cannot be much different.
The member for Oxford spoke very well about the burgeoning transnational nature of organized crime and how it is becoming more and more sophisticated, which has been a trend line for decades. Law enforcement is always playing catch-up in the role of witnesses to somehow or other get ahead of the game, and the witness protection program must surely be very important there.
One area that is very important to those of us from more concentrated urban areas is the whole question of street gangs and especially youth gangs. How is it that we can actually break the codes of silence, encourage witnesses to come forward, such as in the Danzig shootings that took place in Scarborough not so long ago? Also, how is it that we can use the witness protection program as part of a broader strategy in getting youth out of that environment?
Nobody is contesting that the bill, as far as it goes, is a good bill and deserves to be supported. Nobody is saying that the context is not one that presents a crying need.
That said, working briefly through three themes, I would like to suggest that the bill does not go nearly far enough when it could have, which is the problem. We have had many years of warning. The NDP started in 2007, and we had reports from 2008 on, saying that the system needed to be upgraded. With the upgrading of the system at the level of effectiveness, we have heard all kinds of concerns, including about funding and the need for an independent agency from the RCMP to be involved. We know from the various interventions that have occurred already that those elements really were not addressed, and so it is a lost opportunity. At some level I would like to think of this as sort of a battle between the real and the rhetorical.
We also went through this recently with respect to Bill C-37, the increasing offenders' accountability for victims act, which I was involved with when I was on the justice committee. The NDP also supported this bill, despite considerable concerns we had that it was totally avoiding any federal public support philosophy for victims and instead was trusting in sort of a combination of surcharges that offenders would pay—and many of them would not be in a position to pay—and provincial programs that were a patchwork quilt and often nonexistent across the country. However, the government at that time presented that bill as making a major contribution to support for victims when it was largely devoid of any kind of a federal role with respect to true victim support programs.
However, again, we supported that bill. It was not because we thought it was the greatest bill in the world, but it was because it added something. Although we had some problems at the level of rights protections, we ultimately felt those could be worked out down the line.
This is why I have joined with the mother of a murdered youth from Toronto—Danforth, Joan Howard, whose son Kempton was murdered 10 years ago literally around the corner from my house. He was murdered by handgun. He was a youth worker who contributed in amazing ways to his community. His mother is of the view that we need to focus more on the needs of victims when it comes to the kinds of public support mechanisms that we associate with other causes, which are the kinds of support mechanisms people need, such as psychological support and social service support.
The supports are needed not just for the immediate victims who survived crime, but quite often for their families—maybe even more often, especially when it is violent crime that has taken a life. It is true that provinces jurisdictionally have the responsibility for this, but the specific link to crime means that the kind of victimhood that occurs because of crime is really not taken into account for the most part in most provinces. We get to legislate the Criminal Code and a bunch of other areas of criminal law through other statutes up here, but we kind of back off when it comes to how we deal with the consequences of crime. Somehow, that becomes purely a matter of another jurisdictional level.
At some point, the federal government has to, obviously under an initiative from Parliament, really catch up to other countries that take public victim support programs a lot more seriously than we do, rather than simply downloading costs on offenders and provinces and thinking that somehow or other we have accomplished the task. I see this bill as falling a bit into the same trap. It would do a fair bit that is important, but at the level of making sure the system functions in a way that all witnesses who need protection will be protected—which is a goal that is necessary for making sure all crime that can be prosecuted is prosecuted—then it is a bill that would fall short.
Therefore, I move on to the second thing, which has been emphasized a lot: funding. The government MPs are focusing often on comments coming from government witnesses, including RCMP witnesses, before the committee; basically comments saying that the funding is adequate. I will read an example that has been read, at least in part, by others. This is from assistant commissioner Todd Shean of the RCMP. He said, “We will immediately increase resources. We have increased the resources allocated to our witness protection unit”, and he goes on to say then, “I am confident that we have the means to manage the program effectively”.
What is the problem here? First, he speaks of “...our witness protection unit”. Of course, the RCMP has its own costs, runs its own program and sometimes assumes all the costs because it is an entire RCMP or federal investigation that the witness protection program is latching onto. It is good to know that he is projecting an increase in resources, but there is no reference here, or recognition even, to the provincial or local police force costs associated with witness protection programs. These levels of government, provincial and municipal, and more particularly their police forces, are charged for the costs.
The member for Oxford made it clear to us that of course costs are saved for police forces. I am not saying that is not true, but ultimately when there are costs that are not simply the costs from the fact that there is an overall system that they can tap into, they get billed for it. What we know is that there is already a problem with funding for these levels. In 2007, this was pointed out. We are in 2013, and there was no evidence before the committee that it has changed. There was clear and persuasive testimony before the committee on this, and I will return to some of it as I end.
However, let me first go back to the RCMP. Its own website states, “There are instances when the costs of witness protection may impede investigations, particularly for smaller law enforcement agencies”. What is the second problem with this, apart from the fact that it really probably is only focusing on the RCMP's own costs? The second problem is that none of this is actually a budgetary commitment from the government. It does not indicate anything more than that the RCMP sees increases in resources, and it is no small irony that this is the case when we know that we are in budget season, and that it would not have been a big deal to coordinate this bill with a very clear budget line item indicating that there would be adequate budgetary support for our partners in crime prevention, the provinces and the municipalities. Every million dollars counts; I recognize that. However, a $9-million budget for the last fiscal year for the witness protection program is not exactly a huge budget when we know, from all the testimony before the committee, mostly from police services boards, that there is a need.
I do not think we should end this debate thinking that by having what might be unanimous support for the bill, we have somehow addressed the issue of resources. I would much prefer it if my colleagues across the way would say that the bill does something and is important—we are supporting them on that, let us take that as a given—but let us not throw a cloak over it and pretend we have solved the whole problem.
Ted Opitz Conservative Etobicoke Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the hon. member and his party are going to support our bill. In his opening remarks he was fairly fulsome in his description of the witness program, its needs and the improvements to it being, generally, very good.
I have a couple of questions for him. He talked about other nations and how they provide witness protection. I would like him to describe or perhaps give an example of how another nation does that.
As well, he talked about being rhetorical or literal and he is a little vague when he says it falls short. He does not really provide any particular suggestions on how it could be improved.
The third part of this is that not everything comes with a price tag, necessarily. A lot of this program is administratively driven, and changes to administration still accomplish the same thing in terms of witness protection, but it is much more streamlined where the provinces can go right to the RCMP, who would be the central point of contact for much of that. I would like to know what kind of price tag he envisions. That needs to be attached here, because I am not seeing it.
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Mr. Speaker, on the whole question of comparative witness protection programs, I was actually talking about victim assistance programs. I could go into some more detail on that. I do not have a lot of knowledge about witness protection programs in other countries. Spain, Italy and Honduras are all places I could tell a little about, but I think it would wear out my welcome with the Chair in terms of how much time I have.
On the question of the financial resources, it is all great if the bill does what is being claimed, that it has administratively efficiencies and actually enhances some of the co-operative elements of the program. No one is denying that.
We are also emphasizing that we are supporting it, but we are just disappointed that there is not the recognition that at the local and provincial level, there was evidence to say that the downloading of costs has consequences for investigations. Therefore, as we go forward, Parliament, or the government on its own perhaps, needs to address it.
Anne-Marie Day NDP Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Mr. Speaker, authorities who work on combatting street gangs welcome this bill and say it will allow them to protect witnesses who are members of street gangs but want to leave that lifestyle. They see it as another tool for their toolbox.
As we know, protecting witnesses costs money; in fact, it is very expensive. We also know that the government has not made any plans to transfer additional funds to the provinces that have witness protection programs or to the RCMP.
My question is as follows. If the government wants to create a cardiac unit at a hospital and forces the hospital to create it, how is the hospital supposed to balance its budget if it does not eliminate another service? It is a question of credits and debits.
Why did the government not plan any transfers to pay for these changes?
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Mr. Speaker, this goes to the heart of some of what we all have been saying, that we may well need a better collaborative federalism component to this.
The Criminal Code really is a huge federal responsibility, but a lot of things stop after we have legislated. Then it becomes a matter of the provinces and municipal police forces clawing back from the feds—that is us—some kind of a contributory role within something that should be more seamless in budgeting than it is.
Therefore, a transfer of payment system might be the way to go. Alternatively, there could be some kind of a statutory authorization within our budgetary systems for the RCMP itself, capped—we would have to figure out what that cap would be—where it could actually be paying to the municipal and provincial police forces what is needed for given investigations, without having to get specific supplementary estimates. That might be a way to think about it. It might not need a transfer system. It might simply mean the RCMP is the distributor cap for the needed money to make sure local investigations work.
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to hear the strong support for Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act, from all sides of the House.
As we continue our discussion today of the safer witnesses act, it is important to take a step back and look at where these proposed changes stem from. As hon. members have heard, there have been two major reports in the last four years containing recommendations to enhance the federal witness protection program. The first of these reports was the result of a study conducted by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security in 2008. That committee put forward nine recommendations on how to enhance the federal program.
Since that time, and through our extensive consultations with our federal partners and provincial stakeholders, our government has committed to moving ahead with legislative amendments, administrative changes within the RCMP and the implementation of measures that would enhance the protection of witnesses in the federal program. The 2008 report included a number of good recommendations that have provided momentum for change and, in the case of one recommendation, is directly addressed in our current legislation, Bill C-51.
Today I would like to take a look at those recommendations as I think they add valuable perspective on how we have arrived at today's legislation. The committee's recommendations fell under four thematic areas, the first of which was to promote fair and efficient management of the federal program. Within this theme, our government has supported three of the four recommendations.
First let us look at the one we did not support, the first recommendation. This recommendation called for the creation of an independent office within the Department of Justice that would be entrusted to administer the federal witness protection program. This issue has been raised again recently in committee and it is important to address it again.
In our consultations with the provinces and federal partners, we found that in fact the best option was for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to continue to manage the federal program. As the Minister of Public Safety has commented, the fact is that the Department of Justice does not have the expertise to run a program to protect witnesses and the actual transfer of the program for the department would create potential security risks.
We agreed, however, with the intent of this recommendation, namely that there should be a clear distinction between the investigative and protective functions to ensure the objectivity of witness protection measures. These concerns are being addressed through changes in their reporting structures within the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
I mentioned that our government supported three of the four recommendations under this theme of fair and efficient management. We agreed that psychological assessments and counselling of candidates over the age of 18, as well as their family members, was a critical step in the witness protection process. As such, the RCMP has begun to engage psychologists to conduct assessments and to offer counselling to candidates for the federal program. Once they are admitted into the program, it is the intent that these services will be offered to both protectees and their families.
We support in principle the recommendation that the federal program should offer potential candidates the aid of legal counsel with an appropriate security clearance during the negotiation of the candidate's admission to the program. Indeed, all the candidates considered for the federal program, as well as the protectees under the federal program, are offered the services of legal counsel.
I say our government agreed in principle because we did not support the suggestion that the federal government should cover all legal fees as a regular course of business. Rather, these are made on a case-by-case basis. This is because there are some cases where providing legal counsel could be seen as a conflict of interest as the government itself may become the subject of legal action on the part of candidates or protectees. We believe our approach is an appropriate use of public funds.
Finally, our government also agreed with the recommendation that candidates and protectees of the federal program must have a proper independent body to which they could submit formal complaints about RCMP conduct, as needed. This calls for an enhanced complaints review body is addressed in Bill C-42, legislation our government recently introduced to modernize the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Bill C-42 would create a new civilian review and complaints commission that would have access to all the necessary documents required to effectively review complaints by federal protectees regarding RCMP conduct.
Under a second theme, that of facilitating access to the federal witness protection program, the committee made two recommendations in 2008. The first was to develop a shared funding agreement among the federal, provincial and municipal governments for witness protection. The second was to allow provinces and territories to work directly with federal departments for processing secure identity changes.
For reasons of fiscal restraint and the need to keep the process secure, our government could not support a permanent funding arrangement for provincial programs.
Bill C-51 would improve integration between the provincial and federal witness protection programs, as well as allow designated provincial programs to obtain secure identity changes for their protectees without having to admit them into the federal program.
The third thematic area of recommendation was to establish minimum standards across the board for all Canadian witness protection programs. The federal government has no plans to overstep its jurisdictional boundaries by imposing national standards upon provincial witness protection programs. Furthermore, the provinces themselves have made it clear that they would object to such federal encroachment on their authority. Therefore, we could not support that recommendation.
Finally, the committee's report included two recommendations under the theme of promoting transparency, as much as could be done, considering the confidential nature of the witness protection program. Namely, it recommended that more independent research should be conducted on the effectiveness of the federal witness protection program and that the federal program's annual report should be enhanced to give a clearer picture of how the program works.
Research has already been conducted on the federal program and the RCMP is looking into creating a database that would enhance the federal program.
As to the final recommendation, the annual report was modified and enhanced in 2008 to provide Canadians with a more precise picture of the program.
The safer witnesses act is a strong and effective legislation that addresses many of the recommendations made by the standing committee, as well as issues raised by stakeholders. Strong witness protection programs are invaluable to investigations and court proceedings.
Particularly when we are dealing with gang activity, it is critical that witnesses feel safe coming forward with information. It is also important to consider the safety of our front-line law enforcement personnel. Mr. Stamatakis, president of the Canadian Police Association, said:
The Canadian Police Association strongly believes that this proposed legislation will enhance the safety and security of front-line law enforcement personnel who are engaged in protective duties. Unfortunately, the disclosure of identifying details can present a real danger to police personnel themselves as well as their families, and we appreciate the steps being taken today by the government of Canada to address those concerns. 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.
Too often, we forget the fact that our men and women who put themselves in harm's way are the ones who are really bearing the brunt of a lot of the things that we ask them to do. It is important that we have these measures in place to protect them.
In speaking about his city's experience, Toronto police chief William Blair said:
—the fear caused by intimidation and the threat of retaliation in gang investigations. Witnesses with valuable information are deterred from coming forward.
As such, Mr. Blair has joined other key stakeholders in supporting this bill as a valuable step in protecting public safety. I ask all hon. members to do the same.
Anne-Marie Day NDP Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Mr. Speaker, my question will be very short.
What will happen when the witness who needs protection is foreign and is no longer protected by his own country?
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, I do not get the question. Was it when the person is foreign?
Anne-Marie Day NDP Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Mr. Speaker, I will repeat my question.
What will happen here in Canada when a witness is foreign and is no longer receiving protection from his own country?
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Mr. Speaker, I do not profess to be an expert on the international law or the legal procedures that would be engaged with foreign people who have been convicted, so—
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC
Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the opportunity to ask a question.
My colleague certainly has raised a lot of points that I was unaware of, particularly the 2008 review, the four recommendations and how much of what is in both this bill but also in Bill C-42, another fine piece of legislation, addresses many of those concerns.
We have heard about working along with the provinces to see further integration between their programs and the national program. As a government, we are respecting the provinces' jurisdiction, and that is a positive benefit.
There are a lot of positive aspects to the bill. What other areas does the member feel are important in the government's approach to this, as well as to other legislation, to help keep Canadians safe?
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Mr. Speaker, the primary change that we see in the legislation is that rather than simply having law enforcement agencies initiating this process, the process can now be initiated by the Department of National Defence, CSIS, Canada Border Services Agency and other agencies that deal with national security. It is important that these are also allowed into the system.
Dan Harris NDP Scarborough Southwest, ON
Mr. Speaker, the member referred to the lack of or inability to bring forward permanent funding to help this program move forward and not putting forward the recommendation on establishing national standards. That would touch on provincial jurisdictions.
How hard did the government actually try to work with the provinces to see if there was a deal that could be reached to ensure there would national standards across the entire country?
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Mr. Speaker, many times tonight the NDP members have indicated the lack of resources associated with this bill. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The RCMP is charged with the primary responsibility of the act. The assistant commissioner, Mr. Todd Shean, on two occasions, in front of the committee, indicated very clearly that he was confident there were enough resources. I will read into the record his actual statement. On March 5, he said:
I am confident that we have the necessary resources to conduct an effective witness protection program, even with what Bill C-51 adds.
Earlier in the year, on February 28, he said:
—with the changes this bill brings about, the RCMP is comfortable that we have the resources within our existing resources to run an effective witness protection program.
Ted Opitz Conservative Etobicoke Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, I know a question came up about foreign agencies. On a case-by-case basis, foreign agencies can appeal to the RCMP to see where these international agreements line up. We do have an area in the RCMP that does this.
I liked the member's discussion about the funding formula and how the provinces and the municipalities lined up with the federal government. Could my colleague expand on that a little?
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am going to have to rely on outside witnesses and experts for my response to that question.
Mr. Tom Stamatakis, president, Canadian Police Association, said this:
I should also note that the parts of this legislation that deal with extending the authority to designated provincial or municipal protection programs and not just the federal program remind me of some of the testimony I recently gave to this committee around the economics of policing and the need for us to adopt and embrace operational efficiencies in order to deliver the best possible community protection at a reasonable cost to the Canadian taxpayer.
What we see is that different levels of government and policing are working together to address the situation that all of us here tonight agree needs to be addressed so we can provide better protection for witnesses who come forward to try to get out of gangs or to try to cut down the gang and terrorist activities that occur within our borders.
Corneliu Chisu Conservative Pickering—Scarborough East, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak about the importance of Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act, and to express my full support for it.
My constituents in Pickering—Scarborough East are deeply concerned about the worst mass shooting in the history of Toronto, which took place in July last year at the barbecue event on Danzig Street in Scarborough, just barely outside of my riding. It was clearly gang-related, and it ended with two people dead and 23 wounded.
As we are all aware, the bill will make much needed changes to the Witness Protection Program Act to give law enforcement authorities the proper tools to prevent such horrific crimes and to better protect the public.
The act came into effect in 1996 and needs to be updated to keep up with the passing of time. Prior to this, witness protection services were indeed provided to key witnesses, although such protection was not provided on any formal basis. With the passing of the act in 1996, the process was formalized. Clearly, after 17 years, it is time to modernize this important piece of legislation to make it more responsive to law enforcement needs and more effective for those it is designed to protect. Seventeen years ago, there was no Facebook; there was no Twitter.
While we are talking about 17 years, I would like to note that the leader of the NDP stayed silent on a bribery offence by the mayor of Laval for 17 years. I think it is important that he testify at the Charbonneau commission on corruption to tell Canadians what exactly he knew. I, as a professional engineer, would lose my licence if I did not act properly.
Back to the matter at hand, a robust witness protection program is a critical tool in our ongoing efforts to combat organized crime groups and terrorism. Bill C-51 responds to a number of concerns that have been raised by a variety of stakeholders. This government has taken the time to listen to the concerns of these stakeholders and of the provinces to ensure that we are putting forward the soundest legislation possible. I will direct my comments today to the proposed amendments to this bill, which has been developed to alleviate concerns for some of the provinces.
Members may recall that five provinces already have witness protection programs in place. They are Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec. I would note that there are some differences between the federal program and those of the provinces. Witness protection programs at the provincial level have their own criteria for admission. They are tailored in such a way as to respond to the requirements of their particular law enforcement agencies.
Whether a witness is covered under the federal program or under one of those in the provinces is decided by the relevant investigating police force. There are a number of determining factors for admission to the federal program in this regard. In making this decision, police could consider such factors as the estimated cost, the level of threat and the anticipated time for which protection is necessary for the witness. If the witness is involved in a case of a federal nature, a province may also decide that its witness should be referred to the federal program for consideration and possible admission.
The provinces have been unequivocal about their desire for a more straightforward process to procure secure identity changes for their protectees. We have listened to this concern. Clearly, provinces face undue difficulty with the current program, as the RCMP only helps federal protectees obtain the federal documents necessary to secure identity changes. This results in a requirement for the provinces to admit their protectees to the federal program on a short-term basis so that they can have the assistance of the RCMP in the document process. This is an overly laborious process that can result in lengthy holdups. Delays due to the cumbersome paperwork are unacceptable when we are talking about protecting the lives of key witnesses who are supporting key investigations. We have addressed this issue in the bill.
Through this bill, we are also enhancing federal-provincial co-operation. To do so, we are putting in place a new process to ensure that provincial programs can be officially designated following a process that will include a one-time request to the Minister of Public Safety. This is significant in that once a program has been designated, provincial officials will be able to call on the RCMP to acquire the necessary federal documents for a secure identity change for a provincial witness. To be clear, this witness would not have to be admitted first into the federal program, making it a significant improvement over the current system. Furthermore, the designation process would be a one-time request.
I will also take a moment to acknowledge the suggestion by some that the RCMP be completely taken out of this process. It was suggested that provinces should be able to approach federal departments directly to make their request for secure identity documents. We do not agree with this. As a result, the bill would ensure that the RCMP would remain part of this process. Having the RCMP act as the single point of contact minimizes the number of people involved in the process, thereby making the process more secure. We have also listened to the concerns of federal partners in this regard. These partners were of the view that continuing to use the RCMP as a single point of contact was the most prudent course of action.
Another important change we would make to alleviate the concerns of some provinces is with respect to the prohibition of disclosure. In the current Witness Protection Program Act, the prohibition of disclosure of information about the location and change of identity is limited to federal protectees only. It is this government's view that the provincial stakeholders' concerns about this limitation are completely founded. That is why we would broaden the protections to provide for the disclosure of information regarding witnesses to include those in the designated programs I mentioned a few moments ago.
Further, the legislation would clarify exceptions to the disclosure prohibition, all the while ensuring that federal and designated provincial authorities are able to carry out their duties and maintain the protection of witnesses. As an example, both federal and designated provincial authorities would be able to provide information about protectees in many instances when doing so is necessary to prevent a serious offence from occurring.
There is no doubt about the need for the amendments to the Witness Protection Program Act, amendments such as those proposed in Bill C-51. This sound legislation is just one of the many ways in which this government has demonstrated its commitment to providing law enforcement agencies in this country with the tools they need to do their job.
To conclude, I will remind my hon. colleagues that with the passage of this bill, we have an opportunity to see that witnesses in this country feel safe to come forward and assist our law enforcement agencies with some very serious investigations.
I will reiterate that there are no anticipated cost increases with respect to implementing the proposed changes in this bill, as the RCMP has also indicated. An effective and reliable witness protection program is essential to the fight against crime, especially organized crime and terrorism. I therefore call upon all hon. members to support this comprehensive legislation.
Philip Toone NDP Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague’s speech. I am somewhat surprised that he exceeded the time limit for debating this bill and that he spoke of members who have problems with ethics. I think the Conservatives have a lot to think about on that score. I hope that he will talk to his colleagues to see if perhaps they might step down before being removed from office, since he himself hinted that he might be in danger.
As for the bill now before the House, I would like to get his comments. He talked about supporting police forces across the country. According to the RCMP website, small police forces would have a great deal of difficulty implementing this bill. Even though it has considerable merit, the funds are just simply not there.
The RCMP says that funds are needed, but that they are not available for small police forces.
How will it resolve this problem?
Corneliu Chisu Conservative Pickering—Scarborough East, ON
Mr. Speaker, this legislation would apply efficiency. It is inviting efficiency. I would use the engineering term of the Venn diagram.
In answer to the hon. member's concern about the RCMP and his concern about finances, I have here a quote from Todd Shean, Assistant Commissioner, federal and international operations, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who said, “...with the changes this bill brings about, the RCMP is comfortable that we have the resources within our existing resources to run an effective witness protection program”.
It is not a question of resources; it is a question of the assessment that is done. During the assessment process, the person may decide that he or she does not want to enter into the program or does not want to proceed on the route he or she is on. We may assess that the individual is not suitable for the program.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to put my colleague from Pickering—Scarborough East on the spot, but I am wondering if he is aware of the strategy of the hon. government House leader with respect to this legislation. It strikes me as strange that we are still debating it. I think everybody here supports it.
Rather than go to time allocation, was there any effort made to negotiate with the official opposition and other parties to bring this to a swift conclusion so it could be passed?
Corneliu Chisu Conservative Pickering—Scarborough East, ON
Mr. Speaker, there were consultations, but I am not the House leader, so I cannot answer my colleague's question.
Ted Opitz Conservative Etobicoke Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is a very resourceful fellow himself. He is a retired army engineer who has served in Bosnia and Afghanistan. He understands resource allocation in terms of battalions and brigades, because he has been responsible for that.
Now that this program would be expanded, we would have the opportunity to look after witnesses who may impact national security. I would like my colleague's opinion on the impact of this legislation on witnesses who may come forward to provide evidence in cases of terrorism.
Corneliu Chisu Conservative Pickering—Scarborough East, ON
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is also a former military member who served with great success in Bosnia defending Canadian values.
I just want to say one thing. The police is like the army. They manage their resources. The bill would smooth the transition between the small police forces, the provincial forces and the RCMP. They would manage their resources in a very good way.
I am just wondering why the NDP is always asking about resources. I do not understand why they are looking at a $21 billion gas tax.
Matthew Dubé NDP Chambly—Borduas, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak to Bill C-51. Fortunately, I have the time to do that, despite the fifth time allocation motion in five days and the thirty-eighth since the beginning of this Parliament.
Since this is my first opportunity to speak to this bill, I want to point out that this morning, the Minister of Public Safety stated that everyone was in agreement on this bill and that since no amendments had been put forward, a debate was pointless. Yet I have been here since early evening and I have been listening to a very interesting discussion on available resources and on the next steps to be taken in the area of witness protection, which is the focus of Bill C-51. This underscores the importance of having a debate to bring these problems to light. Even if these are not settled this time around, at least we will be able to proceed with due diligence in future.
That said, to echo the words of my colleagues, I want to say that the NDP will be supporting this bill since it favours improvements to the witness protection program. Many criticisms have been levelled against the program since it was first introduced in 1996. To finally see the government make some improvements is a positive step, even if it has taken far too long, in our opinion. We will therefore be voting in favour of this bill.
However, as I said, a number of problem areas were discussed this evening. I would like to focus on a few of them.
The first one is very important and may seem rather ironic to some extent, since it concerns witness protection. This bill disregards an important recommendation contained in the report released in the wake of the Air India tragedy. This recommendation focused on the transparency, review and accountability of the program.
It is important because, as I said earlier this evening when I put a question to one of my colleagues, the RCMP oversees the witness protection program, but often it ends up investigating the very same individuals at the same time. Often these persons are also implicated in the crimes in question. Therefore, there is a conflict of interest, so to speak, and that can be a problem.
Therefore, accountability and transparency mechanisms need to be put in place. This is extremely important in order to ensure that the RCMP acts properly. I want to stress that this is not a criticism of the RCMP's work, which is excellent. The members of the RCMP are deserving of our praise, but at the same time, in a society like ours, it is vitally important to have in place mechanisms to ensure transparency.
This is one of the important problems highlighted, particularly since this recommendation was contained in a report drafted in the wake of events having to do with witness protection. There is no reason why the government could not include these mechanisms in this bill. We hope to see this happen in the future.
The other major problem is obviously the issue of resources, which has been noted repeatedly. This is interesting because the Conservative Party member who preceded me said that all the NDP wanted was resources and spending. However, what is funny is that we in fact want to avoid burying the provinces and municipalities under more expenses. We are facilitating co-operation between the RCMP and local and provincial authorities. If we improve co-operation and expand witness protection admission criteria, more people will actually enter the program. Consequently, more spending will be incurred. That seems obvious to me.
The question thus arises as to who will absorb those costs. The RCMP, of course, already has resources, but municipal and provincial authorities will receive more applications and will accept more of them as a result of more flexible criteria, and they will have to cover the necessary costs.
However, municipal and provincial authorities are very concerned. We know they are because that is what we heard in committee. The RCMP is not concerned because it says it has the necessary resources, and that is a good thing.
As for provincial and municipal authorities, as my colleague from Toronto—Danforth said, everything will depend on how the federation is managed, how the government works under collaborative federalism.
I think it is a major problem for the government to introduce a bill when there has been very little consultation, knowing that it will result in additional costs. That is one of the criticisms we want to make.
I will conclude by saying that we support the bill. However, we wanted to point out those two extremely significant deficiencies. However, we hope that we will be able to rectify the situation in future and that this will be a lesson to the government to co-operate more with local authorities so that they can lower their costs and not succumb to the effects of bills that, like this one, are introduced unilaterally.
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Mr. Speaker, I want to underscore that while New Democrats are supporting this legislation, we have great concerns about the ability of it to do the job that needs to be done. One statistic I would point out, which is fairly well known, is that in 2012, of the 108 people considered for the program, only 30 were granted access. Fewer than a third of the people who were up for consideration were admitted to the program.
The eligibility criteria are being increased without putting in any new money, and the Canadian Association of Police Boards is complaining about that. How can the member feel that this will actually be an improvement without the kind of support that police boards, for example, are looking for?
Matthew Dubé NDP Chambly—Borduas, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
It is an excellent question because I heard a Conservative member say during the debate that these were administrative changes that would make the program more efficient and that they were going to relax the admission criteria and thus be able to accept and protect more witnesses. However, as my colleague said, if we accept more people and protect more witnesses, somewhere along the line being more efficient will also be more costly because we will be serving more people. That much is obvious, as I said in my speech.
What will happen is that the municipal and provincial police forces will co-operate with the RCMP. Of course, they are very happy. They will be in a situation in which they can co-operate better, protect more witnesses and have more flexibility. However, that also means that the program will serve more people. Consequently, there will be more spending. That is really obvious and it will be hard to manage at the local level. This is what we criticize on the government's part. I believe a little consultation would have gone a long way in this instance.
Anne-Marie Day NDP Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Mr. Speaker, the bill does not contain a provision allowing an independent body to administer the program in accordance with the recommendations in the report.
My question is as follows. After Air India, is the RCMP not in a conflict of interest with this bill? Is there a way to bring in an outside judge, as is done when the police are involved in an accident? In that case, another police service is asked to get involved and judge the case.
Matthew Dubé NDP Chambly—Borduas, QC
Mr. Speaker, my colleague is quite right. The issue of a conflict of interest came out of the recommendations made following the Air India tragedy.
As I said, we have confidence in the members of the RCMP, and we thank them for the excellent work they do every day. In a society based on law, justice and democracy, it is important that we have measures to ensure accountability and a degree of transparency. In this case, it is very important.
We protect witnesses who are often criminals as well. Sometimes they are members of street gangs or organized crime. We have to be very careful to have the mechanisms we need to avoid conflicts of interest. I believe that this serves us well and that it is good for the legal system, which the bill is trying to improve.
Ted Opitz Conservative Etobicoke Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to talk on Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act.
I thank all of my colleagues across the House for their interventions, and of course I thank the NDP members for supporting this bill. I think some of their arguments are flawed, but they are supporting it, and that is tremendous.
I would like to share with members why I support Bill C-51 and why my constituents and community organizations in Etobicoke Centre support it. I will also share why I think it represents an important step forward in making the protection of witnesses an effective and relevant program for our country today and for law enforcement in the future.
I have two police divisions in my riding, 22 division and 23 division of the metro Toronto Police Service. I discussed Bill C-51 with Staff Sergeant Doug MacDonald of 22 division today, and he told me something rather interesting. He said that the public are the eyes and ears of the police.
The TV shows on police forensic investigators, and other shows of that type, are often misleading and give the public the wrong perception of how forensic evidence can be linked to a perpetrator. In the course of an hour, the show will depict a major forensic investigation being done, or the police all on their own linking a perpetrator to a particular crime, but that is not always the way it works.
A lot of the forensic evidence is most certainly there, but often the police are not able to take that one further step to definitively link the evidence to the perpetrator, because we are a country of rule of law. Before a person can be charged for a crime, the police have to be absolutely sure they have the right person. Often they may know it in their heart of hearts, but without the public stepping forward, without witnesses coming forward, they have a very difficult time in achieving that. Therefore, this act would be hugely important in solving those cases by giving the confidence to the public and witnesses to step forward and provide the testimony to put serious criminals away and safeguard our streets and communities.
I have to give a shout out to the metro Toronto Police Service. They are outstanding under Chief William Blair. Also, I think this House would like to note that the Toronto Police Service sends 10 officers abroad every year to serve as mentors and police liaisons in very dangerous places around the world, such as Afghanistan, to help bring the rule of law to those people in those lands. I thank the metro Toronto Police Service for doing that.
Our government is committed to ensuring the safety and security of constituents in Etobicoke Centre, but unfortunately violence does occur. In 2011, Toronto had 86 homicide victims. On July 5, 2012, Abdulle Elmi was killed in a hail of gunfire in a quiet street in my riding, and it was believed he was a member of the gang Sic Thugs. Community organizations, not wanting to see any more bloodshed, advocated for strengthened witness protection programs. Our government listened and we have acted.
As we have heard in the interventions during the debate, this bill would make important amendments to the Witness Protection Program Act, which has been in place since 1996. Since then, Canada's witness protection program has served our police services well and has forged many new identities for those who have risked much to see justice through to the end.
However, as time passed, the witness protection program has proven to be in need of fine-tuning. It is a program that serves us well, but it could work better, and my constituents agree with that. It is a program that needs to adapt to our changing environment to better protect those who come forward and those who protect them, and this bill would do just that.
This proposed legislation acts on a number of recommendations that have come forward based on some key and tragic events in our history. Sources include, for example, the 2008 study by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, the 2010 Commission of Inquiry into the Investigation of the Bombing of Air India Flight 182 and stakeholder consultations with federal departments and agencies, the provinces and law enforcement agencies.
I would like to focus my time here today on how this proposed legislation would address the concerns that we have heard from federal and provincial stakeholders as well as my own constituents, community organizations and other stakeholders in Etobicoke Centre whom I have spoken to on this important matter, such as Staff Sergeant Doug MacDonald, who, of course, was an operator in all of this.
Bill C-51 would make the witness protection program more balanced and secure by allowing for a more seamless co-operation among law enforcement services and going beyond jurisdictions.
The federal program differs somewhat compared with the programs currently administered in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec. If there is a need for a witness to be referred to the federal program, that decision rests with the particular law enforcement agency dealing with a specific case. That means provinces have jurisdiction over their cases and can select and use their own good judgment in being able to bring these cases to the RCMP, if required.
What is consistent among all programs is they are adaptable, allowing decisions to made, as I said, case by case, factoring all the key information, such as the costs involved, the resources available, the level of threat to the witness, and the time needed to appropriately afford protection and safety to those individuals in need. In, for example, complex federal cases, provinces can decide whether to refer witnesses to federal authorities for admission in the federal witness protection program. One area that has consistently been raised by provincial stakeholders is the need to streamline the current process for obtaining secure identity changes for protectees in provincial programs.
Let me share an example of that, and how the bill would improve how jurisdictions could work together across this country.
When it comes to secure identity changes and federal documents required, we have heard from provinces that the RCMP currently assists only those protectees under federal jurisdiction.
The way this is currently set up means that the provinces must temporarily admit their protectee into the federal witness protection program in order for the RCMP to assist in the process. By doing this, and provincial stakeholders have been very clear on this point, the process can slow down and create time-consuming paperwork and delays that in fact could put lives at risk. What that can also lead to is then a lack of co-operation by witnesses, because it may cause a lack of confidence in the system. People would be afraid and not step forward; crimes would go unsolved. That is an outcome that we do not want.
We can all imagine that when it comes to something as significant as a secure identity change, further delay could cause undue stress and hardship, as I said, for those in need of protection, not to mention those brave individuals on our police forces who are trying very hard to safeguard our communities.
Now, the changes of Bill C-51 would improve federal and provincial collaboration. That is something that has come up time and again this evening. Designated provinces would no longer need to have their witnesses entered into the federal program and would retain decisions on who to protect and how. Bill C-51 would help improve the way jurisdictions work together, with a new framework that would allow for provincial witness protection programs to be officially designated.
This new framework would allow the provincial authority to make a request to the federal Minister of Public Safety. An official designation would then allow the province to ask that the RCMP assist it in obtaining the necessary federal documents required for a secure identity change for a provincial witness. This would eliminate the need to first admit the witness into the federal program.
Furthermore, an official designation would only need to take place that one time. It would streamline the whole process. It would be quicker, it would be safer, it would be faster and we would get convictions.
We have also heard statements by the provinces asking that the RCMP be removed from the process so that the provinces could request secure identity documents directly from federal departments. However, let us remember that these are not always simple cases and witness protection is not a typical program. These cases affect an individual's very identity and his or her personal security. I believe that the RCMP needs to play a central role in this, and a key role in this, and act as a single point of contact in order to protect the operational security of this program.
As they say, too many fingers in the pie and we could ruin that pie.
By doing so, our federal police service would add a level of security that would allow for the efficiency and consistency in cases that can be, and often are, very complex.
Balancing the safety of protectees with the needs of those administering the program is a key feature of Bill C-51. That is why I am here today, to show my support for these important changes.
It also proposes changes to prohibitions on disclosure. Bill C-51 proposes changes for designated programs, such that the prohibitions of disclosure would be extended to provincial witness protection information; the means and methods of provincial witness protection programs; as well as information about those who provide protection. This prohibition would apply across Canada.
I would like to urge all our hon. members to support Bill C-51. This is an act that is in need of change right now because, as all countries do, we have evolved as a nation. We have evolved to the point, especially in our law enforcement, where these changes are required. I think all members of the House have already stated they do support this bill at the end of the day. For those on the opposition benches who may still be troubled by it, I encourage them to support the bill because it would help the people most in need and it would help our law agencies to do their best job.
Annick Papillon NDP Québec, QC
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member.
Bill C-51 does not contain any provisions that would allow an independent organization to administer the program in accordance with the recommendations made in the Air India investigation report.
As a result, the RCMP will continue to be responsible for the program, which could put it in a conflict of interest, because it will be both the investigating body and the one to decide who benefits from protection.
Does my hon. colleague have anything to add in that regard? Does he intend to take that recommendation into account?
Ted Opitz Conservative Etobicoke Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, this has been an expanded program as well, so it would allow the federal institutions that have a role in national security, national defence or public safety to make referrals to the RCMP for possible admission. Of course it allows, on a case-by-case basis, those related foreign agencies to make submissions to the RCMP, in that we have arrangements and MOUs with them.
Joan Crockatt Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, I know that both Chief of Police Rick Hanson, in my own riding of Calgary Centre, and the former justice minister were calling for some of the changes that were made in this bill. One of their concerns in particular was that we need stronger protection to make sure we can catch bad guys, especially so that people who are eyewitnesses will come forward.
Could my hon. colleague tell us what would this do for witnesses, for bringing forward the people who can help the police solve crimes?
Ted Opitz Conservative Etobicoke Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, I discussed this today with Staff Sergeant Doug MacDonald at 22 Division of the Toronto Police Service. He told me quite clearly that he is looking forward to its passage. In Etobicoke generally—Etobicoke North, Etobicoke Centre and Etobicoke Lakeshore—there have been some serious crimes and serious gang crimes perpetrated right across those areas. Often what is preventing the solution to those crimes is witnesses lacking the courage to step forward and provide testimony. He is convinced that the new provisions in this act would provide the confidence for those witnesses involved to step forward, be assured of their security and help the police put some bad guys away and solve a lot of cases.
Philip Toone NDP Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre's speech. He raised some very interesting points.
I would like to know what he thinks about the testimony that Alok Mukherjee gave in committee on March 19 of this year.
He is the President of the Canadian Association of Police Boards. He stated:
Our conclusion has been that there needs to be more funding available than currently is the case. Without the availability of sufficient funding, our ability to take advantage of the program will be limited.
What are your comments on that?
The Acting Speaker Barry Devolin
I have no comments on that. However, I am sure the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre would like to respond.
Ted Opitz Conservative Etobicoke Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend reads the testimony of the other police forces as well, this individual seems to be somewhat in the minority in that respect because much of this is an enhanced program. As we heard from one of the other hon. colleagues, the province, the federal government and municipalities have a funding formula that they work out.
In the case of the RCMP, it feels that it has enough resources. I know through my own time in the military when things like this came up, not an exact template, often there would be administrative changes with respect to the way we operated and the way we conducted the procedures, but that does not often come with a price tag.
I think all levels of government would be able to review this as the bill is passed and goes forward and, if there are any changes down the road, those levels of government could reallocate funds that are downloaded from the federal government.
Pierre Jacob NDP Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak about Bill C-51, something that I am genuinely concerned about.
This bill contains measures that have long been called for by the NDP. It proposes a better process to support provincial witness protection programs. It applies the program to other agencies with responsibilities for national security. The bill will broaden the eligibility criteria for the protection program to include repentant members of street gangs who are willing to testify against others in their gang.
Federal departments and agencies that have a national security and public safety mandate may also suggest witnesses for the program. The bill will extend the emergency protection period and will eliminate a number of technical problems relating to the coordination of provincial programs. It is a necessary bill, and one that addresses flaws that were identified a long time ago.
The NDP has been demanding the expansion of witness eligibility for protection programs for nearly two decades now.
In 1996, this House passed the Witness Protection Program Act. In 1999, the NDP voted for Bill C-223 to broaden witness protection in cases of domestic violence. This bill was overturned by the then Liberal majority.
Since then, the fundamental issues of eligibility, coordination and funding have never been dealt with by Canada’s successive governments.
Since 2007, members of the NDP have been calling for changes to be made to the witness protection program. It has taken the Conservatives six years to finally respond to our requests.
The issue is real, however. Close relatives and the various stakeholders have said for a long time now that the program must be expanded. In May 2010, the RCMP submitted a report to the Minister of Public Safety in which it asked that the witness protection program be strengthened.
As we know, in order to fight back against investigations into their activities, street gangs have no qualms about intimidating the families of witnesses. They want to stop witnesses from speaking out against them. Street gangs are very violent and quick to use intimidation to avoid going to jail.
Members of street gangs are afraid of speaking out against their accomplices, because they know they will not be protected. However, in cases involving street gangs, the best witnesses are gang members themselves. Members of street gangs who want to get out of crime and are willing to testify against their associates must be allowed into the witness protection program.
My colleagues have pointed this out on a number of occasions this year. I repeat it again this evening. In 2012, only 30 of the 108 applications for protection were accepted. The program served only 30% of those who were asking for help.
Bill C-51 will solve this particular issue, because it raises the level of protection for witnesses and informants who assist our police officers, in addition to expanding the use of these information sources. We will be able to fight directly against street gangs, which are becoming ever more common in Canada’s suburbs.
That is not all. If the Conservatives really want to improve the witness protection program, they must also commit the money for it to happen. It is fine to talk about protecting victims in order to appeal to voters, but the government needs to walk the walk.
I would like to remind the House that it costs $300,000 to protect each witness. If the definition of “witness” is expanded, as Bill C-51 aims to do, we will be sticking taxpayers with a bigger bill.
We support the bill, but we condemn the fact that the Conservative government has refused to commit additional funding.
Once again, it will be up to the municipalities and police forces to absorb the higher costs. They already have tight budgets. The commissioner of the Canadian Association of Police Boards said this on March 7:
...sometimes the cost of protecting witnesses hinders the investigations, especially for small law enforcement agencies that have a tight budget.
She also said this:
[The government must] ensure that legislation passed...does not result in a downloading of additional costs to the municipal police services that we represent.
The government cut nearly $190 million from the RCMP and more than $140 million from the Canada Border Services Agency. Investigations into drugs and crime in areas of federal jurisdiction are handled by the RCMP. However, the RCMP bills local police forces for the cost of protecting witnesses even though the local forces often cannot afford it.
Recently, the Conservatives announced that they would no longer fund recruiting programs for local police forces. A $400 million envelope was earmarked for the police officers recruitment fund, but the Conservatives decided not to renew it for 2013. That is appalling. These cuts will impact how effective Bill C-51 can be.
I commend the intention behind this bill. However, I hope that the federal government will allocate a significant budget to this bill and not make the municipalities and provinces cover the cost. The government is certainly not short on money: it gives $1.2 billion a year to the oil sands industry and forked out $70 million to celebrate the war of 1812. I want to remind the government that it has a responsibility to ensure that its laws do not increase the burden on the provinces.
In closing, although I am not happy about the lack of funding, I think that strengthening the witness protection program will improve public safety. After so many years, we are pleased that the government is finally making the changes that we have been calling for.
I therefore support Bill C-51 at third reading so that it can be passed. I support it on behalf of all the people, agencies and associations that want this bill passed. I am supporting this bill so that those who want to blow the whistle and testify can do so without fearing for their safety and that of their families. Bill C-51 will allow them to be better protected. I also hope that the government will increase the budget so that the municipalities will not have to foot the bill.
The NDP is once again building safer communities by giving the police more tools to help them fight street gangs and organized crime.
Ève Péclet NDP La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to tell us about the government's lack of will to enforce the law. It is all well and good to pass legislation, but the government must ensure that it can be enforced on the ground.
The following appears on the RCMP's website:
There are instances when the costs of witness protection may impede investigations, particularly for smaller law enforcement agencies.
Indeed, even the RCMP's website mentions the funding problem. Would my hon. colleague comment on the fact that enforcing the law and passing legislation in Parliament are two completely different things?
Pierre Jacob NDP Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question, which as always is very pertinent.
In the case of Air India, the commissioner lamented the fact that the RCMP had a problem with accountability. However, there is also the problem of funding, or should I say underfunding. The RCMP delivers the witness protection program, but passes the bill for it on to the municipalities, which are already overwhelmed.
In my riding, there are about 40 small municipalities. I know that they work very hard to balance their budgets and they are unable to do so because of this kind of thing.
In addition, because my riding borders on Vermont, I know that a pilot project is being carried out to replace border services officers with automated crossings.
This is not something that is going to solve the crime problem in Quebec and in Canada.
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Speaker, one of the things that is troubling to the official opposition is the fact that the government has not adopted the recommendations of the Air India commission, and I believe the member mentioned this.
The commission recommended the creation of a new position, the national security witness protection coordinator, to be independent of the police and prosecution and be a person who inspires public confidence and has experience in criminal justice, national security and witness protection matters.
I wonder if the member could speak to that and to why we support that recommendation.
Pierre Jacob NDP Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question.
The Air India Commission recommended that there be more transparency and greater accountability. As one of my colleagues said in an earlier speech, there is often an underlying conflict of interest. The RCMP often wears two hats: it conducts investigations and it provides witness protection services. To promote greater accountability, the government must heed the Air India Commission's recommendation.
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake, MB
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to discuss Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act. Witness protection is one of the most important tools law enforcement has at its disposal to combat criminal activity. An effective witness protection program is particularly valuable in the fight against organized crime and terrorism.
Witness protection has been informally available in Canada since the 1970s to protect persons who are deemed to be at risk because they provided assistance to law enforcement or because they provided testimony in criminal matters. The testimony or co-operation of these individuals can be vital to the success of law enforcement operations. In 1996, the Witness Protection Program Act officially established the federal witness protection program in an effort to ensure consistency in protection practices across Canada and, at the same time, to establish greater accountability. While the witness protection program is serving the criminal justice system well, it has not been changed significantly since 1996.
In the last 17 years, crime, and specifically organized crime, has evolved substantially and is now more global than ever in nature. The safer witnesses act, which we are discussing today, would help to further strengthen the federal witness protection program and help to ensure it is appropriate to meet the ever-evolving nature of crime. Administrated by the RCMP, this program provides a gamut of protective measures. These can range from temporary protective services to relocation with a name change.
The RCMP is required by statute to use a number of criteria to assess if an individual should be placed in the program. For example, this includes examining the risk to the witness and taking into consideration the danger to the community if the person were to be admitted into the program. It includes looking into the nature of the inquiry and the importance of the witness in the matter. The criteria also include taking into consideration the value of the information and evidence to be given by the witness and the likelihood the witness can adjust to the program.
In addition, factors such as the cost of maintaining the witness in the program and alternate methods of protection available and other factors deemed to be relevant are all taken into account. Currently, there are approximately 800 protectees in the federal witness protection program, and new persons are admitted into the program every year. Admission numbers fluctuate yearly due to changes such as the number of cases being investigated or the size of the witnesses' families.
Of note, there were more than 100 cases referred for admission into the federal witness protection program in 2011-2012 alone. Of those cases, 30 individuals were accepted into the program, with 23 of these individuals being granted a secure identity change. The difference between the number of referrals and the number accepted in the program is stems from various reasons. Some candidates may decide they are not interested in the program, while others may not meet all the criteria outlined, but rest assured that the individuals requiring protection will receive it.
Provincial governments are responsible for the administration of justice. The Provinces of Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta have established their own witness protection programs, which differ from the federal program. These provincial programs provide a range of valuable services in support of those at risk. The interaction between provincial programs and the federal program, however, has not always been as efficient as it could be. For example, a protectee in a provincial program must now be admitted temporarily to the federal witness protection program in order to obtain the federal documents for a secure identity change. This can sometimes lead to delays in the process of securely obtaining new identities.
Bill C-51 aims to remedy this situation. It proposes to establish a process whereby provincial programs can become designated witness protection programs. The Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Public Safety, would have the authority to make this designation at the request of the provincial authority. It would then no longer be necessary for witnesses to be temporarily admitted to the federal program to obtain federal identity documents for secure identity change.
Moreover, the provincial designation regime proposed in Bill C-51 would further streamline the process for obtaining federal identity documents. This would be achieved through a process whereby the provincial official representing a designated provincial witness protection program would then be the single point of contact for that program. The official can request federal identity documents from the RCMP, which would be the single federal point of contact. A provincial official acting on behalf of all law enforcement agencies within the designated program would limit the number of persons involved in the request to the RCMP, thus streamlining the process. Fewer individuals involved in the process would also ensure that it is more secure.
Another way that Bill C-51 would strengthen the security of witness protection regimes in Canada would be through changes to the current prohibitions against the disclosure of information.
The disclosure of information about the location and change of identity of protectees in the federal witness protection program is prohibited by the Witness Protection Program Act. Bill C-51 proposes to expand on this and prohibits the disclosure of information of individuals who provide or assist in providing protection for witnesses, as well as how the program operates. These prohibitions will also extend to designated provincial programs. This means that the disclosure of information regarding witnesses, the people who provide protection and information about the designated provincial programs themselves will be prohibited.
Bill C-51 also specifies that no one shall disclose any information, either directly or indirectly, that reveals the location or change of identity of a protected person or the information from which the location or change of identity may be inferred. Disclosing information directly could include situations such as telling someone that a protected person's name is whatever. Disclosing information indirectly could include leaving information about the protected person unguarded.
C-51 also seeks to expand the categories of witnesses who may be referred for admission into the federal witness protection program to include persons who assist federal departments, agencies or services that have national security, national defence or public safety mandates and who may require protection as a result.
As chair of the Standing Committee on National Defence, our committee often hears about acts of terrorism, acts of war by a government on its own people, people who witness genocide, acts of war and terrorism. These people often require protection. They could be somebody who is employed by the Department of National Defence or they could be members of the Canadian Armed Forces. They could be fearful for their lives because so many foreign states and the leaders of those states have the ability to implement assassinations. Therefore, these individuals would be intimidated from ever testifying in a court in Canada or in an international court such as the Hague, where it tries so many war crimes.
Expanding the category of witnesses who are eligible also addresses one of this government's commitments under the 2010 Air India inquiry action plan. In terms of funding, the federal witness protection program is currently funded from the RCMP's existing operational resources. That would continue under Bill C-51. Because the system is more efficient, it would not require any extra resources.
In conclusion, Bill C-51 addresses a number of operational issues based on experiences gained in administrating the current program over the past 15 years. It would modernize the Witness Protection Program Act, improve interactions between the federal and provincial witness protection programs and ensure better protection of information.
Bill C-51 responds to many of the needs of provincial and territorial governments and to the needs of law enforcement officials and other stakeholders involved in the criminal justice system.
By building on our efforts to combat organized crime and terrorist activities, Bill C-51 would help us continue to fulfill our commitment to build safer streets and communities for all Canadians.
Anne-Marie Day NDP Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Mr. Speaker, on April 5, the Barreau du Québec sent a letter to the Minister of Justice. The letter is easy to find, since it has been made public.
The letter contained recommendations, including an amendment to Bill C-51 in relation to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I will list a few of them.
These questions have to do with the terms for lifting the protection granted to witnesses, the circumstances that allow an individual to maintain that he or someone else has always had the same identity, and the disclosure and communication of confidential information in relation to the witness with the right of the accused to make a full answer in defence, in accordance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Were the Barreau du Québec's recommendations to the Minister of Justice taken into consideration?
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake, MB
Mr. Speaker, I am sure the committee and the government considered all these things when designing the bill, when we had testimony. There were a number of great testimonies at committee. One of the quotes that is quite relevant is from the British Columbia assistant deputy minister, Mr. Pecknold, who said:
Based on our analysis, the amendments in Bill C-51 appear responsive to the specific needs of law enforcement in British Columbia and to the issues raised by our partners and stakeholders, including the broadening of the disclosure prohibition to include information on the program's methods for providing protection, extension of the emergency period beyond 90 days, and a process for voluntary termination.
Definitely the Province of B.C. at committee was very satisfied with the bill and with everything that was included in it. We know that on the information the amendments would authorize disclosure of otherwise prohibited information for the purpose of providing protection to a protectee and for matters relating to national security or national defence. Other exemptions would permit federal and provincial institutions to share prohibited information for the purpose of public safety or the administration of justice. Therefore, it is about co-operation and cohesiveness of the systems across Canada.
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to hear my colleague across speak. I miss being at committee with him. He was a fabulous chair.
However, I noticed that my hon. friend did not fully quote the representative from the British Columbia ministry of justice, who also advised the committee that he would be watching carefully to ensure the program was appropriately funded and that they had a voice in the level of funding. He said that from this perspective, the program would not be effective and efficiently administered unless it was adequately funded and the costs were not downloaded to municipalities.
Could the member speak to that?
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake, MB
Mr. Speaker, the committee heard from a number of different witnesses, including the RCMP. The assistant commissioner from the RCMP in charge of federal and international operations said, “As a result of the designation regime” and the way the program is going to work “the RCMP will deal directly with the designated official for the provincial witness protection program”. He said, “This will promote efficiencies in services provided to the provinces and will further enhance the security of both the federal and the provincial program”.
Because of the gains and the efficiencies that are inherent in Bill C-51, there will be a savings that will be able to fund all the concerns that have been raised by the different provincial partners.
Stella Ambler Conservative Mississauga South, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure this evening to speak to the safer witnesses act. As members may know by now, it is a product of extensive input from knowledgeable parties across the country. Indeed, I am pleased to note that the proposed legislation has earned plaudits from several provinces and law enforcement agencies. This positive reaction speaks volumes about the thoroughness and timeliness of Bill C-51.
Members may recall that in March 2008, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security produced a review of the witness protection program. The government responded in July of that year. The review was certainly a key reference document for the policymakers who developed Bill C-51.
For my part in today's debate, I would like to identify how the proposed legislation responds to the review's nine recommendations.
The committee heard from many witnesses who stated unequivocally that the federal witness protection program was an essential tool in the fight against serious crime, organized crime and terrorism. Nevertheless, witnesses had some concerns, including four recommendations to promote greater fairness and efficiency in the management of the program.
First, the committee recommended moving the witness protection program out of the RCMP's hands and into an independent office within the Department of Justice. Through its own consultations, this government confirmed that the RCMP should continue to manage the witness protection program. For one, the justice department simply does not have the expertise to protect witnesses or deliver the programs; it is not what it does. Moreover, simply the physical moving of the administration of the program to justice could create potential security risks.
This government is embracing the intent of this recommendation, which is to ensure objectivity of witness protection matters. The RCMP is developing a reporting structure that separates its investigative and protective functions.
Second, to ensure a good fit between participants and the program, the committee recommended automatic psychological assessments of candidates over the age of 18, including family members. The government concurs that not everyone is a good candidate for the witness protection program. The RCMP now has psychologists who assess candidates and offer counselling to both candidates and protectees. I would stress the word “offer” because the decision to accept counselling belongs to candidates and protectees and is not imposed upon them.
The third recommendation is of a similar nature. The committee proposed to automatically offer legal counsel for candidates during negotiations for entry into the witness protection program. The RCMP continues to offer legal counsel to both candidates and protectees. Again, however, legal counsel is offered rather than imposed.
In its fourth recommendation, to improve fairness and efficiency in the witness protection program, the committee called upon the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, or CPC, to handle complaints from candidates and protectees as required. The government agrees with the intent of this recommendation and, as all hon. members know, we are currently working to pass Bill C-42, the enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police accountability act.
Under that legislation, the CPC would be replaced by a new civilian review and complaints commission. Amendments to the RCMP Act under Bill C-42, would give this new civilian oversight body limited and secure access to information about protectees.
The committee's fifth and sixth recommendations fall under the theme of facilitating access to the witness protection program. The committee called for federal, provincial and territorial ministers for justice and public safety to develop a funding agreement for participation in the witness protection program. It is believed that this recommendation was predicated on a national witness protection program with minimum national standards. Following consultations again, the government did not accept this recommendation. There is no funding in the fiscal framework to support such an agreement.
The sixth recommendation also touches on relationships between and among jurisdictions. It is recommended that the body responsible for the witness protection program enter into agreements with provincial and territorial governments. The goal would be to accelerate the processing of witness protection files.
The government recognizes that in some instances, it can take too long to process secure identity changes for provincial witnesses. That is why it has introduced amendments through Bill C-51 to improve the process, and as such, those proposed agreements are no longer necessary.
The committee's seventh recommendation revolved around establishing minimum standards for the witness protection program. The government considered this idea, but as I indicated earlier, the provinces objected, because the administration of justice falls within their jurisdiction, and national standards were reviewed as an encroachment. Consequently, the government did not accept this recommendation.
The final two recommendations related to promoting transparency within the witness protection program. The committee suggested that independent research into witness protection be permitted and encouraged. I am pleased to say that Public Safety Canada has already undertaken some comparative research. RCMP psychologists may also pursue limited secure research.
While the government agrees on the value of research, it sounds a note of warning. Researchers and risk management experts must take the necessary precautions to maintain the privacy and security of protectees and the program. They must not let their quest for knowledge trump concerns about the release of information.
Finally, the committee recommended more and better information in the annual report of the witness protection program. Since the release of the committee's review, the annual report has, in fact, been enhanced to account more thoroughly for expenses. The Minister of Public Safety reserves the right to request more information at any time, of course.
In summary, the government appreciates the hard work of the standing committee in preparing its review of the witness protection program.
The government consulted stakeholders about nine recommendations and gave them serious consideration in the preparation of Bill C-51. Indeed, most recommendations have found direct or indirect expression in the bill in changes to the RCMP Act or administratively within the federal program.
Through its own extensive consultations, the government believes that it has developed a solid and coherent approach to improving the witness protection program. Given the positive response so far from key stakeholders, I am convinced that Bill C-51 and administrative changes would continue to achieve the intent of the committee's recommendations in the areas of fairness and efficiency, greater access and transparency.
I thus invite all hon. members to join me in supporting Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act.
Pierre Jacob NDP Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her speech.
I wonder if she could comment on the testimony given in committee by Alok Mukherjee, president of the Canadian Association of Police Boards, on March 19, 2013. I will read a short excerpt from his speech:
Our conclusion has been that there needs to be more funding available than currently is the case. Without the availability of sufficient funding, our ability to take advantage of the program will be limited. In places like Toronto, that's a big problem because, as you know, we're dealing with serious violent crimes and often rely on witnesses from the community, not informants and others but witnesses from the community. Their needs may not be significant, as was mentioned. All they may need is a little bit of protection, but that requires that sufficient funding be available for us to be able to do it. That, for us, is a problem.
Stella Ambler Conservative Mississauga South, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am aware that on March 19 at committee meeting 76, Dr. Mukherjee, president of the Canadian Association of Police Boards, said that both he and his colleague support the principle of the legislation.
I think the hon. member's concerns regarding resources are unfounded. In fact, the RCMP Assistant Commissioner of federal and international operations, Assistant Commissioner Todd Shean, said,
[w]ith the changes this bill brings about, the RCMP is comfortable that we have the resources within our existing resources to run an effective witness protection program
He also said,
It's not a question of resources; it's a question of the assessment that's done. Once the assessment is completed...during the assessment process the person may decide that they dodo not want to enter into the program...or...that they are not suitable for the program.
However, the RCMP has clearly said that resources are not the issue.
Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear my colleague speaking on an issue that a lot of us are interested in.
When we talk about the RCMP or other police forces having the resources to carry out important responsibilities, I have to tell the member that I have dealt with those budgets. If we tell them that they have to find it within their resources, they will do what they can, limited as that may be.
I cannot quite understand why we are all here debating this important piece of legislation at 9:30 at night, at $50,000 an hour, when we all agree that it is a good bill and that we want it passed. I am sure that my colleague has better things to do at this time of night as well. It is not as if anybody disagrees with the legislation, so why are we debating something that all members in the House agree with?
Stella Ambler Conservative Mississauga South, ON
Mr. Speaker, if my hon. colleague across the way does not like debating things that we all agree on, then maybe she will vote for the next time allocation motion. That way we can go home at 11 o'clock tonight instead of midnight.
In the meantime, I want to tell her what Chief Bill Blair of the Toronto Police Services had to say about Bill C-51. Toronto is in close proximity to my riding of Mississauga South. 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. We support the government's initiative as a valuable step in protecting public safety.
Colin Mayes Conservative Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be up here this evening with everyone here. I am standing to support Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act.
This is just another block in the work that has been done by our great and capable Minister of Justice to provide Canadians with justice, law and order with our crime initiative to make our streets and communities safer. Why it is so important is that one of the first callings of government is to provide security and public safety for its citizens. It reminds me of that great quote by Thomas Jefferson. I have mentioned it a few times in the House. It is about what good government is. He says that a government that protects its citizens from harming one another and otherwise leaves them to individual pursuit of enterprise and “does not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.... This is the sum of good government”.
The first issue, of course, is that the government provide law and order and protect its citizens from harming one another. Bill C-51 addresses that part of good government that we are supplying for Canadians.
Bill C-51 would strengthen the witness protection program. The government is demonstrating once again its commitment to building those safe and secure communities for all Canadians.
Before highlighting the main provisions of the bill, let me reflect on how the proposed legislation would be an important tool for fighting serious organized crime.
Since coming into office in 2006, which was the time I was elected, our government has been focused on building safer communities. We have had a larger mandate at every election, because we have been doing that job. Among other actions, we have provided law enforcement officials with the resources to clean up our streets. We have introduced legislation to increase the accountability of offenders, and we have taken steps to modernize the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Strengthening the witness protection program through this bill before the House is a next step in our efforts to combat crime.
Statistics Canada has reported a 30% growth in the trafficking, production and distribution of cocaine in our country in the last 10 years. Such a staggering increase is not a result of small-time and isolated dealers bringing more drugs into our communities. Rather, it reflects a concerted effort by organized crime that is likely global in scope and increasingly difficult to nail down. Organized crime has become adept at harnessing new information technologies, both to carry out cybercrimes and to avoid detection from traditional activities such as drug trafficking. At the same time, they could also be using new technologies to track down potential witnesses to their crimes.
More than ever, the law enforcement community depends on informants willing to infiltrate criminal gangs and gather evidence against them. Understandably, witnesses are often only willing to testify if they are offered protection from threats. That is why Canada's federal witness protection program is so vital in our effort to fight crime and provide Canadians safe streets.
Indeed, in her comments on Bill C-51, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of British Columbia said that in the fight against crime, protecting witnesses is essential.
We must also recognize that the federal witness protection plan is based on legislation that is two decades old. The program has held up well over the last 17 years, but the time has come for this act to get into the 21st century. Only in this way can we deliver the kind of protection witnesses need and deserve, the protection that will help us fight serious and organized crime.
For my part today, I would like to focus on how the bill would streamline relations between the federal program and its provincial counterparts and in doing so, heighten safety for both witnesses and those who protect them.
Currently Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Quebec have their own witness protection programs. Unlike the federal program, which generally is geared to protect witnesses for life through relocation and secure identity changes, provincial programs are typically set up to offer short-term protection.
If the scope of the protection becomes too large for the provincial program, help may be sought from the federal counterpart to obtain a secure identity change. However, this process can be cumbersome and time-consuming, requiring the witness to be temporarily admitted into the federal program.
Imagine the emotional state of a witness in this situation. He or she has co-operated with the authorities to testify against the ringleaders of serious crimes in return for protection before the upcoming trial. Already the witness is experiencing heightened stress that only a few of us could imagine. Now provincial authorities receive new intelligence: the risk for their witnesses are higher than previously believed. A new identity is required, and quickly.
The witness, already stressed, would be thrown into a state of emotional turmoil, first at the news of heightened danger and second at the thought of adopting a new identity and all the upheaval that would bring. Then, having made the difficult decision to join the program, the witness asks if the paperwork is finally complete, and the answer may very well be, “Not yet.”
Witnesses may have their own motivation for co-operating with the authorities, but the bottom line is that their actions may be instrumental in helping law enforcement take criminals off our streets and put them behind bars. Thus, witnesses are an important tool to prevent crime, and the system needs to serve them well.
I am speaking not only of witnesses currently in the system; I am thinking of all the potential witnesses whose testimony could take a bite out of crime in Canada. Before they are willing to co-operate, they need to have the confidence in the management of a witness protection program.
I am pleased to say that Bill C-51 introduces amendments that would help streamline the process to obtain secure identity changes for provincial witnesses. Essentially, it would allow for the designation of a provincial or municipal witness protection program. This designated status means that the witness would no longer have to join the federal program to obtain a secure identity change.
Allow me to highlight several other provisions that would strengthen and streamline the witness protection program for the benefit of the witnesses and those who protect them.
Among other goals, Bill C-51 would do the following: clarify and add provisions on the disclosure of information about protectees, including about how they are protected, and about the persons providing the assistance with that protection; specify under what circumstances disclosure of protected information is nevertheless permitted; expand the category of witnesses who may be admitted to the program to include people who are helping with the investigation of a terrorist act; give protectees in the federal program the right to end their participation voluntarily; and extend the period during which the protection may, in an emergency, be provided to a person who has not been admitted to the witness protection program.
The federal witness protection program is a key weapon in the fight against crime. It gives informants the confidence to put their lives in danger by testifying against organized crime.
For the sake of those witnesses, present and future, and for the safety and security of our communities, I urge all members to join me in supporting the safer witnesses bill.
Dan Harris NDP Scarborough Southwest, ON
Mr. Speaker, at several points tonight, reference has been made to RCMP comments made at committee, saying that it would have enough resources to bring in these changes to the witness protection program.
However, as we know, oftentimes when cases are made, it falls to provincial or, in some cases, municipal programs to actually pay for the witness protection. Of course, they are not going to have enough resources.
While the RCMP may have enough resources, provincial and municipal police forces and governments may not. I just want to ask the member why that was not necessarily taken into consideration in bringing this bill forward.
Colin Mayes Conservative Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question, but the member was not here in 2006, when we started the whole cracking down on crime initiative as a new government.
One of the things we did do was make strategic investments in the training centre for the RCMP, in Saskatchewan. We invested in more police officers. We decided we would make sure there would be the resources to crack down on crime when we go forward with the initiative for cracking down on crime. We increased the number of border security people to crack down on the gun trade and the drug trade across the border between Canada and the United States. There are ample resources there to do that work.
I can say with confidence that this bill would be another building block to what we are trying to accomplish, and the resources are there. The RCMP has also acknowledged that the bill would not be any stress on those costs.
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up, if I could, on the question put earlier by my colleague from York West.
By all accounts, there are many legislators in this House who have a lot of experience. We all know that this kind of late-night sitting is costing the taxpayers of Canada somewhere between $50,000 and $60,000 an hour. It is very important for Canadians, I think, to know that.
I also think it is important to pick up on a comment made by my colleague from the NDP moments ago, raising important questions about resourcing the witness protection program and noting that the $60,000 an hour it is costing for this debate could go toward resourcing the program.
I am not sure why the government is debating the bill. All three parties agree. It passed through the committee without amendment. We are trying to understand why it is we are charging the Canadian taxpayer $50,000 to $60,000 an hour. Why do we not move on and actually pass this bill and get on to an issue of debate, so we do not have people reading speeches for TV productions?
Colin Mayes Conservative Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Mr. Speaker, I have to say that we do not necessarily enjoy talking about things. We like taking action. We have done that as a party.
The fact is that there is time allocation and the members opposite are aware of that. It is really interesting. Those on the opposite side frequently state that there has not been enough time for debate on various bills. Here we are, giving you ample time to debate the bill and you are not taking advantage of it or do not want to take advantage—
The Acting Speaker Barry Devolin
Order, please. Again, I would remind this hon. member and all others to please address your questions to the Chair rather than to your colleagues.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.
Bev Shipley Conservative Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON
Mr. Speaker, again we find an opportunity to move ahead on a number of initiatives that this government has brought forward since 2006 to help strengthen and encourage the protection not only of our police officers but obviously of those victims and how we protect them. This gives me an opportunity to speak to Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act.
As members know, the act was brought forward in 1996 for the nature of crimes we were dealing with then. However, since that time there has been an incredible amount of change in our society.
In fact, as has been mentioned before, in the drug-dealing business, the production of crack cocaine has increased some 30%. Unfortunately, this affects not only large urban areas but small rural communities and towns like mine as well. Also, in 1996 cybercrime was something that many of us did not know anything about, and in 2013, there may still be those who are not aware of the complexities of cybercrime in this country. Organized crime has become much more prevalent than it has been in past history. As well, on terrorism, we think of those situations that have happened, not potentially but those that have actually been stopped in this country. We would never have thought about that a few years ago, but we hear about it every day on the news. In fact, our members in the armed forces deal with it on a regular basis as they help protect our great nation and others against these terrible atrocities.
Methods of policing these crimes have been modernized in an attempt to keep pace, but what we need to do now is put in place a modernized witness protection program to help keep up with some of the events that are happening in our society.
Law enforcement often relies on the co-operation of individuals to give information and those who are willing to come forward and give evidence against these criminal organizations. Informants are often the key component that makes the difference between talking about it and getting out there and actually making the arrest. As a matter of fact, law enforcement depends on key witnesses. However, key witnesses deal with the fear and issues that come with dealing with organized crime, and we need to make sure those people have the opportunity to come forward without fear, at least without the extended fear they would normally have because they had been a part of something they knew was terribly wrong.
We have an opportunity now to move forward and help guarantee witness safety. We have an opportunity to not only help protect witness identities but strengthen that protection, and for a longer period of time.
In the past our witness program was designed to promote law enforcement by facilitating the protection of those directly or indirectly involved in criminal activities, and it had been an effective tool. In fact, it still is, but it is not as effective as it should be to deal with modern-day events.
As members know, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta have established their own provincial witness protection programs that work independently of the federal program. However, it is becoming increasingly apparent that we need to strengthen the protection given to witnesses and also to those who protect them across the country, and there have been calls for reform of the witness protection program to keep in line with the government's mandate of tackling crime.
Since 2006 we have taken that initiative to tackle crime, protect the innocent and give justice to the victims. We now need to make sure that we give credence to the witnesses who are helping make sure that happens.
As we developed this bill, we took into consideration the recommendations made in the final report of the 2010 Air India inquiry, the 2008 study of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security of the federal witness protection program, as well as the recommendations from consultations we carried out with not only with federal agencies and departments, but also with agencies of the provinces and law enforcement groups at all levels across this country. We have carefully assessed the feedback from these reports and consultations to bring forward a comprehensive bill, which is the one that we have in front of us.
In Bill C-51, we have identified a number of changes to the act that would improve the protection services for informants and witnesses.
The provincial witness protection programs meet the needs of provincial law enforcement agencies and offers a range of protection that can include accompanying a witness to trial, a temporary relocation or limited financial support to the individual. However, they do not have that authority to obtain secure identity changes. In this age of technology, it is becoming so important that when we give them a change of identity it is secure, protected and there for them in their time of need.
One of the measures we would be putting in place with this bill is the streamlining of the process that would allow provincial programs to be designated under this act. We had a number of questions come up about how we would be able to do this in terms of other agencies and the efficiencies in the bill.
Bill C-51 would make it possible for the Attorney General or other provincial authority to request the Minister of Public Safety to recommend to the Governor in Council that a provincial protection program be designated. This would then allow the RCMP to assist with obtaining the federal documents for secure identity change without the witness having to be admitted into the federal program.
Though there have been recommendations to bypass the RCMP and have the provinces request secure identity documents directly from the various federal organizations involved, we believe it is more prudent to maintain a single point of contact for this process. That is all part of the security and the efficiencies built into Bill C-51 in terms of the protection of witnesses.
The RCMP is the organization best suited to act in this capacity and bring continuity, which would ensure efficiency and enhance security. The Commissioner of the RCMP would coordinate at the request of the provinces and we would look to help those who are admitted to the designated program.
I see that I am running out of time. What it really all comes down to is that the amendments, the federal organizations with mandates related to national security, defence or public safety, such as CSIS and the Department of National Defence, may also refer witnesses to this national program. That means that those issues that I talked about earlier with respect to breadth and some of the issues that had not been brought into the witness program in 1966 are here now.
I look forward to the support and the passing of this important bill.
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Speaker, I heard the comments by the hon. member and his colleague from Okanagan—Shuswap and I have to say that both members actually made the case for the very recommendation by the commission that looked into the Air India incident.
My understanding is that there was only one recommendation for amendments to the federal witness protection program made by the commission: to create the national security witness protection coordinator. Why? It was because a number of witnesses in the Air India inquiry refused to testify because they did not feel they were going to be adequately protected. This protection coordinator's mandate would include providing confidential support, psychological and legal advice, independent confidential arbitration of disputes and acting as an advocate for witnesses.
The member said that the government has made comprehensive amendments and yet it chose not to implement the single amendment recommended by the commission. I wonder if he could speak to that.
Bev Shipley Conservative Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON
Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my comments, there may be police officers and members of law enforcement agencies that are much more into the details of it than I am.
As a government, we in fact have the responsibility to make sure that we reach out to some of the most significant tragedies that have happened around the world, not just in this country. We learn, unfortunately, from incidents that have happened around the world. We want to make sure that when people come forward, we give them the most secure opportunity we can, and not only to change their identity over a period of time. As I mentioned, they will always carry a fear because they have been part of something that has dramatically changed their lives. We do not want that extraordinary fear to stick with them because they do not have the security of a new identity.
Ève Péclet NDP La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' last speaker said that my colleague was not an MP in 2006 when the Conservatives announced their cracking down on crime initiative.
It is really demeaning to refer to the knowledge of a member just because he was not elected then. Does he also mean that the members for Mississauga South or Ajax—Pickering should not have spoken on this bill just because they were not elected then? It is very demeaning when a member is referred to as not credible or not knowledgeable because he was not elected in 2006.
That was my comment. Now I am going to ask a question of my colleague.
I know that my colleague represents a rural region, and the RCMP's website clearly says that funding problems impede investigations.
Could my colleague tell us why the government has not allocated more funding to a program that the RCMP has said needs more funding?
Bev Shipley Conservative Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON
Mr. Speaker, we will often reference new members. We respect the fact that they are new, but it also gives us the ability to say we had a program in place. It was only to provide knowledge about where the government started and where it is going. The comment was never meant to be derogatory to anyone. I would never, nor would my colleague, ever do that.
Clearly, in terms of funding, we have to understand that this could have been a full national program, but we know that the provinces did not want to let go of some of their authority. I come from a small rural riding. Some members think, particularly over there, that we cannot build in efficiencies, that we just have to keep throwing money at it. We provided funding for 2,500 police officers. We have enhanced funding for police officers.
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, be read the third time and passed.
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Speaker, contrary to the apparent perspective of some in this place, I think it is actually worthwhile to debate these bills. Each one of us learns a lot more by hearing the perspectives of the other side. I am grateful for the opportunity, despite the late hour, to participate in this debate.
At the outset, I would like to say stricter sentencing provisions without effective investigative powers, resources and timely judicial processes are empty. I would bring attention to the failure of the government to take timely action in the appointment of judges, including in my jurisdiction, as raised by the Attorney General of Alberta, and the failure to fill that vacuum by providing sufficient aboriginal police, as first nations are calling for. That certainly would help with the situation of gang action and in helping to bring witnesses forward.
I am rising in support of Bill C-51, an act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act. There are many measures that are worthwhile. It is good that after many years the government is finally moving forward to improve and enhance the program, which, by the way, the Conservatives did not invent. It has been around for quite some time, but to their credit, finally, after seven years, they are coming forward to actually improve it.
We support the fact that it would expand the eligibility criteria in certain circumstances to expand access in the case of witnesses dealing with crimes related to street gangs and certainly for witnesses recommended by CSIS and National Defence. As I understand it and as outlined by the government members, there would be improved efficiency and coordination with provincial and municipal police forces to achieve more effective access to the program by those authorities. I am hoping that is the case, regardless of the fact that there is no additional funding.
These are important changes that the New Democrats have been calling for as improvements for quite some time, particularly to fight street gangs and organized crime. I bring to the attention of the Speaker that the New Democrat member for Trinity—Spadina called for this exact reform some time back, specifically in relation to the mass shootings in Toronto. I know that we and everyone certainly support her efforts to have some increased measures to deal with these kinds of activities and to respond to the increasing concern over terrorism. In that case, people may be even all the more nervous about stepping forward and serving as a witness or providing testimony or evidence to the authorities.
The bill would expand access to more individuals seeking to deal with gangs, although I would have to add that I wanted to put this question to a number of the members here who are participating in the special task force on missing and murdered aboriginal women. I am not convinced that the measures we are debating today are sufficient to address the complex issue in aboriginal communities of witnesses coming forward. That would be something that is probably worth pursuing.
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 numbers of witnesses admitted to the program. Apparently only 30 of the 108 applications that were considered were accepted in 2012. I am not sure that the committee heard all of the detail for why that was, but on the basis of some of the testimony from police authorities, certainly part of it is a lack of access to funding. I am surprised, given the government's enthusiasm for ensuring that these cases come to trial with solid evidence and testimony from witnesses, that it would not also want to address this funding shortage issue.
One of the things that particularly bewilders us is that the Prime Minister commended the report from the Air India commission. One of the strong recommendations from the Air India inquiry, and apparently the only one related to the federal witness protection program, was to appoint a national security witness protection coordinator.
The government has chosen to disregard that recommendation. There do not appear to be really clear arguments for why it would turn down that position.
My understanding of the recommendation is that the coordinator would not provide the actual physical protection. The national security witness protection coordinator's mandate would include such things as ensuring consistency in the handling of sources and resolving disputes between agencies that may arise in negotiation or implementation of a protection agreement. The coordinator would also provide confidential support for protectees, including psychological and legal advice so that they could decide whether they wanted to sign the protection agreement. The coordinator would also provide for independent and confidential arbitration of disputes and act as an advocate for witnesses.
That all seems very clear and obvious, because in many cases the very reason for the existence of this witness protection program is that witnesses are reluctant to come forward. There could be many reasons. They could be terrified. They might be nervous of police authorities. It seems perfectly logical that a non-police body would work with those individuals and would be less intimidating.
The government's decision remains a puzzle to us. It had the opportunity to also include that recommendation. Hopefully in future it will also bring that one forward.
One of the key problems that has been raised by my colleagues in this place is the refusal by the government to admit that the program is inadequately funded. As has been stated many times in the House, only 30 of 108 applications considered were accepted in 2012.
A great number of witnesses came before committee, many of whom spoke to exactly this issue. One was Commissioner Micki Ruth, a member of the policing and justice committee of the Canadian Association of Police Boards. Micki Ruth said:
Like many issues facing government today, funding is one of the biggest and toughest ones to find solutions for. The problems identified back in 2007 with the adequacy of funding for the current witness protection are not addressed in Bill C-51. Unfortunately, we see problems with the ability of municipality police services to adequately access witness protection because they lack the resources. ... CAPB has a duty to its members to ensure that legislation passed by the government does not result in a downloading of additional costs to the municipal police services....
This is the very concern. We have heard member after member defending the position that there is no need for further funding, but in most cases they are citing the RCMP. The problem is that the downloading occurs to the municipal or provincial police authorities.
That concern was also raised by the British Columbia Ministry of Justice through Clayton J.D. Pecknold, who is the assistant deputy minister and director of police services, policing and security programs branch, as well as Dr. Alok Mukherjee, the president of the Canadian Association of Police Boards. Those are citizen boards and commissions representing a broad spectrum of society.
Dr. Alok Mukherjee said:
Without the availability of sufficient funding, our ability to take advantage of the program will be limited. In places like Toronto, that's a big problem because, as you know, we're dealing with serious violent crimes and often rely on witnesses from the community, not informants....
Very serious concerns are being raised.
When we go to the very purpose of this legislation and program, which is to encourage witnesses who may otherwise feel intimidated to come forward, we have to scratch our heads and ask why the program would not be fully funded, particularly when we are dealing with incidents of terrorism.
We will remain puzzled. We support the initiatives that the government has brought forward in the bill, but we will continue to pursue, on behalf of those agencies and the public and those who might be compelled and approached to testify, the availability of funding to support them to testify.
As I mentioned at the outset, in the case of aboriginal or isolated communities there may have to be additional measures, because it may be a bit harder to address the fact that individuals will be picked up and relocated or that they may not even speak English or French and would be quite intimidated by being removed from their community.
I look forward to further discussions on this matter within Parliament.
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite mentioned a number of items. I am going to focus on two areas.
First, I appreciate the NDP's support for this bill. It is important for our national interests to have security for witnesses who choose to come forward to deal with organized crime, as the member for Okanagan—Shuswap said.
The member said that one of the original recommendations in 2008 was to have an independent office outside of the RCMP and not conducted by it. It has been brought up that one of the challenges with that idea is that there are many skills specific to keeping witnesses safe. To suddenly switch from one system in which there is an extreme amount of experience to another in which there may not be that same level of experience may cause a reduction in the safety of these witnesses.
The second point is the question of funding. The provinces and municipalities set their budgets for policing. There is direct accountability there, obviously, with a national program that is decided by the RCMP, and it is decided by this place what that funding will be. That is more of a comment on the funding. There is sufficient funding for the national program, and municipalities and provinces should set their own budgets and tax accordingly so that people can hold them accountable and can have their say when they go to the ballot box and elect their leaders.
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Speaker, I enjoy serving on the OGGO committee with the hon. member. We are working on a very interesting report, which I hope comes forward before we adjourn for the summer.
I am not sure if the member caught what I said when I spoke about the recommendation from the Air India inquiry. I was very clear that the recommendation from that commission was that this body, this independent protection coordinator, would simply help with the handling and the processing and negotiation of the agreement. That person would not actually deliver the protection program. Program delivery would remain with the RCMP or the police authorities, so I do not see any way there could be interference. We could be assured that the office would include people who were fully qualified to deal with these kinds of activities. They could even be former police officers, who could be seconded into the program. However, it would be stand-alone.
In a lot of cases and a lot of communities, people do not trust the police. They may have had bad incidents and experiences and so forth. In this case, it might be really useful for the person to be seen clearly as not being an enforcement officer and to work with the witness and encourage him or her to come forward.
On the second point, about funding, I suggest that most police forces would say that they could always use additional funding.
Matthew Dubé NDP Chambly—Borduas, QC
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague about the point she just mentioned regarding funding.
The government is bringing in a system that will potentially—almost certainly—attract more witnesses. A number of government speakers have said that provincial and municipal police forces would be able to accept more witnesses. We know that this will cost money.
I would like my colleague to talk about the worrisome fact that there will be additional costs. I would also like to hear what she thinks about the fact that the government is once again introducing a bill without properly consulting municipal and provincial authorities.
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member both for the fabulous speech he gave this evening and for his question. He sets the bar high in this place.
I too remain troubled. Very clearly, the government is saying that the intention is to expand the witness protection program and enable the various police forces to bring more witnesses into that program. I do not know how police forces are going to do that. I know that police forces are stretched in most jurisdictions. They are stretched even in my province, which is supposedly financially stable but is also suffering from a deficit.
The priority is that people are demanding more police boots on the ground. I do not see a lot of people coming forward and saying that the priority should be witness protection, yet the police forces themselves know that in order to win these cases, they need these kinds of programs and greater access.
We have $3.1 billion missing for the anti-terrorism program. Perhaps if we could find that, it could go into expanding the witness protection program.
Kellie Leitch ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour
Mr. Speaker, the safer witnesses act is intended to help strengthen the current federal witness protection program, a program which could play a better role to effectively combat crime, particularly organized crime.
Let me state at the outset of my remarks that Bill C-51 is the result of consultations with law enforcement agencies and our provincial counterparts. The safer witnesses act will, first and foremost, improve the interaction of the federal witness protection program with provincial witness protection programs.
As it stands presently, an individual in a provincial program obtains several documents required for a secure identity change if he or she is temporarily admitted to the federal witness protection program. As members may be well aware, this process can result in delays in obtaining a new identity.
Bill C-51 proposes a remedy to the situation by establishing a straightforward process in which provincial programs can become designated witness protection programs. A province would request this designation from the Minister of Public Safety, at which time the provincial authority would provide assurances of the program's capacity to protect both its witnesses and its information.
Once a program is designated and upon the request of that program, the RCMP would be obliged to help in obtaining federal identity documents for a provincial witness requiring a secure identity change, without the individual being temporarily admitted into the federal program.
The proposed amendments contained in Bill C-51 enable the program to become more efficient and more secure.
Under the designation regime proposed by Bill C-51, the provincial official from a designated provincial witness protection program would request federal documents on behalf of the law enforcement agencies. This process would limit the number of individuals involved in the process, thereby making it more secure.
Among other improvements, Bill C-51 would expand referrals for admissions to the federal witness protection program to sources assisting national security, national defence or public safety organizations, such as the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.
Bill C-51 would also enhance the security of all witness protection regimes in Canada by broadening and enhancing the existing prohibitions against the disclosure of information.
Currently, the federal Witness Protection Program Act prohibits the disclosure of information about individuals within the federal program. Section 11 of the current act says, “no person shall knowingly disclose, directly or indirectly, information about the location or a change of identity of a protectee or former protectee”. Bill C-51 would strengthen this prohibition in a number of important ways.
First, Bill C-51 would not only prohibit the disclosure of information about individuals in the federal program, it would also prohibit the disclosure of information about how the program operates, as well as about those individuals who actually provide or assist in providing protection for witnesses. Both of these prohibitions would also extend to designated provincial programs; that is, disclosure of information about witnesses, people who provide protection and information about the programs themselves will be prohibited.
Current provincial prohibitions against the disclosure of information currently apply only within the legislation of the particular provincial jurisdiction, not across jurisdictions. Bill C-51 would also clarify the prohibition with respect to what and how information is being disclosed.
As I have stated, section 11 of the current act contains the phrase, “no person shall knowingly disclose, directly or indirectly, information about the locations or a change of identity of a protectee or former protectee”. The phrase “directly or indirectly” was considered to be unclear.
The proposed amendments in Bill C-51 clear up any ambiguity to ensure that the prohibitions will clearly apply to cases where a person discloses information in a range of ways. Some examples include telling someone what a protected person's name is, leaving information about the protected person unguarded and telling someone where a protected person lives.
Bill C-51 would prohibit all of the above disclosures by specifying that no one shall disclose any information, either directly or indirectly, that reveals the location or change of identity of a protected person or the information from which the location or change of identity may be inferred.
By extending referrals to this category of witnesses, we are also delivering on one of our commitments under the Government of Canada's Air India inquiry action plan released in 2010.
The current federal witness protection program has served the criminal justice system well. Today there are hundreds of individuals under the protection of the program.
In 2011-2012 alone, the RCMP considered a total of 108 cases for admission into the federal witness protection program. Thirty protectees were admitted to the program, of which 27 were granted a secure name change. The number of admissions fluctuates from year to year, depending upon factors such as the number of cases being investigated or the number of people in a witness' family.
During the same time, the RCMP also provided assistance to other Canadian law enforcement agencies under the existing Witness Protection Program Act. The Witness Protection Program Act has not been substantially changed since 1996. The fact that the federal witness protection program serves the criminal justice system well does not mean that there is no room for improvement.
Ongoing consultations with provinces and law enforcement agencies, among others, have revealed that improvements could be made to adjust to the increasingly sophisticated, evolving and global nature of organized crime. The government's consultations with provinces and territorial stakeholders have also helped to highlight some areas where stronger provisions are needed, which I have mentioned today.
The witness protection program is a vitally important tool in our ongoing efforts to combat organized crime groups.
Bill C-51 addresses the need for modernization, as well as enhanced information protection and integration with provincial programs. Bill C-51 introduces reforms to the present witness protection environment that will build on our collective efforts to combat organized crime, as well as terrorist organizations, and in that way help us all continue to build safer streets and communities for everyone.
Pierre Jacob NDP Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
I would like to remind him that the Conservative government has been in power for almost seven years. During that time, the RCMP and the provinces have asked several times for changes to the witness protection program.
My question is simple: Why did they wait so long before making concrete proposals?
Kellie Leitch Conservative Simcoe—Grey, ON
Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear. This government has been very focused and committed to keeping our streets and communities safe. We are putting forward an effective and reliable witness protection program and we know this is valuable in fighting crime, especially organized crime and terrorism.
This is very different from the approach the NDP members have taken of essentially voting against the majority of legislation we brought forward to both protect victims and to move forward in dealing with organized crime.
We are introducing this new legislation with a number of amendments in an effort to ensure Canadians are safer, that they find themselves safe in their communities and on their streets.
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Mr. Speaker, I am curious as to why the parliamentary secretary has to make an ideological battle out of every argument.
We are supporting legislation that the government is bringing forward. We are saying what we like about it. We are arguing about ways that could perhaps improve the legislation.
Is that not what parliamentarians are supposed to do? Why do we always have to descend to some sort of argument about “You guys are the bad guys, and we are the good guys”? Why does the very well-educated hon. member have to descend to that in every debate that takes place in the House?
Kellie Leitch Conservative Simcoe—Grey, ON
Mr. Speaker, I find that very amusing. I sat in the House some time ago on Bill C-44 and commended the opposition on its significant support for particularly ill children. It is important that we highlight there are certain differences between the two parties.
I am pleased the opposition members are supporting the direction of this. I look forward to working with them more in the future, as I did with my critics on the human resources committee with respect to Bill C-44.
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC
Mr. Speaker, this is strong legislation, and I am happy that the NDP and the Liberals have decided that they will join with us to support it moving forward.
One thing I do know is the member consults with Canadians on a regular basis. This set of legislation took time to review and consult with both the provinces and a wide variety of individuals to ensure these witnesses were protected.
With this legislation, particularly in working with the provinces, what aspects of it does the parliamentary secretary appreciate most in creating that sense of safety? If we cannot protect our witnesses, we cannot bring those people forward to give their testimony so we can, as the members opposite said, put away the bad guys. That is an important point on which I would like us to focus.
Kellie Leitch Conservative Simcoe—Grey, ON
Mr. Speaker, one thing that has taken place in the broad consultations with provinces, territories across the country and number of different stakeholders are the amendments that have been put forward.
Whether that is an improvement in the processes to obtain secure identity changes for witnesses in the provincial programs and the interaction of the programs provincially with those federally, whether it is a broadening of prohibitions against the disclosure of information or the extension of time for emergency protection that may be extended, these are all significant amendments to the act that will greatly improve it and provide opportunities for all Canadians to feel safer in their homes and in their communities.
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to have an opportunity to speak in the House this evening to this important legislation, Bill C-51, which amends the Witness Protection Program Act and makes other consequential amendments.
This is an important public safety tool, as has been mentioned by a number of members on both sides of the House. It is a tool that enhances the opportunity to prosecute crimes, particularly, crimes that undermine the security of our communities. such as organized crime and gang crime. Where do we need witness protection? We need witness protection when the criminals we are seeking to prosecute are prepared to use further criminal acts to retaliate and to exert violence or other forms of repression on people who co-operate with the authorities to try to make our communities safer.
This really gets at the heart of what we need to do to protect our communities. We see this across the country. We see it in prisons, in the cases of gangs. We see it in our communities as well. We see it in the case of organized criminal organizations, such as the Hells Angels, which have been very active in various parts of the country. We see it in the drug trade, in general. We also we see it in other security-type activities and very significant terrorist measures, such as the actions in the Air India disaster and the need for a strong witness protection program to fully prosecute those guilty of engaging in that enormous frightening terrorist event.
Improvements to the witness protection program have been sought for many years. Since 2007, our party has been calling, specifically, for better coordination of the federal and provincial programs and for better overall funding for the program. These demands were repeated in 2009 and again in 2012. Specifically, the member for Trinity—Spadina was concerned about the inability of the police forces to get witnesses in the bad summer of shootings at the block party on Danzig Street, for example, and the difficulty that the police had in finding witnesses to come forward.
We do support theses measures.
I do not sit on the public safety committee anymore, although I did a few years go. I did sit in one or two of the meetings, listening to some of the witnesses on this program. There were acknowledged significant improvements being made to expand the coverage of the program of eligibility. It is very important for national security that national defence or other public safety departments will be able refer witnesses to the program. It extends the period of emergency protection and clears up some technical problems.
We are very disappointed that the bill does not include more of the recommendations, for example from the Air India inquiry, such as a more transparent and accountable process for admissions to the program. We are also very concerned that local police departments will have the support necessary to ensure that witnesses can come forward in a gang situation, for example.
We have heard again and again tonight that there is a lack of recognition of the high cost borne by local police departments and the concern about the adequacy of funding.
We know what the RCMP officials said at the hearings. They said that they were satisfied they could handle the problem. However, I have a problem with that. The only statistics that have been floating around are from 2012. They noted that out of the 108 individuals who sought the protection and were considered for the program, only 30 were accepted. That is a pretty significant turndown rate.
What was the fallout from that? How many cases did not go to court because there was no protection offered to those witnesses?
We had the Minister of Public Safety himself acknowledging that the cost of the program is one of the criteria used to determine whether someone is accepted. He diminished it as being only one of the seven, but the cost of the program is one of the criteria, and we have two-thirds of them being turned down. We would be increasing the eligibility opportunities, so more people could apply in more circumstances.
We hear from the other side, and we ourselves are concerned, about gangs and other forms of organized criminal activity. What we see from all that is that there is going to be significant pressure on this program to admit more people, and the resources are not going to be there, or the lack of resources could be used, because it is one of the criteria, to turn down people who seek admission to the program.
I am not saying that every person who asks for witness protection is entitled to it. Do not get me wrong. I am not taking some sort of extreme position. I am doing my best to be reasonable with respect to this matter, because what we are seeking is a bill that is going to work. The problem I have, despite the quotes we have heard from the hon. members opposite, and I am not saying they are making them in bad faith, is that they seem to be a bit selective in leaving out the concerns raised by witnesses at the hearings.
I want to emphasize the comments and statements of the Canadian Association of Police Boards. Who are they? We heard from the Canadian Police Association. This is all the police officers in Canada. I do not know if we heard from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. I do not see any quotes from them being raised here.
The police boards are the civilian boards that are appointed by the communities and are responsible for oversight of the policing activities in their areas and the safety of their communities. Obviously, the enforcement is carried out by the police officers themselves, but the police boards are responsible for how these communities operate. We talked about small communities, but they are even in big communities.
The president of the Canadian Association of Police Boards, on March 19 of this year, testified before the committee and said:
Without the availability of sufficient funding, our ability to take advantage of the program will be limited. In places like Toronto, that's a big problem because, as you know, we're dealing with serious violent crimes and often rely on witnesses from the community, not informants and others but witnesses from the community. Their needs may not be significant, as was mentioned. All they may need is a little bit of protection, but that requires that sufficient funding be available for us to be able to do it. That, for us, is a problem.
Elsewhere in testimony, the same individual said:
...our chiefs have said to us that their ability to access fully, proportionate to their need, is not there.
That is in Ontario. We have also had other representations. Andy McGrogan from the Medicine Hat Police Service said that, provincially, they are working on witness protection legislation as well, but right now they are looking at how to absorb these costs. He said:
If you look at a community such as ours, the protection of one witness, if funded through the municipality, has a major impact on our budget. We're watching this legislation and really trying to determine where it's going to unfold at this time.... We totally understand that. How it's going to impact us financially, of course, is our biggest concern.
I have only one minute to complete my remarks, but I want to say that we support this legislation, but we have concerns that we do not have a stand-alone organization, which we have asked for. We do not have adequate funding, which we have asked for, and no commitment to it, and there seems to be a failure to recognize that it is what has to happen.
I would be very pleased to respond to any questions or comments that members opposite, or my colleague, might have.
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Mr. Speaker, the member for St. John's East has made some statements, as have many of his colleagues, that this program is underfunded. He gave some quotes just now from the hearings, but of course, there are other quotes.
The Assistant Commissioner of federal and international operations of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Todd Shean, in the same hearings my colleague referred to, said, “with the changes this bill brings about, the RCMP is comfortable that we have the resources within our existing resources to run an effective witness protection program”.
That was a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who said that. I suppose the member can come along and say that he has another source who would say that the program is not funded appropriately. I would like to know if the member is relying on statements that someone else made. We have quotes from others who have said that the funding is appropriate. Does he have facts that show that the program is not funded appropriately?
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Mr. Speaker, I could quote Commissioner Micki Ruth, a member of the policing and justice committee of the Canadian Association of Police Boards. He testified on March 7 that the problems identified back in 2007 with the adequacy of funding for the current witness program are not addressed. He said, “We urge you to appreciate our position that unless the issue...is addressed, the legislation will not produce the result that is intended”.
We think there ought to be an independent board, and not the RCMP. The RCMP says that it is comfortable with the funding, but it is the one deciding who gets witness protection and who does not. We have seen from the statistics in 2012 that of the 108 people who were considered, only 30 were given access to the program. We do not know what is going on there for sure.
What we are saying is that we have people such as the police boards, who are in the communities policing people and are the ones looking for secure and safe communities, saying that funding is not adequate. It was identified as long as five or six years ago. Where is the increase? We are increasing the eligibility. Where is the increase in funds?
Ève Péclet NDP La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on the comments by my colleague on the other side of the House.
The RCMP website indicates the following:
There are instances when the costs of witness protection may impede investigations, particularly for smaller law enforcement agencies.
The RCMP is referring to small law enforcement agencies that enforce the law, such as municipal forces, not the RCMP. The RCMP has never claimed to have a funding problem. That is not what we are talking about. The problem is that the costs associated with this program are borne by the provinces and small entities such as local police forces.
I would like my colleague to comment further on the difference between the RCMP and local law enforcement agencies.
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for pointing that out. It is clearly there on the website.
Commissioner Todd Shean said that the RCMP was comfortable that it could have an effective program. That is not to say that it would be adequate for all the communities in the country. The RCMP acknowledged that investigations would suffer. That would be at the local community level, and when we have the police boards that look after these communities across the country saying the same thing, I have to worry, frankly.
I appreciate my colleague pointing out that website quote. It is something the RCMP itself acknowledges.
There is logic to this, as well. If we increase the eligibility, more people will be invited to participate because of the broader criterion. More people would be able to apply, but without more money, we would have a crunch.
Patrick Brown Conservative Barrie, ON
Mr. Speaker, ensuring that all Canadians have safe communities in which to live has been a priority for our government since taking office. Our government has undertaken numerous initiatives to ensure the safety of Canadians. For example, our government is following through on its commitment to give the RCMP the tools it needs to enhance public confidence and increase accountability to its members and Canadians. This is apparent through our support for Bill C-42, the enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police accountability act. This legislation would enable the RCMP to continue its ongoing transformation toward a strong and vibrant national police force that Canadians will continue to believe in and value.
The enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police accountability act would help the RCMP remain accountable and relevant now and in the future. First, this act would create a modern, independent civilian review and complaints commission for the RCMP which would strengthen civilian oversight. Second, investigations of serious incidents, such as death or serious injury involving RCMP members, would be more transparent and accountable to the public through the implementation of a new framework. Third, the act would modernize processes with respect to discipline, grievance and human resources management for RCMP members, because it would put in place mechanisms to prevent, address and correct performance and conduct issues fairly and in a timely manner. These changes would help address concerns that have been raised by both the Canadian public and RCMP members themselves.
Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act, is another important legislative change that would support the work of our police and ensure that we meet our commitments to Canadians. Witness protection programs offer protection, sometimes including new identities for certain individuals whose testimony or co-operation is vital to the success of law enforcement operations. In Canada, the RCMP administers the federal witness protection program, which was officially established in 1996 with the passage of the Witness Protection Program Act. Through the federal witness protection program, the RCMP can provide emergency protection in the form of permanent relocation and secure identity changes for witnesses under threat.
The legislation governing the federal witness protection program, however, has not been substantially changed since 1996, when it first came into force. This has posed challenges for the RCMP, who must contend with the constantly changing nature of organized crime. The safer witnesses act would help strengthen the current federal witness protection program and thus support the RCMP in effectively combating crime, particularly organized crime. Bill C-51 would also help protect individuals, including RCMP members and other law enforcement officers and civilians involved in administering and delivering witness protection.
Disclosing information about individuals in the federal witness protection program is prohibited by the Witness Protection Program Act. Bill C-51 would expands on this by also prohibiting the disclosure of information about individuals who provide or assist in providing protection for witnesses as well as how the program operates. Under Bill C-51, this prohibition would extend to both the federal and designated provincial programs. Bill C-51 would also positively impact the provision of protection by promoting greater integration between federal and provincial witness protection programs.
Under the current legislation, if an individual in a provincial witness protection program requires a secure identity change, he or she must be temporarily transferred into a federal witness protection program so that the RCMP can obtain the appropriate documents. This may introduce delays in the process. The changes proposed by Bill C-51 would allow provincial and territorial governments to request that their programs be designated under the federal witness protection program act. This one-time designation would mean that the witness in the witness protection program could receive a secure identity change without needing to be admitted into the federal one. These reforms would support the provision of protection at all levels by streamlining the process to obtain secure federal documents for these purposes.
Another change proposed by Bill C-51 responds in part to a recommendation made in the final report of the Air India inquiry. The legislation proposes to expand the categories of witnesses who may be admitted to the 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.
More organizations would also be able to refer candidates. Examples of such organizations are the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the Department of National Defence. Currently, referrals are only accepted from law enforcement and international courts or tribunals.
The RCMP has administered the witness protection program for the last 15 years, during which time it has gained significant experience and insight into factors that make for a successful witness protection program. Bill C-51 would build on this experience and address a number of operational issues that the RCMP has experienced.
For example, Bill C-51 would clarify the process for voluntary termination from the federal program. It would also extend the amount of time emergency protection might be provided to candidates being considered for admission into the federal program. Emergency protection would be increased from the current 90 days to a maximum of 180 days.
In addition to these changes proposed by Bill C-51, the RCMP is currently taking measures to enhance the federal witness protection program, including incorporating psychological assessments of candidates and counselling for protectees and their families, incorporating risk-management principles into the admission process, enhancing training for witness handlers and administrators, creating a database that would better inform program design and, lastly, offering the services of legal counsel to all candidates being considered for admission into the federal program.
The RCMP would also continue to use the existing seven criteria outlined in the act to assess whether to admit an individual into the program, including the risk to the witness, the danger to the community if the person were to be admitted into the program, the nature of the inquiry and the importance of the witness in the matter, the value of information and evidence to be given by a witness, the likelihood that the witness can adjust to the program, the cost of maintaining a witness in the program, alternate methods of protection and other factors deemed by the commissioner to be relevant.
Our government has been quite clear that one of our top priorities is to keep our streets and communities safe and to support families, as outlined by the Prime Minister. Our plan involves tackling crime, supporting victims' rights and promoting a fair and efficient justice system.
Today, our government builds on the success of the last seven years and would provide the RCMP with the tools it needs to do its job more effectively.
This and other legislation would ensure that we have a fully accountable national police force that will continue to fulfill its role to protect Canadians here at home and abroad.
For that reason, I urge all members to support this legislation and work toward ensuring it is passed in an expeditious manner.
Marc Garneau Liberal Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, this does not happen very often, but we are talking about a bill to which all of the parties are in agreement. We did not make any changes in committee, yet we are spending five hours tonight discussing something with which we are all in agreement.
I am having a bout of déjà vu because I think I heard exactly this speech earlier today from the member for Crowfoot. It seemed almost identical to the one the member for Crowfoot gave.
The five hours tonight cost $50,000 an hour in overtime, in one day, which could help us hire 80 summer students.
Let us use the money intelligently and debate the real issues and move on to Bill C-56, which is next on the agenda.
Patrick Brown Conservative Barrie, ON
Mr. Speaker, if the member is not interested in the debates of Parliament, he can certainly leave. I know it is typical for the Liberal caucus to not show up for debates or votes. If he wants to continue that practice, he is welcome to leave.
However, I think we should encourage discussion on weighty matters like this and encourage debate. Certainly, that is one of the real values of our Parliament. To say it is not important or relevant to have a thorough discussion on public safety and supporting the needs of the RCMP is inappropriate. It goes to show that the Liberals have been consistent in not supporting the justice agenda to make sure Canadians are safe. This pattern of showing no interest in law and order is one of the reasons they continue to be defeated at the polls by Canadians.
Anne-Marie Day NDP Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member a question about funding.
Last year, 30 of the 108 candidates received funding. Ninety-nine of them were not funded. All this cost $9 million. Members will admit that this is still quite costly.
Now the program is to be extended to gangs. The reasoning is that there is a real need to take action and tackle crime. We support the bill.
How will the process be carried out? What about the 99 candidates who were not granted protection? How are certain candidates chosen over others? Will it be based on the financial implications associated with their actions as witnesses? Will people be treated fairly and equitably when there are witnesses? If dealing with terrorism, for example, will the process be based on the incident? What are the criteria?
Patrick Brown Conservative Barrie, ON
Mr. Speaker, obviously it will be left to the experts to decide, based on the seven criteria, how many of the potential witnesses would be put into this program. I would note that Tom Stamatakis, the president of the Canadian Police Association, when it came to cost said that it is obviously important, but he said that this would “...deliver the best possible community protection at a reasonable cost to the Canadian taxpayer”.
I think that is why we have seen the RCMP and the Canadian Police Association express the importance of this legislation because it is reasonable and the costs are manageable, but fundamentally what is important is the safety of Canadians, and this would enhance that.
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for Barrie who was on a team tonight that went out and played hockey against the media and beat the media, six to four. Now he has come back to this place at 11 o'clock to give an outstanding speech on this bill.
An hon. member
How many goals did he score?
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Is that my question? How many goals did he score? No.
Mr. Speaker, Bill Blair, the chief of the Toronto Police Service, stated:
In Toronto, we have seen the fear caused by intimidation and the threat of retaliation in gang investigations. Witnesses with valuable information are deterred from coming forward. We support the government's initiative as a valuable step in protecting public safety.
Could the member for Barrie elaborate on that statement?
Patrick Brown Conservative Barrie, ON
Mr. Speaker, yes, this bill certainly would do a lot to enhance safety in our communities.
I would note, on the member's first question, that the teamwork in the Conservative caucus and the great work from the member for Brampton West in back-checking helped ensure that we held the day against the media. We were very pleased to work together on a hockey rink, just as we do in Parliament to ensure the best interests of Canadians are accounted for.
Pierre Dionne Labelle NDP Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House to speak about a bill that is dear to my heart, and that is Bill C-51.
The NDP has said that it will support this bill. Why? For various reasons. First, the bill broadens the eligibility criteria for the witness protection program to include witnesses recommended by the Department of National Defence. It will also extend the period of emergency protection and clear up some of the technical problems that were occurring in relation to coordination with provincial programs. It has been said many times in the past several hours that the program will likely generate additional costs. The members opposite do not seem to believe that. Time will tell.
When it comes to witness protection, in Quebec in particular, there have been clear examples in recent years of why it is absolutely necessary to have witnesses to help target and stop criminal groups. Many police operations would have failed miserably had it not been for the co-operation of informants. Take for example, Opération SharQc, which resulted in the arrest of 115 Hells Angels, thanks to the help of an informant and the protection he was offered by the police. In Quebec, the Sûreté du Québec protects witnesses.
There have also been other arrests, such as those of all of “Mom” Boucher's Nomads, a chapter of Hells Angels. Once again, an informant, “Godasse” Gagné, worked with the police.
Clearly, the witness protection program covers a wide variety of activities. When it comes to terrorism, there is a certain type of witness that needs to be protected. When it comes to organized crime and street gangs, we are not talking about some poor innocent witness. It is important to be clear on that. These are not choirboys. They are people with rap sheets longer than the government's mammoth bill.
Although these witness protection programs have been very effective recently in the fight against organized crime, there have also been some abuses, things the public felt should not have been done. Informant witnesses, under the protection of the police and the government, received large sums of money for their co-operation. Of course, giving up 115 notorious criminals for arrest has its price. One witness was given $3 million. The public saw this as an abuse. There have also been witnesses who received new identities and then went out and committed crimes a few years later. That happened in Quebec, and the public is not okay with those types of abuses.
I would like to point out that the witness protection program is managed by police forces. We know nothing of the agreements between the police and witnesses. The rules are not clear, and there is no transparency.
Tonight, there has been a lot of talk about the need for transparency with these kinds of agreements. Based on what I know about how the program is administered, I can say that, in Quebec, there was no transparency. There was so little transparency that there were abuses involving the public as well as reformed and protected witnesses. They challenged their agreements with police, to the point where they formed an association, the Association des témoins spéciaux du Québec. That shows just how bad things got. These protected witnesses sued the Quebec government for $6 million for breach of contract.
What I am trying to say is that transparency is an issue.
There has been support for the improvements made to the bill. There is support for the fact that Bill C-51 expands the witness protection program to include criminals involved in street gangs. I think that is key to eventually eliminating that scourge.
Members have also said that this bill assumes that the funding currently allocated to the RCMP is sufficient. We do not feel that is the case. In addition, the bill unfortunately does not follow through on the recommendation to create an independent organization to oversee all of the witness protection programs.
It is important to understand that when a police force is dealing with a witness from organized crime who made the first step to access this type of program, there is no proper balance of power between the police and the criminal. A lot of pressure and responsibility is put on the commissioner. The new statute, especially clause 12, indicates that the commissioner must protect the witness' identity, but may also disclose the witness' identity if the commissioner deems it appropriate to do so. In fact, the commissioner becomes judge and master of this program. We know that sometimes he is put in a position of being judge and jury. It does not serve the justice system well for police forces to be judge and jury. We often see this when police forces investigate other police forces. This does not necessarily produce the best results.
An independent agency made up of specialists that are completely independent from the police forces could manage this program effectively, have clear criteria and agreements that are respected and deemed appropriate by the public. When we negotiate agreements with criminals, we must remember that we represent public ethics and power and that we cannot negotiate any old thing. I would say that in this type of program, it is a bit like shaking hands with the devil. We have to be careful. I am not the only one who prefers to have this safeguard in the bill.
I would like to quote from a letter sent to the Minister of Public Safety from the Barreau du Québec.
Under clause 12, the commissioner may disclose confidential information if the protected person consents to the disclosure or has previously made such a disclosure or acted in a manner that results in such a disclosure.
We can agree that if a criminal under witness protection wants to terminate his protection, it is up to him.
Furthermore, the commissioner could disclose that confidential information if he has reasonable grounds to believe that the disclosure is essential for the purposes of the administration of justice; this could be necessary in the context of investigating a serious offence if there is reason to believe that the protected person can provide material information or evidence in relation to, or has been involved in the commission of, the offence; preventing the commission of a serious offence; or finally, establishing the innocence of a person...
The commissioner can lift a witness's protection for about a dozen reasons. This is a very serious decision. This disclosure could put the commissioner in a conflict of interest.
As we have also seen, it is not the role of the commissioner to act as judge and jury. The committee recognizes the importance of this issue, but does not feel it compiled enough information to be able to make an informed decision. In its final report, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security recommended the establishment of an independent body to administer and manage the federal witness protection program.
Furthermore, in the report that followed the Air India tragedy, the commission recommended the creation of an independent body, specifically, a national security witness protection coordinator.
I agree with those recommendations. It would have been better if this bill had included a provision to create an independent body to oversee Canada's witness protection program.
Pierre Jacob NDP Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for giving us one of his typically passionate speeches.
I would like to quote Clayton Pecknold, assistant deputy minister and director, Police Services, Policing and Security Programs Branch, British Columbia Ministry of Justice. He appeared before the committee on March 19, 2013, and said:
It's important from my perspective that the program be adequately funded and effectively and efficiently administered. The cost of major investigations is a concern to municipalities. As a consequence, whether it's the cost of actually conducting the extraordinary investigative measures that are necessary or managing the file from a witness protection or witness management perspective, it will indeed be a concern for municipalities.
What does my colleague think about that statement?
Pierre Dionne Labelle NDP Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Mr. Speaker, I will not repeat what has been said all evening.
The NDP is of the same mind as some of the police chiefs and police associations that testified in committee, and it shares some of the concerns expressed by municipal officials. Transferring the cost of a program to other levels of government is a fairly common occurrence with Conservative bills. Conservative bills often result in increased pressure on provincial budgets. In the case of employment insurance, the effect is obvious: people who exhaust their benefits will turn to welfare, which is a provincial program. Therefore, the province will absorb these costs.
In the case of prisons, the provinces will have to build more of them to enforce the government's proposed law and order regulations. That will also result in additional costs that will have to be borne by the municipalities. It is crystal clear.
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Mr. Speaker, this topic of underfunding has been surfacing all night.
The members from the opposition have said that it is underfunded, and they have given all these quotes from provincial organizations. However, I have not heard any quotes from federal organizations. We on this side have said that from a federal perspective this program is funded and it is going to make good law.
Does the member have any facts from federal organizations that say this program is not adequately funded?
Pierre Dionne Labelle NDP Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Mr. Speaker, having worked for a long time with municipalities, I know the situation in Quebec, and I imagine that the situation of municipalities elsewhere in Canada is no different.
Municipal funding is a major challenge because infrastructure is crumbling everywhere and money has to be allocated to projects that the municipalities are working on. They have to provide local services for the people. The municipalities are already having a great deal of difficulty covering their expenses, and additional costs will only make things more difficult for them. I believe that if the federal government introduces bills, it must follow up with the money.
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech and I must say that I did not learn anything new, because that same speech has been repeated over and over by NDP members, much like Conservative Party members repeat their speeches.
I have a simple question. In the last five hours, we have spent about $250,000 in additional costs to hold this debate in the House tonight instead of continuing to study other bills. That kind of money could buy 30 insulin pumps for people with diabetes.
Could the member tell the Canadians watching at home how the two parties debating this issue justify spending this money?
Pierre Dionne Labelle NDP Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Mr. Speaker, I have an answer for that. Members of Parliament are paid to be here. This is not additional spending.
Witness protection is very important. Do they remember Ma Chouette, the anonymous witness who spoke out about the sponsorship scandal? They always wanted to find out who that was. It is important to protect witnesses.
Kyle Seeback Conservative Brampton West, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be here to debate the bill, unlike my colleagues way over there in the far corner. They want to go home, but that is not new. That is what they want to do all the time. We want to be here. We want to debate this legislation. Those members say they support this legislation, that they agree with it, but they want to go home. They want to go home because they support it.
I am very happy that they support this legislation, because this is pretty new. This is quasi-judicial. This is quasi-criminal justice reform. It is almost a justice bill—
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
The Speaker Andrew Scheer
Order. There are some members who wish to carry on conversations far away from each other. I would suggest they sit near each other and have a closer conversation so it does not distract the hon. member for Brampton West.
Kyle Seeback Conservative Brampton West, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have to say I am pleased the members opposite are going to support our criminal justice reform bill, because that certainly has not been their record in this Parliament. Just the other night they voted against amendments to the not criminally responsible legislation. They did not even want it to go to committee. They voted against it at second reading.
I can understand if they want to vote against it, but they do not even want it to go to committee and be studied. They voted against substantive, well needed reforms in the not criminally responsible legislation. They voted against the Safe Streets and Communities Act, broad sweeping legislation to protect our communities, protect families and protect Canadians. They voted against it, so I am very pleased that they are now indicating they are in support of this legislation. I guess I will grudgingly thank them for that.
Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act is another piece of legislation we are bringing forward to, again, try to make our communities safer. That is something that we, on the Conservative side of the House, think is very important. We think strong communities are safe communities. That might not be the position of the party in the corner.
I understand, as well, there is great support for this legislation. It has support both here in the House and at committee and from stakeholders across the country. This is an issue that should not be partisan, despite the continued catcalls and heckling from the third party in the corner.
Protecting witnesses is a vital component of the justice system. We have to have witnesses who feel they are able to come forward and testify. Why is that? That is because we cannot always just rely on other forms of physical evidence. In many circumstances, when trying to get a conviction, especially in cases of organized crime, we are going to need a witness to come forward. When those witnesses do come forward, they can put themselves at great risk, in some in circumstances. That is why we have to be able to make sure they are going to be safe, because of the broader goal of making sure our communities are safe.
Oftentimes these people may have been involved in organized crime, so they know the insides of what is going on in organized crime. It takes a great, brave person to come forward and testify. We want to help that. We want to make sure they are going to be safe.
There are important updates that we are bringing forward in this legislation, updates to the Witness Protection Program Act, which first came into force in 1996, so it is time to make some amendments and some changes. It would strengthen the protection of witnesses and those who protect them. These recommendations put forward in the legislation have come about as a result of broad consultations, both with law enforcement agencies and with the provinces, and also as a result of reports such as the 2008 report by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security and the report of the 2010 Commission of Inquiry into the Investigation of the Bombing of Air India Flight 182.
I want to talk about a couple of things that are contained within the legislation. I only have 10 minutes. I am not going to be able to cover the entire bill, but I want to highlight a few things that are quite important. First of all, there are five provinces in Canada that have their own similar protection programs: Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.
One of the things this legislation would do is ensure greater efficiencies between the two systems, the federal system and the provincial system. In a case where it is determined that the protectees require security changes, they have to be transferred to the federal program. We have learned from our provincial counterparts that this can be a time-consuming process and not necessarily an efficient process.
One of the key ingredients in this legislation would be greater integration. This greater integration would be between the federal and provincial programs by enabling the provinces to have their respective program designated under the federal act. This designation, authorized by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Minister of Public Safety, would permit the RCMP to work directly with a designated provincial program to obtain and secure federal identity documents for a protectee.
However, it would not stop there. It also would provide help for the RCMP. Under Bill C-51, federal organizations would be required to help the RCMP obtain federal documents required for secure identity changes for witnesses both in the federal program and, of course, in the designated provincial programs I was just describing and talking about. The RCMP would continue to act as a liaison between the federal and provincial programs. This would make sure we have a much more streamlined approach, which is another important aspect.
We would also broaden prohibition disclosures, ensuring the protection of provincial witnesses at both the federal and provincial levels. The amendments would address the call from the provinces to ensure that the witnesses in the programs are protected from disclosure of prohibited information throughout Canada.
The safer witnesses act would broaden the prohibition on disclosing information in several ways. First, it would prohibit the disclosure of information related to individuals who are protected under the federal and designated provincial programs.
Second, it would prohibit the disclosure of any means or method of protection that could endanger the protected individuals or the integrity of the programs themselves. Again, this goes back to making sure we would have witnesses who felt safe and were able to come forward and provide important testimony in important matters that were before the courts, which would help keep our communities safer. This of course would include information about the methods used to provide or support protection and to record or exchange confidential information, as well as data about the location of secure facilities.
Third, it would prohibit the disclosure of any information about the identity or roles of persons who provide or assist in providing protection to the witnesses. That is, of course, providing protection to those who are protecting witnesses, which is an important enhancement as well.
A fourth proposal under Bill C-51 seeks to expand the list of entities that are able to refer individuals to the commissioner of the RCMP for consideration for admission into the federal program. What many of us do not know is that at present, only law enforcement agencies and international criminal tribunals can make these referrals. We would expand the program as well, which would ensure that more witnesses would feel safe and would be able to come forward to give that valuable testimony. Bill C-51 would expand this list to include federal organizations that have a mandate related to national security, defence or public safety, so they could refer witnesses to the federal program. This would include organizations such as the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.
Fifth, the safer witnesses act would provide other measures that would allow for voluntary termination from the federal program and extend emergency protection to a maximum of 180 days. That would double the previous limit, which was 90 days. Both of these improvements should address some of the concerns that have been raised by both federal and provincial stakeholders.
This is a practical and comprehensive piece of legislation that would make significant improvements and changes. Collectively, all these amendments would strengthen the current Witness Protection Program Act, making the entire program more secure, more streamlined and better for those who need protection and for those who provide that protection. Provincial programs are integral to Canada's witness protection network, and we are pleased to address many of those concerns in this legislation. It has received a great response in the House, for which we are thankful.
In summary, I would encourage all members to support this legislation. I think we do have support for the legislation. We have raised important issues in the debate tonight. We have certainly heard lots of productive questions from the members of the NDP, asking about certain issues with the program. That is the purpose of debate and that is why we are here.
I am pleased to stand and support this piece of legislation.
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his contribution to the debate. I agree with him. It would open up the program and ensure there would be more witnesses protected under the program. That is why we support it.
It would be done by expanding the criteria to national security and national defence or other public safety agencies that could refer witnesses to the program and by expanding it to include youth gang members. We are anticipating growth in this program.
However, as early as 2007, it was identified that there were inadequate resources available. Why are we standing pat on that and whistling past the graveyard, as I call it, with respect to the need for funding? We are hearing time and again from members from his party that there is no need for any new money, yet we are talking about expanding the program, doubling it from 90 to 180 days. Where is the connection?
Kyle Seeback Conservative Brampton West, ON
Mr. Speaker, I can say one thing. Bill C-42, an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, added approximately $10 million to the RCMP. There are additional funds flowing to the RCMP on a global scale. We will certainly have to take a look at how the program operates in the future to make sure there are proper resources. The important thing about the legislation is the efficacy of it and what it would do to protect witnesses. I am pleased to have the support of the NDP on this particular piece of legislation.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, people have been beating up a bit on the member for Ottawa South for suggesting we were wasting time and money debating. Nothing is ever a complete waste. There is always some benefit in having debate, even though we all agree that Bill C-51 should pass and we all support the protection of witnesses.
I want to clarify for the member for Brampton West that my own reasons for raising this earlier tonight had nothing to do with wanting to go home, but rather with wanting to have a chance to debate the bills about which we do not agree, such as the omnibus budget bill, Bill C-60, for which we have never had an adequate opportunity to even touch on its various sections. I thought I might clarify that for him.
I completely support this bill. I appreciate that the Conservative majority has brought it forward and I look forward to voting for it and stopping the debates that continue until midnight in this place on matters of which I have no understanding why they are still subject to debate.
Kyle Seeback Conservative Brampton West, ON
I am still trying to find the question, Mr. Speaker. It seems like—
Kyle Seeback Conservative Brampton West, ON
Yes, absolutely, it was a comment. That is the wonderful thing about this place. The member might think that a certain piece of legislation is important to debate, and we might think this is an important piece of legislation to debate. It takes a multitude of people to constitute the House. We are happy to debate this bill; other members might not be happy. That is fine; that is democracy.
Stella Ambler Conservative Mississauga South, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member for Brampton West. I am wondering if he knows of any outside organizations that are supportive of these amendments and if he could tell us what some of the third party stakeholders and organizations have said about these changes.
Kyle Seeback Conservative Brampton West, ON
Mr. Speaker, of course I thank the member for Mississauga South for the question. She is a hard-working member of Parliament.
I will say that many people are supportive of this legislation. I would be doing a disservice to them if I named one and did not name them all. Dozens of organizations support this bill. It received great support at committee. Quite frankly, it is another piece of legislation that is part of the great number of pieces of legislation that this government has brought forward to try to make our streets and communities safer. It is another important tool that we would use to accomplish that goal.
There is a great team on that side of the House, which I am part of, even though I am over here. We make a great team, much like the great team that defeated the parliamentary press gallery in hockey tonight, six to four.
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak about Bill C-51, critical legislation that would ensure our government can continue its work to keep Canadians safe and our communities secure.
Since taking power some seven years ago, our government has been clear. We would move forward with a robust agenda that would lead to safer streets and communities.
We said that we would be a government of action. That is exactly what we are. We have backed up our pledge to Canadians with concrete measures.
For example, we said we would introduce legislation that would bring criminals to justice and would crack down on violent gun crime. We have done this. We have passed into law measures that ensure a label of first degree murder is automatically applied in cases of murders connected to organized crime.
We have brought in legislation that tackles the terrible and violent tragedy of drive-by shootings and other intentional shootings, crimes that involve the reckless disregard for life and safety of others. We have done this while further protecting police and peace officers.
We have passed legislation to eliminate the two-for-one credit that was previously applied to time served and pre-sentence custody.
Thanks to measures passed in the House, those who are found guilty of a crime must now serve the full sentence that truly reflects the severity of the crime.
We have also passed legislation to strengthen the national sex offender registry and to end the practice of automatic accelerated parole for white-collar offenders.
Most notably, our government passed into law the Safer Streets and Communities Act, a comprehensive bill that was a strong stepped forward in helping reduce crime and standing up for victims. It included a wide range of significant law and order issues that extended greater protections to the most vulnerable members of society, as well as victims of terrorism, that further enhanced the ability of our justice system to hold criminals accountable for their actions and that improved the safety and security of all Canadians.
Through this law, we now have laws that better protect children and youth from sexual predators that increase penalties for organized drug crime, end house arrest for serious crimes, protect the public from violent young offenders, eliminate pardons for serious crimes, enshrine in law a number of additional key factors in deciding whether an offender would be granted a transfer back to Canada, increase offender accountability and support victims of crime, support victims of terrorism and protect vulnerable foreign nationals against abuse and exploitation.
Our government has done a lot to help prevent crimes. We have done this by increasing our spending on grants and contribution funds for crime prevention programs.
In 2011 alone, our government funded 138 community-based crime prevention programs through the national crime prevention strategy in which nearly 16,000 at-risk youth participated.
We have also provided an investment of $7.5 million annually to review the youth gang prevention fund, which is helping youth make smart choices and avoid violence and gang-related activities.
Our government also said that we would support our police forces, that we would give them the tools they needed to do their jobs and that we would work toward enhancing the RCMP. Again, we have delivered on this commitment.
Last year, our government was proud to announce that we had reached agreements to renew 20-year policing service agreements with all the provincial and territorial governments policed by the RCMP.
We are also working hard to pass the enhancing RCMP accountability act, which would improve civilian oversight and modernize the HR management of our federal law enforcement agency.
The legislation before us, Bill C-51, would be just one more tool in our tool box to help us fulfill our commitment to Canadians to build safe communities and to protect those who were willing to help bring criminals to justice.
As we have heard, the Witness Protection Program Act has been in place for 17 years. We feel very strongly that now is the time to modernize and update this current legislation. The act was created to ensure a consistent and accountable system of federal witness protection. If we are to continue to protect Canadians who step forward to help law enforcement officials prosecute criminal acts, we must ensure we ease the process and expedite how we protect them.
Our justice system depends upon ensuring that we can keep witnesses safe and protected. It is vital that those who do come forward to make our communities safer are provided protection from terrorists, organized crime or other threats.
In keeping with our government's strong track record of fighting crime and providing safer communities for all Canadians, the Witness Protection Program Act is a prime area where we can continue to deliver our pledge to Canadians.
The changes proposed under Bill C-51 are a result of many years of thoughtful consideration and expert consultation. Our government has consulted with and listened to concerns of our federal, provincial, territorial and municipal partners, as well as law enforcement agencies
Our government has also considered reports such as the 2008 study of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security as well as the recommendations coming out of the 2010 Commission of Inquiry into the Investigation of the Bombing of Air India Flight 182.
The safer witnesses act would allow key witnesses or individuals formerly involved with criminal organizations who now wish to co-operate with law enforcement to receive, if necessary, secure identity changes more quickly and easily.
I also think it is important to clarify that the federal witness protection program is not a program to which individuals apply. Rather, individuals are referred to the program by law enforcement upon referral. A number of criteria outlined in the act are considered in determining if an individual would qualify or benefit from this program.
Bill C-51 would ensure better protection for those individuals the program is designed to help. It would do this by enhancing the program and providing a better service to other witness protection programs. It would also strengthen the current prohibitions against disclosure of information concerning individuals in the federal witness protection program. It would extend these prohibitions to individuals in designated provincial witness programs as well as to those responsible for administering federal and designated witness protection programs. It would also expand admission for national security, national defence and public safety referrals.
By extending this program to these categories of witnesses, we would also fulfill one of the commitments under the Government of Canada's Air India action plan, released in 2010.
In summary, the Witness Protection Program Act has not been substantially changed since it first came into force, despite the constant changing nature of organized crime and calls for the program's reform. The safer witnesses act would help strengthen the current federal program, which is vital to effectively combat crime, particularly organized crime.
Today we call on all members to support this critical piece of legislation.
Anne-Marie Day NDP Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment to the Liberals.
One of their members took the time to repeatedly talk about a small plastic plane, but he was at the wrong place. If they want to talk about wasting time, then we have come full circle.
In 1996, the Witness Protection Program Act designated the RCMP commissioner the program's administrator.
Is the RCMP commissioner still responsible for administering the program? If so, how does he connect with the provinces, who have their own police forces, since their laws are different and they have their own witness protection programs?
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Mr. Speaker, some provinces would administer their own program. There would be some federal jurisdiction program administration plus some municipalities that would also administer their programs.
Let me tell members what people in my riding of Prince Albert in the province of Saskatchewan are saying. In fact, I will quote Gordon Wyant, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Saskatchewan. He said:
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 as yet another step in making our communities safer
This is what is happening in Saskatchewan and what they are saying there. They back this piece of legislation, and that is just another reason everybody else in this House should also back it.
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Mr. Speaker, we have been going back forth. I would just reiterate that the Liberal Party is in favour of the bill. We do not see too many problems and believe that it is a tool that belongs in the tool box.
My colleague had a good speech, but it was lacking in detail. I have a very simple question. This program would have some flexibility. How would that make our streets safer? I believe the member kept mentioning that our streets are going to be safer. Exactly how is that going to happen?
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Mr. Speaker, if one is a witness to a crime, one would be looking at the scenarios of what to do and what was the best option. Before this piece of legislation, a witness may have felt that there would be too much danger to his or her personal security and would not come forward. However, after this piece of legislation is passed, I think a witness may feel that the right thing is to come forward and that at his or her personal safety would be secured and taken into account. The witness would hopefully come forward and present the evidence needed to convict an organized crime member or a person who committed a criminal act.
Philip Toone NDP Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for a very interesting speech. He raised a number of points that deserve special consideration.
I would like to come back to the issue of funding, because a number of government members mentioned that, while the committee was studying this bill, the vast majority of witnesses supported the government's view that additional funding is not necessary.
That is not surprising, given that the committee has a Conservative majority. The majority of witnesses endorse the opinion of the majority of the committee's members. It is not very surprising that this opinion was aired many times in committee. That said, a number of witnesses also raised the fact that funding could pose a problem for municipalities.
In the United States, there is often talk of unfunded mandates. That is somewhat similar to what we are seeing here. We want to improve the system, but it will cost a lot to do so. We want to increase the number of witnesses that can access the program. Clearly, there will be significant costs associated with that.
I really want to understand how the government intends to fund this program, instead of always trying to offload the costs to the provinces and municipalities. Will the government take financial responsibility for its own bills?
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Mr. Speaker, it does not matter who we ask. If we ask an open-ended question, saying, “do you need more funding?”, it will always be yes. We can always use more funding, it does not matter who we ask.
If I asked my son if he needed more money to go to university, the first answer would be “Yes, I need more money to go university, Dad”, whether he needs it or not.
Let me talk about what Todd G. Shean, the assistant commissioner, federal and international operations of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, had to say:
—with the changes this bill brings about, the RCMP is comfortable that we have the resources within our existing resources to run an effective witness protection program.
The witnesses who came forward in committee were very clear. They liked this legislation and felt they could work within the confines of it.
Dan Harris NDP Scarborough Southwest, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his remarks. However, I would like to refute the last statement he made in regard to people always saying they need more money. Time and again tonight, we have heard Conservative members talk about how the officials from the RCMP said they did not need more financing.
I am rising this evening, like everyone else, to speak to Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act. The NDP supports Bill C-51, as it attempts to improve the witness protection program. However, we still have concerns about this bill. We are concerned that the Conservative government has refused to commit any new funding to the system. We are concerned that the Conservatives' requirement that the RCMP and local police departments work within their existing budgets would hinder the potential improvement of the program.
This situation is similar to other legislation we have seen before this House lately; namely, the Conservative government bringing forward legislation that would only partially fix a problem. Why are the Conservatives unwilling or unable to find the courage and political will to develop legislation to the point where it would actually be as effective as it could be? Once again, I find myself supporting legislation that is a half measure. It would in fact help, but would not fully resolve a problem that the government could be resolving.
Another shortcoming of the bill is that it does not include provisions for an independent agency to operate the program as recommended in the Air India inquiry report. The RCMP would continue to be responsible for the program, and this would leave the RCMP in a potential conflict of interest, being the agency both investigating the case and deciding who gets protection.
The federal witness protection program has long been criticized for its narrow eligibility criteria, poor coordination with provincial programs and low number of witnesses actually admitted to the program. Only 30 out of 108 applications considered were accepted in 2012. The blame for that has to go to the original authors of the bill, which would be the previous Liberal government members.
Since the Witness Protection Program Act passed in 1996, the Liberal and Conservative governments have done little to respond to the criticisms of the system. Some bills have been presented in the House of Commons to address small components of the protection program. As an example, Bill C-223 from a Reform member of Parliament in 1999 regarding witness protection in cases of domestic violence, was supported by the NDP and was defeated by the then-Liberal government.
The overarching issues of eligibility, coordination and funding have not yet been addressed. The New Democrats are on record as repeatedly asking the Conservatives to address the three key issues in the witness protection program: expanded criteria eligibility, co-operation with provinces and adequate funding.
In November 2012, the NDP member of Parliament for Trinity—Spadina called for more support for the federal witness protection program, pointing to the difficulty Toronto police faced in convincing witnesses to this past summer's mass shooting at a block party on Danzig Street in Scarborough to come forward. The Danzig shooting is just one of many examples I could point to where witnesses have been reluctant to step forward due to concerns for their own safety.
Bill C-51 proposes a better process to support provincial witness protection programs and would expand the program to other agencies with national security responsibilities. Bill C-51 would expand the eligibility criteria of the witness protection program to include various requests from the RCMP, such as including youth gang members by covering a new group of people who would give assistance to federal departments. Federal departments and agencies with a mandate relating to national security, national defence or public safety would also be able to refer witnesses to this program. It would also extend the period for emergency protection and clear up some technical problems in coordinating with provincial programs.
Provinces such as Ontario and Alberta have been pushing for a national revamp of the witness protection program, including more recognition of their existing programs. Bill C-51 would provide for the designation of a provincial or municipal witness protection program so that certain provisions of the act would apply to such a program. It also would authorize the Commissioner of the RCMP to coordinate at the request of an official of a designated provincial or municipal program the activities of federal departments, agencies and services in order to facilitate a change of identity for persons admitted to the designated program.
Bill C-51 includes enough improvements to warrant our support through third reading, though concerns about funding have been reiterated multiple times in committee and over and over again tonight, and there are still no answers from the government.
Expanding eligibility for the witness protection program is a generally popular policy. Those working to combat youth gangs feel allowing those seeking to leave gangs access to the program would be an important addition to the tools they need. This issue retains a high profile in the South Asian community due to the attacks on witnesses during the Air India inquiry, where witnesses were not eligible for the program as it currently excludes witnesses in national security cases.
The provinces have long been calling for better coordination between federal and provincial programs. Now, of course, in terms of coordination between federal and provincial programs, we know that is a weakness of the current government, when we look at the Prime Minister who has refused to meet with the first ministers as a group over the seven years the Conservatives have been in power.
We are also disappointed that the bill did not include more recommendations from the Air India inquiry, such as a more transparent and accountable process for admissions into the program. Even the government itself identified this as a serious problem, and yet it failed to address it in the bill.
Overall, Bill C-51 is a positive step, but unfortunately we do not see the Conservatives providing the resources to make it really count for communities. We want to see them provide local police departments with the support necessary to make sure witnesses come forward in gang situations, for example. The Conservative government is not acknowledging the high cost borne by local police departments. There are also provincial witness protection programs, but if the crime is federal in nature or involves drugs, the RCMP take over and then charges local police departments the full cost, something many local departments cannot afford, particularly in small communities.
The RCMP's own website states, “There are instances when the costs of witness protection may impede investigations, particularly for smaller law enforcement agencies”. I have not heard one member of the government speak to that issue here tonight.
While the NDP has been calling for changes to the witness protection program since 2007, it is just now that the Conservative government is responding to our concerns, as well as many stakeholder concerns.
The NDP would like to believe the Conservative government is committed to improving the witness protection program but without the necessary funding for the RCMP to carry out these changes, we fear the improvements that are needed will not necessarily materialize.
Speaking of resourcing, several witnesses and the RCMP at committee said that they in fact do believe that they have the resources to take care of their share of the burden. However, as I mentioned previously in my speech, local law enforcement agencies and provincial law enforcement agencies are going to end up bearing many of the costs that are associated with changes in the witness protection program.
We have seen this kind of approach time and time again with the Conservatives' crime agenda. They make changes to legislation that are going to impact provincial and municipal budgets without providing any of the funding to absorb the costs. What ends up happening is an insidious form of downloading. Instead of the costs of the federal changes being borne by the federal government, they end up being borne by the provinces and municipalities, which are already straining to a much greater extent than the federal government is.
It is very unfortunate to see this kind of approach continuing. Back in the 1990s, the Liberal government downloaded billions of dollars on the provinces, and then the provinces, like mine of Ontario where we had the Mike Harris government, proceeded to download provincial costs, like social services and welfare programs, onto municipalities without actually giving them the funds to address the issues.
It is sad to see here in 2013 that we are in fact seeing the same kinds of things happening.
While the NDP is supporting the bill, once again we are seeing a bill that we do not think addresses all the issues that could be addressed in the bill.
Pierre Jacob NDP Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his very thoughtful and always pertinent speech.
Since the Liberals are saying that this debate is not important, I would like to ask my colleague a question about the criticisms related to eligibility and the lack of funding. This is nothing new.
Why did the Liberals not respond to criticism of the witness protection program when they had the chance a long time ago, namely, when they were in power?
Dan Harris NDP Scarborough Southwest, ON
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question.
Just look at the Liberals' last intervention on this issue. A member from Montreal said that they did not really see any problem with the bill. I have to wonder why they did not see any. We found many problems in the bill. We have to wonder if they did the work or if they are in denial about the fact that any problems could exist in a bill they drafted in the 1990s.
We cannot help but wonder why the Liberals are even here. They do not want to debate the bill. They simply want to complain about the cost and the fact that democracy costs money. We, however, are here to ask questions, to point out the problems in the bill and ensure that Canadians know that not everything is perfect.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend gave an excellent review on Bill C-51. From what I can see, the House is unanimous in planning to pass the bill. However, it is important to point out where we could, without a doubt, see a lack of adequate resources.
I have been surprised to see cuts to Canada Border Services Agency, when we need law enforcement agents there. I have been surprised to see RCMP officers pulled out of airports, such as the one in my riding, which is called the Victoria International Airport,but is actually in Sidney, B.C.
Does the hon. member have any proposals for how we can continue to press for the resources that will be needed to ensure that the witnesses in this program are kept safe?
Dan Harris NDP Scarborough Southwest, ON
Mr. Speaker, I addressed these issues before when I spoke about such things as ensuring that there were additional resources for witness protection provided to municipal governments, municipal police forces and provincial agencies to beef-up their witness protection programs. Another was to make a change that when the RCMP took over an investigation or witness protection because the crime involved drugs that it would not pass all the costs on to the municipal or provincial governments, but that it would bear the costs itself or help to pay for them.
Bill C-56, another bill that we will be speaking to soon, would make amendments to copyright and counterfeiting, which brings up border issues as well.
The member quite rightly has said that there have been cuts to the Canada Border Services Agency. We are not doing our neighbours, particularly those to the south, any service when the CBSA is no longer tracking outbound shipments of drugs. That is not helping to make their streets safe. Nor is it making our streets safer because we know that when drugs get exported oftenimes the resources, the money gained from those illicit activities comes back to Canada in the form of other drugs, guns and money that goes to organized crime.
Therefore, we should be stopping that drugs from crossing the border as best we can. Cuts to drug-sniffing dogs and front-line services at the Canada Border Services Agency do not make any sense when we are trying to fight crime.
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to talk about this legislation. It is an interesting scenario indeed when a person can talk about what is important to people, and that, of course, is their life.
Some people have called this legislation different things but I broke it down. It is about someone seeing something, wanting to tell the truth about what was seen, but worrying about one's life or the life of a family member being taken as a result of the truth being told. Often these people are members of criminal organizations and they do not have the greatest character.
When we looked at the necessary amendments, we realized, as the NDP has said, that the Liberals did not get it right. Hopefully we are going to get it right. We had to make some changes to legislation that was not too bad. It was a good first step, but it obviously would not do the job.
I am glad to hear that the NDP and the Liberals both support this particular piece of legislation, but they cannot support anything without voting against it first. I would be surprised if the NDP actually do vote for it. That party cannot support anything without criticizing and I find that rather negative. It is not constructive, especially with respect to this particular piece of legislation.
I certainly think that protecting witnesses With respect to terrorism offences, we must make sure that we protect witnesses so they can speak without worrying about their safety. This is the time the NDP should come forward and say this is a great piece of legislation, but it might have a suggestion. The Speaker would not stand up and criticize something if he did not have a suggestion, but the NDP did. It is hard to believe that those members criticized today on three different points, but they never suggested one amendment to the legislation. The first time the bill came to the House there was not one suggestion. When it went through committee, there were no suggestions, not one amendment.
The NDP has suggested that there is not enough money. To be clear, I am not an expert on it. I was a criminal attorney for some period of time and I had the opportunity to work with people who were involved in situations such as this, although not in an in-depth nature. Police officers will tell us what is on their minds, and they will tell us the truth.
My colleagues keep repeating the same two bits of testimony from experts who came to committee, the first being “With the changes this bill brings about, the RCMP is comfortable that we have the resources within our existing resources to run an effective witness protection program”. Assistant Commissioner Todd G. Shean said, “It's not a question of resources; it's a question of the assessment that's done”.
The House should not take my word for these statements. These experts said there is enough money. Assistant Commissioner Todd G. Shean, federal and international operations, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, is a respected, well-renowned police officer and an expert in international and federal operations. He would know whether there is enough money involved.
When the NDP members come forward and say things like that, they lose credibility. Those members should maybe think about that in the future when they criticize government legislation without having substantive proof of what they are claiming.
That is probably why the NDP is the best at standing against government legislation. That party is against all of our economic action plan bills. It is against the 950,000 net new jobs we have created since the recession. Believe it or not, those members voted against every single action that we have taken as a government because they want to criticize us. They do not want to work as team players. They do not want to work with us to improve Canada's economic condition.
In fact, I am very proud to represent about 150,000 people, 80,000 of whom are directly or indirectly employed by the oil sands. I have seen the oil sands grow over the last 40 to 44 years from a barrel a day to where it is today at over a million barrels. We are looking at somewhere between 3 million and 5 million barrels a day being produced out of that area. Twenty per cent of Canada's exports right now are oil.
The NDP says we need more money, but what does it come up with for suggestions, recommendations or amendments to our legislation? It comes up with zip, zero, nada. New Democrats do that because all they can do is criticize and vote against things.
Speaking of voting against and criticizing, I want to continue on with my story, and it is a true story. Members might not believe it because it does sound like some sort of a fairy tale. Some of the NDP members went down to the United States and protested against the people working in my riding. They protested against Canadian jobs. It is unbelievable. In a time of economic downturn they voted against the people who I work beside, who I represent.
What shocks me the most is that they voted against the jobs of people from their own ridings. We have seen the oil sands produce a large number of jobs for people who work in the forklift manufacturing industry and for a bus manufacturer that is right in the middle of Quebec, for instance, in an NDP riding. They voted against those jobs.
Why did they do so? They did so because they believed, based upon voodoo magic, in my opinion, that somehow oil sands oil creates more GHGs than other forms of oil. That is not the case. When we look at it from start to finish, it is comparable to any other oil in the world, and frankly, it has lower emissions than Venezuelan crude and Californian crude.
Matthew Dubé NDP Chambly—Borduas, QC
Mr. Speaker, since the topic is witness protection, I am wondering about the relevance of oil sands and bus manufacturers in Quebec.
The Acting Speaker Barry Devolin
In terms of the content of the member's speech, obviously, all members are required to be relevant to the matter that is before the House, and I would urge the hon. member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca to do this.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca.
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Mr. Speaker, I was segueing, because as I mentioned, I was a defence attorney in Fort McMurray and I was talking about some of the people I worked with while I was a defence attorney and the fact that the NDP would vote against the jobs those people worked in when I was a defence attorney and dealt with cases such as this in the past.
I know they might not want to hear it and they might want to shut down debate on critical issues such as this. I know they do not want their constituents to find out they went down to Washington and joined in with some people down there to, frankly, protest Canadian jobs. I know they do not want us to talk about that.
However, as a result of the oil sands and what we are producing there, in a very environmentally sustainable way, we have accomplished the best banking system in the world. We have the best economy in the G8 and the G20. We are looking great as a country right now, not only because our laws are fantastic. The Conservative government has brought in some great laws that are tough on criminals, that do not stand up for victims, as does the NDP. I was on the justice committee for a long period of time and I saw time and time again that the NDP members would stand up and vote against our legislation to be tough on criminals.
The NDP uses the excuse that there is not enough money, but we have heard differently. I read two quotes today from a very reputable person with the RCMP that it does not need any more money. They talked a bit about and criticized the admissibility part and that there were not enough people being admitted. Well, we dealt with that in the legislation.
The truth is that the NDP members want to change the channel from what is happening: the NDP speaking against the economy and costing Canadians jobs. We are going to keep Canadians safe, as we would with this legislation, and we are going to continue to make sure the economy grows strong and stays strong.
Matthew Dubé NDP Chambly—Borduas, QC
Mr. Speaker, my colleague was talking about the fact that the RCMP claimed to have enough money.
This is all well and good, but in the end, we heard local, municipal and provincial police forces express concern about the lack of funding to handle the growing demand for witness protection.
What does the hon. member think of the witnesses who expressed these concerns? The RCMP might be doing just fine, but the provinces and municipalities also have to be taken into account. This is where real leadership comes in.
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Mr. Speaker, the member is right that it is true leadership. That is why, when the Federation of Canadian Municipalities identified $123 billion in infrastructure investments that were necessary in this country, this federal government responded immediately. We responded with $45 billion of economic investment, along with our partners in the provincial and territorial governments and the municipalities. We doubled the gas tax and made it permanent. Now it increases every few years automatically. The NDP voted against all of those actions, every single one of them, and not just one budget, not just two, but far more. It will continue to vote against all the great measures we bring forward, and it is shameful. I wish New Democrats would stop doing that.
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC
Mr. Speaker, what the members opposite keep talking about is funding for municipal and provincial programs. I want to remind the member that places such as British Columbia do not choose to have those kinds of programs. If the federal government starts giving money to certain provinces and not others, that is to the detriment of everyone. What we do have is a national program anyone can access and be referred to on a case-by-case basis.
The hon. member certainly supported many things on the justice committee. He has done an excellent job. I would like him to point out some of the positive aspects so that people at home watching the debate will understand that this piece of legislation is important, particularly in working with the provinces. I would like to hear the member's comments on that.
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Mr. Speaker, we always work with our partners, because there is only one taxpayer, and that taxpayer funds all of the services we provide with their money. That is the difference in philosophy. We bring in these laws because we know that we can make people safer. We do not do it with the chequebook as the only barrier to entry.
To get to the point that member raised, the Attorney General of Saskatchewan said this:
These changes will help strengthen our criminal justice system by providing greater protection for witnesses. We support the proposed improvements to the Witness Protection Program Act as yet another step in making our communities safer.
If members do not believe me, they can believe him. Clearly, this is a situation where the facts speak for themselves.
This is going to be a great piece of legislation to keep witnesses safe, which will ultimately get the information to the courts to convict and send the people to jail who deserve it.
Philip Toone NDP Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
Mr. Speaker, thank you for recognizing me. I may be the last to speak about this bill tonight.
I listened attentively to the previous speaker, the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca, and I thought the beginning of his discourse was quite interesting. The last part of it I think it may have been the late hour and he may have forgot that the bill we were debating was Bill C-51, an act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act, not the bill that supports bus industries in the country. I am not exactly sure where he was going. Be that as it may, it is quite important that members try to avoid being dragged under the bus, so let us try to focus on the bill at hand.
The bill has a number of elements that are quite appropriate. There are three key issues.
We expand eligibility criteria for informants and witnesses, an absolutely critical element. We found in the past that there were a number of people who wished to have admission to this program and were simply refused access. We heard over the course of the debate on the bill that we currently had over 800 people who were under the witness protection program, but this year only 30 were accepted. That is out of a total of 108 who made an application.
The proposed bill will increase access to the witness protection program, and that is an important step, 30 is simply unacceptable. We need to go further. We have to continue to expand this program. The bill will go a long way to doing that, but the problem is the bill will also increase costs. I know the members from the government side seem to think that this is not an important issue, but I guarantee the municipalities and provinces are getting very tired of having to fund the mandates that are being passed, in record speed, in the House of Commons. We are not having proper time to debate these issues. I would like to remind the House that time allocation was forced on this bill after only two speakers at second reading. That has to be a record.
We need time to look at the costs that these programs will bring forward and we need to talk to the provinces and the municipalities on how we can partner with them to pay for those costs.
I want to raise a couple of quotes that were mentioned today.
First, I want to start with the minister, who made it very clear that he did not seem to care much about costs. According to the minister:
It is important to note that it is not anticipated that there would be any need for additional funding to accommodate this change. The program is currently funded by the RCMP from existing operational resources, and that will remain the same under Bill C-51.
That is wonderful, except the problem with that is we know a lot of the costs are downloaded onto the municipalities and the provinces. Micki Ruth, from the Canadian Association of Police Boards, talked about how when it had a difficulty and it had to search the services of the RCMP, the costs of this program were downloaded. As Micki Ruth indicated at the committee level, currently when a municipality did make use of a provincial witness protection program and the crime was federal in nature or involves drugs, then the RCMP would take over and would charge the local police services the full cost, which is an expense that many services cannot afford.
Even the RCMP has acknowledged that increased costs of this nature can impede an investigation. This is a serious problem. We are bringing forward changes which are going to increase costs to those who can least afford it. The government has to think about the repercussions of its actions, and it so heck-bent on bringing changes forward in record time that we are not having the proper debate on how we are going to deal with the costs that are downloaded.
Nevertheless, we do have a lot of important issues that are going to be addressed in the bill. Again, the expanded criteria eligibility is very important. Co-operation with the provinces in designating legislation, which is going to be reflected in federal legislation, is very important, as are the funding criteria and all of these things we need to be move forward with. The bill could do with a little improvement, but it is a good step in the right direction.
Dan Harris NDP Scarborough Southwest, ON
Mr. Speaker, I desperately would have liked to have risen when the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca was speaking just to provide one quick correction about the oil sands. Actually, it is at 43 years, not at 44. Suncor celebrated its 40th anniversary in 2010, and we are only at 2013.
In response to the hon. member's comment about our fighting against Canadian jobs, that is actually what this government has been doing in advocating for Keystone. We are flushing 40,000 Canadian jobs into the U.S. market instead of having them here.
I will go back to the bill. As we have mentioned before, the resources are lacking for municipal and provincial police forces to ensure that they are able to provide adequate witness protection.
This is particularly relevant in areas like Scarborough Southwest, where often crimes are happening in neighbourhoods where the witnesses themselves live. Perhaps the member could comment on the difficulty of actually getting people to come forward when their neighbours might be the ones committing the crimes. That is why they might need additional resources to get into the witness protection program and move out of those areas. Those might not be borne by the federal government.
Philip Toone NDP Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
Mr. Speaker, that is a very important point. The bill actually addresses this issue in significant ways. It is very important, if we are to address the issue of gangs, gang warfare and terrorist organizations, to know that these people are under a lot of pressure not to come forward and testify. They are under a lot of pressure not to come to the police to assist and become informants, essentially.
We also have the problem of informants, working in very difficult circumstances, who need all the support we can possibly afford them. It is very important that the bill addresses those issues, and I think the bill is actually taking steps in the right direction.
I would like to underline especially the fact that the emergency protection criteria in the bill have been extended. That is an important step as well. We have gone from a 90-day period for people to consider whether they are prepared to enter witness protection to now, in emergency situations, having 180 days, which is a significant improvement to the bill.
That is what the Liberal Party brought forward so many years ago that needed a lot of--
Pierre Jacob NDP Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech. I would like to hear what he thinks about the comments made by Commissioner Micki Ruth, who testified in committee on March 7, 2013. She is a member of the Policing and Justice Committee of the Canadian Association of Police Boards. She said:
Therefore we urge you to appreciate our position that unless the issue of adequate funding is addressed, the legislation will not produce the result that is intended.
Philip Toone NDP Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. I think that we need to seriously consider Micki Ruth's comments. In committee we repeatedly heard that a lot of witnesses were very worried because the bill did not do enough.
I want to get back to the issue of funding. The bill does not provide for the funding that will be needed if the House decides to pass it.
I also want to point out that Micki Ruth, from the Canadian Association of Police Boards, was not the only one who expressed this point of view. Alok Mukherjee had this to say about Toronto:
Our conclusion has been that there needs to be more funding available than currently is the case. Without the availability of sufficient funding, our ability to take advantage of the program will be limited.
We have to ask ourselves: if we pass a bill and the people who are supposed to benefit from it cannot because there are not enough resources, then does the bill truly respond to a need? The bill ought to be improved, but at least it is a step in the right direction.
The Acting Speaker Barry Devolin
It being 12:22 a.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.
The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members
Agreed.
No.
The Acting Speaker Barry Devolin
In my opinion the yeas have it.
And five or more members having risen:
Pursuant to an order made on Wednesday May 22, 2013, the division stands deferred until Monday, June 3, 2013, at the expiry of time provided for oral questions.
The House resumed from May 30 consideration of the motion that Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, be read the third time and passed.
The Speaker Andrew Scheer
Pursuant to an order made on Wednesday, May 22, 2012, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the third reading stage of Bill C-51.
Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion which was agreed to on the following division:)
