Bill C-51 (Historical)

Safer Witnesses Act

An Act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act

This enactment amends the Witness Protection Program Act to, among other things,
(a) provide for the designation of a provincial or municipal witness protection program so that certain provisions of that Act apply to such a program;
(b) authorize the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to coordinate, at the request of an official of a designated provincial or municipal program, the activities of federal departments, agencies and services in order to facilitate a change of identity for persons admitted to the designated program;
(c) add prohibitions on the disclosure of information relating to persons admitted to designated provincial and municipal programs, to the means and methods by which witnesses are protected and to persons who provide or assist in providing protection;
(d) specify the circumstances under which disclosure of protected information is nevertheless permitted;
(e) exempt a person from any liability or other punishment for stating that they do not provide or assist in providing protection to witnesses or that they do not know that a person is protected under a witness protection program;
(f) expand the categories of witnesses who may be admitted to the federal Witness Protection Program to include persons who assist federal departments, agencies or services that have a national security, national defence or public safety mandate and who may require protection as a result;
(g) allow witnesses in the federal Witness Protection Program to end their protection voluntarily;
(h) extend the period during which protection may, in an emergency, be provided to a person who has not been admitted to the federal Witness Protection Program; and
(i) make a consequential amendment to another Act.

Opposition Motion—Terrorism

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Of course, we do not always agree. We have had some rigorous debates in recent years, not just between him and me, but between our two parties as well.

One thing is clear, the NDP has consistently opposed the draconian measures in that legislation. We firmly believe that, with more resources for our men and women in uniform and our police forces and a robust counter-radicalization strategy, the laws that existed before Bill C-51 was passed in the previous Parliament would have been sufficient. We just need the resources to enforce them. That is why we made those requests when opposing the two bills, namely Bill C-51 in the 41st Parliament and Bill C-59 in this Parliament.

On another note, I must say that, as a progressive, it is very discouraging to see the approach the Liberals are taking. They said that they would support the bill, but that we should not worry, because they would resolve all the problems with it when they took office.

In my opinion, the final result shows that Bill C-59 falls far short of resolving the problems.

Opposition Motion—ISIS Fighters Returning to Canada

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

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my questions to the parliamentary secretary, it goes without saying that we condemn the terrorist and violent acts committed by ISIS as well as by neo-Nazi groups, for example; we are disgusted by them.

Not only should all forms of terrorism be condemned, but we also find that our measures provide sufficient evidence to lay criminal charges. The parties all agree on that.

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the fantastic interpreters here in the House, it is worth repeating in both official languages that we find any violence committed by any terrorist group, whether it is ISIS or neo-Nazis, to be abhorrent and something we denounce. Insofar as we have the evidence required to go ahead with criminal proceedings and press charges, it should absolutely be done. That is not something up for debate, no matter which party is in power. On that, I certainly agree with the parliamentary secretary.

The sad part about trying to politicize a situation that is obviously very worrisome for all Canadians, as it pertains to their safety and security, is that when it comes to radicalization we have to ask ourselves what is the best way to address it. I heard the Conservatives say that this is not about people who are in the process of being radicalized, but about those who already were and have now returned.

With that in mind, it is very important to remember that the problem does not lie with our legislation or political will; in fact, we are talking about the justice system and not a political decision. It is about adapting to the standards of proof.

The way evidence is admitted in court is extremely important when we look at this particular issue of foreign fighters returning to Canada, in particular in what way intelligence gathered can be admissible as evidence in court. Even experts have had a hard time grappling with how we can lay charges with that evidence. That is something we acknowledge the government needs to look at and work on. It is certainly something that could help law enforcement press charges when they may be required.

When we are looking at pressing charges, it is not just what evidence is admissible. It is also the question of even laying terrorism charges, which is something we did not see in the previous Parliament under the previous government and that we have now seen twice under the current government. It is complicated, because as experts have said, often terrorism charges do not relate to the violence in and of itself, which usually falls under another part of the Criminal Code. Terrorism charges usually relate to the planning of said violence, which makes it very difficult, especially when we fall into the trap, as with this motion, of targeting specific groups.

I will explain why. Members will recall the horrible massacre in Moncton. By all accounts, this man committed a terrorist act. In fact, he confirmed that he wanted to attack the RCMP because it supported a government he thought was corrupt. I do not think this can be described as anything other than a terrorist act, and yet no one calls it that.

The attack at the Métropolis against a newly elected Quebec premier could also be considered a terrorist act.

However, in both of these cases, no terrorism-related criminal charges were laid. Criminal charges were obviously laid, but these charges fell under other parts of the Criminal Code.

This is a very important point, because it shows how difficult it is to judge motives and to define terrorism. This is unfortunately extremely complicated, and we need to work on that.

I also think it is important to trust the men and women who work for our national security agencies and police forces—in the case, the RCMP. It goes without saying that if they collect enough evidence, we can, and should, be confident that they will file criminal charges. The problem is how to obtain this evidence and whether the evidence is admissible. There is no point laying criminal charges if the person ends up being released because of a lack of evidence. This may be annoying, but this is the reality of our legal system, and we must respect that. This is exactly what terrorists want to attack. If we cannot respect this pillar of our democracy, we are doomed. This is very important here.

The other point is the question of resources, which is extremely important and which we raised over the course of the debate on what was Bill C-51 in the previous Parliament.

We can change the law. We can make the strictest laws possible. We can say we are going to throw everyone in jail and throw away the key, but if the men and women in uniform do not have the human and financial resources to do the work, the law is useless. That is a key issue here.

The commissioner of the RCMP has said that the focus on radical Islam has taken away from other investigations at a time when we are seeing a rise in hate crimes, a rise in anti-Semitism, which are also forms of radical violence and are, in some cases, forms of radical terrorism.

It is important to keep in mind that it is not always a legal issue. It is sometimes the political will to provide the appropriate resources to the national security agencies and police bodies, something that, unfortunately, certainly was not done in the last Parliament, and there is more work to be done in the current Parliament. That is important to keep in mind if we actually want the RCMP, among others, to have the resources to do the work they need to do to keep Canadians safe.

Getting back to the subject of radicalization, which is at the heart of today's motion, I asked the sponsor why the Conservatives have been so intent on disparaging anti-radicalization efforts. I was told that this is not about being for or against radicalization, but right after his speech, his colleague spent at least five minutes sneering at anti-radicalization efforts. That makes absolutely no sense.

During the last Parliament, nothing of substance was done to fight radicalization. Although I frequently disagree with the public safety minister's stance on issues, I am pleased to see that something is finally being done at the community level to fight radicalization through a centre set up to fund local projects. The Conservatives scoffed at those projects in their motion, as did their critics in their speeches on the subject. That is a shame.

If we really want to keep our communities safe, we have to fight radicalization and make sure people do not leave in the first place. Extremist groups such as Islamic State and far-right groups such as neo-Nazis often exploit young people with mental health problems. We need to help those young people not because they should be treated as victims but to ensure public safety, which requires a concerted, community-wide approach.

I asked the parliamentary secretary a question about what is being done in prisons.

I overheard a comments from a Conservative that we are saying to not put them in jail, because they are going to be radicalized there. That is not what we are saying. We are saying that we cannot do one without the other. The experts all say that one of the worst places for being radicalized is in prison. If there are criminal charges brought and people are found guilty, certainly no one is debating whether they should be in prison. The issue is that when they are in prison, we need to make sure that the programs are there to get to the root of that radicalization that is taking hold and leading them to be a threat to national security and public safety. That is what is at stake here. If we just want to incarcerate and forget about it, to see no evil and hear no evil, those people, if they ever get out, will have slipped through the cracks and will not only be people society has not come in aid of but will be people who will pose a threat to public safety. If the objective here is to protect public safety, then let us make sure we are cutting the evil that is radicalization off at the root, and that means providing the proper programs.

As I said, I recognize the efforts the government has made to begin working with and funding best practices in some of those efforts, but more needs to be done. Again, prisons are one example. I appreciate the openness the parliamentary secretary has shown to recognizing that this is an issue and to working on it, but more needs to be done.

Let us move on to the matter of counter-radicalization, which is something else that is of great concern to me. What are we talking about? Some people go abroad and are labelled as “fighters”. In some cases, they do not commit any acts of violence, which is why it is so important to have evidence. In fact, sometimes these people are victims. Some of them are taken over there by their families. They are vulnerable people who quickly realize after arriving that they have made a mistake, and who then come back to Canada without committing any acts of violence.

Will some of these individuals be criminally prosecuted? Of course, but evidence is needed. Rather than heckling and shouting “yes”, we must understand the nuances of the situation. We have to understand that our system is a system of law. I am not talking about rights and freedoms. I am talking about a system of law, the rule of law. It is important to understand that simply making a list of people and sending them all to prison is not an effective approach to public safety. We have to have evidence, and we have to understand the challenges associated with that evidence, challenges that experts have told us about.

The Conservative member is heckling me by shouting “yes, we have to do it”. If we move forward with these criminal charges, we need to make sure that they will result in prison sentences. Rather than blaming the government and engaging in a senseless dialogue by claiming that some people in the House are seeking to jeopardize the safety of Canadians, we need to understand that there is work to do to ensure that the national security agencies and police forces that have the evidence they need to successfully prosecute will do so. Everyone would be pleased if that happened, because it would help keep Canadians safe.

Let us engage in a positive dialogue. That is the approach that we are advocating today. It is no secret that I disagree with the approach of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, but one thing is certain and leaves no room for debate: we want keep to Canadians safe and ensure public safety.

In that context, when we are looking at such an important issue as this one, to engage in dog-whistle politics and use expressions like “welcomed with open arms” and to throw things out about reading poetry, to denigrate counter-radicalization efforts, does a disservice to the men and women doing the serious work of making sure Canadians are safe, does a disservice to this House where we all believe in the importance of ensuring Canadians' safety, and does a disservice to the real efforts and debate that need to happen over the proper way of dealing with the situation.

As part of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security's review of Canada's national security framework, we travelled for one week, stopping in five cities in five days. We stopped in Montreal, where we had the opportunity to visit the Centre for the Prevention of Radicalization Leading to Violence. This centre is one of a kind in North America. It is so unique that it receives calls from families in New York who are worried about the possible radicalization of a friend, a family member, or even a child in some cases.

We sat down with the team at the centre and had a nuanced discussion. It was clear that these people fully understood that in many cases, the RCMP and our national security agencies have a role to play and a job to do if they are to catch those who pose a threat to public safety and security.

The collaboration between our police forces and national security agencies has been outstanding. They have also made an effort to reach out to the community and to concerned families and individuals. This work did not focus on any community more than another. An attack like the one committed at the Islamic cultural centre in Quebec City is just as troubling as an attack like the one that took place in Edmonton. Both are equally troubling, and the centre acknowledges that.

The people who fight against radicalization fully understand what we are saying today in the House. Yes, we need to consider prosecution. Yes, we need to make sure that anyone we can press charges against is actually prosecuted. However, we must also recognize that simply acknowledging one facet of an extremely complicated and important issue does not diminish the need to hold this debate and offer concrete solutions. Not only would concrete solutions help us ensure public safety, but they would also keep youth from falling through the cracks and possibly save them from the scourge of radicalization.

In closing I want to say, as I have said several times in my speech, that the minister and I certainly have our differences, and it is no secret in this place, but there is one thing to which we will always commit, and that is working together to ensure the safety of Canadians, no matter what the partisan issue is.

To do that, there is a lot that needs to be done. I have mentioned some of it: getting terrorism charges right, getting the peace bond process right, getting the evidentiary process right with regard to intelligence gathering. These are all challenges that we have in getting the counter-radicalization efforts right.

The government has taken some good steps. We think we can do more, including doing it in federal prisons, and making sure that, in some instances where there are best practices, there is more robust federal leadership despite the importance of supporting those grassroots efforts.

Those are all things on which we are ready to work with the government. It is part of the reason why it is so disappointing to hear the kind of hyperbole we hear today. When it comes to ensuring public safety, there are important measures that need to be taken. It is not about stoking and fanning the flames of fear, but rather about standing in this place and having the courage to take on these important challenges that we face, and that all experts agree are challenging but are at the core of the mandate we have as parliamentarians.

I am very happy to say that the NDP is committed to working with the government on all the points that I mentioned.

No proposal, whether Bill C-51, introduced during the last Parliament, or Bill C-59, should ever implement more draconian public safety legislation at the expense of rights and freedoms. However, that does not preclude concrete efforts from being made, for instance, providing more resources to the RCMP and other national security agencies and strengthening our counter-radicalization efforts. We have to do what we can to truly put an end to this scourge instead of simply focusing on one aspect of the issue and moving on.

There is still a lot of work to be done. Let us set aside this kind of rhetoric and ensure that we are doing our job properly because that is what Canadians expect from us.

[Jesse Schooff, As an Individual]

Hello, my name is Jesse Schooff. I'm a blogger. I volunteer with OpenMedia and I've also worked as the IT manager of a small company for the last decade.

I'm here today because I'm troubled by many aspects of the anti-terrorism act of 2016, which we call Bill C-51. But the main reason I'm here today to speak is because as an IT professional I'm concerned, and in some ways terrified, by some of the language in the online Canadian security consultations, which I know are not directly related to this committee. But the question was: How can law enforcement and national security agencies reduce the effectiveness of encryption for individuals and organizations involved in crime or threats to the security of Canada, yet not limit the beneficial uses of encryption to those not involved in illegal activities?

The short answer is you can't. The long answer would require more time than would be polite for me to take today, but I can explain by way of analogy. A few years ago the Transportation Security Administration in the United Stated decided that they needed to be able to open passengers' luggage at will without cutting off and thus destroying their luggage locks. The TSA partnered with lock and luggage manufacturers and worked with them to create a TSA master key that could open any lock. It wasn't long before someone created a 3-D printable model of the TSA master key that could be downloaded, distributed on the Internet, and printed, allowing anyone, including criminals, to open any TSA-approved lock.

When we talk about weakening encryption or creating a back door that only the good guys can access, what we're really talking about is deliberately putting bugs into our software. Any IT security expert or computer scientist will tell you that when there's a bug in software, hackers work hard to find that bug and exploit it. Encryption is not just a feature that makes it safe for us to use our credit card on eBay or that keeps racy instant messages private, encryption keeps our data infrastructure safe from hackers, criminals, and even terrorists. Encryption is the brick and mortar that allows enterprise IT to exist.

If government weakens or backdoors encryption, I can say without hyperbole that we put the entirety of our technology infrastructure at serious risk.

Thank you for your time.

[Professor Reg Whitaker, Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Victoria and Distinguished Research Professor (Emeritus), York University, As an Individual]

I would certainly like to add my voice to applauding the initiative of opening up national security to wider public participation as with these committee hearings. It's certainly a contrast to the way in which Bill C-51 was carried through the last Parliament. A better-educated public is crucial to democratic decision-making, as is the enhanced role of Parliament as we see put forward in Bill C-22.

However, public consultation can be diffuse and unfocused, while the key agencies of government have their own sharply focused agendas, which are relentlessly pressed on governments of any political stripe. I see already evidence in the green paper and in Bill C-22 of this process at work. The agencies are acting as a kind of heavy anchor pulling in one direction, while counter-pressures from outside are much weaker.

I'm not saying there's anything inherently nefarious in this kind of bureaucratic behaviour. I'm assuming that the bureaucrats are trying to do the job they're assigned to the best of their abilities, but on the issue of the powers that they are granted and the protections in terms of privilege and secrecy for their operations, there is a clear public interest in limiting the agencies' capacity to act without accountability to the public and to Parliament, and as well, in limiting the scope of their powers to conform to the rule of law.

The agencies certainly have legitimate concerns about reforms. I think there have been some unrealistic concepts of accountability and oversight that have been put out there, such as the idea that there should be oversight of ongoing operations in real time, whether by a parliamentary committee or whatever, which would be unworkable and undesirable. However, the provision of extraordinary and unreasonable powers, even though the agencies have no apparent intention of actually using them at this time but might prefer to keep them in the back drawer, as it were, just in case, should not be tolerated, nor should excessive limitations on external oversight review just to make the bureaucrats' lives a little easier.

In the interest of time, I want to focus my remarks on one section of Bill C-51, what I consider to be the very worst part of what I would say is a very bad piece of legislation, generally badly conceived, badly drafted, and potentially pernicious in effect. I'm referring to the threat reduction or disruption powers awarded CSIS and the special warrants CSIS might seek for judicial authorization to break the law and violate charter rights. I will also try to touch on the closely related issue of the secret intelligence public evidence problem.

What is wrong with CSIS threat reduction powers? Well, I think, everything, literally. As someone who has co-authored a history of the security service from its late 19th century origins to its present post-9/11 era, from the RCMP to its present incarnation as CSIS, I would say unequivocally that threat reduction in Bill C-51 is dangerous to civil liberties and the rule of law, certainly, but it also threatens to undermine security and effective counter-terrorist law enforcement.

CSIS is a security intelligence agency empowered to collect intelligence on threats to security and advise governments. The RCMP, of course, is the law enforcement agency on national security matters. The security service was taken away from the RCMP in 1984 after the McDonald commission for good reason: the illegal activities in the 1970s, mainly in Quebec against Quebec separatists but also against various left-wing organizations in the rest of the country.

Violations of laws without accountability, no clear lines between violent versus legitimate political groups, the question of control by elected governments, and so on, was precisely what the McDonald commission reacted against, and CSIS was created apart from the RCMP, with no law enforcement powers and a mandate spelling out what it was authorized to do and what it was not authorized to do. All those things flowed from McDonald and we're seeing it threatened with a return back to that era, that scandal-filled era again.

I'll just skip over some of the credits and try to focus on each of the problems with this.

First of all, the special warrants allow law-breaking and charter violations, short only of murder, torture, and rape, to be authorized by a judge. They are not surveillance warrants, which are in effect judicial certifications that these acts are within the law and abide by the charter. Instead, they ask judges to enable law-breaking and unconstitutional acts. This is a radical revision of the role of the judiciary from protectors of the law and constitution to enablers of violations. This is a shocking assault on the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary, now turned into a tool of the executive. I expect most judges, if not all, would be quite appalled by this prospect.

The next point is that the warrant application is entirely secret, with no specified follow-up for the judge granting the warrant to determine if it has been carried out as promised, or what the results are. No reporting is required of warrants granted or turned down—no accountability of any kind.

The decision to seek a warrant—and this is an important point—is at the discretion of CSIS. If they decide that a disruption activity does not require a warrant, there appears to be no fallback accountability as to whether that decision is justified. That is unacceptable.

These threat reduction measures could involve detention, if you read this very carefully—not arrest but detention—and they could involve extraordinary rendition on the international stage. Of course, in the latter case, we could see the potential for somebody who is a Canadian perhaps being rendered to a country where torture is routinely practised.

All of these issues that I've been talking about are problems regarding the rule of law and the rights of citizens, and so on. However, it's also very important to realize that CSIS threat reduction efforts could impede rather than facilitate counterterrorism. This recreates the potential for conflict turf wars with the RCMP, as were tragically shown by the Air India commission. It opens up the possibility that CSIS, protecting its sources as a security and intelligence organization, could imperil convictions in court, and there's the distinct possibility that these activities could contaminate the evidentiary trail.

This brings us to the intelligence evidence conflict that the Air India commission addressed, in which the government did not take up any of the recommendations of the commission to deal with this problem. I can't go into this at any length, and certainly it's a topic best undertaken by lawyers, except to note that threat reduction or disruption activities can be useful, certainly. I'm not making the point that they should never be used. They can be very useful in counterterrorism, so long as they are undertaken with the goal always in mind of securing criminal convictions and putting dangerous terrorists behind bars.

The RCMP already does this, both in its criminal and national security investigations, if you look, for example, at the Toronto 18 case. CSIS does disruption as well, under pre-Bill C-51 law, and that's fine. I don't have any problem with that, so long as it does not interfere with the criminal law process and is rather supportive of the criminal law process.

A general point that I would like to make is that unlike the old Cold War era, the era of terrorism is one in which, given that the terrorist threat is against civilians, ordinary people, the priority must always be given to law enforcement and criminal convictions. CSIS has a role to play, but the notion that they have this role of slowly building a long-term picture of these networks like the old KGB in the Cold War has to be subordinated to law enforcement. The threat reduction powers and special warrants radically undermine this.

The last thing I want to say is that CSIS says it has not applied for any of these special warrants, and that presumably everything it has carried out, we can assume, has not required that kind of special warrant power, like the powers of preventive detention and investigative hearings in the 2001 Anti-terrorism Act, which were so controversial that time limits were put on them. They were actually allowed to lapse at one point and then were reinstituted by the former government, yet in all that process, they've never been used.

Are we seeing a repeat of the same kind of phenomenon?

In both cases, if they have never been used, why exactly are they needed? In the case of the threat reduction powers, perhaps CSIS had these foisted on them unwillingly by the government. In that case, then, we really ought to get rid of them. Or it may be another example of the unending pressure on governments to keep up powers that they might need “just in case”. That's a very bad case for keeping a bad law on the books to be potentially abused by less responsible people in the future.

Combating Counterfeit Products Act

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, here we are again, debating another bill that was put under time allocation, which is 44 or 45 times now.

The irony in this instance is that the government could have had an agreement with the opposition to speed the debate of this bill so that we would be using less time in the House than it took to bring in the time allocation motion, vote on it and then provide a full day of debate, because we in the NDP do want to see this bill go back to committee, where it can be approved. Therefore, we will be supporting it at second reading.

Again, we had time allocation brought in before the Minister of Industry, the person presenting the bill, had even spoken to it. We did not have one full speech in this House. There was a speech by the member for Simcoe—Grey, who spent half of her speech laughing at jokes being told to her by other caucus members. We did not have one full speech before time allocation was brought in.

I would say humbly that this is not democracy. This is not how Parliament is supposed to work. We are supposed to have the opportunity to have full debates in the House on the various issues that are brought forward.

Bill C-56, an act to amend the Copyright Act and the Trade-marks Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, which is now otherwise titled the “combating counterfeit products act”, is an important issue. It is my honour to rise today to present the lead-off speech on Bill C-56 for the NDP and the official opposition.

Normally our industry critic, the member for LaSalle—Émard, would be leading off on second reading comments on this bill. Our critic had planned to give her remarks on Friday when this bill was supposed to come up for debate; however, because of time allocation and the government playing games, we are here Wednesday evening instead, again preventing certain members of Parliament from participating in this debate in the way that they would like to.

In their rush to introduce yet more record-breaking time allocation motions—as I said, we are at 46 now—the Conservatives rescheduled all the House business this week.

As the NDP's deputy industry critic, it is indeed my privilege to address this bill on behalf of the official opposition. This is a bill the NDP takes very seriously, as opposed to the Conservative government, it would appear, because this bill was presented originally in March. It did not come up for debate until the end of May. Recommendations for this bill were made in a committee report in 2007, again in 2009, and then there were more recommendations from the industry committee in an intellectual property study that was done earlier this year. It has taken the government a very long time to start bringing these forward for implementation.

We have yet to have a whole speech by the Minister of Industry on this bill. Even then, if it was not going to be the minister, we would have thought that maybe it would be the parliamentary secretary, the member for Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, but that was not the case.

When the government presents a bill, it is supposed to justify why it is bringing that bill forward. It has yet to do that and has already implemented time allocation.

Instead of a full presentation by the government, what we had was the parliamentary secretary for human resources and skills development getting up and presenting a very short speech on this bill. In her speech she spent a lot of the time laughing and did not seem to be taking the bill seriously. It was so bad that the Speaker had to interrupt and ask if she was able to continue.

I mention all this because it seems to speak to the Conservative government's contempt for Parliament and to its continual practice of introducing legislation that can never be properly implemented because its budget cuts make it impossible.

There are many clichés we would use, but the Conservatives keep putting forth pieces of legislation that are either empty shells or just cherry-picked from among the many recommendations that we need to implement to have solid pieces of legislation. They put forth rules and regulations that perhaps cannot be enforced, because those budget cuts mean that no one will be there to enforce them.

Recent examples include Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act, which the Conservatives put forward without the funding in place to make many of its provisions actually meaningful. Another one, Bill C-54 would make changes to how we would deal with people deemed not criminally responsible, however, it would download the responsibility for mental health care onto the very provinces, which are having their health care budgets slashed again by the Conservative government.

Bill C-56 is another example of the Conservatives playing the shell game they so like to play. It is legislation that on one hand imposes some good rules and on the other hand, through the budget, cuts the jobs of those who are supposed to be enforcing these new rules. I will come back to that point later in my remarks.

Let me say up front, again, that the NDP will support the bill at second reading so it can be sent back to committee and, we hope, fixed to maximum its impact. However, it would indeed be a first at our committee, if we actually saw recommendations and amendments that we brought forward voted on and passed by the Conservatives on the committee. That would be groundbreaking.

The bill dealing with counterfeiting and copyright infringement is important for both Canadian businesses and consumers, especially where counterfeit goods may put the health and safety of Canadians at risk. We will support the bill so it can go back to committee for further study and we want to ensure we maintain the necessary balance on copyright and trademarks.

For instance, the bill would give ex officio powers to our border officers, which the NDP has been calling for since 2007. However, it is very difficult to see how this will be implemented when, last year, the Conservatives slashed $143 million in funding to CBSA, which further reduced front-line officers and harmed our ability to monitor our borders.

CBSA expects to lose several hundred front-line officers by 2015. It is also important to note that in the past the government repeatedly has refused to take a balanced approach to copyright. The NDP believes that intellectual property requires an approach that strikes a balance between the interests of rights holders and the interest of users and consumers.

I will now take a few minutes to explain some of the details of the bill.

Bill C-56, the combating counterfeit products act, would amend both the Copyright Act and the Trademark Act. Its purpose is to strengthen enforcement of copyright and trademark rights and to curtail commercial activity involving infringing copies or counterfeit trademarks.

The proposed bill will add two new criminal offences under the Copyright Act for possession and exportation of infringing copies and creates offences for selling or offering counterfeit goods on a commercial scale. It creates a prohibition against importing or exporting infringing copies and counterfeit goods and introduces some balance to that prohibition by creating two exceptions: first, for personal use, items that are in one's possession or baggage; or second, items in transit. It also, as I said, grants new ex officio powers to border officials to detain infringing copies or counterfeit goods, a significant policy shift. Until now, border officials required a warrant before seizing infringing copies or goods at the border.

It also grants new ex officio powers to the Minister of Public Safety and border officials to share information on detained goods with the right holders so they can actually see what is being brought in and take measures themselves to combat that counterfeit and trademark infringement.

That is important, because the businesses do a great job of trying to protect their own products. Seeing what is coming into the country illegally and what products are counterfeited can give them ideas about how to combat that counterfeiting better for themselves.

The proposed bill widens the scope of what can be trademarked to the features found in the broad definition of sign, including colour, shapes, scents and tastes. Measuring the problem in counterfeit goods and copies in Canada and its corresponding impact on the economy is difficult.

The New Democrats, nevertheless, support dealing with counterfeiting, especially where health and safety concerns are at stake. As I have mentioned, it remains unclear to me and many others how the CBSA could implement these enforcement measures in the face of the cuts from budget 2012.

The United States and many industry groups have long called for border measures on counterfeiting. It remains important to continue to be vigilant to ensure that intellectual property laws balance the rights and interests of rights holders with those of consumers and users.

The government has long been aware of the difficulties in measuring the scale of counterfeiting for copies and goods in Canada, a challenge that was identified in a 1998 OECD report on “The Economic Impact of Counterfeiting”. One of the difficulties results from the clandestine nature of counterfeiting. Much of the data is estimated and based on actual seizures, which is anecdotal or comes from industry itself, in which case the collection methods may vary or be unavailable to assess.

In 2007, the industry committee report on counterfeiting recommended that the government establish a reporting system that would track investigations, charges and seizures for infringing copies and counterfeit goods as a means of collecting data.

A recent Industry Canada report published this year notes that, “It is difficult to obtain a precise estimate of the market for counterfeit or pirated products in Canada”. Why? Because, again, the government has delayed bringing this legislation forward. Even now that it has, the Conservatives have not put provisions into the bill to implement those measures I just spoke of so we can start collecting more robust data to more accurately determine the economic impacts of counterfeit and trademark infringement in Canada.

As I said, much of the information in Canada comes from statistics about actual seizures. Industry Canada notes that the retail value of counterfeit goods seized by the RCMP increased from $7.6 million in 2005 to $38 million in 2012.

In 2009, the OECD estimated that the international trade in counterfeit goods and infringing copies could be valued at up to $250 billion U.S. It is a mind-boggling number that there would be that many counterfeit and trademark infringed goods travelling around the world. Law-abiding companies are losing out on much of that revenue.

The same study also reiterated previous calls for better information. We know anecdotally that counterfeit products can pose risks to the health and safety of consumers, whether we are talking about counterfeit electrical components or unsanitary stuffing in goose-down jackets.

I mention unsanitary stuffing in goose-down jackets because when we were at committee, many different Canadian businesses and organizations presented before the committee. One such company was Canada Goose, which is certainly a Canadian success story. However, representatives of Canada Goose brought with them some counterfeit Canada Goose jackets they had collected. The things contained within those counterfeit jackets would make one's toes curl. There were things like feces in the lining, feathers that were not properly treated and sanitized before being stuffed in the jackets. Certainly they were not goose down or coyote fur. Many different animals were being used.

Unfortunately, it was very difficult, on the surface, to detect these jackets as being counterfeit. When we put a real Canada Goose jacket next to a counterfeit jacket, they looked identical. It was not until we took a microscope to it or started to pull the jacket apart that we started to see that one of the jackets was indeed counterfeit.

Other representatives that came before the committee were from Hockey Canada. They talked about the last Olympics we had in Canada and about professional sports jerseys. They found, through studies they conducted and at the Olympics, that sometimes in professional sporting events, up to 70% to 75% of the jerseys being worn at the games were counterfeit. Consumers are unwittingly buying illegal and counterfeit products when they try to support their sports teams. At the Olympics in Vancouver, many stops and arrests were made of individuals selling counterfeit Olympic paraphernalia and products.

It is a growing problem because there is a financial incentive there. There is money to be made in counterfeit goods. We certainly have a responsibility to try to stop as much of it at the border as we can. As for the stuff that gets across the border, we have to deal with it here and hold the appropriate people responsible.

In many cases, as I have said, it is very difficult for consumers to detect whether they are buying legitimate products. However, vigilance is also important and people who have any concerns about products they are buying should go to the manufacturers' websites and contact people in law enforcement if they think they have bought something illegal. There are many things people can do to prevent these crimes and, indeed, to ensure the products they are buying are legitimate.

Dealing with counterfeiting is important to both Canadian businesses and consumers. It is especially important where counterfeit goods put the health and safety of Canadians at risk. Yet again it remains unclear how the enforcement regime being proposed by Bill C-56 will be resourced. This bill would add significant new responsibilities to the duties of border officials during a time of significant budget reductions.

In budget 2012, the Conservatives imposed $143 million in cuts to CBSA, reducing front-line officers and further reducing our ability to monitor the borders. This is interesting. This year's CBSA report on plans and priorities alone indicates a loss of 549 full-time employees between now and 2015. At a time when there is more trade, goods and people crossing the border, we will be cutting front-line officers? It makes absolutely no sense.

Under Bill C-56, customs officers would be asked to make highly complicated assessments on whether goods entering or exiting the country infringed on any copyright or trademark rights. Such an assessment for infringing copyright would include, for example, consideration of whether any of the exceptions under the Copyright Act would apply, something with which the courts often struggle. The New Democrats want the CBSA to be adequately funded to implement this bill without compromising the other responsibilities of protecting Canadians and our borders from things like drugs, guns and other threats.

The United States has lobbied for stronger enforcement measures in Canada for counterfeit and pirated goods for many years. In the 2012 special 301 watch report, the office of the U.S. trade representative stated that the U.S. “continues to urge Canada to strengthen its border enforcement efforts, including by providing customs officials with ex officio authority to take action against the importation, exportation, and transshipment of pirated or counterfeit goods”.

In its June 2012 report on counterfeiting in the Canadian market, the Canadian Intellectual Property Council, a sub-group of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, identified counterfeiting as a barrier to competitiveness and specifically recommended that customs officials have ex officio powers, that Canadian law be amended to bring criminal and civil sanctions for counterfeiting and piracy and that enforcement officials be encouraged to seek strong remedies for infringements.

It bears saying that many of the requests the United States made are, indeed, in this bill. Providing ex officio powers to the CBSA in order to track, monitor and confiscate copyright and trademark infringed goods are terribly important to our long-term safety.

In its recently tabled report, “Intellectual Property Regime in Canada”, the committee recommended border measures that we supported, including providing appropriate ex officio powers to customs officials, civil and criminal remedies for trademark infringement and counterfeiting, allowing customs officials to share information with rights holders regarding suspected goods. All members of the committee agreed that consumers acting non-wilfully should not be subject to excessive fines.

The New Democrats on the committee, of which I am one, filed a dissenting opinion that called on the government to also consult with consumer groups, as well as industry groups, in an effort to combat counterfeiting and piracy, that border officials receive appropriate authority to do their work while respecting civil liberties and due process and that the CBSA be adequately funded to combat counterfeiting without compromising its other important responsibilities to protect Canadians and defend our borders.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I do want to start by reviewing what our House has accomplished over the preceding five days since I last answered the Thursday question.

Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act, was passed at third reading. Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act, was passed at third reading. Bill C-63 and Bill C-64, the appropriations laws, passed at all stages last night as part of the last supply day of the spring cycle.

Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, has been debated some more at third reading. Bill C-60, the economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1, was passed at report stage. Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act, was passed at report stage, was debated at third reading, and debate will continue.

Bill S-14, the fighting foreign corruption act, was passed at second reading. Bill C-56, combating counterfeit products act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-17, the tax conventions implementation act, 2013, was debated at second reading.

On Bill C-62, the Yale First Nation final agreement act, we adopted a ways and means motion, introduced the bill, passed it at second reading and it has since passed at committee. I anticipate we will be getting a report from the committee shortly.

Bill S-16, the tackling contraband tobacco act, was given first reading yesterday after arriving from the Senate. Bill C-65, the respect for communities act, was introduced this morning.

Substantive reports from four standing committees were adopted by the House.

On the private members' business front, the House witnessed three bills getting third reading, one being passed at report stage, two being reported back from committee and one was just passed at second reading and sent to a committee.

Last night was the replenishment of private members' business, with 15 hon. members bringing forward their ideas, which I am sure we will vigorously debate.

The House will continue to deliver results for Canadians over the next week. Today, we will finish the third reading debate on Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act. Then we will turn our collective attention to Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, at second reading, followed by Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, at third reading.

Tomorrow we will have the third reading debate on Bill C-60, the economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1. The final vote on this very important job creation and economic growth bill will be on Monday after question period.

Before we rise for the weekend, we hope to start second reading debate on Bill C-61, the offshore health and safety act.

On Monday, we will complete the debates on Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, and Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act.

Today and next week, I would like to see us tackle the bills left on the order paper, with priority going to any bills coming back from committee.

As for the sequencing of the debates, I am certainly open to hearing the constructive proposals of my opposition counterparts on passing Bill S-6, the First Nations Elections Act, at second reading; Bill S-10, the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, at second reading; Bill S-12, the Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act, at second reading; Bill S-13, the Port State Measures Agreement Implementation Act, at second reading; Bill S-16, at second reading; Bill S-17, at second reading; Bill C-57, the Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, at second reading; Bill C-61, at second reading; and Bill C-65, at second reading.

Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to having another list of accomplishments to share with you, and all honourable members, this time next Thursday.

Suffice it to say, we are being productive, hard-working and orderly in delivering on the commitments we have made to Canadians.

There having been discussions among the parties that it will receive unanimous consent, I would like to propose a motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of this House, the member for Peace River be now permitted to table the Report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development in relation to Bill C-62, An Act to give effect to the Yale First Nation Final Agreement and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Safer Witnesses Act

[The Speaker, Conservative, 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 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.

[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.

[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 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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.