Mr. Speaker, I consider it both an honour and a privilege to rise today to open debate on Bill C-206, an Act to provide for the relocation and protection of witnesses.
I would first like to commend the Member for Scarborough West, the sponsor of this private member's bill, for bringing this important issue before the House.
His months of dedication and hard work to improve this particular aspect of our criminal justice system are reflected in the pages of this bill. The basic intent of Bill C-206 is very clear: The government must ensure the safety and security of persons who assist police and prosecutors in their efforts to crack down on crime, particularly organized crime.
This makes sense not only from a moral standpoint but from a practical standpoint as well. Past experience shows that witnesses who provide evidence or assist in police and prosecutors' investigations at the risk of harm to themselves or to their families, are often one of the most effective tools our justice system has against organized crime.
And we need that tool, today more than ever. Organized crime, and especially transnational and international organized crime, are growing concerns for Canada, and indeed for many nations.
Organized crime threatens basic social, political and economic institutions in countries around the world. And it is seldom easy, given the power and influence of many criminal organizations, for the authorities to obtain the information and assistance they need to move effectively against organized crime.
That is why we, as legislators, must take every step within our power to ensure our criminal justice system is as well-equipped as possible to respond to the threat posed by organized crime. For these reasons alone, I believe that this bill is both timely and well directed. However, having said that, I believe there are a number of fundamental issues that need to be considered before approval of the bill is given at second reading.
First, we must consider very carefully the scope of application of a protection program. Under Bill C-206, any witness appearing in a case prosecuted under a federal act could be eligible for protection or relocation.
My concern is that this broad, umbrella approach could be unwieldy and difficult to administer efficiently. Our experience regarding the RCMP Source and Witness Protection Program indicates that such a program should focus on very serious offences and cases involving organized crime.
A related issue here is the question of cost. The provision of protective services and relocation of witnesses or sources is a very expensive proposition.
The Prime Minister has said to this House and to Canadians on many occasions that fiscal responsibility is one of the basic principles of this government.
Accordingly we want to make sure that any witness protection program is not so broad that administrative overheads become unacceptable. All members will agree I am sure that we owe it to Canadians to make the best possible use of taxpayers' dollars.
Still on the subject of administration there is the question of who will manage and administer the program. It would appear that Bill C-206 seeks to provide a legislative base to the witness protection services provided by the RCMP. However it may be desirable to review other administrative options.
For instance in the United States an independent body, the Office of Enforcement Operations within the Department of Justice, decides who will be accepted into the U.S. marshal's service witness security program. The decision is made after this office has considered the recommendations for admission from the responsible enforcement agencies such as the FBI and the U.S. attorney's office.
The point I wish to make is that in the United States it is not the law enforcement body that makes the decision whether or not to give witness protection.
As well, once the witness is accepted into the program the protection is administered by the U.S. marshal's service. Again it is not the originating law enforcement agency that provides the protection but an independent agency, the U.S. marshal's service.
I raise these administrative issues as points that warrant further consideration and review before determining and legislating our own arrangements for witness protection in this country.
A second issue we need to carefully consider is the legislative basis for a witness protection program. It may be appropriate for example to link a program to provisions in the Criminal Code or other legislation.
Protection of people who assist in criminal investigations or prosecutions may involve changes in identity. This requires the active participation of federal authorities outside of law enforcement agencies.
It would seem to me to be appropriate to indicate that the responsibilities of these authorities also be captured in any legislation. The same rationale applies to the roles and functions of provincial authorities involved in the provision of protective services. Provincial interests in this area are a very important consideration given the constitutional responsibilities of provincial government for the administration of justice. At a minimum, I believe that legislation should permit provinces to opt in to a federal program. All of this is to say that we would want to work closely with the provinces in all respects.
There is also the question of cost sharing between the federal government and provinces desiring to participate jointly in a protection program. This could be addressed directly in legislation, or perhaps indirectly through the establishment of a statutory instrument or specific ministerial approval.
A last concern I would like to raise deals with the limitation of Bill C-206 to witness protection alone. Witnesses are not the only persons who provide information to the authorities in criminal cases and who may require protection for having done so. Many police investigations would never lead to arrests without the assistance of sources or informants, most of whom are paid for their services. Source information is just as vital to police investigations as witness testimony is to court proceedings.
I note that the RCMP source witness and protection program, which I referred to a few moments ago, protects both police sources and Crown witnesses.
These are the type of factors that must be examined before this government can, in good conscience, proceed further with legislation for a witness protection program. However, I do not want these concerns to overshadow the basic accomplishment of this bill. With this proposed act to provide for the relocation and protection of witnesses, the hon. member for Scarborough West has focussed the attention of this House on an important component of our criminal justice system. For that he deserves a vote of thanks from all members of the House, and indeed, from all Canadians.
I understand that other members will now take the opportunity to touch, in more depth, on the points I have raised, as well as discuss other key considerations.