Debates of May 26th, 1994

Budget Implementation Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I just want to remind the hon. member for Calgary North before I give her the floor that at 5.30 I must move to Private Members' Business.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure members of the House will be very sad that I only have three or four minutes. It is very interesting to me that members of the Bloc keep urging the goose to lay more golden eggs while at the same time they want to kill the goose.

I thought I might throw into the debate a few observations. I am indebted to Mrs. Karen Selick for some of this material.

These days in Canada our unemployment rate is over 11 per cent. Most probably know that, but what most of us probably do not know is that the unemployment rate in Hong Kong is about 1.5 per cent. That is the rate at which economists consider to be full employment. Those 1.5 per cent are primarily people in the process of changing jobs. About 1.5 per cent of our over 11 per cent are unemployed for the same reason, but what about the other 10 per cent?

With 1997 fast approaching and many Hong Kong residents scrambling to find a way out before China takes over, one would expect that Hong Kong would be going through a major economic recession complete with a high unemployment rate. Strangely it is not. Why? It is in part because it has no unemployment insurance.

There is a hypothesis that the existence of unemployment insurance increases unemployment. This hypothesis has been proven correct by economists. Economic theory can predict and explain this result and empirical studies have validated the theory.

I thought members of this House should have these scintillating facts before them as they consider this issue.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I must confess the member's timing was pretty good.

It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from April 20 consideration of the motion that Bill C-206, an act to provide for the relocation and protection of witnesses, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Witness Protection Act

[Rex Crawford, Liberal, Kent, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak today for two reasons. One reason is to thank the hon. member for Scarborough West for bringing the important issue of witness protection before the House today.

As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General rightly pointed out in the first hour of debate, the member deserves the thanks of all hon. members for his many months of hard work on this bill, for his determination and commitment to this issue and many other significant justice related issues. He is to be commended. His commitment and dedication reflect credit on the entire House.

My second reason for rising to speak to one aspect of Bill C-206 is the question of the scope of a protection program. More specifically, I would like to examine in some depth the categories of persons who might be deemed eligible for protection under a witness protection program.

We are all familiar with the concept of protecting crown witnesses who provide testimony against criminals. This group is the focus of the bill we are being asked to consider today. I am sure members recognize that court proceedings are the culmination of many months or even years of diligent work by enforcement authorities and prosecutors.

Witnesses are crucial to this process, but there is also another group of persons whose activities are equally important and who often operate at great personal risk. These people inhabit that shadowy nether world between the courtroom and the criminal underworld. I am speaking here of informants, or sources as they are typically referred to by police, and of agents.

The activities of both of these categories of persons are often crucial to the process of building a case that can be taken to court. Sources are persons who pass information to the police on the activities of criminals. They are usually paid for their actions and not infrequently are criminals themselves.

As with witnesses, sources run the risk of violent retribution if their co-operation with authorities is exposed. Betrayal is not treated lightly in the violent criminal subcultures and retribution can often mean death.

Agents are not only paid sources of information. They often take on another role. As the word agent suggests, persons of this category acting at the direction of the police can undertake specific actions to help further investigations.

For example, during drug investigations an agent can be used to introduce an undercover police officer to the criminal suspect or suspects. Performing the agent role can involve additional risk as one is not only providing information but also actively working against individual criminals or organized crime networks. Such work by its very nature entails greater risk of exposure.

Most sources and agents are motivated by the prospect of money and there may be little or no altruistic dimension to their behaviour. Despite their suspect motives the employment of such persons is necessary. The use of sources and agents is fundamental to our dealing effectively with organized crime and protecting such persons is often the only way to guarantee their co-operation.

The promise of protection also allows us to neutralize the weapons of fear and violence that criminals use to cow potential sources into submission.

Protection programs offer safe havens for criminals fearing for their safety. Their only option may be turning themselves over to the authorities. We must address these types of issues in a comprehensive manner if we are to construct strong and lasting legislation.

For this reason and because the activities of sources and agents are so fundamental to police investigations we must consider fully the categories of persons to be included in any protection program.

In this context, I would like very quickly to outline for the House my understanding of the situation in the United States, as I feel it is instructive to our examination of this bill.

The U.S. marshal service witness security program began operation in 1971. The program only deals with organized criminal activity or other serious offences. As its title suggests, the program is limited to providing protection for those persons testifying in major federal criminal proceedings. Police sources who do not provide testimony in court are not eligible for the program.

We have to bear in mind that the intent of the U.S. marshal's program is to elicit testimony that will convict major criminals. With a caseload of 500 witnesses per year the program is fully occupied with these witnesses alone. Police sources who do not testify remain the responsibility of the police. This restriction could create difficulties for Canadian enforcement.

Before acting we must deliberately and carefully explore what categories of people should be covered by any future Canadian witness protection program. If we move in haste we run the risk of limiting ourselves as the Americans have done with their federal program.

Certainly we may wish to be restrictive about the types of cases in which protection can be granted. To restrict a protection program to witnesses alone would in my opinion be self-defeating without a great deal more in depth consideration of the underlying issues.

Other related issues that might be dealt with in the legislation are questions of how parolees or probationers can receive protection while serving their sentences.

Practical issues aside, I also believe that the state has a moral responsibility to protect people who assist the authorities in criminal investigations. I believe this holds true even recognizing that the unsavoury character of many persons in the protection program makes them in the public eye unworthy recipients of taxpayers' dollars.

I would re-emphasize, however, that unsavoury or not, protection arrangements are crucial to effective enforcement action against criminals and organized crime. The proposed act to provide for the relocation and protection of witnesses has raised an important issue. We now have the opportunity of using the bill as a starting point to take comprehensive action on the issue of providing protective services for people who assist the authorities during criminal investigations and prosecutions.

In my view this may mean going beyond the boundaries of the protection program proposed in the current bill by examining how protective services could be provided to the full range of categories of witnesses, sources and agents. Anything less would be a disservice to the intent and spirit of the bill and to the hon. member who sponsored it.

I congratulate the member for Scarborough West. He and I share the same views on most other matters as well. It was a pleasure for me to take part in the debate.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in the debate on Bill C-206, an Act to provide for the relocation and protection of witnesses.

The hon. member for Scarborough West, the sponsor of this bill, deserves to be commended by all of us in this House for raising an issue that concerns law enforcement agencies not only in Canada but throughout the world.

For ten years, the need to protect witnesses has steadily grown, in direction proportion to increasing violence by criminals who act on their own or belong to organized crime. We need only remember the television news last night and this morning where threats were made; I am thinking of threats made in Italy against some judges and others by a criminal when he appeared in court. For this reason alone, then, the hon. member's bill is pertinent and certainly timely.

In the proceedings on Bill C-206, the Source-Witness Protection Program of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police was often mentioned. For obvious reasons, the RCMP is reluctant to disclose anything at all on this subject. Nevertheless, since it is the main program of this kind in Canada, we must have an idea of its extent and effectiveness to properly understand all the issues raised by this private member's bill.

This is why I am pleased to have this opportunity to present to the House a general outline of the RCMP's Source-Witness Protection Program.

First, let me put the program in its context. Source-Witness protection programs were always closely related to organized crime investigations. The expression "organized crime" includes various criminal activities, including the smuggling of large quantities of drugs, murders, aggravated assaults, money laundering, as well as extortion and robbery. As you know, it was strongly contended that organized crime was responsible for the smuggling activities in my riding, in your riding, and elsewhere.

More often than not, the perpetrators of these crimes also use fear and intimidation to make sure that witnesses and possible informants remain silent. However, the protection of witnesses now has a much greater scope. It is disturbing to see that, over the last few years, individual criminals have started to rely on fear and intimidation too. Let me go back to the comments I made earlier. These people are prepared to do anything to avoid being found guilty or to take revenge on witnesses.

Consequently, an increasing number of citizens need protection because of their role in cases which have nothing to do with organized crime. It is because of this increasing need to protect witnesses and informants, and also because of the priority given to the fight against major national and international drug smuggling rings that the RCMP's Source-Witness Protection Program was created in 1984.

The creation of this program was also based on several other factors.

There is the increasing need to use informers instead of RCMP undercover agents to penetrate complex criminal organizations. There is also the increase in violent crimes in Canada. There are, furthermore, obvious signs of extremist and terrorist activity in Canada. And finally, even more importantly, there is the jurisprudence on disclosure of information since the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was adopted.

All these factors have led to increased use of the RCMP's witness protection program.

Originally unique to the RCMP, the program is now used to provide protection for witnesses and informers through provincial and municipal police services across Canada.

Many of these services depend solely on the RCMP for this protection, but some of the bigger services have created their own units. They do not call on the RCMP for assistance except in cases where this is necessary in order to facilitate an identity change.

Most people entering the RCMP sources witness protection program in the mid-1980s were associated with major drug trafficking activities, but as I mentioned before, this has changed.

Today a growing proportion of the people entering the program have been involved in Criminal Code offences such as murder and serious assault. Obviously not every witness qualifies for witness protection despite the thousands of serious assaults that take place each year in Canada but the RCMP and other police forces must exercise care and good judgment when deciding who is eligible for witness protection and who is not.

These common sense safeguards ensure that the number of witnesses and informants do not outstrip the human and financial resources allocated to support the various witness protection programs.

In the last 10 years, the witness protection programs of the RCMP and other police departments have become highly effective enforcement tools against criminals who previously were able to use threats and violence against the witnesses to their crimes to avoid prosecution and conviction. The success of the witness protection program of the RCMP and other police departments speaks for itself.

Of the large number of witnesses and informants and their families who have been relocated over a 10-year period, none have come to any harm. That is a very important issue for us to consider, the effectiveness of what has been done thus far.

The RCMP carry out an average of 50 witness relocations per year. Of this number, approximately 10 cases are in support of other police departments. The direct cost of maintaining the RCMP's witness protection program averages $1.1 million per year.

When those expenses are added to the human resources cost to support the program, its total annual cost exceeds $3 million. Based on current trends, the costs of the program will probably increase as more people are given protection. However the costs are relatively cheap when measured against the impact that witnesses and informants have on individual criminals and organized crime.

There is no more devastating evidence than the firsthand testimony of a trusted accomplice exposing the inner workings of a criminal organization or that of a witness who has seen a serious crime take place and can identify the perpetrators.

Whether a witness or informant, these individuals are invaluable assets to the police and to the judicial system, not to mention society as a whole. In many cases the testimony cannot be replaced by any other investigative means no matter how expensive. This is especially true of drug enforcement.

Here the availability of the RCMP witness protection program has prompted informants and witnesses to come forward and assist the police and testify in court against major national and international drug traffickers despite the proven ability of these organizations to exact violent retribution. These witnesses have provided crucial first hand information to further investigations which otherwise would have been obtained at considerable cost to police resources, human and otherwise.

Major police investigations often require the police to use investigative techniques such as long term telephone intercept, extensive surveillance and the attempted infiltration of target groups using undercover police officers. These techniques are usually more expensive than the cost of providing protection for a witness or an informant.

Since starting the witness protection program, the RCMP has built up an infrastructure of experienced members and contacts. RCMP officers are available in every province and territory to support witness relocations and protection, to obtain secure identity changes and to provide the necessary provincial documents to authenticate these changes.

At headquarters in Ottawa, RCMP members have developed a national RCMP witness protection policy and procedures and contacts to facilitate the changes that must be made within numerous federal government databanks where a witness or informant receives a new identity.

A witness protection program is an enforcement tool that must be administered to some extent under the veil of secrecy. If information about police methods and procedures were to leak out, criminals could use this knowledge to locate and harm their accusers, not to mention the chill it would have on future witnesses. For this reason, witness protection is one of the most sensitive law enforcement techniques used by the police.

The RCMP is well aware of the sensitivity and the need for all to take suitable precautions. This holds true whether the witness or informant requires a complete protection package or just short term emergency protection during court proceedings.

The RCMP also provides the same level of quality service to any other police department that requests advice or direct assistance in that regard.

Witness protection is not a cure for violent crime or for organized crime, but it is an important weapon in the law enforcement's arsenal to investigate and to convict those who participate in organized and other serious crime in Canada. In short, witness protection is here to stay.

The RCMP source witness program and other witness protection programs initiated to date in Canada are constantly undergoing review, change and improvement to ensure that they complement the justice system and provide effective, secure support for the protection of witnesses.

I see Bill C-206, the proposed act to provide for the relocation and protection of witnesses, as part of that process for change and for improvement.

[Cliff Breitkreuz, Reform, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise in support of Bill C-206, the witness protection act. Members of the Reform Party are calling for numerous improvements and major changes to Canada's criminal justice system. Reformers, some members opposite and indeed most Canadians want to see the federal government take action on many fronts.

The Young Offenders Act and the parole system both need to be fixed. Stricter sentencing guidelines for convicted people must be implemented. The protection of law-abiding Canadian citizens must be an integral part of a major overhaul of the criminal justice system. Penal reform and consideration of capital punishment are other areas that should be pursued.

Bill C-206, the private member's bill pertaining to the relocation and protection of witnesses, is a step in the right direction. This private member's bill is an important one and it is a long time coming. For far too long, witness protection programs, where they exist, have been administered in a helter-skelter type manner. Canada does not have a national witness protection program which is rather ironic given our federal system where the Criminal Code is the responsibility of the federal government.

I commend the member for Scarborough West for the work that he has done in an attempt to fix just one aspect to facilitate an improvement on how justice is done in our country.

Complaints have been forthcoming for some time regarding the lack of adequate protection of witnesses in the current unorganized, hodge-podge way in which witnesses are dealt with in Canada. It is no wonder Canadians are losing faith in the criminal justice system when the state cannot uniformly protect its witnesses, the people it relies on to gain convictions against organized crime.

Introducing a national witness protection program is only a beginning step in the right direction when it comes to reforming Canada's justice system. Perhaps there can be no full and complete reform of the criminal justice system without addressing the entire legal industry. There is some speculation suggesting that our criminal justice system is in such a bad state of affairs because of the proliferation of lawyers which just may have something to do with the clogged court system, both criminal and civil.

Observations are beginning to be made in the United States that the true cost of the ballooning lawyer industry in American society amounts to billions upon billions of dollars per year. In the United States the number of students graduating from law school is 10 times higher than those who graduate from engineering.

In Japan and other countries whose industrial output is higher per capita than in the U.S. the opposite is the case and that is 10 engineering students graduate for every student who graduates from law school. I suspect both sets of figures may apply to Canada as well.

It is interesting and instructive to note there are 100,000 lawyers in Washington D.C. alone. The American capital has one of the highest crime rates in the United States. It seems that the proliferation of lawyers and the proliferation of laws go hand in hand. Part of the solution is to recognize that there might be a problem.

People want and demand fair but quick trials and sentencing in criminal cases, but the courts are backed up as a result of the growth of a system which is, as we all know, extremely top heavy. Justice, due process must not only appear to be served but seen to be served and as efficiently as possible.

The Young Offenders Act is a major contentious issue with Canadians. It represents yet another inadequacy in Canada's criminal justice system. The Reform Party believes, as do most Canadians, that the punishment of crime and the protection of law-abiding citizens and their property must be placed ahead of other objectives.

The present Young Offenders Act flies in the face of that major objective. It is the young offender who is protected, not law-abiding citizens. Youths between the ages of 12 and 17 are abusing the system. For committing murder they face a maximum sentence of five years. For armed robbery and violent sexual assault they can only be sentenced to a maximum of three years. For lesser offences, such as vandalism and theft, young offenders can get away with only a slap on the wrist, often in the form of community service work. Numerous instances exist where even this minimal sentence is spurned.

Where is the government's action on the Young Offenders Act? All we get are vague postulations, even as recent as this afternoon in question period, postulations but no action.

Another blatant breakdown in our criminal justice system is the issue of parole. Parole is now virtually automatic after one-third of the sentence is served. Parole must be discretionary, given for good conduct and should not amount to more than one-quarter of the sentence. Patronage appointments to the parole board must cease.

In 1987 parole reform was suggested by the federally appointed Canadian Sentencing Commission. So far we have got nothing. Perhaps the whole bureaucratic parole system should be abolished. Where is the government's action on the parole system?

Another flaw of the criminal justice system lies within the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Sections 7 to 14 of the charter cover the legal rights of the accused. Judicial interpretation of these sections has made the work of police and prosecutors more difficult in areas such as detention, search and seizure, interrogation and the speed of cases going to trial.

In fact it can be argued that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms actually hinders the Canadian justice system as it protects the criminal. The rights of the victim are not taken into account. Victims must be compensated by the offender to the greatest extent possible. Yet it is the offender who is compensated to the greatest extent by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

People, indeed members, cabinet ministers and some provincial governments are calling for the abolition of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Great Britain from whence we inherited much of our system of government and criminal law does not have a written charter of rights and freedoms. I doubt that anyone would argue that the fundamental rights of the people in the United Kingdom are in grave danger.

Obviously the Canadian justice system is in rough shape. Law-abiding Canadians are demanding that the Young Offenders Act and the parole system be overhauled. They are demanding that the criminal justice system work for them and not for the perpetrators of crime.

It is a sad state of affairs when Canadians must wait to have their criminal justice system fixed one private member's bill at a time, but it is a start. Again I commend the member for Scarborough West for taking the initiative to do what is necessary and I support the member's efforts on Bill C-206. I support it as I hope do all members of this House.

[Roger Gallaway, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as you have already heard from other hon. members, the main intent of witness protection is to offer protection to those who assist the authorities in criminal prosecutions and in particular those prosecutions aimed at organized crime. Given this emphasis on organized crime I think it would be useful to give the House a brief overview of exactly what that term means in the context of the bill.

If we can understand the threat that organized crime poses for our society then we can understand why the bill is so important and why it must be given careful consideration. What is needed is a statutorily based guarantee of protection for people who come forward and are prepared to give evidence against organized criminals.

Police of all jurisdictions deal with organized crime, including the RCMP, provincial and municipal services. Other enforcement authorities also have important roles to play. For example, federal immigration and citizenship authorities work with the police to deal with the smuggling of illegal aliens and illicit trafficking in forged or stolen personal identification documents. In a similar fashion customs and excise authorities work closely with the police in dealing with the movement of drugs, weapons, contraband liquor and tobacco, protected technologies, or other illegally imported or exported goods.

On the judicial side federal and provincial crown attorneys are of course responsible for pursuing prosecutions and obtaining convictions through the court system.

All of those authorities are united in their desire to develop and use the most effective laws and programs possible to combat organized crime. This desire is understandable given the serious threat organized crime poses to Canadian society.

The raison d'être of organized crime is simple: to make as much money as possible and to minimize the risk of getting caught by forming organized groups and networks. In its pursuit of illegal profits organized crime will engage in activities as varied and complex as those engaged in by legitimate multinational corporations.

Consider money laundering for example. The laundering of criminal proceeds through financial institutions and otherwise legitimate businesses by organized criminals subverts the operation of the legitimate economy by introducing unfair and unlawful practices, including tax evasion. Organized crime plays a key role in the maintenance and expansion of the underground economy by fueling the trade in stolen and smuggled goods.

The results are enormous tax losses for government and poorer services to the public. Every honest Canadian pays for the illicit profiteering of organized criminals and not just in terms of dollars and cents.

Many organized crime activities, such as drug trafficking and gaming, can have serious negative effects on our youth and families.

Violence associated with organized crime contributes to public fears and perceptions about personal victimization. In certain instances organized criminals use violence and intimidation in an attempt to dominate community members. In so doing they contribute to the isolation of some groups in our society. As profits from organized crime grow, so does the potential for the corruption of public officials and democratic institutions.

Organized crime groups challenge the legitimacy of government and encourage disrespect for lawful authority and public institutions. In its international variations, organized crime threatens Canadian sovereignty and our ability to control our borders.

Let me set out a brief typology of organized criminal behaviour to further illustrate the depth and seriousness of the organized crime problem.

Organized crime can occur locally. Juvenile prostitution rings operating in urban centres are one particularly sad and cruel example of local organized crime at work. In many cases local criminal operations are loosely or formally linked to other operations across the country.

Interprovincial organized crime is a particular problem because when criminals operate across jurisdictions it is more difficult for authorities to track and to combat their activities.

Then we have transnational crime where Canadians are involved in the movement of commodities into or out of the country. The initiative launched recently by the government to bring the smuggling problem under control shows how serious this variant of organized crime can be. Similarly transnational economic crime and money laundering by Canadians or by foreigners using Canadian or international institutions represent serious threats to the integrity of our financial and economic systems.

Finally, there is the very difficult and growing problem of international organized crime. Here foreign crime networks work with or co-opt Canadian criminals. International trafficking in cocaine and heroin is the best example with extremely well financed, well organized and ruthless cartels manipulating the international drug trade.

Underlying all of these criminal enterprises are two common denominators: violence and intimidation. Violence and intimidation are used to enforce discipline in criminal organizations, to compete for shares of illicit markets and to prevent people victimized by crime from co-operating with the police. This is a crucial point in the context of the bill because violence creates a climate of fear and fear can be a powerful disincentive to co-operation with the police and prosecutors.

To break the conspiratorial silence of organized crime we have to be able to offer protection to people who are willing to assist the authorities in their criminal investigations. There is a clear need for a system that encourages people to come forward to give information or evidence against organized criminals, a need recognized by the bill.

In summary, I would like to make some general observations on what I believe a protection program must do in the context of the organized crime problem.

First, we must ensure that a program would accommodate the needs of all the police and enforcement authorities with responsibilities for dealing with organized crime.

Second, every kind of organized crime is serious. In setting the parameters for a program we would need to ensure that the fullest range possible of offences carried out by organized criminals are addressed.

Finally, I note that the problem of international and transnational organized crime is a growing concern in the context of economic and political globalization. Therefore a protection program would need to take into account the necessity of co-operation between Canadian agencies and their counterparts in other nations.

I believe that this proposed act to provide for the relocation and protection of witnesses is important in signalling to the Canadian public the need for a statutorily based protection program for people who assist the authorities in criminal investigations and prosecutions. However before that is possible it must be studied further in light of the criteria I have just described.

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I also rise today to speak to Bill C-206, an act to provide for the relocation and protection of witnesses.

Listening to previous debates on the bill, it is clear that we all agree on the importance of providing Canadians with an effective and efficient witness protection program. We also appear to agree that the best means of achieving this, of ensuring a first rate witness protection program is through legislation. The obvious benefits of legislation pertain to accountability, transparency and universality.

In terms of accountability, there is no question that a minister should be held accountable to Parliament for the administration of this important service. While acknowledging that witness protection is inherently a confidential program, its basic principles and features should be matters of public knowledge.

There would be less misunderstanding about the purpose and scope of a witness protection program if its fundamental principles, criteria and procedures were expressly defined in law. When we speak of the need for universality, it is that witness protection should be available to all Canadians given the criteria for eligibility are satisfied.

There are of course other desirable features of legislation many of which have been raised in this debate. My point is to say we are all convinced that Canada's witness protection requirements would best be addressed through legislation. Having agreed that a legislated witness protection program is desirable, we must then ask what we want addressed in legislation besides the program's basic tenets and parameters.

As we have already learned, witness protection is a complex function of law enforcement, criminal prosecutions and public safety. It involves the interest and participation of numerous individuals and government departments. It generates considerable administrative activity. To what extent, I ask, should we address in legislation administrative requirements that comprise a witness protection program?

One thing is certain and that is that an ineffective witness protection program could lead to drastic results for all concerned. We must ensure we do not create a program without providing the tools for its effective implementation.

Of course, to address the specific issues that should be dealt with by legislation requires a thorough understanding of the intricacies of this service. This leaves us in a bit of a quandary as there are few experts in this field. Certainly we in this House, although we have been considerably enlightened over the course of this debate, really are not witness protection experts.

It is not my intention in speaking to trivialize in any way the efforts of my colleague, the hon. member for Scarborough West, or to minimize the knowledge he has obviously gained in this area; indeed he ought to be complimented for his efforts in this area. Knowing the scarcity of information on witness protection and the difficulty in accessing whatever information there is, the hon. member is to be commended for his tabling of Bill C-206. I speak today only to suggest that as with any law, the proposed legislation should take into consideration the representations of experts in the field.

A recent example of a similar undertaking can be found in Australia. A parliamentary review of witness protection took place in Australia in the late 1980s. The joint committee on the national crime authority produced its final report in 1988 following extensive testimony and submissions to the committee by police, lawyers, academics and even protected witnesses themselves.

We are fortunate to be able to benefit from the Australian experience, particularly in light of the scarcity of information on witness protection. I would like to share with the House some of the committee's observations and recommendations as well as review aspects of the Australian witness protection bill which was tabled in its Parliament in March 1994.

For members' information, the bill proposes the establishment of a national witness protection program to be operated by the Australian federal police.

To begin with, the committee clearly recognized that witness protection is crucial to the investigation and prosecution of organized crime and that in fact the vast majority of individuals who receive protection are informants, more specifically police agents.

I quote from the report:

The reality is that the majority of witnesses likely to be in need of protection will look at some involvement in the criminal activities in respect of which they are giving evidence.

The importance of this fact cannot be overemphasized. The implications of protecting and relocating individuals who have criminal experience or criminal associations are significant. I would suggest that this fact be specifically addressed in any proposed witness protection legislation in the interests of public safety and the general success of a witness protection program.

The Australian witness protection bill clearly considers this important issue. For example, clause 7 of the Australian bill lists matters that the witness must disclose before being included in the program. Most of these matters pertain to possible civil obligations, including debts, bankruptcy and other financial liabilities, as well as a detail of the applicant's criminal history.

This provision addresses the practical but very important, complex and costly problem associated with protecting witnesses who have outstanding liabilities in the old name. In effect it provides the commissioner of the Australian federal police permission to terminate an agreement with a witness if these kinds of liabilities were not disclosed prior to admission of the program.

I would suggest that this is the kind of practical matter that needs to be considered when legislating witness protection so that the program eventually created is workable.

Similarly, the committee recognized the importance of an efficient name change and documentation process and made several recommendations in this regard. Clause 22 of the Australian bill reflects the intention of one of these recommendations by creating an offence of unlawfully disclosing information about the witness' identity or information that would compromise his or her security. This is another example of an important aspect to witness protection that should be addressed in law.

The provisions of documents in the witness' new name in a timely and secure manner is vital to the success of relocation. In fact, this is the key to the success of any witness protection program. If an efficient name change and documentation process can be achieved by providing legal authority for the administration of this function and also sanctions for disclosure then we should be addressing this issue thoroughly in legislation.

I referred to just a few of the Australian bill's provisions. Overall the bill addresses numerous practical administrative considerations with informed detail. I have referred the House to the bill and the commentary in the Australian parliamentary joint committee's report to underscore the need to address this issue in a comprehensive manner. These are the types of factors that must be examined before this government can in good conscience proceed further with legislation for a witness protection program.

In closing, I would suggest that we learn from the experience of our Commonwealth partner and adopt a similar thorough approach to the important issue of witness protection in this country.

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Victoria—Haliburton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise and speak on Bill C-206, legislation for the protection of witnesses and the relocation system. I commend the hon. member for Scarborough West for bringing the

Many court cases are lost because of fear from witnesses. Family safety is paramount to allow witnesses to give evidence without fear of reprisal from criminal elements. My three years of work in the Ontario parole system taught me and made me very aware of the problems that exist within our penal system. Inmates live in constant fear within the system, afraid of being identified as rats because rats have a very short lifespan in the prison system.

Gangs from every segment of our population exist in prison. They control the institution from the prisoner's point of view. If a witness who is himself or herself a criminal wants to change their lifestyle this program offered by Bill C-206 is a ticket for them to give valuable evidence and be assured of some life after the court appearances.

Innocent family members are also offered an escape from the criminal life they may be trapped in and have no way out of. The reform of our criminal justice system may come from bills like this one from members and particularly from the member for Scarborough West.

I have experience in an organization called Crime Stoppers which I helped form and was the first chairman of in the town of Lindsay. I learned that anonymity was the key to success. Pay for evidence for convictions. Judges grant search warrants based on tips from Crime Stoppers because they know it comes from very close sources to the crime.

We even had instances of people calling from the Lindsay jail for bail money through the Crime Stoppers program. People are motivated by not having to worry about going to jail if they give evidence or having to exist in a criminal element in our prisons by giving evidence. This proves the point that being assured of no punishment allows people to come forward and give evidence against criminals who have no regard for life or limb of any witnesses and will do almost anything to eliminate a witness from a court trial that may put them behind bars.

Bill C-206 is an important step toward the fight against organized crime. Youth gangs, organized mature adult criminals and other elements in our criminal society are not prosecuted for fear of reprisal from witnesses. If this program does anything to address that problem it will certainly make me feel better that we have done something in Parliament to forward our criminal justice system in a method that allows it to work as it properly should without fear of reprisals and to be able to have a life after.

Canadians will benefit from the bill. All members should support it and help promote witness protection as a right of every individual in Canada. It will take away that fear, take away that element that criminals thrive on, that wonderful thing that they have of intimidation. Take that away in some form and we help to make our society a better place in which to live.

I support the bill in its entirety. I hope that it goes forward and that every member of this House will support it and support other bills that come forward, no matter whether they come from our friends on the opposite side of the House or from members on this side of the House. If they make sense and if they help us to promote our society to be a safer, better place to live, we should look at all members supporting them and bringing forward ideas and bringing forward amendments if we need to.

The bill should go forward and it should help Canada be a better place to live.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill C-206, an act to provide for the relocation and protection of witnesses.

The hon. member for Scarborough West, the sponsor of the bill, deserves credit for bringing before the House an issue that occupies the attention not just of Canadian law enforcement agencies but of law enforcement agencies around the world.

In the past 10 years the need for witness protection has grown dramatically in direct proportion to the increased violence displayed by individual criminals and organized crime. For this reason alone the hon. member's bill is timely and well deserved.

In previous debate on Bill C-206 mention was made several times of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police source witness protection program. For obvious and very good reasons the RCMP is cautious about revealing information concerning the program. As this is the main witness protection program in Canada we need to know something of its scope and effectiveness if we are to better understand all the issues raised by this private members' bill.

To this end I am happy to have the opportunity today to provide the House with a general overview of the RCMP source witness protection program.

First let me set out the context. Historically witness protection programs are most closely associated with the investigation of organized crime. The term organized crime covers a broad range of criminal activity including large scale drug trafficking, murder, serious assault, money laundering and extortion and robbery. As often as not these crimes go hand in hand with the use of fear and intimidation to ensure the silence of potential witnesses and informants.

However witness protection today has a broader application. A disturbing trend in recent years has been the use of fear and intimidation by lone criminals. These people are willing to go to any lengths to avoid convictions or to extract retribution from witnesses. As a result there are a growing number of people who need protection as a result of their roles in cases that have nothing to do with organized crime.

To deal with this growing need for witness and informant protection and in response to the increased enforcement priority placed on fighting major national and international drug trafficking organizations, the RCMP source witness protection program was started in 1984.

There were also several other factors underlined in the launch of the program. These included an increasing need to use confidential information rather than undercover RCMP officers to infiltrate sophisticated criminal organizations; the growing incidence of violent crime in Canada; clear evidence of extremist and terrorist activities in Canada and, most important of all, disclosure jurisprudence flowing from the charter of rights. All of these factors contributed to the growth of the RCMP's witness protection program.

Although originally intended for the use of the RCMP alone the program now provides protective services to provincial and municipal police forces right across Canada.

While many of these police forces rely entirely on the RCMP for witness protection program services some of the larger police departments have formed their own witness protection units. These larger police services only come to the RCMP for assistance in cases where federal help is needed to facilitate a change of identity for a witness or an informant.

Most people entering the RCMP source witness protection program in the mid-1980s were associated with major drug trafficking activities. However, as I mentioned a moment ago, this has changed of late. Today a growing proportion of the people entering the program have been involved in Criminal Code offences such as murder and serious assault.

Obviously not every witness qualifies for witness protection despite thousands of serious assaults that take place in Canada each year, but the RCMP and other police forces must exercise care and good judgment when deciding who is eligible for witness protection and who is not.

These common sense safeguards ensure that the numbers of witnesses and informants do not outstrip the human and financial resources allocated to support the various witness protection programs.

In the last 10 years the witness protection programs of the RCMP and other police departments have become highly effective enforcement tools against criminals who previously were able to use threats and violence against the witnesses to their crimes to avoid prosecution and conviction.

The success of the witness protection program of the RCMP and other police departments speaks for itself. Of the large number of witnesses and informants and their families who have been relocated over a 10 year period none have come to any harm.

The RCMP carries out an average of 50 witness relocation programs per year. Of this approximately 10 cases are in support of other police departments. The direct cost of maintaining the RCMP's witness protection program averages $1.1 million per year. When those expenses are added to the human resource costs to support the program its total annual cost exceeds $3 million.

Based on current trends, the cost of the program will probably increase as more people are given protection. The costs are relatively low when measured against the impact that witnesses and informants have on individual criminals and organized crimes.

There is no more devastating evidence than the firsthand testimony of a trusted accomplice exposing the inner workings of a criminal organization or that of a witness who has seen a serious crime take place and can identify the perpetrators.

Whether a witness or informant, these individuals are invaluable assets of the police and judicial system. In many cases their testimony cannot be replaced by any other investigative means.

This is especially true in drug enforcement. Here the availability of the RCMP's witness protection program has prompted informants and witnesses to come forward and assist the police and testify in court against major national and international drug traffickers despite the proven ability of these organizations to exact violent retribution.

These witnesses have provided crucial firsthand information to further investigations which otherwise would have been obtained at a considerable cost in police resources, human and otherwise.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Audrey McLaughlin, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, on April 21 I raised a question with the Minister for International Trade specific to the attack on Canadian wheat farmers, including such extreme attacks by certain people in the U.S. talking about minuteman missiles coming over to Canada.

At that time with the minister I raised the issue in general of Canada's trade policy, in particular this government's trade policy, and what it meant for Canadians specifically to the issue of wheat farmers, particularly durum wheat which is an ongoing dispute which has not been resolved with the United States by this government.

We learned on May 24 that as part of an attempt to resolve this dispute the minister simply confirmed that there was a Canadian proposal to resolve the farm trade dispute and through that Ottawa would eliminate a rail transportation subsidy on grain shipped through Thunder Bay, clearly affecting in a detrimental way the shipping industry in Thunder Bay. The rerouting seems to me not to be an answer to the problem of this trade dispute but the creation of yet another problem for Canadians in another industry.

When I first raised this question with the minister I raised the issue as well of NAFTA. He reminded me that the wheat dispute did not come under NAFTA but under GATT and of course I was very well aware of that.

However I am concerned that even since April 21 we have seen a deterioration in our trade relations with the United States. The minister has made a number of statements that do make the connection between these disputes that we have had and the NAFTA agreement which was proclaimed by the government on January 1, 1994.

Prior to January 1, prior to the election of 1993, the often quoted Liberal red book with regard to trade relations stated: "The Canada-United States free trade agreement and the North American free trade agreement are flawed. A Liberal government will renegotiate them".

The government implemented NAFTA on January 1 and is now backtracking. For example, the minister on May 25 stated in an article in the Toronto Star : ``In the harshest remarks by a Canadian minister in recent years, the minister yesterday accused President Bill Clinton's administration of increasingly arbitrary use of U.S. trade law to thwart Canadian exports in wheat, lumber and other commodities and of kowtowing to regional interest''.

The article goes on to say that the minister stopped short of talking about abrogating the North American free trade agreement if disputes continue, but certainly did warn in that same interview that NAFTA is in a somewhat uncertain position at this time.

My party has said for a very long time that NAFTA is not just uncertain, it is bad news for Canada. Yesterday in another journal, the Globe and Mail , the minister was quoted as saying that we may see a move away from the dispute settlement panel procedures into a broader based discussion.

Clearly the harassment by the United States on this issue continues on a variety of fronts. Farmers know what they have given up after the NAFTA deal and under the trade policy of the Liberal government in general. Lumber producers know what they have given up under Liberal trade policy. Unemployed workers in the manufacturing and service industries know what they have given up under Liberal trade policy and I would like to ask the minister or his representative can they tell this House what Canadians have gained from Liberal trade policy.

All we see is the backtracking now coming to the realization that NAFTA is not in Canada's interest, and implementing such measures, for example, is eliminating the rail transportation subsidies. Canadians on a wide variety of fronts know what they have lost from Liberal trade policy. Can the representative explain what exactly Canadians have gained?

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member, the North American Free Trade Agreement, with improvements secured by this government, provides improved access to the Mexican market and builds on the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement in enhancing Canadian access to the United States.

Canada and the United States are each other's largest trading partners. In 1993 the total bilateral trade between our two countries was $256 billion. This trade was in Canada's favour by nearly $30 billion. Given such a large volume of trade, it can be expected that differences may arise. What is important to remember is that 95 per cent of this trade is undisputed.

I can assure the House and the member across that a satisfactory resolution of the agricultural negotiations with the United States is a top priority of the government. The issue has been raised at the highest level in discussions between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States. As well, the Minister for International Trade and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food have been working very hard in negotiations with the U.S. in order to conclude an agreement that respects the interests of the Canadian agricultural industry.

The Minister for International Trade has just returned from meetings in Washington with members of the U.S. administration where he again vigorously underscored the Canadian position. With respect to grains, the United States has chosen to pursue the matter of Canadian exports to the United States under the GATT and not NAFTA.

On May 3 the United States officially notified the GATT of its intentions to renegotiate tariffs on wheat and barley under the GATT article XXVIII. This notification triggers a 90-day period in which Canada and the United States will continue to attempt to reach a mutually satisfactory settlement of several agriculture trade issues.

If no agreement is reached following the 90-day period and the United States does proceed with restrictions on Canadian wheat and barley, Canada has the right under GATT to retaliate. If necessary we will exercise our GATT rights in response to the U.S. trade action.

I wish to emphasize that the government remains committed to reaching a negotiated solution to these issues and will continue to work toward that objective during the 90-day period to ensure that the best interests of the Canadian agri-food industry are served. The Minister for International Trade and the minister of agriculture will be meeting with their U.S. counterparts next month in an effort to resolve.

In conclusion, I want to remind everyone that in bilateral trade in agricultural and agri-food products between Canada and the United States, that portion alone is worth several billion dollars. It is in the interest of both Canada and the U.S. to ensure that this trade grows in both directions to the benefit of both countries.

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on February 21 I had the opportunity in the House to ask a question of the minister of agriculture about the expansion of country of origin labelling in Canada. At that time the minister indicated general agreement with the concept and the fact that there would obviously need to be ongoing discussions with the various sectors of the agri-food industry.

In April I had the opportunity to put a question to the parliamentary secretary to the minister, again about the issue of country of origin labelling, with the twist that it had come to my attention at a meeting of the Middlesex Federation of Agriculture that there was concern among Canadian farmers that perhaps there had been an agreement, a secret agreement I guess, made between Canada, Mexico and the United States not to pursue the idea of country of origin labelling. I had the assurance from the parliamentary secretary at that time that this was not the case.

I wish to pursue this briefly today in the House because we all know that it does pay to buy Canadian. I certainly prefer to purchase Canadian product, and that obviously includes agri-food product, as I think many Canadians do. Within a given range of expense, I think that many Canadians are prepared to pay a little bit more for a Canadian made product or a Canadian grown product in the agri-food situation.

My farm constituents in London-Middlesex would want me to say that we certainly have the safest food anywhere in the world, and as an urban Canadian I agree with that. If it is a little more expensive through no fault of Canadian farmers, then I am prepared to pay that little extra and I would certainly hope and I do believe that many Canadians are also prepared to pay that little extra.

I wonder about the labelling we see in food stores. I have spoken to the parliamentary secretary and the minister informally on this as well as many members. It is pretty easy to go into a food store in this country and see in large letters "Packaged in Canada", and below it in very minuscule letters, almost unreadable, "Product of California" or South Carolina or wherever.

To the naive purchaser, which I would be, not often frequenting these food stores because that chore is taken on by one better qualified in my family, my wife, it is pretty easy to think you are buying a product that was produced in Canada when in fact it simply was packaged in Canada.

I have a couple of questions for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

First, will the government consider some expansion of the concept of country of origin labelling, or at least will there be an opportunity to have a dialogue with the Canadian agri-food industry about this idea?

Second, is there not some concern from the minister and from our government about safety standards of agri-food product that is imported into this country? I ask this second question because we have all heard the horror stories about imported food. Let us for example talk about chicken from the southern U.S. The former illustrious member for Lambton-Middlesex has a pretty good horror story about southern U.S. chicken coming into this country, treated in such a way that I think if most Canadian consumers knew it might turn their stomachs, if not dissuade them from buying that product.

To what extent is that a concern of the minister and of the parliamentary secretary and of our government?

I have two questions in summary. Will the concept of country of origin labelling be pursued with our Canadian farmers in at least a determination of how much they want to pursue it? I understand there is a potential downside when that is done to our product in other nations. To what extent is there a concern about imported agri-food product being up to the safety standards of our product, not that it is acceptable to come into the country, but is that food in all instances as safe as our own Canadian agri-food product?

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to answer the questions from the hon. member.

In answer to his first question, yes, the department will continue and is open to dialogue as far as the labelling of food products in Canada is concerned.

In response to the second question, Canada has country of origin labelling requirements for food products sold in Canada at the retail level. These requirements are provided under the appropriate regulations for food covered by the Meat Inspection Act, the Canadian Agricultural Products Act and the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act.

The rules apply to these products for purposes of health and sanitary inspection whether they are produced domestically or imported. Our main objective has been and will continue to be the safety of the agri-food product.

Both federal and provincial labelling requirements for agri-food products were in place prior to the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement and were not affected by the agreement coming into force.

Product which is imported and only packed in Canada will still be marked with the country of origin. However if it is substantially transformed with the addition of further value it will then be marked as product of Canada.

Under the NAFTA, rules were negotiated for determining the country of origin. These rules will be used for customs purposes. In this regard U.S. customs require that all imported products be marked with the country of origin while Canada does not use markings for customs purposes for agri-food products.

Under the negotiations Canada achieved its objective of transforming the U.S. discretionary marking rules into a clear set of rules based on tariff classification. As a result Canada will have a better mechanism to ensure that the U.S. applies more consistent rules to Canadian exports into the United States.

Appropriate government departments are currently working to ensure that the new rules do not create unnecessary costs for Canadian exporters and that they are favourable for Canadian products which may be packed in the United States and returned for sale in Canada.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

On April 26, 1994 I asked the minister of fisheries a question regarding the failure to reach a successful conclusion during recent Pacific salmon treaty negotiations. This failure could result in serious consequences for the Canadian fishery industry.

Canadian fishing conservation measures have been undertaken for many years now. Unfortunately our American neighbours have not been as diligent in their past efforts to maintain a viable fishery stock. Presently they are being forced to close salmon runs due to the destruction of habitat and to place moratoria on fishing in the Strait of Juan de Fuca due to past fisheries mismanagement and the squandering of too many fish.

It is my understanding that negotiations have gone off track due to the intransigence of Alaskan negotiators and their refusal to co-operate in Canada's definition of fair and equitable goals. Surely the Americans must understand that if we have shared fish stocks and they have destroyed or drastically reduced the viability of the Oregon and Washington fish stocks in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, we as Canadians will want to work out a solution to this problem that will not penalize Canada for maintaining sound conservation measures in contrast to the lack of any of the same practices south of the border.

We already have a situation whereby last year we in effect subsidized the American fishery by the sum of approximately $65 million. This represents Canadian fish being caught by American fishermen. We are now being asked to close or seriously curtail our fishery in order to correct the poor management of the Canada-U.S. shared fisheries resource. This would mean a drastic reduction to our catch, tying up Canadian boats and putting Canadian fishermen out of work.

This situation I suggest is unacceptable for my province of British Columbia and for Canada as a whole. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans what further action we may take to get the negotiations back on track. If this is not possible, what further action may the Government of Canada take in its dealings in the Pacific salmon fisheries in order to prevent a full scale fish war?

[Herb Dhaliwal, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. I know how crucial this issue is for British Columbia and how important it is to the hon. member.

Let me begin by saying that we are very concerned with the position of the U.S. government. Its position on fishing arrangements is completely unreasonable. It wants more Canadian fish but wants us to take less of its fish. It wants Canada to help conserve its fish stocks but is not prepared to help us to conserve ours. It wants increased access to Canadian salmon when its stocks are low but denies Canadians the same treatment.

Its position on the equity principle is also completely unreasonable. According to the Pacific salmon treaty the principle of equity means that each country is entitled to fisheries benefits which are equivalent to its own production of salmon.

This fair balancing has never been implemented by the U.S. The current imbalance against Canada has almost doubled in the last four years and we are now in a deficit position of approximately $65 million a year. Instead of recognizing this imbalance the U.S. position is that for this year it wants to increase the deficit to $100 million.

Canada's position is clear. We are doing everything possible to ensure that we negotiate terms with the U.S. which are fair and responsible for both countries.

The Prime Minister has raised this matter with President Clinton who has agreed to become involved. The Canadian negotiator recently met with the state governors who have agreed to pursue the matter further with the U.S. administration.

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is currently in Washington, D.C., meeting with U.S. congressmen and senior officials. The province of British Columbia has agreed to assist in putting the Canadian case before U.S. opinion makers.

Barring these extensive measures, Canada's position is equally clear. We are not prepared to allow the U.S. to continue to reap the rewards while Canada bears the burdens. For too many years Canada has put off until the next year taking a firm line with American negotiators.

I want to make it perfectly clear that this year that will not be the case.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 38(5) the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.

The House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.51 p.m.)