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.