Debates of Oct. 5th, 1995

Witness Protection Program Act

[Shaughnessy Cohen, Liberal, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-78. I sought the opportunity because over the past 15 years I have been active as a lawyer in the criminal justice system. As a lawyer I have worked with witnesses in court, as a defence counsel, as a crown prosecutor for the provincial government of Ontario and as a crown prosecutor for the federal government.

On other occasions I have worked as counsel for witnesses who were involved in witness protection programs. I have had the opportunity to see firsthand what happens to a person, particularly a member of the public, who becomes a witness and to people in the past who became involved in our less formal former witness protection program. I have also seen what happens when a witness is intimidated or when an accused person or a person involved in crime attempts to intimidate a witness.

It is now past the time when we should come forward and set out some clear legislation, some clear rules and clear guidelines and regulations to deal with persons who find themselves in the very delicate and very dangerous position of being a witness and being subject to duress and penalty from those who would seek to quiet them.

Criminals have successfully utilized fear and intimidation of potential witnesses to avoid prosecution and punishment for their criminal acts. Individuals will go to great lengths to avoid convic-

tion or to exact violent retribution from witnesses. We have recognized this. We have worked with this in the system for a long time. We now recognize that enforcement agencies need the support and the assistance of the public to further their investigations and to achieve success in their efforts to bring criminals to justice.

That support would not be forthcoming in the absence of programs designed to ensure the safety of those citizens prepared to get involved by providing information or testifying against criminals.

Witnesses are the ultimate public servants. They are people without whom we could not operate our criminal justice system and without whom we could not bring criminals to the courts and to justice. Witnesses fall into several categories. There are witnesses who are paid to be witnesses and who receive salaries for that, public servants, police officers, investigators at Revenue Canada or at Canada Customs, investigators in various forms of activities that could result in criminal prosecutions. These people are accustomed to dealing with criminals. They also have a role in life that allows them within the system to have the protection of their office and the protection of their job.

On the other end of the spectrum there are ordinary citizens who by coincidence or accident find themselves witnesses to crimes: somebody is walking down the street and they see a bank robber getting away or they witness a car accident in which one of the drivers was criminally negligent or drunk.

Some members of the public become witnesses by virtue of their status as victims of crime. These witnesses by and large come forward and provide a tremendous public service with little concern for their own personal safety as a result of their testimony.

Witnesses who may have been involved with organized crime or other forms of criminal activity and who come forward, as much as they may want to come forward, have their lives affected adversely. These are people who live under threat, people who live in fear of some kind of punishment from those they would seek to accuse or witness against.

There are also witnesses we seek out, we being the government or the agency doing the investigation. These witnesses fall into the general loose category of informants, paid informants or sources. It is an unfortunate fact of life that sometimes we have to go to criminals to bring criminals to justice. Sometimes we have to go to people involved in an activity to have their assistance in bringing to justice the main perpetrators.

The legislation is intended to cover these people and to protect them in the event their lives are in danger. The legislation will cover agents who participate in investigations as well as informants.

The witness protection program act defines a witness as a person who has given or who has agreed to give information or evidence or has agreed to participate in a matter relating to an inquiry or the investigation or prosecution of an offence whose security is at risk as a result. Also included in the definition are persons who may require protection due to their relationship to or association with the people previously mentioned.

We are talking about people who by accident or on purpose become involved in an investigation and who are under duress from those who would be investigated as a result. Protection under the act can include relocation, accommodation, change of identity, counselling, financial support for those people or for any other purpose in order to ensure their security and to facilitate their re-establishment or their becoming self-sufficient. It covers a wide range of services that can be provided.

Not everyone involved in the witness protection program will live a secret existence in the future. They may simply require counselling or assistance to get on with their lives after the trauma of having dealt with this.

We know from previous speakers that the annual cost of the protection program is $3.4 million and that there will be no additional costs as a result of the legislation.

The legislation clearly defines what is expected of the government and what is expected of the witnesses as a result of this program. In the past there has been a problem because our program has been informal and because the program has been allowed to change with particular circumstances.

As a result there have been complaints from those who are protected and from the RCMP which administers the program that people's expectations are not being met and that the RCMP needs assistance in defining how far it can go and what it should do to protect the witness.

The new legislation will ensure a clear defined admission policy for witnesses, consistent treatment of cases across the country, a clear setting out of responsibilities and obligations of administrators of the plan and protectees entering the program, and a more defined management structure within the RCMP for the daily operation of the program, thereby increasing accountability.

This is an important section. I recall dealing with a witness who was under protection and who was having difficulty within the system making contact with someone to assist her or to give some answers on some information she required. Even as a lawyer it was a bit of a nightmare trying to get through the maze of administration to find someone who could assist her with her problem. The

more clearly defined management structure within the RCMP will assist to straighten that out.

A complaints procedure will be in place and the commissioner of the RCMP will submit to the solicitor general an annual report on the operation of the program.

During 1994 and 1995 we have provided protective services to 70 new witnesses, 30 of whom were referred by other agencies. The $3.4 million we are spending annually on the program will not increase as a result of the change in administration but the money will be spent more effectively. It will be spent more clearly on guaranteeing the safety of the witnesses.

It is important for the public to understand and appreciate that the witness protection program operates across the country, but it does not operate in a vacuum. In devising the statute and in setting out the scheme in the act we have consulted all the provinces and territories.

When someone applies for the program or when a decision is made to admit an applicant to the program, the following factors will be taken into consideration: the potential contribution the witness or source can make toward a police investigation; the nature of the offence under investigation; the nature of the risk to the individual; what alternate methods of protection are available; the danger to the community if the individual is admitted to the program; the potential effects on any family arrangements; the likelihood of the individual's being able to adjust; their maturity, their ability to make judgments and other personal characteristics; the cost of maintaining the individual in the program; and other factors the commissioner of the RCMP finds relevant.

It is important that there be a clear, defined decision making process to admit an individual into the program. In serious cases such as those requiring a change of identity or an admission of a foreign applicant, the decision to admit an individual will be made only by the assistant commissioner in charge of the program. A decision to terminate protection must also be made by the assistant commissioner.

This is only part of the Liberal safe streets, safe neighbourhoods program. Obviously we need statutes like this. No matter how much serious crime there is, we know there always will be crime and there always will be a need to protect people.

When we are protecting people we need to be able to say to Canadians we are protecting people worthy of protection, that we are protecting people when there is a serious risk and that we have a clearly defined methodology for doing it. As the economy becomes healthier, as we work toward the creation of jobs and the creation of prosperous communities, we will find there will be less and less violent crime on our streets.

Those who would seek to encourage Canadians to believe that violent crime is increasing at the present time are being disingenuous because we know statistically and from crime reports that is not the case.

The bill is not a response to the fearmongering that exists in certain quarters of society. It is a practical, concrete response to a need to clearly define and assist the criminal justice system in witness protection. It is a practical, pragmatic response to a situation we have been able to identify. It is part of the ongoing Liberal government plan for safe streets and safe communities in Canada.

[Sheila Finestone, Liberal, Secretary of State (Multiculturalism) (Status of Women)]

Madam Speaker, I extend my gratitude to the Solicitor General of Canada for establishing a legislative base for the RCMP's source and witness protection program. I also assure him of my total support.

It is another useful and effective tool for our law enforcement officials. It will reduce crime and make Canada a safer place for everyone.

Our various colleagues in the House have defined the extent and content of the bill. I found the interventions of my colleagues very interesting. I particularly refer to the previous intervention by my colleague from Windsor.

As my hon. colleague and the solicitor general have said, in the past criminals have successfully used fear and intimidation of potential witnesses to avoid prosecution and punishment for their crimes. Enforcement agencies need the support and assistance of the public to further their investigations to successfully bring criminals to justice.

The bill under examination today is aimed at improving the RCMP's witness and informant protection program, making it more effective and more open. Its intent is to protect those who assist our police forces in criminal investigations, particularly when organized crime is involved.

It is an acknowledged fact that the contribution of informants and witnesses is often essential in resolving certain criminal investigations. The Quebec Minister of Public Security has, for instance, stated only a few days ago that the most effective means of curtailing the war between motorcycle gangs in Quebec is to recruit informants and witnesses. Those who cooperate with law enforcement agencies occasionally place themselves in dangerous positions as far as their personal safety is concerned, and we owe it to them to provide the best possible protection.

In the past, some participants in the old sources and witnesses program have complained that they did not get the benefits they had been promised. This will not happen any longer, because the

changes proposed today will ensure the application of clear and uniform criteria across the country.

The changes proposed by the witness protection program act will help ensure that both the applicants who enter the program and the RCMP which operates it have a clear understanding of their rights and obligations. The legislative initiative defines a range of protective services and benefits that can be provided. It makes the program more transparent and more accountable.

The process of how one gets into the program has been clearly defined.

A decision to admit an applicant to the RCMP SWPP, as it is called, will be based on the following factors: the potential contribution the witness source can make toward a particular police investigation; the nature of the offence under investigation; the nature of the risk to the individual; alternative methods of protection that are available; danger to the community if the individual is admitted to the program; the potential effects on any family relationships; the likelihood of the individual being able to adjust to the program, that is the maturity of that individual, the maturity of their judgment and other personal characteristics, as well as the cost of maintaining the individual in the program; and any other factor the commissioner of the RCMP may deem relevant.

Under the witness protection act there will be a clear decision making process to admit an individual into the program. In serious cases such as those requiring a change of identity or admission of a foreign applicant, the decision to admit an individual can only be made by the assistant commissioner in charge of the program. A decision to terminate protection must also be made by the assistant commissioner. In less serious cases the decision to admit an individual can be taken at the chief superintendent level. There are protections built into the legislation.

I am proud to say that more than any previous administration the government is committed to reducing violence in our society, specifically violence against women and crime motivated by hatred or bias against any of the vulnerable groups, particularly those which are listed in section 15 of the charter.

Violence is not a phenomenon that can be encompassed or dealt with in one big bold stroke. It is a complex problem with multiple causes and multiple effects. It touches all levels of society and all regions of the country. The whole program was worked out with all regions of the country, from the Atlantic to the Pacific to the Arctic, and that includes Quebec in the portrait. That is why the government is taking a comprehensive approach involving several federal departments.

In the past year a whole series of measures have been tabled by ministers, reinforcing our commitment to address the problem of violence. As the solicitor general has said, the government has instituted many new measures to make our homes and our streets safer. Members will recall that in our red book, safe homes and safe streets was one of our major undertakings and a commitment which we have met with great sincerity and alacrity.

I mention a few measures which are extremely important to women: measures against criminal harassment, commonly called the anti-stalking law; the firearms control legislation; the reform of the sentencing process; and the reform of the Young Offenders Act.

These widely varying initiatives have one common goal: to reduce violence and crime in our society. That objective is, moreover, set out clearly in the federal gender equality plan prepared under the auspices of the commission on the status of women, for which I am secretary of state, and tabled early this summer. Cabinet has been solidly behind this undertaking.

The federal plan also calls for the Canadian government to undertake a comparative analysis by gender of all of these initiatives. A similar endorsement was given at the fourth international congress for women in Beijing. This comparative analysis by gender indicates how policies affect men and women differently. I must say that I see this as an eminently logical undertaking.

In some cases, these differences are central to policy and play a determining role in its application. In others they have a minor impact and are only one of a series of factors that must be taken into consideration.

In the spirit of the federal plan for gender equality we must ensure that the specific needs of women who qualify are considered in the application of the RCMP sources and witness protection program. We have a tendency to think of the world of criminals and organized crime as a man's world, but that is not entirely true. Unfortunately hundreds of women are in contact with this violent world and many are dreaming of getting out of it, just like the men, if only they could do so safely.

These women could become vital sources of information for police and prosecutors. However they are vulnerable to fear, to intimidation and blackmail. They have to think not only about their own personal safety but in most cases they also have to be concerned with the protection of their children.

Women should know that under section 2 of the witness protection program act, protection may include relocation for themselves and their families, accommodation and change of identity, as well

as counselling and financial support. The objective of the program is to ensure the safety and the security of citizens, women and men, who assist police in their efforts to crack down on criminals. We all know this is a needed program and a needed access to information.

The program will help them to re-establish in a new location and will support them until they become self-sufficient if they fulfil the criteria I outlined earlier in my remarks.

All citizens who contribute to eradicating crime and violence from our society deserve our gratitude and support. We know that crime is on the decrease. Notwithstanding we will always have some individuals in society who will engage in abhorrent behaviour. We will always have those who will act outside the law in their selfish, personal interests. However initiatives such as this one will help to ensure society can be a caring, safe and just.

In some cases contributions that witnesses will bring to the court on very dangerous criminals call for extraordinary courage. We want those citizens who have demonstrated their concern for safety and security in the home, in the marketplace and on our streets to receive the best possible protection. No other program has been so comprehensive or so considerate of the needs of our citizenry. That is why I support the solicitor general's initiative.

I hope that all my colleagues in the House, particularly those who have been expressing their concerns on individual cases, will look at this collective undertaking, support it wholeheartedly and join in ensuring a speedy passage of Bill C-78.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today on Bill C-78 which is really about public safety. This must be very rewarding for my colleague from Scarborough West considering his diligence in bringing this vital matter to the government's attention. His efforts in this regard are certainly commendable.

The debate on private member's bill last spring and the previous fall showed great evidence of support on both sides of the House for the bill and for what he was trying to do. The debate on Bill C-206 demonstrated there is really a clear need for a legislated protection program for witnesses and sources in criminal cases.

It seems that demonstrated there was a clear desire by members of Parliament for such a program. One of the reasons for the desire and the need for the legislative program is that there have been some problems in the past. For example, at times there have been misunderstandings between the police and a witness or a source about what the agreement was between them, or what the roles of each was and what their responsibilities were. It is important that the bill clarify some of the rights, responsibilities and obligations on both sides in these matters.

In my view the solicitor general is to be commended for responding to an obvious need to bring about changes to the decade old program. Many people may not realize there is a witness protection program within the RCMP that has been active and operating for quite a few years. Also many programs are operated by municipal and provincial police forces across the country.

The solicitor general is to be commended for responding to the obvious need to bring about changes to this decade old program. We see his response today in Bill C-78, which is now before us. The bill is really another plank in the government's efforts to deal with crime.

I will give some examples of how we have dealt with crime in various ways over the past couple of years. There have been amendments to the Young Offenders Act. In fact I am looking forward to attending a forum in my area in Dartmouth next Thursday, where we will be discussing youth issues and issues related to the Young Offenders Act. It is being put on by CBC radio and I am looking forward to attending to discuss some of the issues arising out of past amendments and concerns of the public about the Young Offenders Act.

We have also had Bill C-45, which provided for reform of the corrections process and issues of conditional release. We all recognize that we had very speedy passage of the bill to provide for the use of DNA evidence in criminal proceedings.

All these things are planks in the efforts of the government to deal with crime. We are working steadily to fulfil our goal of ensuring that Canadians live in safe homes and safe streets.

Upon passage of Bill C-78 Canadians will have a witness protection program that will serve them well, because it will provide a legislated program that will operate more efficiently, more effectively, but will not cost taxpayers more money. I am sure that in my riding of Halifax West the taxpayers will be in favour of that part of the bill.

The whole area of witness protection is particularly important in places like Nova Scotia, as it is across the country. However in Nova Scotia the area where it will be most often used will be in drug enforcement. Our province is a key offloading area for drugs coming from South America, the Caribbean, and the eastern coast of the United States because of the fact that Nova Scotia is a peninsula with so much coastline and many little coves. This makes it picturesque and beautiful to visit, and I recommend that all members and Canadians who are interested should visit us and see our beautiful province. However it also provides an opportunity for drug smugglers to offload their product because it is difficult to

detect them and difficult for the RCMP or other police forces to cover all those inlets and bays.

The witness protection program is also used in areas of crime, including homicides and prostitution, which are also of great concern. If we can help in those investigations and the prosecution of cases of that nature with the bill, it is certainly worth pursuing.

I checked with one of the local RCMP offices in my riding and I was told that the existing witness protection program had been used there about 25 times in the past 20 years. Obviously it is not used constantly, but it provides a very important tool for police in investigation and prosecution for criminal offences.

It seems to me that in the future those who must turn to the witness protection program, like the approximately 70 Canadians who did so last year, will benefit from a number of programs provided by the bill. I believe members would agree that all Canadians would benefit from the improvements.

In many respects we are talking about trying to fight organized crime. Yes, there other kinds of crime involved, individual crimes. We can readily see how the witness protection program can deal with problems of organized crime. With that kind of an organized group there is much more need for witness protection.

In that sense one of the best ways to fight organized crime is with information that sources and witnesses can provide if they do not feel they are at risk of being killed, injured or maimed if they give evidence or assist the police in some other way. The bill is important in all those respects.

Another key element of the bill will be a clearly defined admission process and criteria so that not just anybody can qualify under the program. It is very clear from the RCMP or other police forces that want to make use of the RCMP program what the rules are, what the procedures are, and who can be admitted and how. This is very important.

The RCMP has a responsibility after the bill becomes law to thoroughly examine the applicant's suitability for the program in a variety of ways. That means not only the potential contribution the applicant can make toward an investigation, but the RCMP will also look closely at the individual, at the risk involved to that individual, what might be the risk of danger or harm coming to him, the impact on the person or his or her family, as well as the ability of the individual to adjust to the program. I suppose that could be a problem in some cases, depending on the kind of individual being dealt with. All those factors are obviously important in determining who should be admitted to the program.

Interestingly the protection of witnesses and sources does not just mean relocation, as we assume, and change of identity. It also means counselling or other kinds of support. I turn to the bill itself for a moment to read to the House the definition of protection in Bill C-78:

"protection", in respect of a protectee, may include relocation, accommodation and change of identity as well as counselling and financial support for those or any other purposes in order to ensure the security of the protectee or to facilitate the protectee's re-establishment or becoming self-sufficient;

We see there are a variety of kinds of protection that can be provided and are necessary. Under the bill the RCMP is required to look at alternate methods of protection.

We talk about the kind of counselling support that a witness may need or a source may need and we think of prostitution involving children, for instance. While there is a basic need for protection in the sense of protection from violence of the child, there will probably be a need for counselling for a child who has been involved in prostitution and the violence and the intimidation associated with that activity.

We can all recognize how difficult and frightening it has to be for people to come forward who have been a witness or a source and have been involved in some way in a matter of this sort. It has to be terrifying, particularly if they are fearing for their lives and in some cases for their family or someone else who may be close to them. That is why the definition of witness in Bill C-78 includes those who might have evidence or will give evidence in the future, as well as those who might be at risk themselves, for instance their family.

The source witness protection program must, and with Bill C-78 it will, make it easier for people with information that may help investigations to come forward without fear for their own safety and the safety of their families. That to me is key. We are not only talking about the safety of their families, but by extension if we can get them to feel freer about coming forward and being witnesses or sources then it is the safety of all our families we are talking about here. The success of the program and of our crime fighting efforts in general depends on sources and witnesses and the information they can provide. Their safety is of paramount importance, which is why I am so pleased to support the bill.

The bill provides one important item that we do not have at the present and is needed. As we can see in the bill of the member for Scarborough West and the debate around that bill over the past year or so, we need consistency in how each case is dealt with. With the bill every case across the country will be dealt with in a consistent manner, which is a big improvement.

The bill will not replace other witness protection programs that exist across the country. I mentioned that provincial forces and municipal forces have their own programs. They will continue to operate. Those law enforcement agencies will continue to be able to participate in the RCMP source witness protection program, but

they will now be able to do so with much more accountability and transparency in the process.

Another important area in the bill solves some potential problems in the present system in the area of accountability and transparency, which we need to have more of in this process. The bill makes the administration of the program much more transparent and accountable. It goes through the commissioner of the RCMP to the minister and to the House of Commons. It provides for clearer lines of authority within the RCMP structure. That makes unquestionably for a more efficient administration.

The commissioner is required to make an annual report on the operation of the program, a full report indicating what kinds of problems they face, what amounts have been paid out, the number of witnesses who have been protected in various ways, and so forth. He must make that report annually to the solicitor general. The solicitor general will then table the annual report before Parliament so that members of the House have the opportunity to scrutinize the report. Therefore it makes the whole system accountable to the House of Commons and through the House of Commons to the public.

The annual reporting requirement will mean that information will be available to members and the public on the cost and the number of people involved in the program. It will be much clearer. It is very important for both parties to the agreements where a witness is being protected that both the witness and the RCMP or other police force have a clear understanding of what the agreement and what the responsibilities and obligations of both parties to the agreement will be.

This will provide for transparency and accountability with regard to the responsibilities and obligations for both the applicants and the RCMP as administrators of the program. These protection agreements and the obligations of applicants and administrators to fulfil these agreements will provide further transparency and accountability to the program.

All these factors lead to public safety. All these factors are providing a greater feeling of security, a greater sense of safety in coming forward for the witness.

If persons have heard about other witnesses in the past who perhaps did not feel they were treated properly, did not feel that the police had lived up to their part of the bargain in protecting a person, they will obviously be less likely to come forward. However, if we can clarify the rules, if we can have clear agreements between the RCMP or another police force and the witness that provide for the rights and obligations of both and what is going to happen for them, we will not have people saying that they did not get treated properly by the police. They can go to the agreement itself and look at what is on paper.

It is kind of like good fences making good neighbours. A good agreement with clearly specified rules on who is to do what provides for a good relationship between the two sides. I think it will add to people feeling freer about coming forward to the system and providing their information.

To review some of the issues we have talked about how in the past criminals have successfully used fear and intimidation to scare witnesses to keep them away from the police so that they will not bring evidence forward. This program is very important, because individuals involved in organized crime will go to great lengths to try to ensure that a witness or a source will not come forward. As I said, it can be a terrifying experience. They can certainly sometimes threaten and exact violent retribution from the witnesses.

Enforcement agencies need the support and assistance of the public. We are talking here about the public in more than one way. We are talking about the individual who is a witness. In some cases when a witness is relocated he or she may require assistance from the public in that regard to find a new location. I am not sure exactly how that would work, but it may require it in some regard. To achieve success in bringing criminals to justice and to further investigations, the police do need that kind of information and they need people to come forward.

The legislation will cover agents who are involved in investigations, not only in the trials but throughout the whole process, which is why I was pleased to see the definitions I mentioned earlier. Not only is the person who has given evidence in the past covered, but so is a person who has agreed to give evidence or information in the future. In any case where because of taking part in some way in an inquiry, investigation or in the prosecution of an offence a person's security may be at risk, the person is covered by the legislation.

I talked about protection and how it can include relocation, accommodation, change of identity, counselling, financial support or any other requirement needed to ensure the security of the protectees as they are called, or to facilitate re-establishment or becoming self-sufficient in a new location with a new identity.

Let us think about a witness who has been totally innocent, has not been involved in crime at all, but happens to be a witness to a serious crime. I am reminded of the movie "Witness" in which a young boy was a witness to a crime and had to be protected. In a case where someone is totally innocent it must be a bewildering experience to be called upon to be a protected witness, fearing for one's life; having to change identity and home; and being away

from family and friends. It has to be a very difficult and bewildering experience.

Interestingly the annual cost will not go up as a result of the program and if it goes down that is fine. It is an important program and will vary each year depending on how many people are being protected. The annual cost is $3.4 million. There are no additional costs expected as a result of introducing the legislation. The average cost per case is $30,000 but approximately 60 per cent of cases cost less than $20,000. If that can bring people who are involved in organized crime or other serious crimes to justice then it is well worth the money. I am confident that all Canadians, and certainly those in my riding of Halifax West, would support that and would certainly support the intent of the bill.

The changes proposed in the witness protection program act will give the RCMP's source witness protection program a solid legislative and regulatory basis. This is lacking in the existing program. It is important that we provide it and therefore I urge members to support this important bill.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have a few moments to speak to Bill C-78, the source witness protection program bill.

There are two or three perspectives I thought I would like to touch on. My colleagues have touched on most of the technical aspects of the bill and all parties in the House are apparently supporting it. Therefore there is nobody really nibbling at the corners. I am certainly not going to do that. It is a good bill, as has been recognized by colleagues.

There are two or three perspectives that should be brought out in discussion. I want first to pay some tribute to police officers across the country who over the past many years have informally provided protection for witnesses. They have done it in many ways, often not at taxpayers' expense.

This is something that has not been recognized very much in the history of law enforcement in Canada and North America. It was very real over the past decades when no public moneys were formally available to protect witnesses that police officers had to use their cars, their garages, their basements, freebies from the motel outside town, and all kinds of different devices to make sure the witness who was scared to death got a chance to get into the courtroom, give the evidence, get out and survive in the face of great risks. I pay tribute to all those policemen, many of whom were Mounties. This was not confined just to the federal police force but also to provincial and municipal forces across the country.

That history is not written; it is all unwritten. It is anecdotal now to the extent that these policemen and former policemen get a chance to talk about it. It is an unwritten part of our Canadian criminal justice history. I wanted to note it here and pay tribute to the many who made the system work.

Starting in 1984 the Royal Canadian Mounted Police began a witness protection program that provided some kind of framework for witness protection albeit not recognized in statute. That was in the face of the growing threat from organized crime which developed post-war. Also as was mentioned earlier, there were threats from individuals who while they might not have been part of an organized crime group apparently were not prepared to stop at anything in trying to preclude their conviction.

There have been many bad stories in relation to that as part of our criminal justice history but there have also been many good stories. With the growth and public knowledge of the availability of a witness protection program in many parts of the world, there began to be some confusion about what a witness might be entitled to have: a free bus ride, a free taxi ride, a free room or some accommodation, money, protection and a new identity.

Over time the field became more and more confused. It was not so much on the part of the police, as they were simply doing their very best to deliver evidence to the courtroom door for the prosecutors. It was more so for the witnesses who from time to time and place to place became confused about exactly what the protection was composed of.

Some witnesses were more accommodating than others; some wanted more than others. It became more difficult for the police to manage. There might often be cases where when the process was over, the evidence had been given hopefully ending in a successful prosecution, witnesses felt they did not have the protection they thought they were to have. Maybe they made it difficult for the police involved. Maybe they went to the local newspaper, the local media. It became confusing and embarrassing for some. Something had to be done.

The first positive signs I saw in the House was the research and the bill produced by our colleague, the member for Scarborough West. That was quite a credible exercise. A private member's bill was passed in the House at second reading and referred to the justice committee. At about that point in time the Ministry of the Solicitor General indicated it would want to have a bill similar in nature. Our colleague essentially acquiesced and the solicitor general has presented the bill which apparently has support from all sides of the House.

The last perspective I want to address very briefly is that the bill will help us better manage the safe streets policy the Liberal Party has adopted. It will better manage the costs. The program will be codified. It will probably show up as a cost item in the estimates and the parliamentary authorizations as a specific category rather than being buried as it was in part previously.

The bill will help us better manage what we are doing in the safe streets policy. It will result in better prosecutions. The crown attorneys will know what the infrastructure will be for their witnesses if there has to be a witness protection program extension. It will result in better criminal procedure, a better understanding both on the part of witnesses and the people who manage the witness protection program of what they have to deliver.

It is a three-way street. We have the public that wants to see the benefits of a better managed system. We have the witnesses who need to know what they can expect, who will know what they have the right to ask for and require in terms of protection. It will assist the police better in knowing what the deliverables should be and what the deliverables are, both to the crown which is gathering the evidence and to the witness.

I congratulate both the solicitor general and the hon. member for Scarborough West for their contributions in this regard.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Before recognizing the hon. member for Scarborough West who has so much history with this issue, would the hon. member find it acceptable, as another member came out of a meeting to speak, to have the hon. member for Dartmouth speak first?

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it would be my delight to hear what the hon. member for Dartmouth has to say.

[Ron MacDonald, Liberal, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague.

This is an important bill, particularly for the hon. member from Scarborough who so kindly gave up his spot for me to speak. I congratulate him on the work he has done in laying the groundwork for this type of legislation.

Many times in the past the legislative procedure and process of the House of Commons have given reason for the public and members of this place to be cynical and sceptical about what it is the backbench can do, what it is independent members can do with respect to setting the legislative agenda. I acknowledge up front the work the hon. member for Scarborough West has done in ensuring this important piece of legislation was put before the House.

It is quite rare for a private member's bill to be debated and actually get beyond the pro forma number of required hours once it is drawn and actually get passed. The fact that the hon. member for Scarborough West got the bill to second reading and caused it to come forward is not only a testament to the way Parliament can work. It is also a personal testament to how the member sticks to it. All members owe him a debt of gratitude.

There are very few times when a piece of government legislation comes forward which is supported by all sides of the House. It appears the legislation is supported by all sides of the House. Perhaps the government and the House leadership on our side will take a close look and find, when legislation comes from the backbenches of either side of this place, that it is better legislation. They might want to free us up a bit more to do that type of job.

In the last number of years I have found that my opinions on justice, law and order have gone from what would have been considered to be a liberal left position to a more realistic, responsive position when it deals with some aspects of the criminal justice system. That has happened over the seven years I have been a member of Parliament because of my interaction with the criminal justice system on behalf of my constituents. I have viewed it from afar and have watched cases unfold. I have dealt with people who have been victims of crime. I have dealt with the law enforcement agencies and people in the judiciary.

As we start to understand that, when we deal with the criminal justice system, just as we have to be flexible in other areas of public policy such as social policy and fiscal matters, we have to be extremely flexible and reasonable when we deal with the criminal justice system.

The system must be responsive to the needs of the community. Clearly the area of witness protection is one of those areas where there was a responsibility, a requirement by government, to come forward and recognize we had to statutize programs that currently existed at the federal level with the RCMP.

I am concerned that sometimes we direct the limited resources we have for law enforcement into areas that simply are not able to deal with the problem in as effective a manner as is required. The area of witness protection has concerned me for a number of years. I will deal with the reasons for that.

In my area, which is not that dissimilar from most urban areas across Canada, there is a lot of urban crime. There are a lot of crimes specifically against children. The hon. member for Scarborough West has been on his feet in the House more times than any other member dealing with some of these issues.

In my riding we have had to suffer through a disproportionate number of our young children from 13 years old to 16 years old being drawn into prostitution. I claim no moral high ground in dealing with these issues, but I am a parent and I represent an area where there are many kids who have been plucked from their turbulent years in puberty and thrown into a world that can only be described as a world of terror. They are plucked out of their schools; they are taken from the downtowns, from the shopping malls, by people who can only be described as the worst criminals in Canadian society. They are pimps that befriend primarily young girls, draw them into a life of crime, of drug addiction and literally

sexual slavery. At 14, 15 or 16 years old these children have lost their youth and have been violated in the worst possible ways.

However there has been a problem in the criminal justice system in dealing effectively with that situation. There has been a problem in the judiciary in applying the strictness of fines and of penalties the public demands and that should be applied. There has been a problem in the prosecution because it has been extremely difficult to offer the level of protection to those young girls, the victims of crime, but also the witnesses to crimes that happen to themselves and to others in that circumstance.

They come forward with the certainty that if they give testimony in a court of law against these monsters walking the streets one of two things will happen. Either the criminal justice system would deal with a conviction in such a light manner that 6 months or 12 months later the individual is back out on the street doing the same thing with young kids again, or there would be threats to the personal safety of the individual who came forward as a victim and a witness to the crime as well as threats to their families.

I relate something that happened about three years ago which marked me forever. It was late on a Friday afternoon. There were far too many calls to return and I was tired after a week up here. My secretary said I had to take a phone call.

It was a mother who was more than distraught. She was beaten by a system that could not respond to what she saw as her child's need, a mother despondent because she did not think she could help her child. Her 15-year old daughter had been lured into prostitution at the age of 13. At one point the daughter said she had made the break and she did not want to do that any more. Two days later a van showed up in front of her house with her pimps or the part of the international criminal element that deals with street prostitution of juveniles. They had their buddies and they parked outside.

Within two or three days the daughter told her mother she had to go back to Toronto, back on the street. The mother begged her and beseeched her not to do it. Her child had been raped, abused, beaten and threatened with death. She had seen some of her friends beaten close to death by this criminal element, these monsters, these pimps. Why would she go back to a life like that? She feared for her own personal safety and did not believe the criminal justice system could afford her the protection necessary to put those demons away.

Outside her own personal safety she went back to the street out of the fear for the safety of her family and knowing full well that she might be a statistic, and maybe she is today. I hope not. She did not want her mother to suddenly turn around one morning while she was by herself in her kitchen and be confronted by thugs who would beat and perhaps sexually assault her. That is why that child went back to the street.

About a year later the mother called me and said: "My daughter has called and she cannot stand any more. She has been beaten, tortured, sexually assaulted and she is getting out. She is in Niagara Falls and I want to bring her home. We have to get her out of there. She has broken away from her pimp and I cannot get anybody to help".

I thought of my 11-year old daughter and my God, I hope that if I am ever in a situation like that somebody would at least do their best to take my child out of that danger.

It took a lot of phone calls, a lot more than it should have taken, before I could get somebody to act. The child was turning 16 on a Monday of a long weekend and the law enforcement agency said: "We can bring her back but what do we do with her? Where do we put her? These people will be back. Is she prepared to testify? If she is not, what do we do with her?" I spent until 11 p.m. that night trying to find a safe haven for that victim of crime and potential witness against the perpetrators of the crime.

The bill begins to address some of the real issues facing law enforcement agencies, the judicial system and certainly facing the victims of crime and individuals who can come forward and give testimony in a court of law, knowing full well that if they do there are resources and programs available by statute that will assist in their protection and that of their families.

Every year we spend a lot of money to put somebody in jail. We spend a lot of money when we have to send law enforcement agencies and police officers to pursue criminals. We must put money into a program that will say to witnesses that if they come forward and tell their stories, we will do our very best in a very regulated statutory fashion with a program that has financing to protect them and their families against intimidation or, God forbid, physical violence or even death.

In my riding a young lady involved in prostitution broke away and wanted to stop. She wanted the people who had stolen her life to be dealt with by the criminal justice system. She was to give evidence against a gang of criminals operating right across Canada and in the northeastern U.S. She was to testify. A strong message to all those other victims of that type of crime was sent when she was found murdered before the testimony could be given. The individual she was to testify against is currently awaiting trial on murder charges.

I wish that were the only case I could relate. There are more cases in which young girls or women who have decided to get out of prostitution and turn evidence have had to live a life from one hell to another, a life on the run, not knowing when a car stops in front of them whether somebody will put a bullet in their head. That is reality street in a town of only 65,000 people. It is

happening in Toronto, in Scarborough, in western Canada and in small town Canada.

The bill starts down the right road. It does the right things. It tells us there is a program and there will be rules to the program. The program will have a dollar allocation. Currently the RCMP deals with that in its own programs because it has the budget.

This is the type of legislation the Canadian public wants. It wants to give the necessary resources to government agencies and to the criminal justice system for it to work. They want the resources to be targeted in a way that we alleviate as much as we can the criminal element from our streets while at the same time give protection and statutized, regularized program protection to those willing to come forward and confront elements in our society truly from the dark side of humanity.

I speak for the victims of crime who are potential witnesses to their victimization. I encourage the government and all members to continue to work, like the member for Scarborough West has worked, to identify to government and Parliament the types of programs through which we can come together and ensure the limited resources of government can be directed toward law enforcement and the criminal justice system. They should be directed in a fashion that allows us to attain the goal of safer streets and that those willing to participate to help us have safer streets are afforded the protection required.

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I knew my decision to yield the floor to my hon. friend from Dartmouth would be the correct one. His speech was peppered with his usual enthusiasm, a very interesting case study of why we need the program. I also thank all the speakers on the bill who mentioned my name in a positive light today. It is such a refreshing change and I really appreciate it.

I will talk about the history of witness protection and how I developed an interest in the subject to let Canadians know a bit about the need for a legislated witness protection program.

About three years ago when I was the official opposition critic for the solicitor general a gentleman came into my office. He was fearful, nervous, literally looking over his shoulder in apprehension. He was also very frustrated. He was a witness and an informant to a serious crime. He had in his view co-operated with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in an investigation. In his opinion he had been offered certain protection and certain financial incentives which would help him to relocate and get away from the wrath of those he had reported to the authorities.

Unfortunately because nothing was in writing or because there was no real mechanism provided, there was a dispute about what had been agreed on and how long the protection would be afforded. Suffice it to say he felt abandoned. He felt adrift. He felt at the mercy of those he had informed on.

It was a courageous thing for him to do. These were vicious people. He feared for his family, his wife and children, not just for himself; perhaps more for his wife and family than for himself.

I could see why he was in fear but why was he frustrated? He had gone to the RCMP and did not seem to get any redress there. He had gone to his local police department and did not get redress there. He had gone to the Ontario Provincial Police and did not get redress there. He went to his local member of Parliament. His local member of Parliament was unable to help, not because his local member of Parliament did not want to help but because we were now entering into the nether world of witness protection in Canada.

He went to the minister of the day who along with his officials begrudgingly admitted there was such a program but they were not about to talk about it. They were not about to discuss it. They were not about to give details and they certainly were not about to talk about his case.

In desperation he came to me, the official opposition critic for the solicitor general. That piqued my interest in the subject and I began to investigate. I found that since 1970 a federal witness protection program has been run by the U.S. marshall service in the United States. Prosecutors in the United States have said that the program was one of the most effective assets they utilized in law enforcement.

The population of the United States of America probably approaches 300 million people now. That U.S. witness protection program currently protects approximately 500 witnesses per year, which is not a very large number of witnesses considering the size of the population.

That says it is used in extreme circumstances for extreme cases. In a way that is good because there is only so much money. Generally speaking it has a fairly good success rate in solving crimes except the most dastardly kinds of crimes, the ones where people do not think twice about snuffing out a life in order that the person not be a witness in a proceeding against them.

I am talking about drug related offences. I am talking about organized crime. I am talking about gang warfare. The last thing those people are worried about is the value of a single human life. It is simply a matter of money. Nowadays one can get somebody to kill another for virtually a song. What a sad commentary in general on society.

I began to work on a witness protection bill for Canada because what I found out about this nether world of witness protection was that first, no one would talk about it. Hardly anyone would acknowledge that it existed and there was no legislative base for it.

As a lawyer, this concerned me. How can the law enforcement agencies give a person a new passport? How can they give someone a new social insurance number? How can they give someone new background documents and resumes of work that never existed to get the person back into the workforce with no legal basis to do so? It worried me that our law enforcement agencies with the best of motives to protect witnesses might be doing something contrary to the law by issuing these kinds of papers and these kinds of new identities without a legislative base.

I felt they needed this legislative base. I discussed this with the solicitor general of the day. Thousands of people across Canada presented petitions to the government of the day asking that a national witness protection program be brought forward. In a response to one of those petitions, the Hon. Doug Lewis, the minister at that time had this to say:

Witness protection is indeed a very important function of law enforcement and, equally, a crucial service to witnesses who are at risk of retribution as a result of giving testimony in court.

It is accurate to say that, presently, there is not a national, legislated program as exists in the United States, for example. My officials are currently examining the state of witness protection in Canada, which necessitates consideration of the witness protection requirements of not only the law enforcement community, but also the witnesses themselves. Also, integral to this process is a review of the efficacy of the legislated program and its application in Canada.

Bearing in mind the complexity of this issue, a thorough review is required before a decision can be reached on the best possible witness protection program for Canadians.

Rest assured that your views, particularly your request for a legislated program, are being given serious consideration and I would like to thank the petitioners for expressing their views on this matter.

That was a very nice response but I was getting the same feeling as John Doe who had come into my office of being pushed from pillar to post, study after study. Yes, there is no legislative program. Yes, it is a good idea. Yes, we need it, but we have to study it.

What changed? If I do say so myself, what changed was there was an election and with the election the appointment of a new solicitor general, the hon. member for Windsor West. Very shortly after becoming Solicitor General of Canada, among the various other initiatives that he came up with, the solicitor general recognized the merit and the need for a legislated witness protection program which would be offered nationally.

In consultation with his officials, he very kindly sat down with me and discussed my bill and the work that I had done up to that point. Of course the solicitor general has more resources than an ordinary member of Parliament. He did everything that was required of him. He talked to the U.S. marshall service, found out about the flaws and the pitfalls of the program. He talked to the various solicitors general of the provinces to see how the program could be most effective in a federal system where we pass the criminal laws, but they are enforced by the provinces.

He did not drag his feet. After having done the work and keeping me informed at all times so that I was convinced that the work was proceeding, he brought forward the legislation, Bill C-78.

In my judgment the bill is historic from a number of perspectives. Not only will it go a long way in protecting witnesses and informants in the future but it will help solve crimes.

Between 1980 and 1992 there have been 1,455 unsolved murders in the country. That is an incredible statistic. Never mind 1,455 murders, but 1,455 unsolved murders. No doubt there are people out there who know who was the perpetrator in many of these murders but they fear for their lives or they fear for their families' lives. They fear to come forward because they have no way of knowing they will be protected. Because of the nether world, the shadowy world of witness protection before the bill, people were not aware of it. They did not know whom to approach.

Did the House know that right now there are approximately 15 police forces across the country that offer witness protection; the RCMP, the OPP, the Metropolitan Toronto Police, some other police forces? Each has its own program. They have different rules. They have different standards. They have different budgets.

What good is it to a person who witnesses a murder, shall we say in Sudbury, if the Metropolitan Toronto police has a witness protection program? That budget is for the residents of that city. What good is it in Calgary if the OPP has a witness protection program?

The key is that it has to be a national program because our criminal law is national. We have a national police force, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, which has a presence in every province and territory. It has a witness protection program so it is only logical that it administer a national witness protection program and the bill provides precisely for that.

It provides that those other police forces or any police force can contract through the RCMP to provide protection for witnesses in investigations that it is conducting. This is good financially as well because those police forces can budget for witness protection. They can pay the RCMP for the services that the RCMP will be giving,

but then they will have the expertise and uniformity that the RCMP will offer under the bill.

To me that is a very positive thing. I believe we will be able to solve crimes when we are able to offer proper legislated witness protection to people across Canada.

Goodness knows, there are enough crimes that need solving. Hopefully we will get people to come forward and offer their evidence in exchange for being protected from those very vile people in society who do not care about snuffing out people's lives.

The hon. member for Dartmouth used a descriptive term for these people. He called them demons. In order for us to exorcise our demons from society, our criminal demons, this will be one of the excellent tools we can use in that regard.

The bill is deceptively short considering what it is going to do. It only has 24 relatively short paragraphs. Perhaps we lose sight of the fact that sometimes shorter is better. It is deceptively short yet not lacking in anything.

When I drafted Bill C-206 I spent a lot of time thinking about all the different angles. I thought I had them all covered. I was very gratified when the House unanimously approved it at second reading. However, as is probably most often the case, the bureaucrats examined the bill and found certain things that were not in it and put them into a recommendation to the solicitor general. He, to his credit, accepted those recommendations. Bill C-78 is an improvement on my Bill C-206 and covers ground that is not covered in my bill.

One other thing I want to mention is the use to which the witness protection program has been put. For example, in 1986 approximately $500,000 a year was being spent by the RCMP on witness protection in all of Canada. In 1993 that amount has ballooned to $3,800,000. This is money well spent because it is money used for solving crimes perpetrated in Canada, crimes that might otherwise go unsolved. That demonstrates to me the efficacy of a national witness protection program and the need for Bill C-78.

One thing that was lacking before was openness, light shining on the witness protection program, publicity about the witness protection program. The program has been ongoing for quite some time. I am very pleased to note in clause 16 of Bill C-78 something that was not contained in my private member's bill but is very important, an annual report.

The commissioner of the RCMP, who will be in charge of the legislated national witness program, will file a report with the minister. That in itself is very important, as the minister will be apprised of what is going on with witness protection, how much it is costing, how many witnesses there are and its success rate in solving crimes.

The minister has gone further because not only will he receive the report but the clause provides that the minister shall-not may, not think about, but shall-cause a copy of the report to be laid before the House of Commons. We in the House of Commons and the people of Canada whom we represent will have an opportunity on a yearly basis to hear about the witness protection program and thereby publicize it, to examine how much is being spent on it, to know how many people are being protected by it and to understand how many crimes are being solved by the use of the witness protection program as a tool of law enforcement.

To me this is important because it will publicize the program. It will give people an opportunity to come forward and say they saw something, know something or heard something and say they will come forward if they have protection in the circumstances. It will be for the commissioner to decide whether or not in the circumstances of the particular case witness protection should be afforded. That is as it should be because it is a tool for law enforcement to use for the protection of witnesses who will help to solve crimes.

All in all, Bill C-78 is an excellent bill. I am delighted to support it. I am delighted that it apparently has all-party support. That indicates to me that it will receive quick passage through the House of Commons so we can get on with the legislated witness protection program, get on with publicizing it, get on with solving crimes and get on with trying to find the perpetrators of the 1,455 unsolved murders between 1980 and 1992.

There are a couple of areas in the bill on which I would like some clarification. Hopefully these will be clarified by the officials in their appearance before the committee when the bill is studied at committee.

I draw specific attention to a lack of a provision to authorize emergency steps. For example, if the commissioner believes that there is some urgent need to protect someone to get them out of harm's way before the technicalities of the bill kick in, it would seem that there should be some sort of mechanism specifically provided in the bill for that purpose.

The bill will help Canadians. It will protect Canadians. It will help solve crimes. That is fairly obvious because of the all-party support the bill is receiving. Members on all sides of the House of all different political persuasions and of all types of views on justice issues recognize that witnesses and informants need to be protected if we are to help solve and fight crime.

It is refreshing to see that there is such unanimity on such an issue in the House. Canadians can feel reassured that the House of Commons cares about them, cares about their personal safety, cares about the fact that crime exists and must be controlled and eradicated, and cares about the fact that witnesses and people who come forward to help in the enforcement of the law will be protected by society in a legislated way, in an open way, not in some quiet and shadowy backroom without possibility of appeal,

without possibility of redress in the event that there is some misunderstanding.

By the way, that is another good point. There will be written reasons given by the commissioner if people are turned down so they are not left out there with their heads spinning, unable to comprehend why the system did not protect them.

I support the bill. I am very grateful the House supports the bill. I am grateful to the minister for bringing it forward. As I began, I am grateful for all the kind comments that have been made about me by members of the House.

[Anna Terrana, Liberal, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank RCMP officers for the consistently good work they do for Canadians. I am satisfied that they will continue to have operational control over this program.

The protection of witnesses is one of the most useful and efficient tools to fight crime. In order to be effective, witness protection programs must provide the best possible protection to likely sources and witnesses. This is precisely what the Witness Protection Program Act seeks to do.

The proposed changes to the legislation will allow sources and witnesses participating in the program to fully understand the terms and conditions under which they will be protected. As well, the decisions and the measures taken by the authority responsible for the program, namely the RCMP, will be more transparent. This will result in a more transparent and efficient operation of the program, while also contributing to the government's efforts to implement the act and thus stop crime, particularly organized crime.

The proposed changes in the Witness Protection Program Act will provide sound statutory and regulatory authority to the RCMP program by establishing a federally legislated witness protection program.

The new legislation will provide the following: clearly defined eligibility criteria for witnesses; identical treatment all across the country; a clear statement on the responsibilities and obligations of program officials and participants; a better defined management structure within the RCMP regarding the daily operation of the programs, so as to strengthen accountability; a complaint settlement process as well as the presentation, by the RCMP commissioner, of an annual report to the solicitor general on the operation of the program.

The RCMP source witness protection program was established in 1984 to meet the specific needs of that police force regarding the protection of sources and witnesses. Other witness protection programs are run by a number of provinces and municipalities.

Police departments using these programs also rely on the RCMP source witness protection program, under a cost recovery system, and this will continue to be the case. The RCMP helps other protection programs by obtaining I.D. documents delivered by the federal government-including passports and social insurance cards-when a name change is necessary, or by facilitating the relocation of witnesses in another province.

During the 1994-95 fiscal year, the RCMP was able, through its source witness protection program, to provide protection services to 70 new clients. In 30 of these cases, the services were provided at the request of other organizations. The RCMP currently allocates $3.4 million annually to witness protection activities.

The changes made to the RCMP source witness protection program will not result in additional spending. The program will continue to be financed with current resources.

The provinces and territories were consulted and they support the proposed changes in the Witness Protection Program Act.

When a decision is made to admit an applicant to the RCMP's source witness protection program, the following factors will be taken into consideration: the potential contribution that the witness or source can make toward a particular police investigation, the nature of the offence under investigation, the nature of the risk to the individual, what alternate methods of protection are available, the danger to the community if the individual is admitted to the program, the potential effects on any family arrangements, the likelihood of the individual being able to adjust, their maturity, their ability to make judgments and other personal characteristics, the cost of maintaining the individual in the program and other factors as the commissioner of the RCMP may find to be relevant.

Under the witness protection program act, there will be a clear and defined decision making process to admit an individual into the program. In serious cases, such as those requiring a change of identity or admission of a foreign national, the decision to admit an individual will be made only by the assistant commissioner in charge of the program. A decision to terminate protection must also be made by the assistant commissioner.

In less serious cases, the decision to protect an individual may be made by the incumbent of a position at the level of chief superintendent.

Finally, the changes introduced in the witness protection program act were drafted following consultations with the RCMP and various police forces across the country who were asked to

contribute their views. These changes will help make the RCMP's source witness protection program more open.

I am very pleased that the House has agreed to support this important bill, and I hope it will be passed very shortly.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question.

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare the motion carried. Consequently, the bill is referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-71, an act to amend the Explosives Act, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Explosives Act

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, for the Minister of Natural Resources]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to.)

[The Deputy Speaker]

When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, for the Minister of Natural Resources]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

[George S. Rideout, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Bill C-71, an act to amend the Explosives Act. Today I will address some of the concerns members opposite have raised during the second reading debate and I will emphasize the major points government members raised during that debate.

Let me begin by thanking members opposite for expressing support from their respective parties for Bill C-71 during the debate on second reading of the proposed legislation.

I note from Hansard that during the debate the hon. member for Matapédia-Matane asked what is the use of marking explosives if we do not monitor them. My response is that we do. Canada's explosives inspectors are doing an excellent job of monitoring legally licensed makers, distributors and users of explosives in the country.

There are concerns about how terrorists and biker gangs get their explosives. Terrorists typically purchase stolen explosives on the black market, or they make their own if they have the expertise, as was the case in the horrific bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building this summer.

Sources for stolen explosives include explosives obtained from break-ins and thefts from storage magazines on construction sites, in mines and quarries. Naturally these incidents fall within the jurisdiction of Canada's police agencies. In any case I submit to the House that it is not a common occurrence in the country. The mere fact that it can happen does not require a maze of restrictive and unnecessary regulations from any government, least of all the Government of Canada.

Furthermore, explosives that are used or intended for use in criminal activities are never purchased from legitimate vendors licensed under the terms of existing federal explosives legislation. That is because legitimate vendors must keep accurate and complete transaction records for all explosives they sell. These records, coupled with the records of police security checks that are required under the terms of the existing Explosives Act, could easily provide a clear paper trail of evidence to anyone who used legally obtained explosives to commit a crime.

Let me return to the issues that are more closely related to the proposed legislation before the House. With respect to the length of time it has taken to submit the amendment to Parliament, I want to make a few points.

Officials at Natural Resources Canada have indicated to me that shortly before the Montreal convention on the marking of plastic explosives was signed in 1991 they joined their colleagues from national defence, customs, and transport to prepare a memorandum to cabinet regarding the proposed amendments to the Explosives Act. As members of the House may recall, there were significant changes in the structure of federal government departments in mid-1993. Shortly thereafter a federal election was held, resulting in even more significant change. Since then the Government of Canada has been working hard to put Canada on a positive new course for the future, to revitalize employment opportunities for all Canadians, to attack major issues such as the deficit and debt and, in short, to get Canada moving again. The government is delivering the good government that Canadians wanted and deserved. In addition we are making excellent progress to reach a number of positive public policy objectives.

Hon. members will know we have faced tremendous challenges to deliver on our promises to Canadians and that the Government of Canada has worked hard to manage our priorities since 1993 in order to succeed. I hardly think this debate is the appropriate forum to trot out the list of our accomplishments but if members opposite wish me to do so I will be more than happy to.

Departmental officials had to review their work to prepare their memorandum to cabinet concerning the amendments to the Explosives Act we have before us today. Consequently the officials made the necessary revisions to meet the demands of a new government. The officials have done an excellent job.

The 1991 convention signed in Montreal represents an international agreement to combine efforts among nations to reduce the risk of any further aircraft bombings. Participation in this effort is viewed by Canada as an essential element in the continuing battle against terrorism.

Like all international agreements, the convention on marking of plastic explosives is based on trust among signatory nations. Canada respects this spirit. Canada is known around the world as a leader in encouraging progress to increase the trust among nations that leads to progressive international conventions.

We have every intention of living up to all of our international obligations in the hopes that other countries will follow our example. This is not a blind trust; this is the essence of good leadership.

At present there is no way to detect plastic explosives in airports, while conventional explosives materials can be detected by equipment at our airports. The act proposes the marking of plastic explosives by adding a chemical which would be detected by equipment in Canada's international airports and thus ward off the threat of terrorism.

The amendment would allow Canada to be among the first nations to ratify an international convention requested by the United Nations and co-ordinated by the international civil aviation organization with respect to the marking of plastic explosives.

The convention was signed in March 1991 by 40 countries, and 14 countries have already ratified the convention since April 1992. Five of these nations, Norway, Spain, Switzerland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic, are producer states where plastic explosives are manufactured.

Given that Canada is a world leader in vapour detection technology, Canadian equipment manufacturers will be able to take advantage of international market opportunities for their vapour detection technology as more and more countries ratify the convention.

Plastic explosives have emerged as a weapon of choice among terrorist groups for bombing aircraft and other targets such as public buildings because this type of explosive is small, powerful, stable, malleable and, most important, difficult to detect.

If plastic explosives are marked or tagged with a substance that can be detected by equipment at Canadian airports, it is quite likely that terrorists would be discouraged from attempting any attacks in Canada using plastic explosives.

The convention on the marking of plastic explosives requires states to ensure the marking of plastic explosives to enhance their detectability. The convention also requires controls over the import, export, possession and transfer of marked plastic explosives and the destruction of most unmarked plastic explosives.

Let me remind the House about the main features of the convention. Only plastic explosives as defined in the convention are required to be marked. Existing unmarked commercial stocks of plastic explosives are to be destroyed within three years. An international explosives technical commission will be created to assess technical developments.

The cost of Canadian participation in such a commission will be low and the convention will come in force after 35 states including the 5 producer states have ratified it. Canada is one of the world's producer states and by passing the proposed legislation before the House today Canada will be among the first countries to ratify the important convention.

Looking at other departments, the military has agreed it can except perhaps in times of emergency observe all of the terms of the convention. Priority will be given to the use of unmarked stocks of plastic explosives in the military stock of explosives materials. As always, tight security of storage facilities will be maintained. In addition, tight accounting procedures regarding the use of all stocks will also be maintained.

Transport Canada, responsible for the operation of detection equipment at Canadian airports, has indicated current technology can detect the marked plastic explosives.

The extra cost of producing detectable plastic explosives is expected to be negligible. This is primarily due to the relatively low volumes of plastic explosives manufactured in Canada. The industry has been working in co-operation with organizations involved in the effort to develop substances to mark plastic explosives for the purpose of detection. Therefore the industry acknowledges the impact of extra costs will not be that serious.

In addition, given the low volumes of plastic explosives compared with the volumes of conventional industrial explosives, the challenge of enforcing the provisions of this proposed amend-

ment and by extension the international convention will not pose a significant problem or cost to the respective regulatory bodies.

Canada's position as a leader in the development of vapour detection technology will be enhanced as a result of the ratification of the international convention. Increased foreign market penetration by Canadian equipment manufacturers is virtually a certainty. Therefore the proclamation of the amendment has the potential to help stimulate job creation and contribute to Canada's future economic growth and trade.

The amendment to the Explosives Act demonstrates the Government of Canada's commitment to good government. We are determined to contribute to the health and safety of passengers on aircraft. We are committed to working with our international partners to do whatever we can to stop the threat of terrorism in our skies and around the globe.

The amendment to the Explosives Act will send a signal to terrorists everywhere that Canada will not be an easy target for their deadly campaigns of violence. In the process, Canadian manufacturers of vapour detection equipment will be able to take advantage of significant marketing opportunities. As a result, the proposed amendment to the Explosives Act will contribute to two major federal goals: job creation and Canadian economic growth. Moreover the passage of the amendment will protect the health and safety of all Canadians.

I thank members opposite for their support in passing important legislation. I urge all members of the House to give speedy passage to the amendment.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise today to speak as well on Bill C-71, an act to amend the Explosives Act. There is of course already an Explosives Act, which this bill will amend, and the aim of the earlier legislation was, as a general rule, to ensure public and worker safety.

This legislation governed the composition, quality and characteristics of standard explosives as well as their manufacture, import, sale, purchase, possession and storage. It covered pyrotechnic devices, that is, the products used for fireworks.

The new legislation brought before us today will require the incorporation of a detectable additive in plastic explosives to enable the governor in council to approve regulations on the possession, transfer and destruction of unmarked plastic explosives. The aim is to thwart terrorism, as my colleague mentioned, and to enable Canada to ratify the Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detection, concluded in Montreal on March 1, 1991.

The bill would also prohibit, among other things, the manufacture, stockpiling, possession, transfer, transport, import and export of unmarked plastic explosives, except in the instances provided by the convention and for military purposes of vital importance clearly specified in the legislation.

What is the Montreal Convention? I am asking the question for the benefit of Canadians watching us. The convention was signed in March 1991 at the headquarters of the International Civil Aviation Organization by the members of this organization. Its aim is to control the proliferation of plastic explosives used in terrorist attacks.

It covers unmarked plastic explosives, that is, explosives that do not contain a substance permitting easy detection and it requires signatory countries and producing countries, such as Canada, to mark plastic explosives, except those used for research purposes or by the police and the military.

The bill proposes marking plastic explosives through the incorporation of a chemical that could picked up by the detection equipment installed at international airports in Canada to counteract the threat of terrorism.

Generally speaking, Bill C-71 meets the main requirements of the Convention. It appears to meet all of the obligations in it. First, the bill prohibits the production of unmarked plastic explosives, except in the instances provided. Then it announces regulations governing the transportation and possession of unmarked plastic explosives. Finally, it provides measures for unmarked plastic explosives produced or in possession prior to the date the present bill comes into effect, as my colleague stated just before me.

Clearly, plastic explosives are the preferred weapon of terrorists, for the very reason that they are hard to detect. One need only think of recent terrorist incidents mentioned previously by my colleagues and remembered by many, such as the one involving Pan Am flight 103 from London, which exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, a few years ago, or UTA flight 772, that crashed in Africa not too long ago. More than 440 people were killed in these two incidents. One might also think of the Air-India tragedy, another terrorist attack where a 747 that had taken off in Canada blew up over the Atlantic, south of the Republic of Ireland, killing everyone on board.

We must make sure that plastic explosives can be detected in airports. That is what this bill is about. Of course, the Bloc Quebecois reaffirms its support. Especially since, based on information we received, production costs for the manufacturers, most of them private enterprises, will increase only marginally as a result of this decision.

However, we nonetheless have some concerns about this bill. First, while the convention was signed on March 1, 1991, no bill was introduced until now, nearly five years later. This obviously reflects a glaring lack of efficiency on the part of the government in

an area directly related to public safety. It took less time to set up a unity Canada group. I think this is indicative of a glaring lack of efficiency that should be pointed out.

Of course, the goal in itself is commendable and we support it but how effective will the bill really be? First of all, not all countries signed the convention or belong to the International Civil Aviation Organization. This means that terrorists will still be able to obtain explosives in non member countries where plastic explosives will remain unmarked.

We put a question to our hon. colleague who said that, as far as terrorist groups were concerned, Canada could not say who did or did not sell explosives to them. We stress the fact that the federal government is not clear, as our colleague just indicated, that explosives are obtained in part on the black market. We did not need to be told that. We already knew that this was the case. We also knew that some of them are home made. But who on the black market supplies terrorists? Who are the people operating this black market? These questions remain unanswered.

In many regards, Canada is like a sieve for contraband goods. I am thinking about drugs in particular. It is well known that, in a way, Canada is the North American entry point for drugs and certainly part of the weapons smuggled on the continent. It is a fact that certain groups are currently using this channel and that, in many cases, they are more heavily armed than the police and even the Canadian armed forces.

One wonders what specific measures will be taken in this bill to counteract such effects. Canada has problems controlling liquor and tobacco smuggling. It is therefore extremely difficult to imagine that a bill such as this one, in spite of all its positive measures, will effectively prevent the smuggling of explosives.

Explosives manufactured for military purposes are totally exempt from marking requirements, and we can understand that. Obviously, military people do not want to make their arms easy to detect; that would make no sense. Nevertheless, there is the possibility of leaks.

One can also think of the motorcycle gang war currently going in the Montreal region, another reason to be cautious in this regard. In recent months, there have been numerous victims, mostly gang members, but also innocent people.

Incidently, I want to thank a group, the Oir Rachaim Tasher Yesheva jewish congregation, in Boisbriand, for immediately coming to the help of injured persons during one incident. The compassion and the support shown by that community deserve to be mentioned.

As regards the gang war, I also want to stress the work of the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve who helped start a petition in his riding, asking for anti-gang legislation, and who organized for the benefit of many Montreal area MPs meetings with police officers of the city, including Mr. Sangollo, who is the assistant to the chief of police, Mr. Duchesneau. These officers gave us an idea of who these motorcycle gangs are and what is organized crime.

We were clearly told about the need for anti-gang legislation. The House should seriously consider such legislation. I am well aware that this would not be easy, since we would have to specifically define what constitutes a criminal gang.

That is not an easy thing to do. We must, of course, take the charter of rights and freedoms into account, but I think we must eventually find or come as close as possible to finding the exact words we need to counter the real damage done by these gangs. When I talk about these gangs, I am talking not only about criminal bikers but also about the mafia, the Chinese triads, the Japanese yakuza and the Russian mafia that is now spreading to all industrialized countries and especially to Canada since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

I think that this bill as it now stands certainly deserves to be supported because it is a step in the right direction, but I think it is not nearly enough, in the circumstances, to restore the feeling of safety that Canadians may have lost or are now losing.

I would like to close by repeating a few words that my colleague from Matapédia-Matane said in his first speech on this bill, because they are words of wisdom. My colleague said this: "You can mark the explosives you make as much as you want, but unless you take real measures against violence, organized gangs and terrorism, you are simply wasting your time".

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to rise in the House to address third reading debate on Bill C-71, an act to amend the Explosives Act.

I am happy to inform the House that my party is supporting Bill C-71. I will not go on at great length to discuss the bill because of that support. It is good to see legislation come forward in the House which is required and which we can support because so often legislation has been flawed.

My one criticism of the business of the House has been that we have had to deal with a lot of rather inconsequential legislation. While Bill C-71 is important, all members of the House would have passed the bill rather quickly. It has not received much obstruction. It seems odd that we are spending so much time on these bills of little consequence when there are issues like the national debt and deficit to deal with. UI reform is needed. Health care reform is needed. Those areas are being ignored by the government.

I notice the minister of agriculture is present in the House. Certainly there are agriculture issues which need to be brought to the front burner. We encourage members on the opposite side of the House to bring forward those very pressing issues.

Yes, we will give support to the common sense bills brought before the House like Bill C-71, but let us see a little more substance. Let us see a little more meat to deal with.

The bill to amend the Explosives Act will allow Canada to formally participate in an international convention on the marking of plastic explosives for the purpose of detection, a very worthwhile cause. The purpose of the convention is to make sure that as many plastic explosives in the world as possible are able to be detected by legal authorities mostly in airports to stop terrorism.

We all use airports, except perhaps the members from Ottawa who I am sure stay home all the time. We recognize the importance of safety and the importance of being able to detect explosives so that our air traffic continues to be safe. It is an anti-terrorism bill. Therefore I can give my hearty endorsement to the piece of legislation.

After the Air India tragedy and the PanAm bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland, in the late 1980s, the United Nations passed two separate resolutions both in 1989. One was passed by the security council and the other by the general assembly. These resolutions urged the International Civil Aviation Organization, another U, body to intensify its work on an international regime for the marking of plastic explosives for the purpose of detection.

Out of those resolutions was born the convention I have already mentioned. It was put forward in Montreal in 1991 and was signed by 100 nations. Although Canada signed as well it did not have the legal authority to ratify it. The bill will grant Canada the ability to formally ratify the convention, another reason to endorse the legislation.

For the last four years research has been ongoing to consult with the industry and develop an appropriate chemical marker. It has been developed in labs in New Jersey. Now is the time to move forward.

Unfortunately the convention will not take effect until 35 nations become signatories, 5 of them producer nations. Five nations which produce plastic explosives need to sign this agreement. I understand that five producer countries have signed, among them Slovakia, Switzerland, Norway, the Czech Republic and Spain. Canada will be the sixth producer country to sign. This still means that only 13 countries including Canada will have legally ratified the convention. That is a long way from the 35 that are needed to actually put the wishes of the convention into reality.

I agree that the ordinary terrorist without international connections will be harder pressed to obtain material that will escape detection devices. Therefore the convention is a positive thing.

Interestingly the United States has signed the convention but as yet has not introduced legislation to ratify it. We talked with the explosives industry organization in Washington, the Institute of the Makers of Explosives. It endorses the convention and said that the Federal Aviation Administration, the lead agency in America dealing with the issue, may introduce legislation soon to ratify it but nothing has been done to date.

We have not had an incident for a long time like the Lockerbie incident or the Air India disaster. The urgency unfortunately has died down somewhat and the issue has probably taken a lower priority. I hope it will not take another tragedy to bring the issue to the world stage once more.

For whatever reasons the convention is not in force right now and therefore it really is not relevant right now. Probably until the United States recognizes it, no significant countries will join in ratifying the law.

The amendment to our own act will continue to be irrelevant until we do something on a political level to bring the United States into the game. Until that happens nothing will ever get done and airline passengers all over the world will be at greater risk from the plastic explosives going undetected in aeroplanes.

A couple of weeks ago the member for Fraser Valley East called on the Minister of Natural Resources to urge her American counterparts to do something about it, to urge them to go ahead and ratify the convention so that other nations would come on board. My colleague has since received a letter from the minister saying that the Americans are already working on legislation implying that there is no need to address the problem.

We would reply that the Americans have been working on it for years with no action. The minister needs to express her concerns directly on a political level to her American counterpart and we are calling on her again today to do that. We want the minister to call her American counterpart and bring him up to speed on the issue. We urge the United States to move on the issue and formally approve the convention so that we can keep terrorism where it belongs. Of course it does not belong at all.

The minister also promised in her letter to participate in an American study that will examine the cost and benefits of marking conventional explosives that are being used in the biker bombings in Montreal to see whether it would be cost effective to identify all

explosives and not just plastic explosives. We are pleased to hear that Canada will take part in this study and we look forward to the results.

In conclusion, I reiterate that I support Bill C-71. My colleagues support Bill C-71. It will not set the world on its head but it is a step in the right direction and is worthy of our support. It is certainly a shame that the government is not moving ahead with a Canadian agenda but instead is keeping to housekeeping legislation like this which we could have moved through even more rapidly than it is going through the House.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the legislation and look forward to its speedy passage.

[Roseanne Skoke, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the Explosives Act is an act of public and worker safety which regulates the composition, quality and character of explosives in addition to their manufacture, importation, sale, purchase, possession and storage. It also controls the use of fireworks.

The amendment is necessary to require the incorporation of a detectable additive in plastic explosives coupled with a provision to enable the governor in council to make regulations to control unmarked plastic explosives. This will hinder terrorism and will enable Canada to ratify the ICAO convention on the marking of plastic explosives for the purpose of detection.

The principal provisions of the bill are worth noting. The principles are: to require the marking of most plastic explosives for the purpose of detection; to prohibit the manufacture, storage, possession, transfer of possession, transportation, import and export of unmarked plastic explosives, except as may be permitted by the terms of the convention or required by overriding military necessity; and to empower the governor in council to make regulations governing the possession, transfer and disposal of any unmarked plastic explosives.

The passage of the legislation will vault Canada ahead of the U.S. as the only producer state in the Americas to have ratified the convention.

Many questions have been asked with respect to the Explosives Act. Some of those questions are technical; others relate to policy and still others are legal questions. I intend to address those questions today.

One technical question asked is: Will the addition of a detection agent be effective in combating terrorism in disguise? The answer is yes. The proposed detection agents are of such character they can be detected by bomb detection equipment of current technology and use in Canada. This would render marked plastic explosives an undesirable choice for assembling bombs. A second benefit from tagging plastic explosives is that detection of illegal stockpiles will be simplified.

Another technical question often asked is: Will the presence of the detection agent compromise the performance or safety of plastic explosives? The answer is no. Only one type of plastic explosive, a military version known as C-4, is manufactured in small quantities in Canada. The safety and performance characteristics of the marked version have been verified by the manufacturer, the military and the Canadian Explosives Research Laboratory.

Another technical question asked is: Will there be a problem in using the existing stocks of unmarked plastic explosives? The answer is no. Small existing stocks of unmarked plastic explosives in Canada coupled with ample grace periods of three years for the public and fifteen years for the military police to use up or destroy these stocks were judged to be satisfactory during consultations with all concerned parties.

Another technical question often asked is whether explosives technology is advancing so rapidly that this initiative will soon be rendered obsolete. The answer is no. Explosives technology is stable at this time. In North America, plastic explosives are implicated in very few bombs targeted at aircraft. Prohibitions against the import, export and transfer of unmarked plastic explosives will discourage terrorists from using Canada as a location to plant bombs on aircraft.

Many policy questions have been raised as well. One question often asked is who may manufacture, possess and use plastic explosives in Canada and how will the legislation affect their activities. Plastic explosives in the form of military demolition charges are manufactured in small quantities on an as required basis by Les produits chimiques Expro in Valleyfield, Quebec. This manufacturer is authorized by its factory licence, which is issued pursuant to the Explosives Act and regulations. Sale and distribution of this product is limited to the military, as well as police explosives disposal units.

Commercial plastic explosives in sheet form are legally imported from the U.S. by companies engaged in hardening metal surfaces and explosives welding. The sole Canadian manufacturer does not expect any problems. Importers of commercial plastic explosives in sheet form, however, may experience difficulties in locating suppliers of marked product.

Another policy question often asked is whether these new restrictions will affect competitiveness. The answer is no. It is estimated that the cost associated with incorporating the additive will increase selling prices by no more than 1.25 per cent. It is quite possible that the Canadian manufacturer could realize a competitive advantage in international markets by being fast off the mark in offering marked products.

Another policy question often asked is if this initiative is connected in any way to the new proposed gun control legislation. The answer is no. This initiative is the result of an agreement

signed in March 1991 and has no connection whatsoever to the gun control legislation recently tabled.

Often legal questions are asked with respect to the act. One question often asked is why the act is to come into force by order in council. It is specifically provided that the act will come into force on a day to be set by the order of the governor in council to ensure that the grace periods provided for in the convention will be respected. This will enable us to make the date of coming into force of the act coincide with that of the coming into force of the convention.

Another legal question often asked is when the convention will come into force. It is impossible to predict when the convention will come into force. Section 3 of article 13 of the convention provides that the convention will come into force on the 60th day following the date of deposit of the 35th instrument of ratification by a state, provided that at least five states have declared they are producer states. Should 35 instruments of ratification be deposited before the deposit of their instruments by five producer states, the convention will come into force on the 60th day following the date of deposit of the instrument of ratification of the fifth producer state.

Another legal question often asked is what happens to the definition of detection agent if the technical annex is amended. This is not a problem. The word convention is defined to refer to the convention as amended from time to time. This means that the definition of detection agent is ambulatory. It will follow any amendment in the technical annex to the convention.

Finally a further legal question often asked is what happens to the definition of plastic explosives if the convention is amended. Amendments to the definition of plastic explosives in the convention would not be automatically reflected in the Explosives Act because we repeated the definition instead of referring to it. We would have to amend the definition in the Explosives Act in order to have it follow an amendment to that found in the convention. However, from a practical point of view this should not be a problem. The definition of plastic explosives is standard. Furthermore it is unlikely that the convention itself will be amended. The only amendments contemplated are to the technical annex.

In addition to the technical questions, the policy questions, and the legal questions, we have what we refer to as miscellaneous questions. It is often asked why it took nearly five years from the March 1991 signing of the convention to table the bill. Initial MOU development, which began shortly after the signing of the convention, involved considerable consultation with DND, Canada Customs, and Transport Canada. Additional time was lost in 1993 when there was a change in government prior to the tabling and approval of the memorandum to cabinet. It required a second consultation and resubmission of the MC.

In conclusion I support the Explosives Act. As a member of the natural resources committee I recommend Bill C-71, the Explosives Act, at report stage to this honourable House.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to enter the debate on Bill C-71, an act to amend the Explosives Act.

When I read over the act I notice some very specific benefits for Canada, specifically in the area of vapour detection. Our government is very interested in promoting scientific and technological devices to expand our knowledge base and to increase employment. It is very interesting that Canada is a world leader in this type of technology.

I am very pleased to speak in favour of the bill. I note this is a UN convention. It basically restores our commitment to the United Nations and to other countries to detect plastic explosives and prevent their exportation throughout the world.

There have been a few classic examples of plastic explosives being used by terrorists both in and out of Canada. Many of us can remember the Air India disaster and numerous other cases where terrorists have used plastic explosives and the death and dismemberment of many innocent people has resulted. The bill basically addresses that issue with the objective of detecting and stamping out the use of plastic explosives for that very purpose.

It is necessary that the bill be brought into place to recognize our commitment to the United Nations and to recognize the need to deal with terrorist activities. I note that Canada is also a producer of plastic explosives, but the main consumer of them in Canada is our own military. I understand the Canadian military has approximately a 10-year supply of plastic explosives. I am very happy to see that we have made a provision in the act for a 15-year moratorium to allow the inventory of unmarked plastic explosives to be brought down while the new replacements have this detection device included.

I can remember being in Heathrow International Airport where they use canines and detection devices to control the exportation of firearms and dangerous substances. We have developed a whole technology to do that. The world does that very well. However we must always be on guard for the development of new types technology. Plastic explosives and small component devices can be exported very easily.

In conclusion I support Bill C-71 and the effect it will have in the industrial sector in creating jobs for Canadians.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)

Report Of The Auditor General

[The Speaker]

I have the honour to lay upon the table the report of the Auditor General of Canada to the House of Commons, volume two, dated October 1995.

I would remind the hon. members that, under Standing Order 108(3)(d) this document is deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

It being two o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 30(5) the House will now proceed to Statements by Members, pursuant to Standing Order 31.