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.