That is right. It is a question of accountability. I agree with my colleague that they do not want to be accountable.
I present an opportunity to members of the House to learn from past mistakes to make sure the bill does not miss its mark. The following information should be included in the annual report.
First is the number of agreements entered into and the law enforcement agencies involved. This is important, given the fact that there have been disputes in the past between law enforcement agencies and the RCMP in this area before the legislation was thought of.
Second is the number of applications made. Is everyone who makes an application accepted or are some turned down? That information should be made available.
Third is the average amount spent on each arrangement. There is a budget of $3.4 million. Approximately 100 protectees were in the program in the past. Will that continue? Will the number rise? When we look at organized crime as it is manifesting itself in the country, it will undoubtedly rise. Where will the extra money come from to protect the individuals who apply?
Fourth is the number of agreements terminated and the reasons for termination. This has been a dispute in other agencies or other police departments. The commissioner has the final say on who
comes into the program and who does not. That information should be made available to the committee.
Fifth is the number and types of offences committed.
Sixth is the total amount of money spent from the consolidated revenue fund.
Seventh is the co-operative measures taken between the RCMP and other law enforcement agencies with respect to witness protection. Many joint force operations are taking place in the country. There are so many joint forces that it is impossible for one agency to effectively combat organized criminal activity without joining forces with others. This information should be made available. It is the other law enforcement agencies that often have the objections if the RCMP commissioner is the only one who has the final say on the agreements.
The last point is the number of foreign witnesses admitted to Canada who have become part of the protection program and the number of Canadian witnesses relocated outside Canada.
None of these proposed amendments is unreasonable. Upon review by the hon. members of the House I am confident they will see that the amendments are designed to bring about more accountability in the bill and the decision making process of the commissioner.
Given the rise of organized and violent crime the government should be doing everything in its power to ensure that the citizens of Canada are protected to the fullest. I urge all members to vote not based upon partisan considerations but rather on the best interests of their constituents and in favour of the amendments presented.