Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the amendments to Bill C-78. This bill came before the justice committee. As a member of the justice committee I heard witnesses address their concerns about the bill.
One of the concerns I want to address and which this amendment focuses upon is the enormous degree of vulnerability of many of the witnesses who come under the 14 or 15 witness protection programs across Canada. We heard testimony indicating that these witnesses are very vulnerable. For some of them, their lives are in danger. They have received threats yet they want to do the right thing and provide the evidence to ensure that the justice system works and that those who are involved in organized crime and in criminal activities are brought to justice. Some of the testimony we heard from the witnesses raises serious concerns in this area.
I have the brief submitted by Mr. Barry Swadron, a lawyer who acts on behalf of witnesses who have challenged the program because of the violation of what they believe to be the agreement the police forces have made with them. He states: "By the time protected witnesses get to lawyers, it is often to undo harm that could have been avoided had they consulted lawyers earlier. Police officers often discourage about to be protected witnesses from retaining lawyers with respect to proposed arrangements. A number of protected witnesses have been advised by police authorities that a lawyer will not be able to help them. We have been told that police officers pressure witnesses not to consult a lawyer. Indeed the negative pressure has on occasion been prohibition". He concludes by stating that this is reprehensible.
The committee heard testimony on this bill indicating that the agreements witnesses enter into in many cases are not upheld. They are not provided with the protection. They are not provided with the benefits they need. This new bill was scrutinized by those witnesses to determine whether or not there were checks and balances to ensure that they had recourse should their handlers not fulfil their end of the agreement.
Mr. Swadron goes on to say in his brief: "Swadron Associates have received dozens of telephone calls from across Canada and beyond from the types of persons described above". He is talking about the protectees. "They are of both sexes, various ages and from many walks of life. A substantial number have become our clients. We advise some. We negotiate on behalf of others. Sometimes we must resort to litigation where police forces are sued in order to obtain the contractual benefits that these protectees have entered into".
He also states: "You would be amazed at the hardships faced by these individuals. They experience the worst type of cultural shock. Not only are they forced to forge new beginnings in strange surroundings, but also to erase their much more familiar past. The degree of assistance they receive from police authorities varies significantly. Every aspect of daily living that you and I take for granted has for them been inexorably altered. Even attending to basic needs such as arranging accommodation, obtaining health care, getting a driver's licence, opening a bank account, or placing children in schools becomes insurmountable".
When we examined this bill we examined it from many perspectives and points of view. I was most concerned about whether or not the bill provided adequate checks and balances for the very sensitive and vulnerable position many of these witnesses find themselves in.
As I said earlier, many have been threatened. They fear for their lives and those of their spouses and children. They are very susceptible to the manipulation of the handler. Unless the handler is very conscious about the duties and responsibilities that they must discharge to the protectee under the agreement, often the conditions of the agreement are violated. Then the protectee is left in an extremely vulnerable position where they either have to seek their own remedies or seek the support of legal counsel if they wish to pursue what they consider to be benefits that have been withheld from them. As Mr. Swadron says, it creates an enormous problem within the witness protection programs.
Mr. Swadron referred to Bill C-78 as a police protection program rather than a witness protection program. He centred on what was at that time clause 19 of the bill. Clause 19 has been withdrawn and was done so by the government. Of course, we on this side of the House support that withdrawal because what clause 19 provided for was the protection of the RCMP. If the RCMP could simply raise the defence of having acted in good faith, then no protectee could sue the government successfully. That was withdrawn because of some of the concerns which were raised by witnesses and some of the concerns I am raising today and which the amendment to which we are speaking addresses to some extent.
Clause 19 was withdrawn so that if there are areas of culpability in terms of discharging the requirements of any agreement, there is no legal barrier that would interfere with the right of the protectee to seek litigation in order to establish what they consider to be benefits from the agreement.
I am very much in favour of the withdrawal of clause 19 which is no longer in the bill. However, I also have great concern about some of the testimony provided. The commissioner alone has absolute power and authority to determine not only what witnesses enter into the program but the conditions of the agreement as well as the right to rule on any concern a protectee might have.
I support this amendment. It would provide the means whereby individuals can address the minister who can then be held accountable by the elected representatives of the House as to how these contracts are administered. I support the amendment and I will be supporting the bill.
I hope all hon. members will consider the testimony we have heard before the committee and the concerns I have raised with regard to the extreme vulnerability of the witnesses. We must ensure there are reasonable checks and balances within the legislation to protect them from abuse.