Mr. Speaker, as a a new member of the House, having been here only two years, it is always discouraging and dismaying for me to see not only in the House but in committee when the minister, through his parliamentary secretary or through his own directive, indicates what he wants the committee or the House to do, and everyone else on the government side simply follows suit regardless of the impression the amendments make on their own common sense.
It is dismaying for me to hear that the government is not going to support this amendment regardless of the common sense that it makes, regardless of the protection that it might provide in terms of checks and balances for the witnesses who are dragged into this system because of circumstances, perhaps in many cases beyond their own control. The government side is not prepared to honour the checks and balances that would protect the vulnerability of the witness entering into this program.
Let me tell members how vulnerable those people are. They come into the program because their life or the lives of their children may be threatened. They know that unless they abide by the wishes of their handler he or she can have an enormous impact on pulling the protection program out from under them.
What we are asking for in this amendment is simply a degree of accountability on the part of the commissioner who will be administering the program. Having served 14 years with the Mounted Police I know the commissioner never knows anything about things that often happen at the grassroots level because the only channel of communication he has are the reports he reads from people who prepare the reports at the grassroots level.
Consequently there are many things that could happen and are happening to these witnesses according to the testimony we have heard which places them at enormous vulnerability, where their grievances are not met and where they have absolutely no recourse. They ought to have a reasonable degree of recourse through their elected representatives who would review the program on an annual basis with these requirements. What does the commissioner have to provide for in his report to the solicitor general? What is it? Practically anything he wants unless there are some type of guidelines, the type of guidelines provided for in this amendment.
We do not want to know the names or the places of residents or any other factor that would place the witnesses in a vulnerable situation. Absolutely not. That is not the purpose of this amendment. What we want to do is have a degree of accountability in greater depth than a casual report from the commissioner. We see these kinds of reports. They have been submitted to the minister, whether from SIRC or some other statutory requirement.
They simply say what they want to say and withhold whatever information they want simply because there is no statutory requirement to provide that information. This amendment would go a long way to establish a reasonable check and balance on a program that involves innocent people and places them in very vulnerable situations. I support this amendment and I will be supporting the bill.
When we create these sorts of bills we ought to ensure citizens are provided the greatest degree of protection possible and not those who administer the program.
I urge all members to seriously consider and support this bill. It provides the reasonable checks and balances this kind of program ought to have.