Debates of Nov. 28th, 1995

British Columbia Treaty Commission Act

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Speaker]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Speaker]

The vote will be deferred until the end of Government Orders today.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-78, an act to provide for the establishment and operation of a program to enable certain persons to receive protection in relation to certain inquiries, investigations or prosecutions, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Witness Protection Program Act

[The Speaker]

There are two motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-78. Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted on. Motion No. 2 will be debated and voted on.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-78, in Clause 5, be amended a ) by replacing line 32, on page 2, with the following:

"5.(1) Subject to this Act, the Commissioner"; and b) by adding after line 36, on page 2, the following:

"(2) Any decision made by the Commissioner, or by a member of the Force on behalf of the Commissioner, under section 5, 9, 11 or 14 of this Act may be reviewed by the Minister on application by a law enforcement agency."

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand before the House today to address pressing issues on criminal justice, specifically Bill C-78, the Witness Protection Program Act.

There is an urgent need for legislation of this nature. I can relate to that on a personal level. For the past 22 years I have been a police officer in the city of Calgary, serving my constituents as well as the city in general. A good portion of that time has been devoted to the investigation of major crime. I have gained practical insight about how valuable witnesses are in the conduct of an investigation.

There is no doubt in my mind that certain witnesses need to be protected from potential harm, particularly when their testimony relates to organized criminal activity such as drugs and alcohol, tobacco smuggling operations, and trafficking or other conspiracies to commit violent capital crimes.

The decision for one criminal to turn in other criminals can be a difficult one, not only for police departments that have to handle this individual but also for the criminal himself. If justice is to be served, we must take strong measures to protect from any potential harm those witnesses who step forward. They may come from one of two categories: they may be active criminals themselves or they may have inadvertently been caught in some criminal act in some fashion, unknowingly.

Simply put, without the testimony of those individuals who come forward to present their knowledge or experience of a criminal activity or conspiracy to a police officer and eventually to a court there would be no investigation, no charges, and ultimately no convictions.

Violent and organized crime is on the rise in Canada. I do not think this government understands that. No longer can politicians live in denial of this reality. Wherever there is a dollar to be made illegally, the criminal element will organize to beat the law.

A prime example of this organized criminal activity is motorcycle gang violence and the resulting turf war spilling out into the streets. We see that in Toronto and in Montreal. There is little to do on the part of this government right now to change a lot of that.

It is no secret in law enforcement circles that the Hell's Angels are in an all out war with the Outlaws motorcycle gang over control of the lucrative drug trade, prostitution, and a mass of contraband smuggling and distribution business. The recent spate of bombings and killings in Montreal and Toronto continues as kingpins make money and people die. The carnage must stop if law and order is to be restored on Canadian streets.

It is extremely unsettling that this government would not acknowledge the new reality of organized criminal activity in our country. Furthermore, this do-nothing government has jeopardized the security of law-abiding citizens by burying their heads in the sand and hoping that crime will disappear.

Consider that the budget for this witness protection program in Canada will accommodate approximately 80 to 100 individuals in any given year. That is very small. The budget established by the Solicitor General of Canada, a mere $3.4 million, is fundamentally inadequate, given the resources required to penetrate the culture of organized crime and to properly identify and recruit criminals willing to inform on their own kind.

The RCMP would intensify their efforts in this regard if more resources were available. My chief concern is not only the witness protection funding deficiencies, but also the lack of vision on the part of the Solicitor General. Instead of funding special interest lobbies who advocate criminal rights, the Solicitor General might instruct his fat cat colleagues to consider the safety of the public for a change.

Perhaps if the minister were to rescind his gold plated pension and convince others in the government to do the same, the government could then find the funds to give the RCMP the tools they need to get the job done. But those pensions are near and dear to the hearts of the government side.

Bill C-78 certainly is a step toward strengthening the RCMP witness protection program as it exists presently. However, there were some problems with the legislation before this bill came into being, which have given rise to the amendments we are proposing here today. The first is the absolute authority of the RCMP commissioner in the decision making process in the following areas: (a) to determine whether a witness should be admitted into the program; (b) to terminate the protection of the witness if in the opinion of the commissioner it is warranted; (c) to disclose the identity and the location of the witness or the protectee; and (d) to

make arrangements with other law enforcement agencies, attorneys general of the provinces, or other provincial agencies.

With respect to the agreements that are struck between the parties involved in the witness protection program, I wish to point out that as it stands with this bill there is no resolution mechanism or appeal procedure for agencies, agents, and protectees to air their concerns beyond the commissioner. It is a crucial that a resolution mechanism become part of this bill. I know personally of disagreements arising between law enforcement agencies and the RCMP, which ended abruptly upon the decision of the commissioner. Take for example the concerns expressed by two witnesses who came before the standing committee on justice, one of whom was a serving police officer representing dozens of police agencies and officers across the country.

As it stands, the individual witness under protection is restricted in taking up matters of concern regarding the conditions of protection to the public complaints commission but not to the Solicitor General's office. I submit that this process is totally inadequate.

Most police departments have an informant control officer who regulates the handling of an informant for the appropriate department. This type of arrangement allows a process of appeal in the event of an unsatisfactory decision on the part of the commissioner and would be available to agreements between individual police agencies and the RCMP via the informant control officer. I submit that this provision would make the program much more effective, thus enabling agencies greater flexibility in their investigation of organized crime.

I have had an opportunity to visit various parts of this country and specifically this province. Organized crime has a firm grip in certain areas, and the police agencies can do little or nothing about it. One such area several Reform MPs visited was the area of Cornwall and the reserve of Akwesasne, where there is organized smuggling and it is being distributed across this country.

A lot of people do not understand the effects of drug smuggling as it applies to their own lives and their own communities. Drugs that come through areas such as the Akwesasne reserve at Cornwall and are distributed across the country do make it onto the streets of our communities and into our schools.

I would strongly urge members to support this particular bill, which brings forth more accountability to deal with crime of that nature.

That is not the only area in the country that is subject to the will of the organized criminal. Until we get some real firm legislation and a strong commitment on the part of the Solicitor General to increase the funding in this particular area to combat the organized syndicate, we will not gain any headway and the streets of our country will not be any safer.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague talking about his motion and I cannot help comparing it to a remake of an old B class movie.

What are we debating exactly? A bill and amendment motions which, after all, will not prevent anybody from sleeping soundly tonight. As a matter of fact, Bill C-78 is so boring that I find it surprising that there are still some hon. members around still awake.

The solicitor general has invented nothing. He simply follows the international trend. Other countries have protection programs for witnesses. Programs in place in the United States, in the United Kingdom and in Australia have inspired the solicitor general for his Bill C-78. As usual, Canada is trailing behind other countries. Yet again it has failed to show leadership or innovation.

What is the purpose of Bill C-78? It proposes the establishment of a program operated under the commissioner of the RCMP for the protection of witnesses and informants as well as related or associated persons who might be at risk. The protection may include relocating the person, providing him or her with some accommodation, a new identity, as well as counselling and the necessary financial support for that purpose.

Motion No. 1 moved by the member for Calgary Northeast is by far the best suggestion made by the Reform Party in a long time. Unfortunately it is not new, since it had already been moved by the Bloc Quebecois during clause by clause study of Bill C-78 by the justice committee. It is well disguised but the principle remains the same.

I had proposed to amend the Witness Protection Program Act so as to prevent the Commissioner of the RCMP from being the judge, jury and sole executioner of the program proposed by the Solicitor General.

The idea behind our main and related motions was that the Solicitor General was to be entirely responsible for the program. This is one the numerous problems with Bill C-78. This legislation provides that the program will be managed by the Commissioner of the RCMP, the same commissioner who determines the beneficiaries and the amount of protection they will be given.

How are the authorities who operate the program accountable for their actions? The RCMP both manages the program and is responsible for it. The RCMP is accountable unto itself. It is the judge, the jury and the executioner at the same time.

Not only that, the government wanted to give the commissioner judicial privilege. Fortunately, because of our protests in committee, it did not.

I tried to understand, but to no avail; the explanations given by the Office of the Solicitor General were as nebulous as they were convoluted.

As an aside, I wish to point out the deplorable effort made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General to clarify the question for the justice committee. When he appeared before the committee, the parliamentary secretary did not know how to answer my questions, especially those concerning the problem of codefendents. Unable to answer my questions, the member mumbled a few words before letting his officials do the work for him. The member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine appeared to be out of his depth.

The problem with an indictment dealing with two or more defendents is that the Witness Protection Program can be used as a negotiation tool.

Let us take the case of two accomplices charged with the same murder. If we assume that proof beyond doubt is readily adduced, but lacks a key element to bring about a guilty verdict, the testimony of one of the accomplices could prove crucial to the proceedings. The Crown cannot afford to weaken the credibility of the judicial system if neither of the defendents can be compelled to testify against the other one.

The Crown's alternative is to offer one of the accomplices a reduced sentence or other benefits, in exchange for pleading guilty to a lesser charge.

The other benefits which can be offered, in addition to a reduced sentence, may vary from one judicial district to another.

They generally deal with the length of the sentence and the conditions of confinement. In return, the first accomplice will testify against the second one, and instead of two acquittals, the Crown will gloat it got two guilty verdicts. But there is a catch. With Bill C-78, the Crown will have another present to offer criminals in return for their co-operation.

Both individuals in my previous example are, I believe, equally morally reprehensible. By offering the protection program to one of them, but not to both, our judicial system will once again apply double standards. A murderer could be protected by the program while the accomplice he helped convict will languish in prison. The public will not soon forget the Karla Homolka case.

To get back to the motion of the member for Calgary Northeast, I remind the House that it is based, more or less, on principles presented in committee by the Bloc Quebecois. I submitted several amendments myself, several of them specifying that the solicitor himself should be responsible for the witness protection program and not the commissioner of the RCMP.

The Reform Party did not support any of these amendments and today, they have the gall to make believe it is their idea. Since imitation is a form of flattery, I thank my colleagues of the third party. In spite of the Reform Party's opportunism, especially that of the member for Calgary Northeast, I will vote for motion No. 1.

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the member for Saint-Hubert that the bill as tabled by the solicitor general stresses the importance of guaranteeing sources and witnesses the best possible protection.

Among the changes that should strengthen the program, we find a clear definition of the eligibility criteria for witnesses and a more transparent program management structure that would require greater accountability from all those in charge. I want to repeat, to be sure the situation is quite clear, that we will not support the Reform Party motion.

I would like to add that pursuant to the RCMP Act, the Solicitor General can provide advice to the commissioner of the RCMP concerning matters of policy. The commissioner or his delegate is in the best position to make these decisions concerning the day to day running of the witness protection program.

Since 1984 the RCMP have provided protection to witnesses to such a high professional level that there has never been an individual killed or seriously injured while under their protection.

As a result of the bill, this highly effective program will operate in a much more open and transparent manner, as I have just indicated to the hon. member for Saint-Hubert, thereby ensuring that all participants are aware of both their rights and their obligations under this program.

In conclusion, we will not be supporting this motion.

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Fraser Valley East, or West. You look like the fellow from Fraser Valley East.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is only the beard. Regional disparities: I have no hair and he has some.

Speaking to Bill C-78, the witness protection program, I must say that I support this bill. It is nice to finally get the government to move in a direction where even the victims in this country are getting some support from the government. That is not much to be said for a lot of the other crime bills in this country.

By the way, this bill originally came up in a private member's bill from one of the Liberal backbenchers. I really think that because an individual in the House was pushing it the government decided to move ahead and try to take the glory. I want to give

some appreciation to that Liberal member who initially brought up the private member's bill that was dropped.

Currently we are looking at several amendments, which I will get to in a moment. There is no national bill for witness protection. The RCMP and local forces may have their own, but very secretive, with limited access to information as far as what the contents are. Again, victims have little or no knowledge of what these bills are and what rights they have. It is high time they did.

We know little of the programs. In fact, when we attempt to get information in this country about witness protection there is very little acknowledgement from the RCMP or any other policing agency of what is available.

One of the Liberal members who usually talks while I am speaking says there is a reason for that, but the fact is if this were clear legislation then victims would have a little more knowledge of what is due to them. It is high time this government got serious about letting victims know what is available to them, without disregarding their interests.

In this country we have seen provincial courts criticize the RCMP for their witness protection. We have seen courts in this country order protection for individuals. There was one very large drug seizure case where the individuals had to go to court to get protection. That should not be necessary in this country. It should be made available to them, not through order and mandate in the courts.

In 1993-94 we see that we spent $3.5 million on witness protection. I think that is very light. If we are going to assist in trying to prevent crime, or at least trying to rectify criminal situations and incarcerate people for wrongdoing, we have to put more support on the end of witness protection. This bill does that.

If the government needs money, which they do, they can take some of it from the fines and the other revenues they get from other policing activities, so it would be possible to finance some of this business. As I understand it, the RCMP welcomes this, which is good.

There are two amendments we are seeking in the bill. With the inclusion of the first amendment there would be one more level of appeal, not only for the protectee, who can now appeal his case to the public complaints commissioner, but also for police agencies, which for the first time are granted a level of appeal beyond the commissioner or the minister.

As you know, there is an absolute authority granted to the commissioner, as my colleague from Calgary has said, but it bears repeating. This is an important aspect of the bill. It has to be changed.

The commissioner has exclusive authority in the following four areas: to determine whether a witness should be admitted to the program; to terminate the protection of a witness if the commissioner believes it to be warranted; to disclose the identity and location of the witness or protected person; and to make agreements with other law enforcement agencies or attorneys general. With our amendment to clause 5, we allow some further avenues for the individuals in the program.

Certain witnesses need protection. Unfortunately, some of the witnesses who need protection in this country are also criminals. However, if we are going to get at the root of the problem in this country, we have to afford even those individuals some protection if they come forward in particular cases such as cocaine smuggling and so on and so forth. While I dislike protecting criminals, in this particular case I believe it is necessary. I believe it should also apply to smugglers.

Witnesses receive the same protection as the criminal if they come forward. Unfortunately, victims know very little of their rights. They know very little of what is afforded them in terms of a bill such as this or in terms of any other legislation under criminal law. Victims should be read their rights. Their rights should be publicized, including rights such as being informed of the details of the crown's intention to offer a plea bargain; being informed of their rights at every stage of a process, including those rights involving compensation from the offender; and being informed of the offender's status throughout the whole criminal justice process.

If we are going to move in the direction of affording victims their rights in these areas, then victims must be afforded the knowledge of what is in a witness protection act.

We know that other countries have witness protection acts, such as Australia and the United States. There are problems with the American act. The advocacy groups that are responsible for witness protection make it very difficult for the crown to have access to a witness. We must be careful when we are legislating laws for individuals who come forward to put their lives on the line. We must guard them, but we cannot overprotect them and prevent justice from taking its proper course.

I will be voting for this bill and the two amendments. If the two amendments are not accepted I will still support the legislation. It is necessary to move the government in a direction on behalf of people who are trying to help curb crime in Canada.

Committees Of The House

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among the parties and I think you will find consent for the following motion.

I move:

That the Standing Committee of Finance be empowered to televise its proceedings the week of November 27th, 1995 from the cities of Calgary, Fredericton, Montréal and Vancouver pursuant, to the extent possible, to the principles and practices governing the broadcasting of the House of Commons.

(Motion agreed to.)

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-78, an act to provide for the establishment and operation of a program to enable certain persons to receive protection in relation to certain inquiries, investigations or prosecutions, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Witness Protection Program Act

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to take part in the debate this afternoon. I would like to begin by doing something I rarely do, which is to compliment the members of the third party for their support of the legislation.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Do not get carried away.

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

We are just being friendly.

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

I want to particularly commend the hon. member for Fraser Valley East.

I am astounded that they even heckle me when I am saying nice things about them. It is probably because they are in shock.

This legislation has been a necessity for some time. The witness protection plan in the past has basically operated under principles and guidelines laid down in RCMP internal policies. There is no question that this kind of activity is much better and much more in the public interest when it is covered by legislation passed in the House.

It is tragic to think that we are debating this bill today in the aftermath of yet another tragic occurrence in our country. I am speaking of the shooting yesterday in Cartierville, Quebec, of the young female police officer who was shot in a community police station. She was the mother of three children and had just returned from maternity leave. The youngest of her three children was only eight months old.

I do not know if there have been more developments today. Last night I watched the news along with our colleague, the member for Saint-Laurent-Cartierville, who is very concerned about this tragedy that has taken place in her riding. There are no known witnesses. This happened in a busy mall, but we all know that things can happen that people may not see or hear.

With a program like this and with the attendant publicity the passage of this bill will create, we can hope people will come forward, even if they are frightened, as many people are, to get involved with the criminal justice system.

Our colleagues from the other party have raised some legitimate points, which they need to have answered. Even with the legislation replacing a mere policy program, it is extremely important, if this program is to work, that access to the information must be very, very limited.

The hon. member for Fraser Valley East talked about victims and the need for victims to know certain things. I believe the victims can well know about the process, about what the policy is and about what the legislation is, but that could be part of a government information program or it could be part of public education that victims rights groups would get involved with. However, in the actual day to day administration of the program itself, common sense must rule. Only a very small number of people can or should be apprised of who exactly is in the program, where these people are located, and all of the attendant facts necessary to make sure the program works.

I take this rare occasion of amity between the government and those on the other side to explain that it is not a question of wanting to deny victims their rights to know; it is much more a question, as is the whole basis of this legislation, that we want to ensure that witnesses come forward and give their testimony in a court of law, which will lead to the conviction of those who have committed offences and will add to the deterrent factor. In other words, it is to ensure that this legislation takes its place as part of the underpinning of our system of justice. This is a very sensitive area. It may well be the most sensitive area in the entire federal realm of legislating vis-à-vis the justice system.

Part of the difficulty, as with many of our developments in the criminal law in this place, is that a lot of people in the public at large garner their information about programs such as this from popular television programs. What happens on popular television

programs and what happens within our various police departments, including the RCMP, is not necessarily the same.

Consequently, as the hon. member for Fraser Valley brought up, there is a lot of misinformation out there. People want to know more. It is the duty of members of Parliament and of government without being patronizing, without attempting to block the public's right to know to get out the message that some things being publicized would be counterproductive to the system of justice and to the system of government.

There is no question that secrecy in many cases is the enemy of democracy, but there are exceptions to that rule. In something such as the witness protection program, we all have to agree that a level of confidentiality in the protection of those witnesses who are doing their very best to help in the protection of the public is absolutely essential.

I do not have a very long time to address this matter but I also wanted to speak briefly on the question of cost in this legislation. Again, what we have here is very much of a bargain, particularly within the normal costs of federal government programs. At the moment, the cost of the RCMP source witness protection program is $3.4 million. No additional costs are expected as a result of introducing this legislation. The average cost per case is $30,000 and in actuality 60 per cent of cases cost less than $20,000.

It is difficult to say how many persons may be in the program at any given time because the numbers do change daily. They change with the expiration of protection agreements and the elimination of threats to safety. At any given time, there are 80 to 100 people, including family members, in the program.

We all realize how important a program such as this is to our justice system. I want to compliment our colleagues in the third party who are supporting this, or in the words of their whip, any of those who wish to support it. We appreciate that support.

This country's criminal justice system is one that works very well. It is the subject of a lot of brick bats, a lot of criticism from time to time but in general as a law professor of mine used to say, under the universal theory of rough justice, in 80 per cent of the cases things work out.

The witness protection program may give us a betterment of those odds. Certainly all of us on this side of the House, as I know all on the other side, are committed to a criminal justice system which is fair and which protects Canadian society at large. This legislation will be a great help in ensuring that end. I support it very strongly. I congratulate members of the third party for their support as well.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

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.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[An hon. member]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The question is on Motion No. 1.

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.