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.