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.