House of Commons Hansard #23 of the 35th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was labour.

Topics

Committees Of The HouseGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Fundy Royal New Brunswick

Liberal

Paul Zed LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I understand there have been negotiations among the parties on a draft order of reference. It is a matter that was dealt with in the last Parliament involving a review of the Young Offenders Act.

I move:

Pursuant to its mandate in relation to the comprehensive review of the Young Offenders Act, Phase II, and specifically to observe how the youth justice system operates in practice, that the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs (6 members); four from the Liberal Party, including the chair, one from the Bloc Quebecois and one from the Reform Party, be authorized to travel to Halifax, Sydney and Charlottetown from April 21 to April 26, 1996 in order to hold public hearings, visit sites, (young offender facilities and programs) and meet with officials and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, you will find that there is unanimous consent.

Committees Of The HouseGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

The Speaker

Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

Committees Of The HouseGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Committees Of The HouseGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

The Speaker

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Committees Of The HouseGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-18, an act to establish the Department of Health and to amend and repeal certain acts, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Department Of Health ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Eglinton—Lawrence Ontario

Liberal

Joe Volpe LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health

moved:

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-18, in Clause 35, be amended by striking out line 21, on page 13, and substituting the following:

"35. If Bill C-8, introduced in the second ses-".

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-18, in Clause 37, be amended by striking out lines 7 to 9, on page 14, and substituting the following:

"37. If a bill, introduced in the second session of the thirty-fifth Parliament and entitled An Act respecting regulations and other documents including the review, regis-".

Mr. Speaker, these two motions are like the previous two. They are purely technical amendments to Bill C-18, again prompted by the reintroduction of the former Bill C-95, following the prorogation of Parliament.

Clause 35 proposes to replace the reference to former Bill C-7 otherwise known as the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The number of Bill C-7 has been changed to Bill C-8 and the reference must now be changed.

As well, clause 37 proposes to eliminate the reference to Bill C-84, the Regulations Act and to simply refer to a bill.

The department of health bill, having been reintroduced in Parliament before the regulations bill, the numbering of the latter

bill could not have been known at the time and therefore renders this technical amendment necessary.

It is clear that these amendments do not in any way affect the substance of the bill in question. Again, I ask for speedy passage.

Department Of Health ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

The Speaker

Is the House ready for the question?

Department Of Health ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Department Of Health ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

The Speaker

The question is on Motion No. 3. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Department Of Health ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Department Of Health ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

The Speaker

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion No. 3 agreed to.)

Department Of Health ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

The Speaker

The next question is on Motion No. 5. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Department Of Health ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Department Of Health ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

The Speaker

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion No. 5 agreed to.)

Department Of Health ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Hamilton East Ontario

Liberal

Sheila Copps Liberalfor the Minister of Health

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.

Department Of Health ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

The Speaker

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

Department Of Health ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

Witness Protection Program ActGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Hamilton East Ontario

Liberal

Sheila Copps Liberalfor the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada

moved that Bill C-13, 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, be read the third time and passed.

Witness Protection Program ActGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Vaudreuil Québec

Liberal

Nick Discepola LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to participate in the debate on third reading of Bill C-13, the witness protection program act.

I am sure that most hon. members are aware that the intent of the witness protection program act is to ensure that our federal witness protection program will provide the best possible protection to both witnesses and sources.

The legislation proposed by the bill creates for the first time a statutory foundation for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police source witness protection program.

On behalf of the Solicitor General, I would like to thank all the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for the time and energy they put into consideration of this bill last fall.

During this period, the committee heard people from various backgrounds, including the police, representatives of victim support groups, legal experts and a former witness.

It also heard my hon. colleague, the member for Scarborough West, whose interest in the matter of witness protection is well known, and who stimulated discussions significantly on this important question.

The government has taken careful note of the legitimate concerns expressed during the hearings of the committee, and they are reflected in the amendments made to the original bill.

Thus, the bill before you today is better and more solid than the one tabled at first reading.

The committee deserves our thanks for this.

The proposed changes will improve the transparency and the efficiency of the RCMP's source and witness protection program, which has existed as an administrative program since 1984, by giving it a solid statutory and regulatory basis.

We are creating a witness protection program with a basis in law.

This legislation will have the important effect of giving the RCMP's source and witness protection program a higher profile. The need to report on the operations of this program will be specified.

Of course, the identity of the sources and witness will remain secret, but the selection criteria and the scope of protection will be clear and transparent.

Thanks to these statutory provisions, the participants in the program and the RCMP administering it will be clear as to their rights and obligations and the scope of the protection and benefits provided. This should also eliminate any misunderstanding between the RCMP and the people being protected.

In all, the changes to this RCMP program will meet the needs of both the police and the witnesses and sources requiring protection.

The proposed changes will ensure that the eligibility criteria for witnesses are clearly defined; they will ensure standard case handling across the country; a clear definition of the responsibilities and obligations of the program administrators and participants; a better defined management structure within the RCMP for day to

day program operation, which will reinforce the reporting requirement; a complaint resolution mechanism and the presentation of an annual report on the operation of the program by the commissioner of the RCMP to the Solicitor General, which will be tabled in the House of Commons.

Provincial and municipal law enforcement agencies may still make use of the RCMP source and witness protection program, as they did in the past, on a cost recovery basis.

However, the bill does not seek to replace witness protection programs administered by provinces or municipalities, nor does it seek to set up a national program.

Through these brief comments, I tried to present as clearly as possible the key components of the bill. I am convinced that hon. members know that the source witness protection program is a very powerful tool for law enforcement purposes.

However, I am aware that there are lingering concerns over certain aspects of the program. I will discuss some of these now, particularly those raised by the hon. member for Saint-Hubert. During the debate at second reading, the hon. member for Saint-Hubert asked the government to clarify three basic points.

The first one is the budget allocated for the new program; the second one is the time required to put the program in place, once the bill is passed; and the third one is the number of people who should take part in the program. These are important issues and I will begin with the budget.

The annual costs of the RCMP source witness protection program currently stand at $3.4 million. I am pleased to tell the House that the bill will not result in any additional costs. The average cost per case is $30,000, and in about 60 per cent of the cases it is under $20,000.

The second issue raised by the hon. member for Saint-Hubert is the time required, once the bill is passed, for the new program to become operational.

The RCMP assures us that the new program could be operational a few weeks after the bill is passed. It is to be noted that the current source witness protection program will be maintained until the proposed changes are implemented.

The third and last point raised by the hon. member for Saint-Hubert is the number of people who should take part in the program every year. There are, at any one time, between 80 and 100 people, including family members, actively participating in the program. This average figure should not change in the foreseeable future.

I want to point out that protecting sources and witnesses will not eliminate violent crime, or even organized crime. However, the program is an important investigation tool for law enforcement authorities. It greatly helps police in its constant fight against organized crime and major criminal activities in Canada.

We must make sure that the program continues to be such a useful instrument.

When the government was elected it made a commitment in its election platform to a safer homes and safer streets agenda. Since taking office we have honoured that commitment.

To date we have brought about the reform of the corrections and conditional release system through the passage of Bill C-45 which became law in January of this year. Improvements were equally made to the Canadian Police Information Centre data banks to help screen out child sexual abusers as potential employees and volunteers working with children.

We established a national flagging system to help crown attorneys deal more effectively with high risk offenders. We equally passed comprehensive gun control. We created a National Crime Prevention Council and passed amendments to the Young Offenders Act.

The witness protection program act is yet another important component in our overall effort to improve safety and security for all Canadians. I believe that all hon. members recognize the importance of and endorse the changes proposed in the witness protection program act.

I would like to thank once again all members of all parties for their past support of the bill. I hope we can count on their continued support to ensure speedy passage of Bill C-13 at third reading.

Witness Protection Program ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard St-Laurent Bloc Manicouagan, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-13, concerning the protection of witnesses. This is a topic of some interest to the police, naturally, and it is also an important factor in helping the judicial system not just to track down criminals, but also to pursue individuals involved in organized crime. It is also a very sensitive topic, open to controversy. By its definition, organized crime involves a number of people, a very close-knit group that it is extremely difficult for RCMP or CSIS agents or anyone else to penetrate.

One of our duties is to assist the judicial process, to facilitate legislation and the application of legislation for those who must apply it on the front line, in most cases, police officers, of course.

It is important in 1996 that Canada have such a law. It has been needed for a long time, but whatever the reasons for the delay, we are finally debating it today.

The objective, let it be remembered, is to improve the quality of life. You do not pass a law for the sheer pleasure of it, you pass a law to facilitate the process, and Bill C-13 is ultimately about

improving the quality of life and improving respect for the law, which becomes more effective as a result. It is simply a work tool, not a revolution in itself, as we have seen elsewhere.

Experience has shown that turning to witnesses to provide elements of proof or help with police investigations at the risk of endangering themselves or their families, is often one of the most effective means available to our justice system in the fight against crime, particularly organized crime. The objective of the witness protection program act is to ensure that our federal witness protection program continues to offer the best protection possible to sources and potential witnesses.

It is hardly surprising that Bill C-13, which itself flows from Bill C-78 tabled by the Solicitor General, is to all intents and purposes the same as a bill already passed by this House on September 26, Bill C-206, tabled by the hon. member for Scarborough West, and passed at first reading on February 1, 1995.

In fact, the only noticeable changes are that witnesses can be better compensated under a bill as introduced. Also, under Bill C-13, the commissioner of the RCMP will now have to make the necessary arrangements with witnesses, or their solicitor, to ensure their protection.

As I was saying earlier, under Bill C-206, as passed on December 26, the solicitor general had the authority to reach agreements with witnesses. That, of course, made it easier, under our parliamentary system, to ensure control of government activities through ministerial accountability.

We lagged considerably behind others, in particular our American neighbours, who have had witness protection legislation applying to all 50 states of the union for 25 years now. That legislation is well known by the general public, which is thus aware of its rights.

The system was made necessary because what is happening today is that police authorities are using a piecemeal approach, dealing separately with each informant they want to see testify in court.

This makes things somewhat ambiguous for these people, who have a law to enforce, for a variety of reasons, including the media aspect. But on what basis are they going to negotiate these piecemeal agreements?

I do not believe we can settle for a piecemeal approach, with decisions depending on the whims of whoever is responsible for policing at a specific time. I feel that instead we need to have legislation that will apply all across Canada as this will improve the situation of witnesses, particularly in criminal cases, and more particularly in cases involving serious crimes.

The process, as it is currently applied, does have a few flaws. These events are always surrounded by publicity, which taints the true purpose of the mandate outlined in Bill C-13.

Law enforcement officers bargain with criminals, often for money, but also for reduced sentences. On the subject of reduced sentences, there was a case recently in Ontario, in Toronto to be more precise, that draw a great deal of media attention for all kinds of reasons. Naturally, in this matter-this is as good an example as any, since it is often how it works-it is quite clear that, without the help of the informer witness-in this case, a woman-it would have been almost impossible for the judicial system to get a conviction for extremely serious crimes.

Witness protection is not afforded indiscriminately either. It has been used in many instances. I think that every member of this House has learned about such cases through the media or through personal experience. The problem is it could be subject to interpretation. Will giving informer witnesses money or reduced sentences have the effect of encouraging crime? That is one way of looking at it, but we must look a little further than that, we must take a slightly more serious attitude and admit that, ultimately, it has the effect of encouraging informers to come forward, which, in turn, leads to the arrest and conviction of individuals and often groups of individuals.

Some would say this is rooting out individuals whose sole reason for belonging to our society is to abuse the system, certain advantages or the kindness of some organizations, but that is part of a bigger picture. Let us not kid ourselves here. Without the protection afforded by the law, informers would just not come forward.

Big time criminals never operate alone, or only very exceptionally. As for those who operate alone and are still out there, have not been caught yet, we do not hear much about them either. They are therefore of no great concern to us. But those who operate in gangs, the big time criminals involved in drug trafficking or money laundering, to name but a few of their activities, they are the ones that worry us. This is the kind of cases that are reported on almost every week on television.

And every week, there is all this information on all sorts of crimes: currency counterfeiting, card counterfeiting, large scale credit card theft. Land is bought in foreign countries with money to be laundered and then resold. The list goes on and on.

We are talking about organizations. These activities cannot be conducted by a single individual. A person alone cannot go out and buy equipment with clean money while carrying dirty money obtained from a drug deal. This is simply not possible. There are steps to follow. There are a number of people involved and, among

these, we sometimes find informers, who deserve to be protected when they testify.

Let me tell you about a case on the North Shore, in my riding, more specifically in Sept-îles. Several tonnes of hashish were seized. At the time, a big wig was arrested, namely Vito Rizutto, the mafia boss. An informer was involved. As I recall, 18 people, from sailors on the ship to the big boss himself were in that small jail, in Sept-îles, which has room for 23 people in total. Needless to say that this group of 18 pretty well filled up the place.

There was also an informer inside, a ship captain. I remember him very well. Since then, he has been keeping a very low profile, particularly in view of the fact that the investigation fizzled out for all sorts of reasons that would be too long to explain.

I remember that, at the time, the informer was offered police protection, including a new identity and possibly some money. Because of this arrangement, he was prepared to testify. He confessed. At the time, I was a correctional services officer and had the opportunity to speak with him, with all of them, but I asked him the following question: Would you give yourself up if you did not have this system?

Naturally, they offered to protect his family, him as well, give him a new identity and so on. He was adamant, it was out of the question. He would say nothing at all, if nothing else was offered, if this protection system was not offered, which is not surprising in the times we live in, if we want to catch the big criminals.

All the more so as we are not looking at 100,000 people wanting money to talk, 100,000 people to protect, who need new identities. I listened to the remarks of my colleague across the way earlier, and he said, if my memory is correct, that the average was $30,000 per person, and often $20,000. It is very unusual. I once saw approximately $100,000 in British Columbia a few years back. I think that this idea dies hard.

The deputy across the way was right to point out that the majority averaged $30,000. Do we say this is good, or not? This is, after all, being given to someone who has committed a crime, let us not forget that. Nor should we stick our heads in the sand. I say it is a compromise we have to make if we want to improve the legal system as it now stands, and particularly its application.

Improving the legal system, legislating for the fun of it, these are things anyone can do. In order to get elected, we create laws, but these laws must be easy to apply for those on the front line, the police officers who make arrests and conduct investigations. They must be given the legislative means authorizing them to do so, so that they will no longer find themselves stuck in situations as they are today, where there is a considerable risk of finding their pictures on the front page of some tabloid, with the claim that they offered some criminal this, that or the other.

There must be better protection than there is at present. I feel that C-13 goes a long way toward providing that protection.

When we speak of witness protection, it has been pointed out, and I repeat, that this involves some 80 to 100 individuals, a figure which includes family members.

It must be kept in mind that, like the rest of us, these people have families. If we commit some act, we do not want our families to pay for it. Of course, we need to have a sense of responsibility, but nobody is perfect. We must face up to our responsibilities.

A criminal who has been informed on will automatically get at the informant where he or she is vulnerable, if at all possible, so if only the individual is protected and not the family, the whole protection process is useless. At this time, among of the 80 to 100 individuals protected, and justifiably so, by the criminal justice system in this way , there are family members, children, wives and husbands.

The system is not perfect, I will admit, but it is a pretty good one. It is not perfect because it was created by people, and none of us is perfect, no matter who we are. But our lack of perfection is compensated for considerably by our efforts to improve.

Problems often arise in the period immediately following the commission of the crime. When someone is arrested, a lot of things go on in his or her head. This is logical and normal considering what is going on. The person is questioned by the police, offers information, a million questions are asked. It is not hard to imagine the panic such people can be in. It is absolutely incredible.

But, careful, time is a factor. If individuals were not given protection, the criminal world would eventually get to them, directly or indirectly, and they could be asked perhaps to simply forget certain facts when it came time to testify in court.

Let us say that Bill C-13 is a memory booster. It is a bit odd to put it that way, but if the witness protection system were dropped, I am sure people would forget a lot. However, when they are protected, they forget less quickly and co-operate more, and the legal system is better protected.

It is also important to realize that this society has to be protected by the laws we make, and there is nothing wrong with using the same methods as the criminal world, which works on weaknesses in finding these people and stops at nothing to achieve its ends.

Therefore, and I will conclude on this point, we support Bill C-13. It is not perfect, of course, but it is a significant step forward, which helps us catch up with other countries that have already incorporated this sort of measure in their legislation.

Witness Protection Program ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Reform

Randy White Reform Fraser Valley West, BC

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand before the House today to address Bill C-13, the witness protection program act.

My understanding is this bill would establish for the first time a legislative base for the RCMP's witness protection program, a program which has been in place as a series of internal guidelines and policies since 1984.

The Reform Party recognizes there is a need for this type of legislation. Witnesses need the protection from potential harm, particularly when their testimonies relate to organized criminal activity such as illicit drug, tobacco and alcohol smuggling, firearms peddling, trafficking or other conspiracies to commit capital crimes.

The decision to turn in criminals can be difficult. If justice is to be served we must take strong measures to protect from any potential harm those witnesses who step forward. Simply put, without the testimony of the person who comes forward to present their knowledge or experience of a criminal activity or conspiracy to a police officer and eventually a court of law there would be no charges and ultimately no convictions.

Since 1962 violent and organized crimes have exploded in Canada. 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 motor cycle gang violence and the resulting turf war spilling out on the streets in our country.

It is no secret in law enforcement circles that the Hell's Angels are in an all out war with the Outlaws over control of the lucrative drug trade, the prostitution industry and the massive contraband smuggling and distribution industry. A recent spat of bombings in Montreal and elsewhere continue as crime kingpins make money. Meanwhile people die. The carnage must stop if law and order are to be restored on Canadian streets.

The Reform Party is committed to restoring law and order. We have critically examined Bill C-13 with this objective in mind. We see some problems and we have proposed some amendments which would strengthen the bill. I trust our observations and proposals will not fall on deaf ears.

Consider that the budget for the witness protection program in Canada will accommodate approximately 70 to 80 protectees in any given year. The budget established by the solicitor general, a paltry $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 its efforts in this regard if more resources were available.

Reform's chief concern is not only the deficiency of the witness protection funding program but also the lack of vision on the part of the solicitor general's office and the whole of the Liberal government's administration of Canada's affairs, in particular on crime.

Instead of funding special interest lobbies advocating criminals' rights, the solicitor general would be well advised to consider public safety and channel resources into law enforcement programs and victims' rights for a change.

Bill C-13 is a step toward strengthening the RCMP witness protection program. However, there are certain problems which must also receive the consideration of the House. In effect, Bill C-13 would continue the convention of past internal guidelines and policies of the RCMP's witness protection program, whereby the RCMP commissioner is granted the absolute power and authority for the following issues.

He is granted the absolute power and authority to determine whether a witness should be admitted to the program, clause 5 of Bill C-13. He is granted absolute power and authority to terminate the protection of a witness if in the opinion of the commissioner it is warranted, clause 9; or to disclose the identity and location of a witness or protectee, clause 11; to make agreements with other law enforcement agencies, attorneys general of provinces or any provincial agencies, clause 14.

I urge all members of the House to consider these powers and the necessity to continue such broad authority granted to the commissioner of the RCMP. In addition, with respect to agreements struck between the parties involved in the witness protection program, as it stands with this bill there is no resolution mechanism or appeal procedures for agencies, agents or protectees to air their concerns.

It is crucial that a resolution mechanism become part of this bill. Take, for example, the concerns expressed by the two witnesses who came before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. One was a serving police officer representing dozens of police agencies and officers cross 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 office of the solicitor general. This process is totally inadequate.

Most police departments have an informant control officer, an ICO, who regulates the handling of an informant for the appropriate department. This type of arrangement allows the process of appeal in the event of an unsatisfactory decision on the part of the

commissioner and would be available to disagreements between individual police agencies and the RCMP via the ICO.

I urge members to support the motion of November 20, 1995, at report stage, that Bill C-13 in clause 5 be amended (a) by replacing line 32 on page 2 with the following: "Subject to this act, the commissioner", and also (b) by adding after line 36, on page 2, the following: "Any decision made by the commissioner, or by a member of the force on behalf of the commissioner, under sections 5, 9, 11 or 14 of this act may be reviewed by the minister on application by a law enforcement agency". This amendment would make the program much more effective, thus enabling these agencies greater flexibility in their investigation of organized crime.

Now for Reform's second proposed amendment which deals with the submission of the annual report on the operation of the program as it applies to the preceding year. We are without any provision for having the report sent before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and it does not mention the content of what the report should include. This approach is ridiculous.

How many times have my Liberal friends across the way stood in the House and railed against past administrations on matters of accountability and responsibility? How many times has the government, acting as-

Witness Protection Program ActGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh.

Witness Protection Program ActGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Reform

Randy White Reform Fraser Valley West, BC

These Liberals are picking on me over here, Madam Speaker. We are talking about the witness protection act and they are picking on me. It must have been a bad day in question period.

How many times did the government, acting as Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, attack others for passing legislation that was inadequate and totally wrong? It happened a lot of times. I suggest the answer to both of these questions is a great many times.

When the Liberals were in opposition a couple of years ago they criticized the same thing we are criticizing today. Congratulations.

Witness Protection Program ActGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

An hon. member

Hypocrisy.