Debates of June 8th, 2006

Opposition Motion—The Economy

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, here we go again. True to form, the Liberals just cannot get it through their heads that the Canadian people defeated them in the polls on January 23. Why? Because the Liberals chose to ignore the needs of working families; because the Liberals chose to put all their money into tax breaks for corporations; because they refused to put money into health care, child care and education.

The mover of the Liberal motion asked how could I talk about greater poverty in this country given the statistics. I will show him the statistics. I will talk to him about those statistics.

A recent report by Statistics Canada in fact showed that the disposable income inequality was virtually unchanged in 1990 compared to 1980, but grew sharply between 1990 and 2000. The result is a long term increase in disposable income inequality. During the same period the use of food banks increased 118%, so that today over 800,000 Canadians depend on food banks every month. I have already mentioned child poverty in relation to our 1989 motion.

The fact of the matter is that some people are better off. The wealthy in this country are more wealthy after years of Liberal government. The poor, the low income and working families struggle each and every day because the government has refused to invest in what is important, has refused to recognize that when a family is in trouble and the roof is leaking, the leaky roof has to be fixed before the mortgage is paid off. That is what the government does not get. That is what the Liberals do not get and that is what the Liberals ought to do.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Winnipeg North. My question will be brief, as we are running out of time.

She said that the Liberals did not do a thing during the past 13 years, which is why poverty has increased.

Does my colleague believe that the Conservatives will do any better? I do not think so. I would like to hear what she has to say about this.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is right.

It is true that the Conservatives made no promises to improve things for the poor. Under the Conservatives, there is no hope of creating equality in Canada.

I see that the Conservatives are really just like the Liberals. It's six of one, half a dozen of the other. That is the problem, and that is why we are having this debate today.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the debate and points made by the member for Winnipeg North are well noted.

I want to focus on the auto industry in the context of today's debate. I find it ironic that the Liberals have a shopping list of things they want done in the motion, but they could never put that forth in terms of legislation when they actually had the power to do so. It is important to note the distinction that a motion discusses the principles of the House, whereas legislation would carry the day.

One piece of legislation I had been seeking since 2002, and which was promised by the then industry minister Allan Rock, and a previous minister, and then another minister from the Liberals, the member for Vancouver Kingsway, was an auto policy.

It is very important to note that we have a challenging environment in the auto industry. The assembly portion of auto manufacturing has declined in recent years. In fact there was a recent briefing with the department showing that the assembly component is substantially down in terms of the GDP revenue and the surplus that we would normally export to the United States in terms of the industry itself.

One of the most frustrating things in the current context in government is the fact that the member crossed the floor and is now the Minister of International Trade and we still do not have an auto policy. The Minister of Industry has been absolutely missing in action on many files including this one. In fact back in 2004, the then minister of industry who sat with the Liberals, and I plead with the audience to follow this ping-pong ball between the two parties, talked about having one within a couple of weeks but he never tabled it. At a subsequent industry committee meeting he did not table it when he had the chance to.

Why has the government not moved on an auto policy when it now owns the person who actually was supposed to be crafting one to begin with? If the Conservative government does not have one from him, why is it not holding him to account or getting the Minister of Industry to do something? That is important. The Conservatives brag about the minister's involvement in the softwood lumber sellout. They brag about his previous knowledge and his previous work as minister of industry in the Liberal government. They brag about the fact that he has delivered for Canada in that context. Putting that debate aside, why are the Conservatives not demanding the same expectations for our auto industry?

We had hearings today on auto manufacturing. Ironically the minister is once again involved in another issue that is negative to the auto industry, not only just in terms of not delivering on a promise, but now he is pushing a free trade deal with Korea. That is something the industry in Canada is against and something that our auto workers are against. We have had a briefing with the industry ministry on this subject and we know it is being offered up as a sacrificial lamb. That is unacceptable.

If the government wants to have an ounce of credibility, as it asked the minister to cross the floor, he should deliver the goods he was supposed to bring so that people of this country have some job protection.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

It being 5:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings. Pursuant to order made earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the opposition motion are deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, June 13, 2006 at 5:30 p.m.

[Ken Epp, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think that you might find unanimous consent to see the clock at 5:30 p.m. so that we could proceed with private members' business.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Is there unanimous consent to see the clock at 5:30 p.m. so that we might proceed to private members' business? If there is no unanimous consent we will have to suspend the House until 5:30 p.m. Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Witness Protection Program Act

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

moved that Bill C-286, An Act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act (protection of spouses whose life is in danger) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act be read the second time and referred to committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you and all members of the House who are taking the time to listen to these remarks about a bill that will have real repercussions on the vulnerable members of our society: women whose lives are threatened by their spouse or ex-spouse in cases of domestic violence.

The goal of this bill is simply to expand the existing witness protection program to include spouses whose lives are in danger.

I hope that this bill will receive the support of the members of this House. The bill was created due to an ugly reality, a reality that we would prefer not to see in Canada but that nevertheless exists, namely, domestic violence and its after-effects.

In my own riding, as in many others, there are organizations to help women in difficult situations. In my riding, the Jonction pour elle, in Lévis, is a crisis centre and shelter for women who are victims of violence. The centre welcomes women and children who are victims of domestic violence.

For such individuals, the Jonction pour elle—and other centres—represent a haven of peace and security. This bill is presented here today for such organizations, in order to give them the tools to help women even more—especially women living in poverty—when they are threatened by their spouse or ex-spouse. The goal of this bill is to say no to domestic violence and yes to respect, dignity and equality.

Violence is something personal that occurs in the privacy of our homes but can have a major impact on a woman's health and well-being. The measurable health-related costs of violence against women in Canada exceed $1.5 billion a year. These costs include short-term medical and dental treatment for injuries, long-term physical and psychological care, lost time at work, and use of transition homes such as Jonction pour elle and crisis centres.

These women came to see me in my riding, at my constituency office. I was happy to receive representatives of Jonction pour elle, just as every parliamentarian is happy to receive representatives of agencies working to improve quality of life in the riding.

I told them I would be pleased to visit them and I asked them where their centre was located.

Pardon my ignorance, but I did not know that such shelters do not disclose the location where they help women, because women who stay there feel threatened by the violent behaviour of their spouse or ex-spouse. This was my first encounter with this reality: the location of these shelters cannot be revealed.

In other words, women also need protection. As I was saying earlier, the purpose of this bill is to allow these women, in extreme cases, to go so far as to change their identity, change their social insurance number and even move to another town. People do not make such decisions light-heartedly.

These are extreme measures, but in today's society, we must make them available in order to avoid unfortunate incidents such as the one that occurred in the riding of the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River. It was a very tragic story. A women who felt threatened was unable to get proper protection and ended up in a coma. The person who committed the physical violence was released after serving a four-year sentence.

It is important that legal tools be provided for these centres that help women in need. That is why I am asking for the support of this House.

Let us review some statistics. Attacks against women by a spouse or partner are nine times more frequent than attacks against men. Spouses are involved in half of the homicides committed within a family. Unfortunately, the reality is that in our country, at this time, there are homicides and that half the murders of women are carried out by individuals known to them, hence the need to protect the potential victims.

Family violence is also a problem that can have lasting consequences for the individual and for society in general. In addition to the physical, psychological, social and economic impact on those directly affected, family violence has significant social and economic costs for health care systems, civil and criminal justice systems, housing and shelter services and community services.

Going back to the reality of the Jonction pour elle in Lévis, in the riding of Lévis—Bellechasse and Les Etchemins, last year, more than 131 people, including 69 women with their children, were sheltered in this centre. As I said earlier, for these women, the centre is a haven of peace, a place where they can feel safe and heal their psychological and physical wounds. Unfortunately, the centre had to refuse 139 requests last year. Clearly, there is a need in my riding, just as there probably is in other ridings. The purpose of the bill before us today is simply to provide a tool for protection. But the bill touches on a broader issue: quality of life in our family units. We need family units where people can thrive and feel respected. Spousal violence is truly the seed of destruction in our families, and it must be eliminated.

One-third of women, who were assaulted by a partner, feared for their lives at some point during the abusive relationship. Therefore, there are women whose lives are threatened by their previous or actual husbands. In almost two-thirds of wife assault cases, violence occurred on more than one occasion, so we can see there is a repetition pattern.

In total, in 2001 almost half of all female victims and a few male victims were killed by an individual with whom they had had an intimate relationship at one time, either through marriage or dating.

We can see the importance of protecting those women who feel that their lives are threatened as well as males in some cases.

I could go on at length, but I think I have covered the basics for the members of this House, who have granted me the time I needed to explain this bill. In short, it seeks to amend the Witness Protection Program Act to include spouses whose lives are threatened. This bill, which my colleague from Prince George—Peace River has been introducing for six years, goes beyond partisanship.

I thank my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou for seconding my motion regarding the bill. In closing, I would just like to thank the members of this House for their attention, and I invite them to support this bill.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his speech and all of the thoughts he expressed.

In the domain of justice, there are resources that probably need to be applied to such a program, if it were expanded. Has done any consultation with the various providers of these services, I think particularly of provincial governments and the like, to see if resources would be needed for this? If that is the case, does he think his bill inferentially calls for an expenditure of money or will there be an increased transfer in the fiscal imbalance talks to provinces to take care of his bill should it be successful?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member asked a responsible question. When we propose bills, we have to check the financial implications of those bills.

I would like to tell my colleague that consultations with the departments of Justice and Public Safety are now underway.

First of all, this is an existing program, and I have some statistics on it right here. For example, the total number of RCMP witnesses admitted to the program dropped by 45% from 60 to 34 in 2002 and 2003.

I think this is a program for extreme cases that affects very few people. But knowing that the program is available is effective at dissuading a lot of people.

I would like to reassure my colleague that this measure will expand the existing program, and we are doing the numbers. Early estimates indicate that any costs added onto the existing program will be minimal.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, women in every riding across the country are going to thank my colleague for bringing forth this bill. Every person in Canada, no matter sex, creed or whatever, has a right to feel safe. The vulnerable need protection from society by government, and I applaud the member for bringing this forward.

Our government has made it very clear that we will get tough on crime. We will lock up those who commit crimes. As the saying goes “real time for real crime”.

Does the member think his private member's bill will enhance what the government is trying to do in toughening up crime laws and protecting the vulnerable all around?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

I thank my colleague for his question.

I think that people will not necessarily remember who introduced this bill or who supported it, but I hope they will remember that all members of the House voted for it.

People will be able to say that the members of the 39th Parliament did the right thing for the safety of women in extremely dangerous situations.

In answer to his question, I would say that many measures must be implemented to ensure that women in Canada, as well as children and the elderly, have the basic social protection and safety they need to function. That is why I think that this is one element of the more comprehensive vision underlying our government's policies to promote safer, healthier communities.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too wish to commend the member opposite for his speech and for bringing forward this bill. The spotlight must be shone, on a very frequent and regular basis, on domestic violence and abuse.

I am pleased for my part to speak to the bill. I practised family and criminal law for some 25 years prior to being elected in June of 2004. I had occasion to represent literally hundreds of spouses who had been abused by their partners. I also represented, as a component of my criminal law practice, individuals who had been charged with domestic or spousal assault.

As I understand the rationale for the bill, it essentially seeks to provide spouses with an opportunity to avail themselves of the various protections provided by the witness protection program; that is, to provide them with that opportunity in the situation where their spouse is abusive.

The Witness Protection Program Act is quite broad in its definitions. For instance, the act currently states that it is:

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

Clearly, spouses are not in any way excluded from the definition section of the act and, as it currently stands, spouses would clearly fall within the category of persons who may seek assistance under the terms of the Witness Protection Program Act.

It is sad to say that I have received or heard of numerous complaints about the operation of the witness protection program. The complaints I have heard referred to funding shortfalls and the inadequacy of the protections within the act. Individuals who are registered with the program often encounter a variety of problems ranging from a difficulty or inability to obtain employment to difficulty in obtaining official or government identification.

With respect to the former problem, it is trite to say that it is difficult to obtain employment when one can furnish no references for the consideration of one's prospective employer. Nor can one provide that prospective employer with any type of work history.

I have also heard of situations which have resulted in the protected witness or person being not at all protected, given that the person who was dangerous to the protected person discovers the address or location of the protected person.

Although I appreciate that the imperfections of the current program should not, in and of themselves, derail a broadening of the program, it is important to consider carefully whether a seemingly already overburdened program can realistically deal with a new strata or category of persons who could become registered under the act.

Entering into the program has some short and long term consequences. Certainly more extensive or comprehensive measures should be enacted to ensure that persons wishing to enter the program are made aware of exactly what it is they are signing on to. There should be a requirement that the individual contemplating signing on to the program seeks independent legal advice so the short term and long term ramifications of entering the program can be clearly explained to that person by competent counsel.

As I understand the current situation, a large number of individuals, who are registered with the program, sincerely regret they ever entered the program. They claimed that they had no idea of what they were agreeing to and no idea as to the full scope of the program.

Unquestionably, the idea or concept of protecting abused spouses as much as possible is most laudable. It is trite to say that abused spouses and certainly abused children need as much protection as is possible. However, there is family or relationship dynamic between spouses which, in my view, distinguishes the spousal situation from the situation covered in the current Witness Protection Program Act; that is the typical situation witness and accused person.

A typical witness and an accused person, for instance, do not have children together, often do not have any degree of shared history and will have absolutely no incentive whatsoever to repair their relationship or to maintain a level of contact for the sake of children who, of course, do not exist.

In the typical situation in which there are children of the relationship, how appropriate would it be for the children to have no contact with their grandparents, that is, the parents of the abusive partner, if the relationship between the children and their paternal grandparents was positive and beneficial for those children? Certainly such a positive tie would be severed upon the entering into the program of the abused spouse.

What of the children's relationship with their father who, although clearly abusive of the mother, may otherwise enjoy a positive relationship with his children? If the abused partner, the children's mother, enters the program, how feasible would it be for the children to continue the positive relationship with their father?

I have been professionally involved in cases in which spousal abuse was present, typically abuse perpetrated by a husband against his wife. At times, the husband eventually curbed his abusive or violent tendencies, normally with the assistance of counselling and behavioural modification. In due course, typically after a separation of several months, the parties reconciled and the husband's abusive behaviour became a thing of the past. Essentially, the family members, including the children, were reunited. The husband returned to the family with a greater appreciation of his wrongdoing and with a renewed purpose to treat his partner with respect and dignity.

I appreciate that those are the success stories and that there are undoubtedly as many stories of failure, where the cycle of abuse continues. However, it is my current belief that an abused spouse is much more than simply a witness and that the remedies which our system should offer an abused spouse should be more helpful and more creative than the witness protection program, laden as it is with operational difficulties, lack of funding, et cetera.

Like the member opposite, I am familiar with a very well-regarded shelter for abused women in my riding of Brant. The management and staff of Nova Vita Women's Services provide caring, helpful shelter for abused women and children and also provide insightful programming for abusive males. In my view, such shelters and programming should be the focus of our efforts in dealing with the issue of domestic violence.

There should likely be separate legislation established that works within the proper jurisdictional framework to deal with cases of abuse where there is a need to provide additional protection, or even relocation, to a spouse whose life has been put in danger by her spouse. I would agree that in many cases there is a need to provide additional protection to a spouse; however, I do not necessarily believe that expanding or broadening the witness protection program is the best way to deal with this problem.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to commend the enthusiasm of the new member for Lévis—Bellechasse, who has just found an important issue to which he thinks he has found a solution in such a short time.

The Bloc Québécois will support the bill in principle. We should, however, point out to the hon. member the many solutions he should apply to solve particular problems. The strategy he has chosen may not be the most appropriate, in our opinion.

The witness protection bill is a strategy that was developed to protect a small number of witnesses against very powerful criminal rings with considerable resources available to them to take revenge on anyone who betrayed them. This bill will extend that protection to a much greater number of individuals threatened by people who do not have the same kind of resources to make an attempt on their life.

It is very likely that the case assessment process is not appropriate, and the same with the proposed solutions. Also, it is obvious that costs will explode. Under the existing program, providing protection for a single witness can cost some $400,000 a year. Did the member estimate how many people could have access to that program?

Furthermore, to get into this program, people must appear before an RCMP commissioner in Ottawa. How are we going to ensure the same procedures for people in the Northwest Territories, Quebec, the Maritimes and everywhere else in the country? This does not seem to be the most appropriate way to reach the objectives set by the hon. member.

I also understand that he, too, has discovered what I discovered as a young member in the past, taking care of all sorts of problems in my riding, including the problem of domestic violence, namely, that shelters offering women a safe refuge often try to keep their location secret. Why do they try to keep it a secret? So that the husbands they are running from cannot find them. Why? Because they are afraid.

By the way, I am not sure whether any members have seen the Quebec film The Novena—it is quite sombre but was very well received. That shows the quality of the Quebec audience, which was able to appreciate a film of such depth. The film tells the story of a psychiatrist whose serious problems were set off by one incident, when one of her patients was killed by her husband while she was at a women's shelter. The psychiatrist witnessed the murder. This fear exists not only in the movies, but in reality, as well. This fear is everywhere.

Frankly, I hope that the hon. member will continue to take this issue as far as he possibly can. It is obvious that he is aware of the enormous risks facing women.

There are certain things he must also realize. I am pleased that he is thinking of measures to prevent crime for his first bill, rather than following the lead of the majority of his party, which cannot seem to find a solution to reducing crime apart from the deterrent effect. Furthermore, earlier he used the word “deterrent” himself. I found this word somewhat inappropriate, because it is a tool for prevention that the member wishes to put in our hands. He has within reach—as we all do—a proven tool for prevention. However, his party is about to sweep it under the rug.

I would like to point out to him that since the establishment of the gun registry, murders of women involving firearms—which is something that worries women's shelters that do not give out their addresses—decreased by 31%, whereas murders of women not involving firearms increased slightly, by 2%, during the same period. This may convince the member that there is something there to be studied. In addition, it will be much more difficult to apply section 111 or 112 of the Criminal Code if we abolish the gun registry. When women fear for their lives—or when other people, the police or family members, fear for the lives of a woman who does not dare press charges—they can go before the courts and request that the individual be forced to turn in any firearms they may own pursuant to these sections. But how can the police check whether or not the firearms have been turned in if the weapons are no longer registered, as proposed by the member?

If he uses logic, and I encourage him to do so, he will make his party see the preventive value of the gun registry.

Last week, we held a press conference with the president of the Montreal police brotherhood. He gave examples of instances where the gun registry was used to defend spouses and prevent crimes against these women, who were afraid that their husbands would do violence to them. He gave us one striking example of an instance where the woman knew her spouse had weapons, but she did not know how many. Thanks to the gun registry, the police were able to determine that he had a veritable arsenal. As a result, they did not stop searching until they were sure they had seized the entire arsenal. They would not have been able to do this if they had not had access to the gun registry.

The member's goal is a noble one. I respect him, and I encourage him. That is why we will support him, at least on the principle of the bill. However, if he wants to show us that he is really serious about protecting women, he should think about how applying the gun registry to long guns as well as handguns has provided protection for a number of women who needed it. That is one reason for registering all firearms.

He should also think about the practical applications of the legislative method he has chosen to use. It would entail a considerable budget increase. I expect that a lot more than 64 women would apply for this system. I am told there are currently only 64 witnesses who want this protection. He must also ensure that these women have easy access to these measures so that they can have this protection. In my opinion, this should be done through the local police. It would not make sense to force these women to move to Ottawa, or to a big city when they live in the country, in order to benefit from this program.

The intention is quite noble and the proposed provisions are generous. It is a credit to the hon. member. Nonetheless, I think he should consider another method rather than witness protection. That said, we fully agree with him that women should get at least the same protection as the witnesses who benefit from this legislation he wants to amend.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the member for Lévis—Bellechasse for the work he has put into this bill. I agree with the points he raised, but I also have some problems with it. I think that the current legislation offers the same protection to spouses as it does to witnesses. They would be treated the same way under the existing legislation, which is broad enough to cover them.

If we were to actually look at the definition in the existing law of both who is a witness and the criteria for those individuals to qualify as witnesses and qualify for the program, in a large number of cases the victims of domestic abuse would qualify.

I am thinking that at some point the proposed bill could be ruled out of order as not accomplishing its intent, although extremely well-meaning on the part of the member, to provide additional protection within our government infrastructure for victims of domestic abuse.

Having said that, I would suggest to the member that there are a number of other programs that would be better equipped and better designed, but underfunded, that could provide this kind of protection.

I have one final point with regard to my reservations on the proposed bill. I believe this would dramatically change things if we were to follow through on the principles enunciated by the member in his comments on the bill. I also wonder if it will survive the analysis, which I know the Speaker is making with regard to a number of bills, as to whether the bill needs a royal recommendation. My own analysis leads me to believe that it may very well need a royal recommendation and may not meet the criteria to go ahead.

Any number of other programs, at both the provincial and federal levels, also are badly in need additional funding. We have heard from some members, including the member for Lévis--Bellechasse, about the existing residences and services that are available in their respective communities. The Windsor-Essex county area has a well-known safe house, Hiatus House, for women and children who are victims of domestic abuse and violence. This is a substantial institution but it lacks the funding to fully service its client base.

When we go back and look at the history of the transfer payments, we see that the funding shortages originally started with the Mulroney Conservative government back in the late 1980s and early 1990s. It continued under the Chrétien government and then under the former prime minister, the member for LaSalle-Émard.

If we were getting serious about dealing with the repercussions of domestic abuse and violence, we would be looking at this level of government to assist the provinces and local authorities in providing additional resources to deal with those repercussions, which basically means additional transfers from this level of government. It would mean replacing some of those social service dollars that were cut originally by the Mulroney government and then by the Liberal government, and which continue to this day.

In spite of some of the money that the government has put back, almost all of that money has been in the health field. Some of the money has gone toward education but little to none has been put back. The provinces have been struggling to find additional resources to offset that money and to meet with what one can only describe as a burgeoning need in this particular area.

I do not want in any way to demean the effort and the intent of the member, but a greater effort would be to pressure his government, his party, to move additional funds out of the federal coffers to the provinces for this particular need. There is a crying need for it, and there is no suggestion otherwise. He detailed that in some of his comments. I certainly can support him in that regard, but I have some serious difficulty as to whether the bill meets those needs to any significant degree.

At the present time the program costs in the range of $400,000 or $500,000 per witness. Given the number of domestic dispute victims in this country, there is absolutely no way the budget for the witness protection program will meet, other than probably less than 1%, the needs of victims of domestic abuse and violence. It is just not the right way to go. There are many better alternatives and a good deal of it comes down to funding.

I want to make one additional point. Rather than expend effort on dealing with the after-effects, we very much want to deal with prevention. It would be so much easier and cheaper if we could prevent domestic abuse and violence from occurring.

When we look at what happened through the 1990s in any number of provinces, because of problems at the federal level, the governments of the day cut money from them. Then, in some cases driven ideologically by some of the more right-wing provincial governments, a number of those programs that dealt directly with male violence in the domestic setting, counselling programs and prevention programs overall, were cut. A good number of the programs in my province of Ontario were cut completely because there was no funding for them. As a result we saw an upswing in the amount of violence that went on.

During that period of time, society was expressing its revulsion toward domestic violence. In popular culture, movies and TV programs, there was a great movement to express our abhorrence of domestic violence, whether that violence was toward the spouse or toward the children. At the same time, the social service programs that really could address the mindset that leads men, particularly or almost exclusively, to that kind of violence, were being cut right across the country. Again, some of it was ideologically driven, but most of it was simply that the provinces and the local authorities could not afford the programs.

Although I appreciate the intent that the member for Lévis—Bellechasse has shown in the bill, and quite frankly if it came to a vote we probably would be supporting it, I really doubt that if it ever got to the justice committee that the committee could adequately amend it to make it work. Our efforts need to be in other areas.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the private member's bill brought forward by my colleague and compliment him and other colleagues for their hard work.

I would like to start by giving a summary of the bill itself. It states:

This enactment amends the Witness Protection Program Act. Its purpose is to extend the scope of the Witness Protection Program to include in this program persons whose life is in danger because of acts committed by their spouse.

Therefore, we are talking about other criminal acts committed by the spouse and not necessarily totally in relationship to the spouse.

This private member's bill proposed by the hon. member addresses one of the five priorities of our government, which is protecting families and communities. In budget 2006, we invested in this priority. We invested $161 million to hire 1,000 more RCMP officers and for federal prosecutors. We have put in $26 million for victims of crime. We have put in $20 million for crime prevention.

There is a long history of spousal violence. I would like to give the House some background. In this case, the hon. member is addressing an important concern. That concern is violence against spouses.

According to the Government of Canada's 2004 general social survey, it is estimated that 7% of Canadians 15 years of age and over, in a current, previous or common law union, experienced spousal violence in the previous five years. That is a horrendous number.

This same survey indicated that the rates of those affected by spousal violence by a current or previous partner are 7% for women and 6% for men. This represents an estimated 653,000 women and 546,000 men.

Women were also much more likely to report that they were the targets of more than 10 violent incidents at the hands of their partner and more likely to state that they were injured as a result of the violence.

Female victims of spousal violence were three times more likely than male victims of spousal violence to fear for their lives and three times more likely to take time off from their everyday activities because of the violence.

It was three times more likely that females feared for their lives compared to men. There is little doubt that spousal violence deserves ongoing attention in this country.

It is then also worth considering the focus of the hon. member's bill. As Bill C-286 focuses on the witness protection program, I would like to take some time to provide the House with some background about it.

The RCMP has been involved in witness protection matters since the 1980s. However, it has only been since 1996 that the legislative program was introduced.

This act, called the Witness Protection Program Act, or WPPA, provides legislative authority for the Commissioner of the RCMP to introduce protective measures to any person who has given information or evidence, or participated in an inquiry, investigation or prosecution, and whose involvement in the aforementioned has resulted in that person requiring protection.

The existing objective and scope of the WPPA could not accommodate the addition of a new group of victims that have significantly different needs.

The current act is, however, sufficiently broad in its definition of “witness” to include any person who reports to police an assault, whether or not that person is the spouse of the alleged attacker. The current program also is designed as a law enforcement tool to assist in the fight against domestic and transnational organized crime and, increasingly, in the fight against terrorism and the maintenance of national security.

The witness protection program in its existing format faces many challenges. I think we have heard that from members opposite. The complexities associated with organized crime investigations and the very real threat to witnesses in national security investigations have challenged the existing program's ability to provide the required services.

There is no doubt that this bill would create an increase in the number of requests for admission to the witness protection program, which the Royal Canadian Mounted Police does not currently have the capacity to manage. Additional training would also have to be provided to officers working in these specific areas and cases.

Although many of the protectees currently within the witness protection program have aided law enforcement in the investigation of significant organized crime enterprises, a new reality within Canada demands that services be expanded to those persons who aid law enforcement with national security and terrorism investigations.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police witness protection program can and will provide protection to victims of spousal abuse where the threat is assessed to warrant that level of police protection. The RCMP has advised the government that there are a number of spouses currently within the program.

The new identities for victims of abuse is an ad hoc program managed by Human Resources and Social Development Canada, which works with victims of spousal abuse and can provide effective protection measures when necessary. New identities for victims of abuse personnel work closely with local police services and other service providers to try to ensure victims of spousal abuse receive the help they need.

As many of the services and responsibilities for victims of violence are within the purview of the province and territories, significant consultations would be required prior to moving forward with any initiative that may be interpreted as extending federal involvement in areas of provincial jurisdiction. In addition, considerable and meaningful consultation with these groups and organizations that provide services to the victims is essential. This is because it may be argued that many victims would express concern about being included in a program that is essentially designed to deal with criminals and that is not currently equipped to deal with the specific needs of a victim.

The idea of further support for victims of domestic violence is a worthwhile goal. However, consideration of any new initiatives to protect or support victims of abuse, particularly if this would entail an expanded role for the RCMP or the federal government, would require careful and extensive examination of the policy and legal issues involved as well as the resources available.

Before concluding on a specific policy direction, it would be necessary to consider the extent and degree to which the current witness protection program currently provides a framework for protecting victims of spousal abuse. Any such initiatives would also require approval from the House.

I thank the hon. member for raising this matter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-286. The intent of it may be admirable. We all know of spouses who need protection in one form or another. Many organizations across the country and in my own province assist spouses who are having difficulty and need protection. Most of these cases involve women, but not all the cases with which we end up dealing.

As the individual before me said, the purpose of the bill is to extend the scope of the witness protection program to include persons whose lives are in danger because of acts committed by their spouses. Somebody can correct me if I am wrong, but in my reading of the bill it does not indicate if the acts are criminal or not. The wording of the bill is very broad and that gets legislation in difficulty from time to time.

The Bloc critic said that the approach was basically the wrong vehicle to do what was intended here. I agree with that criticism. That member also mentioned the cost of implementing this kind of protection. We are looking at anywhere in the range of $400,000 to $500,000 per individual. I believe those kinds of dollars could be used in better ways than what has been proposed in the bill.

This is a poorly thought out proposal. Beyond that, there is the issue of the human resources that would be required to manage this kind of protection. Personnel are involved. I realize dollars are available, but what will the impact be on the RCMP? The government opposite has gone to great lengths to talk about increasing the number of police officers, and that is a good thing. It is following on what we did previously. The way the bill is currently designed could in fact draw down those numbers and the human resources originally intended would not be there.

Others have spoken of the difficulty of qualifying to get into the witness protection program itself. This bill would change the thrust of the program from the way it was originally designed to operate. In my former capacity as a minister, I looked at this program fairly closely. There have been lots of complaints about its operations, everything from not enough funding to the lack of support to build a new life and a new identity. That also is one of the difficulties in the design of the bill.

First and foremost, individuals suffer the trauma of facing the abusing spouses and needing protection from that abuse. Fear and intimidation goes along with that abuse. Then they are put into a program where they lose, to a great extent, their former identity. Where is the counselling that will be needed? It is not in the bill. Moneys would be far better spent in that area, although the government opposite seems to be more comfortable building jails and that kind of stuff rather than building infrastructure to deal with some of these problems. The government does not seem willing to put infrastructure in place that would assist those people who need counselling, protection and support.

One of the great criticisms of the current witness protection program is that individuals lose that typical history that they have with their identity. There is the inability to get a job because they have changed to a great extent their life. There is also the difficulty in terms of getting references. They do not have the history to get an identification.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I hear chirping from the House leader on the other side but that is not unusual in this place. The House leader and the Conservative Party do not like to face constructive criticism and that is what we are offering here.

We have said that the intent is fine, but the government tends to do everything through the criminal justice system whereas social programming works better and prevention works better.

I recognize it is a private member's bill and it will be really interesting when it comes time, whether the government will allow a free vote. The Conservatives talked about free votes, but we have not seen a free vote yet in the House. Maybe this one will entice them because I know for a fact that the justice department cannot be recommending that the government support the bill, but we will see what happens as we go down the road.

The fact of the matter is that the bill, while good in terms of its intent, can be approached differently. The witness protection program is not designed to deal with the problems that the bill is addressing. I believe that at the end of the day it would create more problems than it would solve.

The member has not put a cost on this and that needs to be looked at. What would be the total cost of the program? What would its impact be on policing? What would its impact be on the witness protection program itself? There are better ways to do this through social programming by a government that would have a social agenda rather than the kind of strict justice agenda we see being pursued by the government opposite.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand my time will continue when we resume the second hour of debate on this very important bill, Bill C-286, put forward by my colleague from Quebec, the member for Lévis—Bellechasse.

It is a real pleasure for me to speak in support of the bill, not only tonight but at the second hour of this debate. We have heard many reservations and concerns by members opposite from all three of the opposition parties.

This is a private member's bill. I know this because at one time it was my bill and I offered it to my colleague from Quebec, and he very graciously took up its cause. He was lucky and had his name drawn on the private member's draw and was in the first number of MPs to have the opportunity to present a piece of legislation in this chamber. He chose this piece of legislation.

What nobler cause is there than the protection of those most vulnerable in our society? The reason my colleague put this forward is because virtually every day individuals are in danger.

The member for Malpeque, rather than listen, is now heckling me. I sat and listened to him while he made his outrageous comments about the legislation and now he does not want to give me that same courtesy.

I was referring to abused spouses and their children and the fact that they are in danger. There is not a day that goes by where we cannot pick up a newspaper and read about another tragedy that has befallen some family because of spousal abuse. Oftentimes it is not just the spouse. About 80% of the time where there is spousal abuse, it is the wife or the female partner who is abused. Oftentimes she loses her life and all too often the lives of the children are lost or damaged as well.

What nobler cause do we have as a government, as a society, to protect the most vulnerable? That is the purpose of this legislation. I know my time is up and I look forward to continuing my eight minutes when the debate resumes during the second hour.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. The order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

It being 6:18 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:18 p.m.)