Debates of Feb. 12th, 2013

Safer Witnesses Act

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to share my views and add Scarborough's voice on the bill. However, more important, I am pleased to see that the government is finally taking action on strengthening a program that is so vital to the safety of our communities.

The NDP, front-line community workers and Canadians have been calling upon the government to improve our witness protection program to ensure the safety of all Canadians. Since 2007, the NDP has repeatedly pushed for the expansion of the eligibility criteria, better coordination of federal and provincial programs and better overall and adequate funding of the program. While it is concerning that a government that consistently purports to stand up for the safety of our communities has refused to commit any new funding for this program, the changes included in Bill C-51 have been long awaited and are greatly needed.

Bill C-51 proposes a better process to support provincial witness protection programs and expands the program to other agencies with national security responsibilities. In the bill, the eligibility criteria would expand to requests from the RCMP to include street gang members. In addition, federal departments and agencies with a mandate related to national security, national defence or public safety would also be able to refer witnesses to the program. The bill would extend the period for emergency protection and clear up some of the technical problems that were occurring in the coordination with provincial programs.

Provinces such as Ontario have been pushing for a national revamp of the witness protection program, including more recognition of their existing programs. The bill would provide for the designation of a provincial or municipal witness protection program so that certain provisions of the act can actually apply. It would also authorize the Commissioner of the RCMP to coordinate, at the request of an official of the designated provincial or municipal program, the activities of federal departments, agencies and services in order to facilitate a change of identity for a person admitted into the designated program. Overall, this is a positive step.

I represent a riding where community safety is top of mind and, sadly, a recurring concern for many in the community. Scarborough—Rouge River is a diverse, dynamic, successful area to live. However, areas in Scarborough have been tragically affected by street gang violence. The tragedy that happened on Danzig Street in Scarborough this past summer is something that is not far from my mind or the minds of many Scarborough residents. The death of two young people and 23 wounded while enjoying a neighbourhood barbecue is something that should never have happened or be repeated. We have seen ongoing efforts by courageous and committed Danzig residents, Scarborough residents and organizations, as well as city officials, to help the community recover and avoid any future tragedies such as this.

The NDP is also committed to building safer communities and one way is through an improved witness protection program that keeps our streets safe by giving police additional tools to fight street gangs by allowing for more members of the community to feel safe in coming forward as witnesses. I am proud that for years the NDP has been pushing the government to action to strengthen this program by expanding the eligibility criteria and providing adequate funding to support such a vital piece of our justice system, as well as better coordination of the federal and provincial programs.

New Democrats have also been pushing for crime prevention strategies and support for programs that seek to engage and empower our youth. It is amazing to see a Toronto resident donate his own money for resident development projects such as after-school projects and programs. In turn, however, we should have federal funding and leadership to support our youth, and prevention programs that discourage youth from getting involved in crime.

While late to respond to these growing issues, New Democrats are pleased to see the government listening to our requests to expand the witness protection program. In the year ending in March 2012, the federal witness protection program admitted only 30 people out of a total of 108 considered, with a cost of just over $9 million. The expansion of the program is not only important to New Democrats, but the RCMP, the provinces and people on the ground working to combat street gangs all agree. An extremely important addition to this is allowing those seeking to leave gangs access to the program. These improvements would help to improve co-operation with local police and the RCMP in the fight against gang violence and to make our communities safer.

We know there are challenges with our current witness protection program, some of which are addressed in the bill. Since the Witness Protection Program Act passed in 1996, both the Liberal and Conservative governments have done little to respond to the criticisms of the system. For example, the inability to protect witnesses was an obstacle to the prosecution in the Air India bombing case. As we know, witness Tara Singh Hayer was assassinated in 1998, making his affidavit inadmissible as evidence in the court. Two other witnesses refused to appear before the Air India inquiry in 2007, citing fear for their safety and feigning memory loss.

Moreover it is sad and certainly frustrating from the point of view of the Toronto police that they experience challenges and resistance from witnesses to come forward when investigating crimes, such as the shooting on Danzig Street and the shootings that have taken the lives of many members of my community. The government needs to provide local departments with the support they need and the support that is necessary to make sure that witnesses come forward. While we would all like to believe that the government is committed to improving this important program, without the necessary funding to carry out the changes, we fear that the improvements that are needed for our communities may not actually happen.

We are concerned that the Conservatives seem to be assuming that the RCMP and the local police departments would work within their existing budgets, which would hinder the improvement of the program. There is already a high cost to the local police departments. While there are provincial programs, if the crime is federal in nature or involves drugs, the RCMP takes the case and charges the local police department the full cost, which many local or small police departments just cannot afford. The RCMP's own website states, “There are instances when the costs of witness protection may impede investigations, particularly for smaller law enforcement agencies”.

If the Conservatives truly want to improve the witness protection program, they must commit the funding to ensure this happens. The NDP will continue to push the federal government to work with the RCMP and the provinces to dedicate funding to the witness protection program and ensure that local departments can continue the important work that they do.

It is also disappointing that the bill does not include more of the recommendations that were included in the Major report from the Air India inquiry, including provisions for an independent agency to operate the program or to have oversight of the program. It was recommended that an independent agency operate the program. This would allow for a more transparent and accountable process for admissions into the program. This is something that the government also identified as a serious problem, but as we see in Bill C-51 it has done nothing to address it. Transparency seems to be a persistent issue for the current government, but it is still curious why it will not commit to making the process more transparent.

Once again, the changes in Bill C-51 are an important step forward for the community and for the safety of all Canadians. Front-line workers in my community and across the country have long awaited these improvements. Moreover, we see the government listening to the NDP who have always been committed to building safer communities through an improved witness protection program.

Conversations with the local police department in Toronto and with other front-line workers who I talk to on a regular basis have very clearly indicated to me, as well as to my staff, that if the witness protection program were improved, we would see many more people in our communities willing to be witnesses. If our witnesses are taken care of, then they will not be victimized. We want to make sure that those members of our community who are bravely coming forward to be witnesses are not being victimized and that their families are not being victimized.

I hope to see more bills such as this in the future that demonstrate that the government is starting to listen to New Democrats and Canadians, and that we can actually work co-operatively and support the system we have in our Parliament.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was going to get up and say, “Holy smoke, I have not heard that before”. After 30 years of policing, I still have contacts with many members, especially being a resident of what is considered southeastern Ontario. I have never in my time in this place heard of a member of a police force tell me that improvements to the Witness Protection Program Act would have solved a particular case, or more witnesses would have come out, or that someone who qualified to be protected under the witness protection program was not. I am not saying that does not occur. I am not saying that the hon. member has not heard that. I am just saying that in working with the Canadian Police Association and as a member of the Conservative police caucus, of which there are more than 10 of us, I have never heard that. From various regions in Canada right across the country and various police forces, I have never heard that.

I ask the hon. member, if that is occurring with the Toronto Police Service, would she please give that information to us and we will be sure to bring that to the attention of the Minister of Public Safety.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his comments on his own experience and for his interest in Toronto's specific needs.

I have been a member of the House for just under two years. From day one, a very sincere concern of my community has been the safety of the community. Speaking with members of the community, with front-line workers, as well as with police officers on the ground and administrators within the Toronto police, time and time again, I heard the concern that if there were a better witness protection program, if people in the community had better protection measures to be witnesses, we would be able to get more people involved.

I thank my hon. colleague for the service he has provided to the southeast region of Ontario. Maybe the needs of southeastern Ontario are different from Toronto's. I have not been a police officer in either one of those regions, so I cannot speak to that. What I can speak of is what community members are saying to me and what police officers and front line-workers are saying directly to me, and that is that we would have more people.

I have spoken with people who have witnessed crimes but are too scared to speak of them because they are scared that the gang member is going to attack their own mother next or that their own sister will be attacked next. A direct quote I can say from many, many people is, “I'm not going to be the snitch, because then it's my family that's next”.

Therefore, if people knew they had better protective measures, they would be coming out to be witnesses in cases.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I took an interest in the exchange that took place about the amount of resources and about enticing people into this program for the sake of their own safety.

One of the issues that has not been discussed is the issue of human trafficking. At least I have not heard it yet. There are examples in the United States and other jurisdictions around the world, where victims of human trafficking were made more aware of programs that exist in witness protection programs to allow them to escape the system they are in. Let us face it; human trafficking, especially in a large international organization, is incredibly oppressive. There really has to be that strong incentive and that system has to be strong enough not only to allow these people to escape the organization they are in, but they also have to have confidence for it to result in a prosecution of that international ring.

I think I understand what the member is getting at, but does this program specifically help in the area of human trafficking? Perhaps this could entice some victims to become involved.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my understanding of the proposed changes is that, because human trafficking with an international ring would be a federal issue, it would be something the RCMP would investigate. If someone is seeking protection, my understanding is that the RCMP investigates because it is a federal jurisdiction.

The changes with Bill C-51 would actually improve the eligibility criteria to allow more people who seek protection to see that protection made available to them.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Manicouagan.

Bill C-51 concerns the witness protection program. It is a vital element in the fight against organized crime and, increasingly, crime involving street gangs. It offers significant benefits for the public. The co-operation of key witnesses means valuable support for law enforcement agencies and helps to enhance the safety of Canadian communities.

Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, makes long-awaited changes, and we are glad it was introduced. The NDP has in fact been calling for these new legislative measures for a very long time. My colleague from Trinity—Spadina also called for more support for the federal witness protection program in 2012. She pointed to the difficulty experienced by the Toronto Police Service in persuading witnesses to the killing that took place at a neighbourhood party on Danzig Street to come forward.

The NDP is committed to building safer communities, and one way of doing this is to improve the witness protection program, bringing peace to our neighbourhoods and giving the police additional tools to enable them to combat street gangs.

The NDP has repeatedly asked the government to broaden witness eligibility for protection programs in order to guarantee the safety of all Canadians at risk. In 2011-12, the federal witness protection program accepted only 30 out of 108 candidates, at a cost of just over $9 million.

Bill C-51 would thus broaden the eligibility criteria for the witness protection program to include street gang members, as well as witnesses recommended by CSIS and the Department of National Defence.

Federal departments and agencies whose mandate involves national security, national defence or public safety will also be able to refer witnesses to the program. Those working to combat street gangs believe that providing access to the program for gang members who wish to leave will represent an important addition to the tools they need.

Although the Conservatives have taken their time in acting, we are pleased that the government has listened to our requests to expand the witness protection program. Since 2007, the NDP has been strongly urging better coordination of the federal and provincial programs.

Provinces like Ontario and Alberta have pressed for the restructuring of the witness protection program at the national level, in particular by requesting better recognition of the programs in operation. A number of provinces run their own witness protection programs, which in many cases provide short-term assistance only.

Moreover, obtaining new federal identity documents for program participants requires co-operation from the RCMP. Bill C-51 provides for the designation of a provincial or municipal witness protection program, as a result of which some provisions of the legislation will apply to such a program. At the request of the designated official of the applicable provincial or municipal program, it also authorizes the RCMP commissioner to coordinate the activities of federal departments, agencies and services in order to facilitate a change of identity for a designated program protectee.

Lastly, the bill proposes extending the period of emergency protection available to a witness from 90 to 180 days, which is substantial.

For some time, the federal witness protection program has been criticized for its overly strict eligibility criteria, its poor coordination with federal programs and the low number of witnesses admitted to the program. This bill attempts to address these shortcomings, and although the NDP supports the bill, we believe that the government failed to include a number of measures that would have led to genuine reform of the witness protection program.

Here are a couple of examples. To begin with, we are dismayed that the Conservative government refused to inject new money into the system. If the Conservatives really want to improve the witness protection program, they need to allocate funds so that these measures can be implemented. Moreover, insufficient funding could compromise the positive results that would stem from enhancing the process of supporting provincial programs. The Conservative government does not acknowledge the significant costs incurred by local police forces.

There are provincial witness protection programs, but if the crime is a federal offence, or if it is drug-related, the RCMP is responsible for the file even though the local police forces have to foot the bill, which many cannot afford to do.

For example, in my riding, Beauharnois—Salaberry, which is on the U.S. border, in one particular place there is a lot of drug and weapons trafficking. In fact, there was a report in the Quebec media on the problem in 2011.

The Minister of Public Safety was even asked to go to Dundee, a municipality in my riding, where people, especially farmers, receive a lot of threats. They get offered money and do not really have any choice but to accept. They are afraid to report what is going on and they talk about it with their municipal council.

In winter, the traffickers move about over the lake. In the summer, they go into the fields and destroy crops. It is very difficult to do anything about it because the RCMP do not have enough money.

Furthermore, a border crossing in Franklin was closed in 2010. So there are fewer officers on patrol, which only makes surveillance more difficult. The RCMP said as much on its website:

There are instances when the costs of witness protection may impede investigations, particularly for smaller law enforcement agencies.

Yet, the Minister of Public Safety stated that the RCMP and local police services must make do with their current budgets. How does the Conservative government intend to improve the witness protection program, and make people safer, when the RCMP has already made it known that it does not receive adequate funding?

In order to improve the safety of communities, local police forces must receive the support they need to recruit witnesses regarding matters involving street gangs or drug and weapons trafficking.

The NDP is also dismayed by the fact that the government did not adopt a number of important recommendations from the investigative report on the Air India affair. In his report, Justice O'Connor stressed the need to create an arm's-length organization responsible for the witness protection program in order to make it more transparent. He also recommended that an independent advisory panel be created to play the role of watchdog and increase accountability.

Since this bill makes no changes in this regard, the RCMP will continue to assume responsibility for the program, which exposes it to a potential conflict of interest given that it is responsible for both conducting investigations and deciding who will receive protection.

The Air India Commission is not the only body to have highlighted the need for an overhaul of the witness protection program. In 2008, a committee of the House of Commons also recommended that the program be transferred to an independent organization.

Why is the Conservative government refusing to commit to making the program more transparent? The RCMP has also called for the establishment of an independent advisory panel in order to provide greater transparency.

Although the Conservatives took their time introducing this bill, we in the NDP are glad that the government is listening to our call to expand the witness protection program. However, it has not gone unnoticed that Bill C-51 does very little in terms of the changes that are required.

Some of the government's decisions, including the decision to not provide additional funding to the RCMP and local police forces, jeopardize the improvements that Bill C-51 would make to the program.

I urge the Conservative government to provide police forces with the resources they need in order to properly run this program, which is so important for the safety of our communities. I also call on the government to do everything in its power to increase the transparency of the program.

On our side of the House, we will continue to push the government to address the legitimate concerns of a number of stakeholders, including the RCMP and local communities.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, again, this bill would primarily make administrative changes that would actually save the provinces money, time and resources, because it would be federally designated and they would be able to get information and identity changes much more quickly for the people under their witness protection program. It does not actually expand the program. There is one criterion that would change, that being that individuals who are involved, whether it be in public safety, national defence or CSIS, could be referred to the witness protection program.

I have asked all day if the New Democrats could cite any kind of reference, study or documentation saying that the witness protection program costs would go up. We have done a lot of work on this bill. We have talked with RCMP and with public servants. There has been no cost associated with this. Is this something the hon. member has looked at herself, or is this just something that someone suggested she say?

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her question.

I would like to take the opportunity to ask her that same question, given that it is the Conservatives who are in power and who introduce bills.

Did they conduct their own studies and assess the costs that would be incurred? Did they assess the cost of extending emergency witness protection from 90 days to 180 days?

Did they then provide additional funding so that the police can do their job?

Did they read on the RCMP website that the organization already has trouble carrying out investigations because it lacks the funds to get people to testify?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, crime prevention is an important issue for the constituents of Winnipeg North. The bill would move us forward on this issue in the sense that it would allow for an enhanced witness protection program, or the potential growth of the program. I agree that additional resources might be necessary in order to meet the future demands of the program.

We want to see a program that ultimately will assist our police agencies and our crowns in getting the type of convictions that are necessary, while also protecting those individuals who take a chance by coming forward and testifying with possible ramifications. It is important to my constituents that we prevent crimes from happening in the first place.

Could the member provide comment on what she believes the real impact of the program would have on organized street crime in many communities across Canada?

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this bill is a step in the right direction. As we have all said today, it is a step in the right direction for witnesses as well as for the safety of our municipalities.

However, it is somewhat disappointing that the Liberals, who are in agreement today, did not do anything when they were in power and had the chance to take action.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, because of the member's response, I want to make note that it was the Liberal Party that introduced the program back in 1996. Our party introduced the idea and the concept to the New Democrats. Maybe the member might want to reflect on her last answer.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would say that even after something has been created, it can always be improved upon.

Since this program was created years ago, changes have been needed to increase the safety of our municipalities.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the motivation behind my speech in the House regarding the changes to the Witness Protection Program Act has to do with the need to address issues related to the involvement of a disadvantaged youth population in criminal and marginal activities in response to discrimination based on ethnic and cultural origins.

As I have already indicated in a previous intervention, all too often, young people become involved in criminal groups or gangs in response to imposed marginalization and because they have accepted the role that has been assigned to a certain segment of the population or to certain individuals. My arguments are based on my own personal experience as a criminal lawyer and on my experience dealing with young people who have a record with Quebec's director of youth protection.

This premise opens the door to a summary examination of the context of anomie that leads to group mentality and the predominance of an artificial authority figure exerting undue influence on a certain stratum of youth, thereby perpetuating the downward spiral that exists in many societies dealing with the scourge of street gangs.

I will now clarify the concept of anomie. I will simply define the terms used in the field. The term “anomie” is used to describe societies or groups within a society that are unstable as a result of a lack of commonly accepted standards, whether implicit or explicit, or, worse, as a result of the presence of rules that promote isolation or even predation rather than co-operation.

My arguments and comments will be based on my professional experience, as they have been in the past. The group mentality phenomenon among young people, as seen in street gangs—if they can be referred to as such—on Indian reserves in northern Quebec, is related to the social upheaval in and dysfunctionality of the broader community.

The problem is that there are too few professional role models and very few parental role models. When we look at the reasons why a young person joins a gang or a criminal movement, a lack of supervision and the lack of a positive parental role model are often at the root of the problem in most, but not all, cases.

In short, to fill this void, young people often turn to negative role models. Some somewhat older role models in the community who were also caught up in the group mentality and who were also members of street gangs when they were young, have become the mentors—if I can use that expression—and leaders of these groups, which perpetuates the cycle of crime on Indian reserves. These negative role models make sure that their needs and addictions are taken care of by basically placing younger members of the gang at their beck and call.

I submit this respectfully, and I will talk more about this in the future.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #614

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

The House resumed from February 7 consideration of the motion.