Debates of May 30th, 2013

The House resumed from May 23 consideration of the motion that Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, be read the third time and passed.

Third Reading

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to rise and speak in support of Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act.

Before I get going with my speech today, I want to recognize the stellar work done by my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, the critic for public safety. He is such an impressive member of Parliament and does incredible hard work out in his riding, but also right here. When it has come to public safety, he has been on the job, working with the government where he can or where they let us, and then being the best advocate he can be to build strong, safe communities right across Canada.

That is our primary aim and our goal. We are committed as a caucus to building strong, safe communities right across this country for everyone. It was for that reason, when time allocation was moved at committee, that our committee members on this bill actually co-operated. To hear them being smacked in the House today was a bit rich. It seems that when we try to co-operate we get smacked around anyway. That is really unfortunate, when we have a parliamentarian who works incredibly hard to build bridges and work together with others to put forward the public safety agenda. Also, I do not know if it is coincidence, but I notice that out of all the times for the witnesses, the NDP witnesses were left to the end, right before the report was written.

Once again, I fail to understand why these games get played in this Parliament. It is to that end that I find it quite astounding that here we are again today, moments before I started to speak, having to vote on another time allocation motion, number 38, and number 5 within a week. We really have to wonder what the Conservatives have to hide. What do they have against parliamentary democracy? What do they have against parliamentarians from right across this country, from every single party? I am talking about all parliamentarians. What do they have against parliamentarians' right to represent their communities and speak to legislation? That is a key concern.

If I were not sitting in these hallowed halls of Parliament, and I were outside trying to teach people about parliamentary democracy, this would be a classic case of a government that is trying to shut down the democratic processes. It gives me great concern. What kind of a model are we setting for our youth? What are we saying to them? That our Parliament is not where people go to parler, not where they go to speak and debate and discuss issues, but that Parliament is now a place where a majority can use a hammer to silence the voices of members of Parliament. That is a shame, and a damning comment on the current government at this time.

However, getting into the piece of legislation before us, once again we are here to talk to a bill that we support. Because we support it, we are still very concerned about MPs I know on this side of the House who want to speak to this issue and raise concerns from their riding. They want to share with other members of Parliament how constituents in their riding feel about this legislation and how this is a step in the right direction, but more needs to be done. Once again, what we have is the hammer being used by a majority government to silence duly elected members of Parliament.

It is no surprise that even on this bill the Conservatives are late to the game. The NDP has been working on this file for years. We have been one of the critics of the eligibility criteria for witness protection, the poor coordination with provincial programs and the low numbers of witnesses admitted into the program. As an example, in 2012, out of 108 applications considered only 30 were accepted. That is what we need to debate, discuss and address.

The witness protection program was passed in 1996. Both the Liberal and Conservative governments have done little to respond to the criticisms of the system and the program. Some bills have been presented in the House of Commons and the NDP has supported them, especially those in 1999 relating to domestic violence. However, the Liberal government helped to defeat them.

Therefore, what has yet to be addressed is the overarching issues of eligibility, coordination and funding. The NDP is on record of repeatedly asking the government to address the three key issues I have identified. I am not making that up.

In November 2012, the NDP member of Parliament for Trinity—Spadina called for more support for the federal witness protection program, pointing to the difficulty the Toronto police faced in convincing witnesses to the shooting that summer at a block party on Danzig Street to come forward, because without protection people are scared. They are scared for themselves and their families. We really need to address these issues.

We are pleased to see that this legislation, Bill C-51, does expand the eligibility criteria for the witness protection program to include witnesses recommended by CSIS and the Department of National Defence. It would also extend the period of emergency protection and clear up some technical problems with respect to coordinating with provincial programs. That coordination does not go far enough. There is far more that could be done.

When we look back on our history, there is a lot we can learn. It pains me every time I bring up the Air India disaster, one of the worst terrorist acts to take place against Canadians. Thousands of families were impacted and are still finding it very difficult to come to terms with the fact that the people responsible for that tragedy and heinous act of terrorism are still out there. I can still remember the artistic portrayal and a poem written about the bodies and body parts that were discovered. Whole families were wiped out. A husband lost not only his wife but both his children. A brother lost his sister and her whole family. There are many such stories and many of those constituents live in my riding. Recently, I had the privilege of meeting one of the victims of that tragedy at a committee meeting. The words he said really haunt me even now. He said that it hurts today as though it were yesterday and that the biggest hurt of all was that the country he lives in has still not been able to mete out justice. Finding and punishing the people who did that heinous crime will not bring back those who have passed away. However, it will give people some peace. That story has a direct link to the witness protection program.

After that tragedy, people were very unwilling to come forward and be witnesses. Even those who gave testimony then withdrew it. As a result, we have very little resolution, despite a very intense inquiry with pages and pages of recommendations.

One of the most hurtful things for those surviving members, and for us as Canadians, is that many of the recommendations from that inquiry, which I have heard both the government and others parties say were laudable, are not part of this report. We are very sorry that they are not here, but in order to expedite this particular piece of legislation and to get this part through where we have at least some expansion of the criteria, we co-operated. However, it was with a heavy heart that we did so.

I look back at Mr. Tara Hayer, a distinguished gentleman who lived in my riding and who was shot. He was shot because he gave an affidavit and was willing to be a witness in the Air India trial. We can imagine that after his tragic murder, there was an even further reluctance for anybody in the community to speak up. It is because of this that we have to have this expansion of criteria and a way to extend emergency protection, even if it is not everything we were looking for.

The key thing here is that it is easy for us to pass bills that look good on paper. We get moved by emotions at times and we can pass bills for those reasons as well, but one of the things that I have learned is that unless we provide the resources, it is very difficult to see how the already stretched authorities will be able to fulfill this new mandate.

We have an amazing RCMP and it will do whatever it is asked to do with the resources it is given. This is not a criticism of our RCMP. It is a criticism of us as parliamentarians, who have not built additional resources into the bill or the budget because we are expanding the criteria and we are expanding a certain level of co-operation with the provinces. We have to make sure that we do not download more of these costs onto the provinces, which I would say are already stretched.

We as a party are very committed to building safer communities. One way to do that is through an improved witness protection program and improving its criteria. The other way is to give the police additional tools to fight street gangs and organized crime. This is a huge issue in my riding and many ridings across the country. One of the key things we need if we want to get into prevention and proactive programs is to ensure that our front-line service providers have the tools they need. If they do not have the tools they need, we know that there are some serious struggles to be had.

There have been validators of our position and the RCMP. In late 2009 and early 2010, the federal government actually consulted the provinces and territories on the program and a number of provinces expressed concerns. Several provinces have their own witness protection program, but they often only provide short-term assistance. There is a need out there. Allowing street gang witnesses into the protection program has been a long-standing recommendation of those working to combat street gangs, in addition to a recent RCMP request to the government. The RCMP has also advocated for intensive psychological examination of potential protectees.

To finish off, we are going to support this bill. We are very strong supporters of strong, safe communities. To that end, we are expediting this piece of legislation through the House.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the frustrations the police have with regard to the witness protection program is that, from time to time, witnesses do not realize their obligations under the act as well. Some of those obligations are that they must sever their ties with everyone they have known. It is a difficult process. As a result of that, sometimes there is a compulsion to go back to meet a friend or a family member. At the time, they do not think it will cause any problems, but it can.

Would the hon. member agree that the witness protection program does, for the most part, work very well, but there is also a requirement for the witnesses to fulfill their obligation?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree that responsibilities and rights go both ways. This is where the request by the police for additional funding or resources to look at the psychological impact and to provide counselling and support really becomes critical. When we are removing people and putting them into protection, we are protecting their lives and doing it for very good reasons. However, once witnesses are cut off from their support system, it can lead to a huge vacuum and all kinds of psychological problems as well. We absolutely need to educate the witnesses and provide them with support as they adjust to being in the protection program.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize the benefits of the witness protection program in delivering results and making our communities a safer place to live. In certain areas of our country there is a very high level of gang activity, for example. To break into organized gangs to cause the destruction of them, we likely will have to go to individuals within those gangs to get the type of prosecutions necessary to break them up.

If we are successful at doing that in certain regions of our country, it will make the communities much better. To get that informant, we need to have a healthy, confident witness protection program so we can hopefully be more effective at destroying gangs from coast to coast to coast.

Could the member comment on the potential of the destruction of gangs by having an effective witness protection program?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the impact of gangs in our communities is a concern to all of us no matter where we sit in the House. We need a multi-faceted approach. We need education. We need a proactive rehabilitation. Part of that rehabilitation and also trying to insert ourselves into gangs and trying to break up some of them has to be a witness program for young people, although gangs can have people of all ages, who have faith and believe they truly will be protected. If there is any doubt or any question to our ability, then there will be that fear again.

It all goes back to resourcing. It is not enough to remove people from a certain environment, give them new IDs and put them into other locations. It is about the kind of psychological aspects, like looking for a job, education and counselling support we provide for those people to settle into their new lives and live productive lives in different environments.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Surrey North for her very kind comments about my role as public safety critic. Her speech illustrates the importance of representation in Parliament. She represents a riding in which witness protection and the lack thereof have played a very critical role in something which is very much a deeply felt issue in the community, and that is the Air India tragedy.

I want to take this opportunity to thank her for reminding us how we were unable, as a justice system, to address the concerns of the community and to bring people to justice who caused such great harm in their communities.

The minister in his comments earlier today implied that we did not have anything to say on this. In her opinion, does the bill make enough improvements on the question of dealing with things like the Air India tragedy?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is definitely a movement in the right direction. It does expand the criteria. However, it does not set up an independent advisory board, which we will have to look at in the long run. Otherwise, the RCMP will be questioning itself and that puts it in a terrible position.

The member is absolutely right. I live in a riding where it is not unusual to have guns fired every week. People are scared and very concerned about their safety. For us, it is very important to have a robust and well-resourced witness protection program.

My big concern with the legislation is the lack of resources, as well as the independent panel that we hoped would be established.

Notwithstanding all of that, we support this because it does expand the criteria. That expansion of the criteria is enough to get the NDP support. We have been pushing for this for a long time. I am so pleased to see the government has come to that conclusion as well.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all those who have spoken to the bill.

I have the privilege of chairing the public safety and national security committee. Our committee did the study and research on Bill C-51, which is why I am pleased to rise today and speak to the safer witness act.

If members would indulge me for a moment, I would like to paint a picture of what I believe most Canadians, indeed most people across North America, think the witness protection program is about and how it works. For that, we can thank Hollywood with the movies it puts out, TV shows, reality shows, cop shows and shows about crime. To a certain degree, the image of witness protection has almost been glamorized.

For example, in a typical movie, the underappreciated subordinates in some gangs or crime rings decide they will step away from their gangs and go to the police to spill the beans about the gangs' criminal undertakings and talk about the bosses of the crime rings. The movie shows the informants receiving false IDs and law enforcement taking them to new cities where they begin new lives as a different people. They are given new jobs and acquaintances who hopefully will become their friends, and that is where they now live their new lives.

Being a Hollywood movie, their real identities are eventually discovered by the old crime gangs and they pull out all the stops to silence them before they get to trial. Indeed, if they do get to trial and spill the beans, then the gang finds them and they get some payback for the testimony they gave against their former colleagues.

Thankfully, that is not reality. Quite frankly, the Hollywood version is oversimplified. It certainly makes for a good movie, but it is not the way the witness plan works.

In real life, being part of a witness protection program does not mean a life of bodyguards stationed outside one's door or home, or being drawn into wild action scenes such as being followed while running down the street, avoiding gunshots and, thankfully getting back to the safe hiding place. That is not the way it is. However, this is not to say that protecting witnesses is not important or dangerous. After all, there is a reason why witnesses need protection and the police understand that. I think Canadians also understand it.

These individuals have generally agreed to help law enforcement or provide testimony on criminal matters with the end goal of removing criminal elements from the streets and making our communities safer. The inside knowledge they have agreed to provide to authorities may be invaluable, but could place their lives at risk.

Witness protection is recognized around the world as one of the most important tools that law enforcement may use and should at least have at its disposal to combat criminal activity. If we cannot provide adequate protection in our country to those individuals who agree to come forward, despite the danger they face, we lose a very critical source of information in getting to the bottom of the criminal charges and crime.

In the case of organized crime in particular, these witnesses are often the key components in achieving convictions. To ensure a fair and effective response to organized crime, terrorism and other serious crimes, government and police agencies must provide protection to informants and witnesses who can face intimidation, violence, reprisals and indeed, the loss of their own lives. Offering protection to these informants and witnesses allows law enforcement to obtain and sustain their collaboration. For this reason, we must ensure that we have the best system in place to protect these individuals.

Here in Canada, we have two separate witness protection programs. We have the programs run by the provinces and the federal witness protection program. While informal witness protection has been practised since 1970 in Canada, the federal witness protection program was officially established only in 1996. It is administered by our national police force, the RCMP. The provincial programs, found in Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan, typically provide shorter-term protection and could include relocating the person temporarily or providing limited financial support.

In cases where provincial protectees require secure identity changes, they must be transferred to the federal program. At the federal level, the Witness Protection Program Act provides a range of emergency protections to witnesses under threat, from temporary protection to permanent relocation to, in some cases, complete identity changes.

As members have heard over the last several years, extensive consultations and studies of the federal witness protection program indicated a clear need to modernize the current legislation and to improve how the federal and provincial programs intersect. The safer witnesses act contains a number of amendments to the Witness Protection Program Act that do just that. They fall within five broad areas.

First, the bill would enable the provinces to have their respective programs designated under the federal act, thereby allowing their witnesses to receive secure identity changes without having to be admitted into the federal program. This measure would cut back on duplication. It would mean that they could continue without beginning the program and then having to move to the federal program. They would now be part of their own provincial plans.

In stakeholder consultations, some provinces indicated that having to transfer their protectees to the federal program for identity changes can be cumbersome and time-consuming. Bill C-51 addresses these calls for change. Any time we have duplication and cumbersome, time-consuming regulations for an act, it costs money. The provinces have recognized this and have asked for this part of the enablement to be done through the provincial program.

Second, the federal organization would be required to help the RCMP obtain secure identity changes for witnesses in both the federal program and designated provincial programs. It would give the federal organizations or departments the requirement that they will help provide these for the provincial plans. The RCMP would continue to act as the liaison between the provincial and federal programs.

Third, Bill C-51 would broaden the prohibition against disclosure, ensuring the protection of provincial witnesses and information about both the federal and provincial programs. This measure addresses calls by the provinces, again, to ensure that witnesses in their programs are protected from the disclosure of prohibited information throughout Canada.

Fourth, the legislation proposes changes that would expand which entities could refer individuals to the federal program. Currently, only law enforcement agencies and the international criminal tribunals can make referrals to the witness protection program.

Under Bill C-51, it would be broadened to include other organizations, such as national security, defence and public safety organizations. They would be able to refer witnesses to the federal program. When we heard witnesses, all parties said that it should not just be the RCMP. Indeed, in some cases, it needs to be the Department of National Defence or CSIS that steps forward. We are just broadening the groups that can refer to this program.

Fifth, the bill addresses a number of other concerns from federal and provincial stakeholders, such as allowing for voluntary termination from the federal program and extending emergency protection to a maximum of 180 days. I think it is currently 90 days. This says that in this day and age, temporary emergency protection timelines may have to be doubled.

Together, the proposed changes would serve to strengthen the current Witness Protection Program Act, making the federal program more effective and secure for both the witnesses and for those who provide the protection.

The crux of the program is to keep those involved and their information safe and secure. Our committee was taken with this. As we heard this morning, already five meetings have been held, because there is a need to extend protection.

Mr. Speaker, I know that the parliamentary secretary, in her speech, highlighted these points, but as this is a matter of importance to front-line police officers and witnesses, I would like to turn your attention to the proposed changes to disclosure prohibitions.

Currently, the act prohibits the disclosure of information about such things as the location or change of identity of a current or former federal protectee. A concern was brought forward that these disclosures be extended to include information about provincial witnesses and about the provincial witness programs and those they protect.

The safer witnesses act addresses this concern with changes that broaden the prohibition on disclosing information in a number of areas. First, and maybe most important, it prohibits the disclosure of information related to the individuals who are protected under the designated provincial program.

Second, it prohibits disclosure of any means or methods of protection that could endanger the protected individuals or the integrity of the programs themselves. This includes information about the methods used to provide protection or support. It also includes information about the methods used to record or exchange confidential information as well as data about the location of secure facilities.

Third, it prohibits the disclosure of any information on the identity or role of persons who provide or assist in providing protection to the witnesses. Not only is the witness going to be protected, but the person who organizes providing the secure identity and location and so on will be protected. This would broaden the prohibition to include not being able to disclose information about those involved in changing identities.

Further, the bill clarifies language in the current act to ensure that these measures apply to situations in which a person directly or indirectly discloses information. The bill also specifies that one must knowingly reveal this information for it to be an offence. Mens rea applies. It has to be willing disclosure. That would become prohibited.

Bill C-51 includes changes that would further strengthen the legislation in this regard. For example, as stated in the current act, the protectee or former protectee can disclose information about him or herself, as long as it does not endanger the life of another protectee or former protectee and does not compromise the integrity of the program itself.

Under Bill C-51, this wording would be changed to remove the reference to the integrity of the program and would clarify that the protected person could disclose information if it would not lead to substantial harm to another protected person.

The current act also allows for disclosure of prohibited information by the RCMP commissioner for a variety of reasons, such as if the protected person gives his or her consent or if the protectee or former protectee has already disclosed the information or acted in a manner that resulted in the disclosure. If the disclosure is essential to the public interest for a purpose such as investigations or for the prevention of a serious crime, national security or national defence, the Commissioner of the RCMP may be able to disclose it. Most people understand that in those cases, under certain conditions, the RCMP commissioner may have the ability to disclose if that disclosure is going to protect our society. In criminal proceedings where the disclosure is necessary to establish the innocence of a person, again, the RCMP commissioner may be able to disclose under certain conditions.

Under the safer witness act, the wording would be changed as it relates to the RCMP commissioner disclosing prohibited information for the “public interest”. As such, under Bill C-51, he or she could only disclose this information when it was essential to the administration of justice. I think all parties recognize that reasonable grounds include disclosure to uphold justice.

Furthermore, we propose to change the wording for national security purposes. Under Bill C-51, the commissioner could disclose prohibited information if he or she had “reasonable grounds to believe that the disclosure is essential for...security or national defence”.

Along the same vein, Bill C-51 contains several proposed changes that would authorize the RCMP commissioner to disclose information in specific situations. For example, he or she should disclose information about both federal and designated program protected persons for the purpose of providing assistance to federal or provincial protectees in need of secure identity changes. The commissioner would also be able to disclose information about federal and designated program protectees in situations where a protected person either agreed to the disclosure or had previously disclosed information. For example, the protected person may have revealed his or her change of identity to family or friends.

According to the bill, the commissioner would be authorized to disclose information about the actual federal program and methods of protection and about the role of a person who provided protection under the program. This would only be done when the commissioner felt there were reasonable grounds to believe that the disclosure was critical for the administration of justice or for national security, national defence or public safety.

Other changes relate to the disclosure of information about protectees under the provincial designated programs and to issues related to the disclosure of information by an official of a designated provincial program. The RCMP commissioner does have some leeway here if it is for the protection of Canadian citizens.

This is a good overview of those elements in Bill C-51 that relate to safeguarding and disclosing information that could compromise the safety of protected witnesses.

To recap, the bill would broaden the prohibition on the disclosure of information beyond name and location of federal protectees to include protected persons in the designated provincial programs. It would also extend disclosure prohibitions to include information about all witness protection programs and the people who administer them. The bill would also provide exceptions to the disclosure of information to permit disclosure in certain circumstances, such as when it is in the interest of justice or public safety.

As I said at the outset, individuals who decide to become informants and to testify against crime organizations can face intimidation and danger. In his 2010 report entitled “A Review of Selected Witness Protection Programs”, Dr. Yvon Dandurand noted that the overwhelming majority of witnesses enrolled in witness protection programs are either involved in criminal activity or are somehow connected with criminal elements.

I see that my time is up. I thank all other parties for working with us on this. It was a good time going through this at committee. We appreciate the support of the House for the bill.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech on this very important bill. It has already been through several readings and will soon be examined by the Senate.

My question is very simple. I would like to know whether he thinks that the NDP and all the other parties worked together well as they debated this bill. In addition, why does he think it is important to pass this bill?

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to chair a committee that really wants to accomplish some things. I give credit to both the NDP and Liberal members on this committee, as well as the government members. We worked well.

To be quite frank, there are times in committee, as here, that politics may want to be played, but there has to come a time, especially at committee, when we say we want to accomplish something. I do not know the constituency of the Liberal member who sits on the committee, but the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca and others on the committee worked together with the government on this bill.

We heard from some very good witnesses. We heard different individuals ask us to move this bill forward as quickly as possible. We heard from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Assistant Commissioner Todd Shean. We also heard from Sergeant Abraham Townsend, who said, “On behalf of those I represent, I wish to thank the government for advancing Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act, which will in turn advance the public safety interests of all Canadians”. He said he wanted to thank “the government” for advancing Bill C-51, but I think we can look back and say he wanted to thank Parliament for advancing it, because we are moving it through quickly, and all of those involved in this very important legislation understand the importance of doing that.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it sounds as though the committee he chairs has done a lot of hard work and has had a lot of input.

During his speech, he mentioned that this bill would also help protect individuals who are protecting those getting new identities, in other words, the members of the RCMP who find people new identities and work in that field. I think I heard that in his speech and I was wondering if he could elaborate a little on how this bill would protect officers who are helping people get new identities.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, obviously the member was listening to my speech, and I appreciate that.

Yes, that was one of the pieces of information that came out. We have a very specialized police force, and its members are very professional. There are many on this side of the House who have served in the RCMP and other police forces. They all say that individuals within the departments, the RCMP, the Toronto metro police or any metropolitan or municipal police force all have their areas of expertise. All of a sudden, someone is renowned in the force as being one of the individuals in charge of the witness protection plan. These individuals have their connections, their people and their locations, and pretty soon they have a real expertise.

People come and go on the forces, and as the old saying goes, loose lips sink ships. It may not necessarily always occur in the police force; it may come from some of the witnesses who have been protected. All of a sudden the talk begins, “Constable X or Sergeant Y or so-and-so did a great job”, and now these folks become targets.

It is important for the law enforcement officers who help provide this major service to our justice system that we put a further stamp on the important jobs that they do and in legislation and statute say that they need to be protected even more.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the member's speech. He mentioned one of the changes, which was to move from 90 days to 180 days, and he suggested it was a good change.

Since he is on the committee and heard from these expert witnesses, does he see any other changes that would be beneficial to these people and would be necessary to ensure that they are protected and kept safe in particular instances involving organized crime, et cetera? Would he suggest anything further we could do to keep them safe?

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is one of the things that I am not certain was expanded on in committee, the extension from 80 days, I think, to 180 days.

Basically, what the different witnesses talked about when they came forward were the provincial requests. The provincial requests were about the length of time it took to move from the provincial program, which a number of our provinces have, into the federal program or the federal department in order to secure identities. The main thrust of what the provinces were pushing for was streamlining. I think they felt it would help save money and time for the provinces and for the police forces if we could have this type of thing streamlined. That was one of the big ones.

Another was disclosure. Most witnesses brought forward the idea that we should toughen up on those who would disclose who they were or where they were hiding or were relocated to. Those were some of the issues.

It was good legislation before, and it is better now. It has evolved to this point. It has taken a few years from both governments, but we have taken all the things that needed to be done that had been brought forward and included them in this bill. There are no gaping holes. That there were no other amendments attests to that. We worked well together with the other political parties.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, some of the issues and questions that are coming up in dealing with witness protection, particularly given the complexity of crime all across Canada, are about the need to expand the eligibility criteria, especially with the issues of youth gangs that we are dealing with now. Much of that is also under provincial jurisdiction.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague what steps are necessary to work with the provinces to ensure we have a better-integrated system. Do we need to expand the eligibility criteria for this program in order to deal with the issue of youth gang violence?

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, all groups are included in this program. Youth are also included in the program.

The problem with the witness protection program, as far as youth are concerned, is that in most cases we are now not talking about the relocation of one young individual. We very well could be talking about the entire family.

Although youth are included in this, I think we asked the RCMP if anyone had been not permitted into the program because they were youth. The answer was no. The RCMP said that anyone who needs to be in this program gets into it.

In a few cases when witnesses understand the severity of what the program would entail, they do not always want to then move into that program. Not everyone who is bringing forward testimony against crime wants to give up the life they have now, their circle of friends and in some cases their family. They do not necessarily want to be in this program. However, for the most extreme measures, even for a short term, there is a need enter the program.

To relocate an entire family becomes difficult, but if that is what is needed, I think the answer is that it would happen.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to speak on this bill today, and with a lot of relief, in that the government seems to be in an even greater rush to pass this bill and has trampled right over our co-operation in this case.

I want to review the timing that we are dealing with. This legislation was introduced on December 11, 2012, just before the Christmas break, so unfortunately it could not be dealt with at second reading until we came back.

It was dealt with at second reading on February 12, 2013. Then it was sent to committee. At committee, the government moved a motion suggesting that we should deal with the committee and hear our witnesses within four weeks.

We in the NDP agreed to that motion. We accepted a motion to limit our time in committee and to bring this back to the House in a timely fashion, so it came back here on March 26.

The first day of debate was less than a week ago. What we intended to do on this side of the House was to point out our concerns about the bill, but not to hold up this bill unnecessarily.

What we got was two speakers on the bill before the government decided it was time for time allocation. No one had threatened to put up every single member on the opposition side to speak, but we did have members who wished to speak on the bill.

I did hear some of the minister's comments on the imposition of time allocation, and I frankly cannot understand them. He was saying that we did not move any amendments at committee and that therefore we must have nothing to say.

At committee, we agreed to a number of witnesses so that we could bring this bill back in good time, have the debate and pass it in a timely fashion. In a way, what I heard the minister saying is that when we try to co-operate on the bill, he is going to punish us for that as well by restricting debate in the House. The comments from the Minister of Public Safety were nonsensical.

The member for Crowfoot, the chair of the public safety committee, acknowledged in his very good speech that we worked together in committee to talk about the problems with the bill but that we had agreed that the bill had taken too long to get here. The NDP has been calling for action on the witness protection program since 2007.

We agreed not to go into an extensive process of disagreement over amendments and call a lot of other witnesses. We agreed to get this back here because we on this side of the House do believe that there are improvements in this bill sufficient to allow it to proceed.

It is hard for me to understand how the minister could say we have nothing to say when he has not heard us yet. It is one of those odd comments: “The opposition must have nothing to say about this bill; therefore, we will not let them speak.”

Before the session this morning, I was very privileged to speak to a group of young, very politically active gay students, organized by Jer's Vision. There were two members of Parliament there, and we were explaining to them that we would have to leave and come to the House in order to discuss and vote on a motion.

They asked what the motion was, and I have to say it was embarrassing to say to these students who are very involved in learning about politics and democracy that we were going to vote on cutting off debate for the 38th time.

The response from those students was, “But is it not your job as a representative to go there and speak? How can they suggest you should not have the right to go there and speak? Is it not your job to bring up criticism to the government? How can they say you should not have the opportunity to do that?”

It was clear that even those who are very new to the political process seem to have a basic understanding of what we are doing here in debates in the House of Commons, which is representing our constituents and bringing forward alternative points of view. It is not always about the technicalities of a piece of legislation. It is not always about amendments.

We heard the member for Newton—North Delta talking about the concerns in her riding, both with the Air India tragedy and with youth gangs and youth violence. She has a very important perspective to bring forward on this bill. It is not about amending the bill; it is about getting the public to understand the importance of the bill and the fact that on this side of the House we think there are further things we could do in this area.

Bill C-51 is not the be-all and end-all for witness protection; it is the beginning of some reforms that we need to make.

Again, it is very difficult to face, 38 times, a government that seems addicted to shortcuts. We have seen how taking those shortcuts has got the government into trouble on other things. Examples are the chief of staff to the Prime Minister and the Senate. It is not always a good idea to adopt the shortcuts.

However, here we are again. To me, that is what closure is, an attempt to shortcut the process and shortcut democracy. The government is saying, “We have a majority. We know what is best. We are just going to do it anyway, so you on the opposition side should be quiet, get out of the way and let us go.” The government does this even when we are co-operating to get the bill through this House of Commons in the best form possible.

It does not make any sense to me.

I do not mean to belittle or diminish the importance of the word “addiction”, because I know many people in our society have severe addiction problems, but it does seem like an addiction when it happens 38 times, 5 times in one week, and this week it even happened twice in one day. It seems like a solution in search of a problem. Everything that comes up has that same solution.

I have heard other members use that old adage, that when all one has is a hammer everything looks like a nail. However, it is not true in this House that the only thing the government has is closure. The Conservatives could actually come in and engage in debates and represent their constituents, and we could still get the public's business done in good time. So I am very disappointed that we have time allocation on this.

As the critic, I was travelling with the public safety committee last week. I almost did not get a chance to speak to the bill, and I am supposed to be the NDP's spokesperson on it. Only two speakers spoke. We had less than an hour and a half of debate in this chamber before time allocation was used again, for the 38th time.

Turning to the substance of the bill, I will talk first about why the NDP is supporting this bill, and then I will talk about what we see as the deficiencies in the bill.

First, as many members have noted, probably the easiest thing to understand is that the witness protection program, as it exists, has very narrow criteria for its admission, and it left out the important areas of national security. In an age when we are faced with the threat of terrorism and we are trying to combat that threat, being unable to offer witness protection to those in national security matters is an important gap in our legislation. Therefore, we on this side do support Bill C-51 because it would take that important step to allow the Department of National Defence and CSIS to recommend people to the witness protection program. This may be a very useful tool for those investigating and prosecuting terrorism cases. The other area in which I believe the criteria would be expanded is that it would explicitly allow the use of witness protection for those involved with gangs. Some members on the other side insist that this was always possible, but it certainly was not explicit. This legislation would provide that reassurance that we can use the witness protection program, which may be essential in cracking some gang activity.

The second aspect which is very positive and which has received much less attention is that it would provide better protection for those staff who are involved in the witness protection program in providing things like new identities. In particular, if witness protection is used, as it often is, in the case of organized crime, if members of organized crime are trying to find out what has happened to that witness, they may attempt, and have attempted, to learn who provided the new documents, and then place pressure on that public servant or that public servant's family in order to get access to the new name that was provided to someone and find out where he or she is. Therefore, this bill very clearly would provide additional protection to those other staff members outside the police who often facilitate the witness protection program, and that would be a very important improvement.

Third, one of the things we in the NDP have always been calling for is better co-operation and coordination of witness protection with the provinces. This bill would make it very clear and would remove some of those legal hurdles that made it difficult for the provinces to make use of witness protection. In particular, it made it difficult for those who, at the provincial level, wanted to use witness protection to get new documents quickly for those who needed a new identity for their protection. This bill would do a very good job in setting up the ability to designate provincial programs and would remove a lot of that red tape for co-operation between the two programs.

The fourth reason that I believe this bill is worth supporting is that it would extend the period provided for emergency protection for those who may need witness protection. This a formal program where people are assessed and their lives are completely reorganized. However, quite often there is an intervening period before they are formally in the program, when people may not even have yet given their testimony, when they need this protection. That originally was 90 days but it would now be 180 days. Given the delays in our justice system, it is very important that we expand the ability to have this emergency protection.

Why is the NDP providing support to a bill that it does not think is perfect? I have given four reasons at this point. They are the expanded criteria, the broader protection of staff working in witness protection, better coordination and the extended emergency period. We think that is enough to proceed with this bill and on that basis, we did agree to expedite the bill. We co-operated at committee and said yes, we can make our points in five meetings of the committee and we will do that.

However, we did not expect, in return for that co-operation, to have our ability to comment on the bill cut off at third reading through time allocation. If I had been dealing directly with the minister, I would have said it was a case of bad faith. However, I was dealing with the parliamentary secretary and the committee chair. I think they entered into that co-operation on good faith and they may, in fact, be as surprised as I am to find that time allocation was needed for a bill on which the opposition was co-operating.

What do we think is remaining that could have been in this bill? There are two things that I want to focus on. One of those was raised by the member for Newton—North Delta, and that was the recommendations of the Air India inquiry. At the end of the inquiry, Mr. Justice Major pointed to the very obvious thing that had happened, which was that one of his key witnesses in the inquiry had been assassinated. He was killed. Obviously, he could have been able to make use of the witness protection program, although knowing Mr. Hayer as I did, he was a very brave individual and I doubt he would have gone into the witness protection program. He had been threatened many times. He had also actually been physically harmed many times before he was eventually killed.

However, there were other witnesses, as Mr. Justice Major said, who would have gone into the witness protection program had it been available. This bill took that first step by expanding the criteria. What it did not do, which Mr. Justice Major recommended, was establish an independent authority, perhaps in the Ministry of Justice, but somewhere outside the RCMP, to determine the eligibility for entry into the witness protection program.

If we think for a minute, most people can figure out the problem here. The RCMP is doing the investigating of these cases. At the same time, it is the group that decides whether a person gets into the witness protection program. It creates an obvious conflict of interest when the investigators can dangle or hold out the acceptance or rejection from the witness protection program in front of the witness. Therefore, Mr. Justice Major's recommendation was that there be some independent agency within government, but not within the RCMP, that would make those decisions on witness protection. It did not have to be some completely separate agency.

We did not move amendments in that case, as we said, to expedite the bill, but also for a second reason. The RCMP recognized the spirit of that recommendation and it has now separated the decision of witness protection from the investigators. It is not a perfect solution, and we will see how it works, but going forward, the investigators will not make the decisions on the investigations. There will be a separate office within the RCMP Commissioner's office, which will make the decisions on acceptance into witness protection.

It is a step forward, but on this side, we think that when someone as distinguished as Mr. Justice Major makes a recommendation in a very critical area, we probably should have pursued it.

There are several other things that I could talk about, but I will only focus on a second one. That is the question of funding. This is not a budget bill, so we are not saying on the question of funding that the bill should have allocated x dollars to the witness protection program. However, I want to quote from the minister's statement when he introduced the bill, because it did raise a very big red flag. He said:

It is important to note that it is not anticipated that there would be any need for additional funding to accommodate this change. The program is currently funded by the RCMP from existing operational resources, and that will remain the same under Bill C-51.

That would be okay, except that it ignores one very large problem, which is that he is only talking about the witness protection program operated by the RCMP. When any other police force in the country uses the witness protection program, it is billed back for the entire cost of the program. If the provincial police in Quebec or Ontario or a municipal police force uses the witness protection program, it is going to get a bill.

Therefore, the witnesses we heard before committee were the RCMP's, saying that they did not have a problem with the budget and that they have never denied anyone using this program. However, we had some other witnesses, who the government ignored. I want to take a bit of time to mention one of those: the RCMP.

The RCMP website states, “There are instances when the costs of witness protection may impede investigations, particularly for smaller law enforcement agencies.” The minister said that we have no problem with funding. The RCMP states that while it does not, other police forces do have problems with funding of the witness protection program.

We had a very persuasive witness who is the vice-chair of the Halifax Board of Police Commissioners. Her name is Micki Ruth. I want to take a moment to tell members what she had to say about this funding question. It is an extensive quote. I do not normally read extensive quotes in my speeches, but this is worth listening to.

Commissioner Ruth stated:

Like many issues facing government today, funding is one of the biggest and toughest ones to find solutions for. The problems identified back in 2007 with the adequacy of funding for the current witness protection program are not addressed in Bill C-51. Unfortunately, we see problems with the ability of municipality police [forces] to adequately access witness protection because they lack the resources.

I want to emphasize that while we [the Canadian Association of Police Boards] support the intent of Bill C-51, CAPB has a duty to its members to ensure that legislation passed by the government does not result in a downloading of additional costs to the municipal police services that we represent. This is an important element of our work on the economics of policing, a subject with which you are already very familiar.

Therefore we urge you to appreciate our position that unless the issue of adequate funding is addressed, the legislation will not produce the result that is intended.

That important testimony that we heard at committee contradicts what the minister had to say when he introduced the legislation. It draws attention to the fact that not just small police forces but police forces in Halifax, Toronto or Victoria, my own community, do often face this tough question. Could they make progress in a very serious investigation by using the witness protection program? We would need a big bill. Can they really afford to take on organized crime and gang crime in their community if they would get several hundred thousand dollars billed back? There is no mistake about it. The witness protection program is not a one-time cost. It is an ongoing cost for those police departments. They do not just get one bill. As long as those witnesses are in witness protection, they will get bills for any of the costs associated with that. The initial costs are high and the ongoing costs are lower. Nevertheless, it is something they have to think about when making a decision on what kind of crimes they can successfully investigate in their community.

When the minister, in imposing time allocation, said that we had nothing to say, I am afraid what he meant was that he was afraid of what we might say if we had the chance to debate the bill.

The minister said at committee that no concerns were raised. With due respect, the minister was not present at all the committee sessions and seems to have a faulty memory because when he did appear at committee we did ask him about these concerns. These concerns were raised at committee. Therefore, if he does not have a faulty memory, then perhaps he has a selective memory about what happened in committee with respect to this bill.

It is frustrating for the opposition when we say to the government that we are prepared to work with it and try to get a bill through in an expeditious manner to then have the minister stand up in the House and say that somehow we are dragging our feet and that we are ragging the puck on the bill when what we want to do is make the public aware of the issues that remain outstanding.

We will be supporting the bill and will work to move it through Parliament, not instantly and not without debate but in an expeditious manner. The bill will have been passed in very few months. Had the government introduced it earlier in the term it would already be enacted. However, for some reason, even though it was aware of the concerns from 2007, it only brought the legislation forward just before the Christmas break of 2012. Therefore, if anyone is responsible for delays in getting this bill passed and getting these important improvements made to the witness protection program, unfortunately it is the government that will have to take responsibility for that.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca for his very good speech and his very good work on the public safety committee. You were just speaking of downloading with regard to municipal forces, and it is of interest to me because from the perspective of the witness protection program, the witnesses do not just come out of the blue. That is now how it works. I have worked with several witness protection program cases, and most of these people are cultivated by the police to ensure they have a good result at a trial. That is normally what happens. So the police go in wide open, understanding that there is going to be a cost involved.

From the perspective of municipal police forces, whether it is Victoria, Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal or you name it, they recognize what is going to come down the pipe should they use the opportunity of the witness protection plan.

Do you not think that municipal police forces recognize this is a tool, so when they do take it, they also accept the responsibility that comes with it? Part of the responsibility is understanding that the cost is going to be quite significant, but also the reward will be immense, should that witness come through for them in court.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I want to remind all hon. members to direct their questions and comments to the Chair rather than to their colleagues.

The hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Kootenay—Columbia was an RCMP officer, and I know he knows a lot about this on the ground. There is a sense in which I agree with the comment he just made, and it is in fact reinforcing our point. That is what we heard from police services at the municipal level. They do understand there is going to be a cost. However, what they also said is that it sometimes makes them make decisions based on that cost factor. This is what they told us. The member can shake his head, but this is what they said in testimony before the committee, that they are sometimes constrained. Even the RCMP website on the witness protection program has a statement saying that for smaller police agencies, costs often impose constraints.

There is a sense that police understand that when they are taking on the witness protection program there is a cost, but sometimes it affects their decisions. When the benefits come, they come to society as a whole for breaking down gangs. They do not just come perhaps to the Victoria police force, in my case, but maybe to everybody who lives on Vancouver Island, yet they have to make the decision to shoulder those costs themselves.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe it is understood and widely accepted that there is a need for a witness protection program, and there is no selling job required. People can appreciate how important it is as a tool to acquire prosecutions. By doing that, we are able to not only stop crimes, hopefully, but prevent crimes from taking place.

In one of the areas of support, the member made reference to how the legislation would provide additional support for those who are responsible for the administration of the program, which is an important element of the legislation. I wonder if you might want to provide further comment on that aspect.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Once again, I will not provide further comment on that, but possibly the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca could.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Winnipeg North for his frequent questions.

We often forget that there are many people other than police involved in policing. It is not always just the uniformed officers who are helping us build safer communities. There are often a lot of civilian staff of the RCMP, in particular, but also civilian staff of municipal police forces. In the case of witness protection, oddly enough, it is those who often work in the vital statistics offices who get involved in helping provide this new protection.

It is quite important that the bill recognize that there needs to be protection not just for the witnesses but also against disclosing the identity of those who would come under pressure for having assisted in the witness protection program.

[Jean-François Larose, NDP, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of comments. I thank the committee members for all the work they have done. Being a former police officer and corrections officer myself, I have seen a lot of the problems we have, and I find the dynamic they had to open their hearts and look at all the tools and what needs to be brought forward was excellent.

That being said, I have seen so many opportunities and so many situations where we ended up having the tools, but because we did not have the budget, we could not actually use those tools. Time and time again, be it training, be it powers of arrest, even the equipment, the uniforms and so on, it is stacked up. It is not being used.

The fact is that we have municipalities saying they want the tools, they need the tools, but there is a problem concerning the finances. I have seen in this House where even the Criminal Code was amended and we have given more tools to police officers, but when it came to transfers to help those professional divisions, they were not there.

I do not think the fact that we are supporting this but saying, “What about the money?” is bad. I think it is an excellent point. We need to listen to the professionals who need that help.