Debates of May 30th, 2013

Safer Witnesses Act

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this goes to the heart of some of what we all have been saying, that we may well need a better collaborative federalism component to this.

The Criminal Code really is a huge federal responsibility, but a lot of things stop after we have legislated. Then it becomes a matter of the provinces and municipal police forces clawing back from the feds—that is us—some kind of a contributory role within something that should be more seamless in budgeting than it is.

Therefore, a transfer of payment system might be the way to go. Alternatively, there could be some kind of a statutory authorization within our budgetary systems for the RCMP itself, capped—we would have to figure out what that cap would be—where it could actually be paying to the municipal and provincial police forces what is needed for given investigations, without having to get specific supplementary estimates. That might be a way to think about it. It might not need a transfer system. It might simply mean the RCMP is the distributor cap for the needed money to make sure local investigations work.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to hear the strong support for Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act, from all sides of the House.

As we continue our discussion today of the safer witnesses act, it is important to take a step back and look at where these proposed changes stem from. As hon. members have heard, there have been two major reports in the last four years containing recommendations to enhance the federal witness protection program. The first of these reports was the result of a study conducted by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security in 2008. That committee put forward nine recommendations on how to enhance the federal program.

Since that time, and through our extensive consultations with our federal partners and provincial stakeholders, our government has committed to moving ahead with legislative amendments, administrative changes within the RCMP and the implementation of measures that would enhance the protection of witnesses in the federal program. The 2008 report included a number of good recommendations that have provided momentum for change and, in the case of one recommendation, is directly addressed in our current legislation, Bill C-51.

Today I would like to take a look at those recommendations as I think they add valuable perspective on how we have arrived at today's legislation. The committee's recommendations fell under four thematic areas, the first of which was to promote fair and efficient management of the federal program. Within this theme, our government has supported three of the four recommendations.

First let us look at the one we did not support, the first recommendation. This recommendation called for the creation of an independent office within the Department of Justice that would be entrusted to administer the federal witness protection program. This issue has been raised again recently in committee and it is important to address it again.

In our consultations with the provinces and federal partners, we found that in fact the best option was for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to continue to manage the federal program. As the Minister of Public Safety has commented, the fact is that the Department of Justice does not have the expertise to run a program to protect witnesses and the actual transfer of the program for the department would create potential security risks.

We agreed, however, with the intent of this recommendation, namely that there should be a clear distinction between the investigative and protective functions to ensure the objectivity of witness protection measures. These concerns are being addressed through changes in their reporting structures within the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

I mentioned that our government supported three of the four recommendations under this theme of fair and efficient management. We agreed that psychological assessments and counselling of candidates over the age of 18, as well as their family members, was a critical step in the witness protection process. As such, the RCMP has begun to engage psychologists to conduct assessments and to offer counselling to candidates for the federal program. Once they are admitted into the program, it is the intent that these services will be offered to both protectees and their families.

We support in principle the recommendation that the federal program should offer potential candidates the aid of legal counsel with an appropriate security clearance during the negotiation of the candidate's admission to the program. Indeed, all the candidates considered for the federal program, as well as the protectees under the federal program, are offered the services of legal counsel.

I say our government agreed in principle because we did not support the suggestion that the federal government should cover all legal fees as a regular course of business. Rather, these are made on a case-by-case basis. This is because there are some cases where providing legal counsel could be seen as a conflict of interest as the government itself may become the subject of legal action on the part of candidates or protectees. We believe our approach is an appropriate use of public funds.

Finally, our government also agreed with the recommendation that candidates and protectees of the federal program must have a proper independent body to which they could submit formal complaints about RCMP conduct, as needed. This calls for an enhanced complaints review body is addressed in Bill C-42, legislation our government recently introduced to modernize the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Bill C-42 would create a new civilian review and complaints commission that would have access to all the necessary documents required to effectively review complaints by federal protectees regarding RCMP conduct.

Under a second theme, that of facilitating access to the federal witness protection program, the committee made two recommendations in 2008. The first was to develop a shared funding agreement among the federal, provincial and municipal governments for witness protection. The second was to allow provinces and territories to work directly with federal departments for processing secure identity changes.

For reasons of fiscal restraint and the need to keep the process secure, our government could not support a permanent funding arrangement for provincial programs.

Bill C-51 would improve integration between the provincial and federal witness protection programs, as well as allow designated provincial programs to obtain secure identity changes for their protectees without having to admit them into the federal program.

The third thematic area of recommendation was to establish minimum standards across the board for all Canadian witness protection programs. The federal government has no plans to overstep its jurisdictional boundaries by imposing national standards upon provincial witness protection programs. Furthermore, the provinces themselves have made it clear that they would object to such federal encroachment on their authority. Therefore, we could not support that recommendation.

Finally, the committee's report included two recommendations under the theme of promoting transparency, as much as could be done, considering the confidential nature of the witness protection program. Namely, it recommended that more independent research should be conducted on the effectiveness of the federal witness protection program and that the federal program's annual report should be enhanced to give a clearer picture of how the program works.

Research has already been conducted on the federal program and the RCMP is looking into creating a database that would enhance the federal program.

As to the final recommendation, the annual report was modified and enhanced in 2008 to provide Canadians with a more precise picture of the program.

The safer witnesses act is a strong and effective legislation that addresses many of the recommendations made by the standing committee, as well as issues raised by stakeholders. Strong witness protection programs are invaluable to investigations and court proceedings.

Particularly when we are dealing with gang activity, it is critical that witnesses feel safe coming forward with information. It is also important to consider the safety of our front line law enforcement personnel. Mr. Stamatakis, president of the Canadian Police Association, said:

The Canadian Police Association strongly believes that this proposed legislation will enhance the safety and security of front-line law enforcement personnel who are engaged in protective duties. Unfortunately, the disclosure of identifying details can present a real danger to police personnel themselves as well as their families, and we appreciate the steps being taken today by the government of Canada to address those concerns. On behalf of the over 50,000 law enforcement personnel that we represent across Canada, we ask that Parliament quickly move to adopt this Bill.

Too often, we forget the fact that our men and women who put themselves in harm's way are the ones who are really bearing the brunt of a lot of the things that we ask them to do. It is important that we have these measures in place to protect them.

In speaking about his city's experience, Toronto police chief William Blair said:

—the fear caused by intimidation and the threat of retaliation in gang investigations. Witnesses with valuable information are deterred from coming forward.

As such, Mr. Blair has joined other key stakeholders in supporting this bill as a valuable step in protecting public safety. I ask all hon. members to do the same.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question will be very short.

What will happen when the witness who needs protection is foreign and is no longer protected by his own country?

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, I do not get the question. Was it when the person is foreign?

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat my question.

What will happen here in Canada when a witness is foreign and is no longer receiving protection from his own country?

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not profess to be an expert on the international law or the legal procedures that would be engaged with foreign people who have been convicted, so—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Okanagan—Coquihalla.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the opportunity to ask a question.

My colleague certainly has raised a lot of points that I was unaware of, particularly the 2008 review, the four recommendations and how much of what is in both this bill but also in Bill C-42, another fine piece of legislation, addresses many of those concerns.

We have heard about working along with the provinces to see further integration between their programs and the national program. As a government, we are respecting the provinces' jurisdiction, and that is a positive benefit.

There are a lot of positive aspects to the bill. What other areas does the member feel are important in the government's approach to this, as well as to other legislation, to help keep Canadians safe?

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the primary change that we see in the legislation is that rather than simply having law enforcement agencies initiating this process, the process can now be initiated by the Department of National Defence, CSIS, Canada Border Services Agency and other agencies that deal with national security. It is important that these are also allowed into the system.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member referred to the lack of or inability to bring forward permanent funding to help this program move forward and not putting forward the recommendation on establishing national standards. That would touch on provincial jurisdictions.

How hard did the government actually try to work with the provinces to see if there was a deal that could be reached to ensure there would national standards across the entire country?

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, many times tonight the NDP members have indicated the lack of resources associated with this bill. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The RCMP is charged with the primary responsibility of the act. The assistant commissioner, Mr. Todd Shean, on two occasions, in front of the committee, indicated very clearly that he was confident there were enough resources. I will read into the record his actual statement. On March 5, he said:

I am confident that we have the necessary resources to conduct an effective witness protection program, even with what Bill C-51 adds.

Earlier in the year, on February 28, he said:

—with the changes this bill brings about, the RCMP is comfortable that we have the resources within our existing resources to run an effective witness protection program.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know a question came up about foreign agencies. On a case-by-case basis, foreign agencies can appeal to the RCMP to see where these international agreements line up. We do have an area in the RCMP that does this.

I liked the member's discussion about the funding formula and how the provinces and the municipalities lined up with the federal government. Could my colleague expand on that a little?

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to have to rely on outside witnesses and experts for my response to that question.

Mr. Tom Stamatakis, president, Canadian Police Association, said this:

I should also note that the parts of this legislation that deal with extending the authority to designated provincial or municipal protection programs and not just the federal program remind me of some of the testimony I recently gave to this committee around the economics of policing and the need for us to adopt and embrace operational efficiencies in order to deliver the best possible community protection at a reasonable cost to the Canadian taxpayer.

What we see is that different levels of government and policing are working together to address the situation that all of us here tonight agree needs to be addressed so we can provide better protection for witnesses who come forward to try to get out of gangs or to try to cut down the gang and terrorist activities that occur within our borders.

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak about the importance of Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act, and to express my full support for it.

My constituents in Pickering—Scarborough East are deeply concerned about the worst mass shooting in the history of Toronto, which took place in July last year at the barbecue event on Danzig Street in Scarborough, just barely outside of my riding. It was clearly gang-related, and it ended with two people dead and 23 wounded.

As we are all aware, the bill will make much needed changes to the Witness Protection Program Act to give law enforcement authorities the proper tools to prevent such horrific crimes and to better protect the public.

The act came into effect in 1996 and needs to be updated to keep up with the passing of time. Prior to this, witness protection services were indeed provided to key witnesses, although such protection was not provided on any formal basis. With the passing of the act in 1996, the process was formalized. Clearly, after 17 years, it is time to modernize this important piece of legislation to make it more responsive to law enforcement needs and more effective for those it is designed to protect. Seventeen years ago, there was no Facebook; there was no Twitter.

While we are talking about 17 years, I would like to note that the leader of the NDP stayed silent on a bribery offence by the mayor of Laval for 17 years. I think it is important that he testify at the Charbonneau commission on corruption to tell Canadians what exactly he knew. I, as a professional engineer, would lose my licence if I did not act properly.

Back to the matter at hand, a robust witness protection program is a critical tool in our ongoing efforts to combat organized crime groups and terrorism. Bill C-51 responds to a number of concerns that have been raised by a variety of stakeholders. This government has taken the time to listen to the concerns of these stakeholders and of the provinces to ensure that we are putting forward the soundest legislation possible. I will direct my comments today to the proposed amendments to this bill, which has been developed to alleviate concerns for some of the provinces.

Members may recall that five provinces already have witness protection programs in place. They are Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec. I would note that there are some differences between the federal program and those of the provinces. Witness protection programs at the provincial level have their own criteria for admission. They are tailored in such a way as to respond to the requirements of their particular law enforcement agencies.

Whether a witness is covered under the federal program or under one of those in the provinces is decided by the relevant investigating police force. There are a number of determining factors for admission to the federal program in this regard. In making this decision, police could consider such factors as the estimated cost, the level of threat and the anticipated time for which protection is necessary for the witness. If the witness is involved in a case of a federal nature, a province may also decide that its witness should be referred to the federal program for consideration and possible admission.

The provinces have been unequivocal about their desire for a more straightforward process to procure secure identity changes for their protectees. We have listened to this concern. Clearly, provinces face undue difficulty with the current program, as the RCMP only helps federal protectees obtain the federal documents necessary to secure identity changes. This results in a requirement for the provinces to admit their protectees to the federal program on a short-term basis so that they can have the assistance of the RCMP in the document process. This is an overly laborious process that can result in lengthy holdups. Delays due to the cumbersome paperwork are unacceptable when we are talking about protecting the lives of key witnesses who are supporting key investigations. We have addressed this issue in the bill.

Through this bill, we are also enhancing federal-provincial co-operation. To do so, we are putting in place a new process to ensure that provincial programs can be officially designated following a process that will include a one-time request to the Minister of Public Safety. This is significant in that once a program has been designated, provincial officials will be able to call on the RCMP to acquire the necessary federal documents for a secure identity change for a provincial witness. To be clear, this witness would not have to be admitted first into the federal program, making it a significant improvement over the current system. Furthermore, the designation process would be a one-time request.

I will also take a moment to acknowledge the suggestion by some that the RCMP be completely taken out of this process. It was suggested that provinces should be able to approach federal departments directly to make their request for secure identity documents. We do not agree with this. As a result, the bill would ensure that the RCMP would remain part of this process. Having the RCMP act as the single point of contact minimizes the number of people involved in the process, thereby making the process more secure. We have also listened to the concerns of federal partners in this regard. These partners were of the view that continuing to use the RCMP as a single point of contact was the most prudent course of action.

Another important change we would make to alleviate the concerns of some provinces is with respect to the prohibition of disclosure. In the current Witness Protection Program Act, the prohibition of disclosure of information about the location and change of identity is limited to federal protectees only. It is this government's view that the provincial stakeholders' concerns about this limitation are completely founded. That is why we would broaden the protections to provide for the disclosure of information regarding witnesses to include those in the designated programs I mentioned a few moments ago.

Further, the legislation would clarify exceptions to the disclosure prohibition, all the while ensuring that federal and designated provincial authorities are able to carry out their duties and maintain the protection of witnesses. As an example, both federal and designated provincial authorities would be able to provide information about protectees in many instances when doing so is necessary to prevent a serious offence from occurring.

There is no doubt about the need for the amendments to the Witness Protection Program Act, amendments such as those proposed in Bill C-51. This sound legislation is just one of the many ways in which this government has demonstrated its commitment to providing law enforcement agencies in this country with the tools they need to do their job.

To conclude, I will remind my hon. colleagues that with the passage of this bill, we have an opportunity to see that witnesses in this country feel safe to come forward and assist our law enforcement agencies with some very serious investigations.

I will reiterate that there are no anticipated cost increases with respect to implementing the proposed changes in this bill, as the RCMP has also indicated. An effective and reliable witness protection program is essential to the fight against crime, especially organized crime and terrorism. I therefore call upon all hon. members to support this comprehensive legislation.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague’s speech. I am somewhat surprised that he exceeded the time limit for debating this bill and that he spoke of members who have problems with ethics. I think the Conservatives have a lot to think about on that score. I hope that he will talk to his colleagues to see if perhaps they might step down before being removed from office, since he himself hinted that he might be in danger.

As for the bill now before the House, I would like to get his comments. He talked about supporting police forces across the country. According to the RCMP website, small police forces would have a great deal of difficulty implementing this bill. Even though it has considerable merit, the funds are just simply not there.

The RCMP says that funds are needed, but that they are not available for small police forces.

How will it resolve this problem?

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this legislation would apply efficiency. It is inviting efficiency. I would use the engineering term of the Venn diagram.

In answer to the hon. member's concern about the RCMP and his concern about finances, I have here a quote from Todd Shean, Assistant Commissioner, federal and international operations, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who said, “...with the changes this bill brings about, the RCMP is comfortable that we have the resources within our existing resources to run an effective witness protection program”.

It is not a question of resources; it is a question of the assessment that is done. During the assessment process, the person may decide that he or she does not want to enter into the program or does not want to proceed on the route he or she is on. We may assess that the individual is not suitable for the program.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to put my colleague from Pickering—Scarborough East on the spot, but I am wondering if he is aware of the strategy of the hon. government House leader with respect to this legislation. It strikes me as strange that we are still debating it. I think everybody here supports it.

Rather than go to time allocation, was there any effort made to negotiate with the official opposition and other parties to bring this to a swift conclusion so it could be passed?

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there were consultations, but I am not the House leader, so I cannot answer my colleague's question.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is a very resourceful fellow himself. He is a retired army engineer who has served in Bosnia and Afghanistan. He understands resource allocation in terms of battalions and brigades, because he has been responsible for that.

Now that this program would be expanded, we would have the opportunity to look after witnesses who may impact national security. I would like my colleague's opinion on the impact of this legislation on witnesses who may come forward to provide evidence in cases of terrorism.

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is also a former military member who served with great success in Bosnia defending Canadian values.

I just want to say one thing. The police is like the army. They manage their resources. The bill would smooth the transition between the small police forces, the provincial forces and the RCMP. They would manage their resources in a very good way.

I am just wondering why the NDP is always asking about resources. I do not understand why they are looking at a $21 billion gas tax.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak to Bill C-51. Fortunately, I have the time to do that, despite the fifth time allocation motion in five days and the thirty-eighth since the beginning of this Parliament.

Since this is my first opportunity to speak to this bill, I want to point out that this morning, the Minister of Public Safety stated that everyone was in agreement on this bill and that since no amendments had been put forward, a debate was pointless. Yet I have been here since early evening and I have been listening to a very interesting discussion on available resources and on the next steps to be taken in the area of witness protection, which is the focus of Bill C-51. This underscores the importance of having a debate to bring these problems to light. Even if these are not settled this time around, at least we will be able to proceed with due diligence in future.

That said, to echo the words of my colleagues, I want to say that the NDP will be supporting this bill since it favours improvements to the witness protection program. Many criticisms have been levelled against the program since it was first introduced in 1996. To finally see the government make some improvements is a positive step, even if it has taken far too long, in our opinion. We will therefore be voting in favour of this bill.

However, as I said, a number of problem areas were discussed this evening. I would like to focus on a few of them.

The first one is very important and may seem rather ironic to some extent, since it concerns witness protection. This bill disregards an important recommendation contained in the report released in the wake of the Air India tragedy. This recommendation focused on the transparency, review and accountability of the program.

It is important because, as I said earlier this evening when I put a question to one of my colleagues, the RCMP oversees the witness protection program, but often it ends up investigating the very same individuals at the same time. Often these persons are also implicated in the crimes in question. Therefore, there is a conflict of interest, so to speak, and that can be a problem.

Therefore, accountability and transparency mechanisms need to be put in place. This is extremely important in order to ensure that the RCMP acts properly. I want to stress that this is not a criticism of the RCMP's work, which is excellent. The members of the RCMP are deserving of our praise, but at the same time, in a society like ours, it is vitally important to have in place mechanisms to ensure transparency.

This is one of the important problems highlighted, particularly since this recommendation was contained in a report drafted in the wake of events having to do with witness protection. There is no reason why the government could not include these mechanisms in this bill. We hope to see this happen in the future.

The other major problem is obviously the issue of resources, which has been noted repeatedly. This is interesting because the Conservative Party member who preceded me said that all the NDP wanted was resources and spending. However, what is funny is that we in fact want to avoid burying the provinces and municipalities under more expenses. We are facilitating co-operation between the RCMP and local and provincial authorities. If we improve co-operation and expand witness protection admission criteria, more people will actually enter the program. Consequently, more spending will be incurred. That seems obvious to me.

The question thus arises as to who will absorb those costs. The RCMP, of course, already has resources, but municipal and provincial authorities will receive more applications and will accept more of them as a result of more flexible criteria, and they will have to cover the necessary costs.

However, municipal and provincial authorities are very concerned. We know they are because that is what we heard in committee. The RCMP is not concerned because it says it has the necessary resources, and that is a good thing.

As for provincial and municipal authorities, as my colleague from Toronto—Danforth said, everything will depend on how the federation is managed, how the government works under collaborative federalism.

I think it is a major problem for the government to introduce a bill when there has been very little consultation, knowing that it will result in additional costs. That is one of the criticisms we want to make.

I will conclude by saying that we support the bill. However, we wanted to point out those two extremely significant deficiencies. However, we hope that we will be able to rectify the situation in future and that this will be a lesson to the government to co-operate more with local authorities so that they can lower their costs and not succumb to the effects of bills that, like this one, are introduced unilaterally.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I want to underscore that while New Democrats are supporting this legislation, we have great concerns about the ability of it to do the job that needs to be done. One statistic I would point out, which is fairly well known, is that in 2012, of the 108 people considered for the program, only 30 were granted access. Fewer than a third of the people who were up for consideration were admitted to the program.

The eligibility criteria are being increased without putting in any new money, and the Canadian Association of Police Boards is complaining about that. How can the member feel that this will actually be an improvement without the kind of support that police boards, for example, are looking for?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

It is an excellent question because I heard a Conservative member say during the debate that these were administrative changes that would make the program more efficient and that they were going to relax the admission criteria and thus be able to accept and protect more witnesses. However, as my colleague said, if we accept more people and protect more witnesses, somewhere along the line being more efficient will also be more costly because we will be serving more people. That much is obvious, as I said in my speech.

What will happen is that the municipal and provincial police forces will co-operate with the RCMP. Of course, they are very happy. They will be in a situation in which they can co-operate better, protect more witnesses and have more flexibility. However, that also means that the program will serve more people. Consequently, there will be more spending. That is really obvious and it will be hard to manage at the local level. This is what we criticize on the government's part. I believe a little consultation would have gone a long way in this instance.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the bill does not contain a provision allowing an independent body to administer the program in accordance with the recommendations in the report.

My question is as follows. After Air India, is the RCMP not in a conflict of interest with this bill? Is there a way to bring in an outside judge, as is done when the police are involved in an accident? In that case, another police service is asked to get involved and judge the case.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is quite right. The issue of a conflict of interest came out of the recommendations made following the Air India tragedy.

As I said, we have confidence in the members of the RCMP, and we thank them for the excellent work they do every day. In a society based on law, justice and democracy, it is important that we have measures to ensure accountability and a degree of transparency. In this case, it is very important.

We protect witnesses who are often criminals as well. Sometimes they are members of street gangs or organized crime. We have to be very careful to have the mechanisms we need to avoid conflicts of interest. I believe that this serves us well and that it is good for the legal system, which the bill is trying to improve.