House of Commons Hansard #259 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was witnesses.

Topics

Safer Witnesses ActGovernment Orders

9:40 p.m.

Conservative

Colin Mayes Conservative Okanagan—Shuswap, BC

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question, but the member was not here in 2006, when we started the whole cracking down on crime initiative as a new government.

One of the things we did do was make strategic investments in the training centre for the RCMP, in Saskatchewan. We invested in more police officers. We decided we would make sure there would be the resources to crack down on crime when we go forward with the initiative for cracking down on crime. We increased the number of border security people to crack down on the gun trade and the drug trade across the border between Canada and the United States. There are ample resources there to do that work.

I can say with confidence that this bill would be another building block to what we are trying to accomplish, and the resources are there. The RCMP has also acknowledged that the bill would not be any stress on those costs.

Safer Witnesses ActGovernment Orders

9:40 p.m.

Liberal

David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up, if I could, on the question put earlier by my colleague from York West.

By all accounts, there are many legislators in this House who have a lot of experience. We all know that this kind of late-night sitting is costing the taxpayers of Canada somewhere between $50,000 and $60,000 an hour. It is very important for Canadians, I think, to know that.

I also think it is important to pick up on a comment made by my colleague from the NDP moments ago, raising important questions about resourcing the witness protection program and noting that the $60,000 an hour it is costing for this debate could go toward resourcing the program.

I am not sure why the government is debating the bill. All three parties agree. It passed through the committee without amendment. We are trying to understand why it is we are charging the Canadian taxpayer $50,000 to $60,000 an hour. Why do we not move on and actually pass this bill and get on to an issue of debate, so we do not have people reading speeches for TV productions?

Safer Witnesses ActGovernment Orders

9:45 p.m.

Conservative

Colin Mayes Conservative Okanagan—Shuswap, BC

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that we do not necessarily enjoy talking about things. We like taking action. We have done that as a party.

The fact is that there is time allocation and the members opposite are aware of that. It is really interesting. Those on the opposite side frequently state that there has not been enough time for debate on various bills. Here we are, giving you ample time to debate the bill and you are not taking advantage of it or do not want to take advantage—

Safer Witnesses ActGovernment Orders

9:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

Order, please. Again, I would remind this hon. member and all others to please address your questions to the Chair rather than to your colleagues.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.

Safer Witnesses ActGovernment Orders

9:45 p.m.

Conservative

Bev Shipley Conservative Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON

Mr. Speaker, again we find an opportunity to move ahead on a number of initiatives that this government has brought forward since 2006 to help strengthen and encourage the protection not only of our police officers but obviously of those victims and how we protect them. This gives me an opportunity to speak to Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act.

As members know, the act was brought forward in 1996 for the nature of crimes we were dealing with then. However, since that time there has been an incredible amount of change in our society.

In fact, as has been mentioned before, in the drug-dealing business, the production of crack cocaine has increased some 30%. Unfortunately, this affects not only large urban areas but small rural communities and towns like mine as well. Also, in 1996 cyber crime was something that many of us did not know anything about, and in 2013, there may still be those who are not aware of the complexities of cybercrime in this country. Organized crime has become much more prevalent than it has been in past history. As well, on terrorism, we think of those situations that have happened, not potentially but those that have actually been stopped in this country. We would never have thought about that a few years ago, but we hear about it every day on the news. In fact, our members in the armed forces deal with it on a regular basis as they help protect our great nation and others against these terrible atrocities.

Methods of policing these crimes have been modernized in an attempt to keep pace, but what we need to do now is put in place a modernized witness protection program to help keep up with some of the events that are happening in our society.

Law enforcement often relies on the co-operation of individuals to give information and those who are willing to come forward and give evidence against these criminal organizations. Informants are often the key component that makes the difference between talking about it and getting out there and actually making the arrest. As a matter of fact, law enforcement depends on key witnesses. However, key witnesses deal with the fear and issues that come with dealing with organized crime, and we need to make sure those people have the opportunity to come forward without fear, at least without the extended fear they would normally have because they had been a part of something they knew was terribly wrong.

We have an opportunity now to move forward and help guarantee witness safety. We have an opportunity to not only help protect witness identities but strengthen that protection, and for a longer period of time.

In the past our witness program was designed to promote law enforcement by facilitating the protection of those directly or indirectly involved in criminal activities, and it had been an effective tool. In fact, it still is, but it is not as effective as it should be to deal with modern-day events.

As members know, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta have established their own provincial witness protection programs that work independently of the federal program. However, it is becoming increasingly apparent that we need to strengthen the protection given to witnesses and also to those who protect them across the country, and there have been calls for reform of the witness protection program to keep in line with the government's mandate of tackling crime.

Since 2006 we have taken that initiative to tackle crime, protect the innocent and give justice to the victims. We now need to make sure that we give credence to the witnesses who are helping make sure that happens.

As we developed this bill, we took into consideration the recommendations made in the final report of the 2010 Air India inquiry, the 2008 study of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security of the federal witness protection program, as well as the recommendations from consultations we carried out with not only with federal agencies and departments, but also with agencies of the provinces and law enforcement groups at all levels across this country. We have carefully assessed the feedback from these reports and consultations to bring forward a comprehensive bill, which is the one that we have in front of us.

In Bill C-51, we have identified a number of changes to the act that would improve the protection services for informants and witnesses.

The provincial witness protection programs meet the needs of provincial law enforcement agencies and offers a range of protection that can include accompanying a witness to trial, a temporary relocation or limited financial support to the individual. However, they do not have that authority to obtain secure identity changes. In this age of technology, it is becoming so important that when we give them a change of identity it is secure, protected and there for them in their time of need.

One of the measures we would be putting in place with this bill is the streamlining of the process that would allow provincial programs to be designated under this act. We had a number of questions come up about how we would be able to do this in terms of other agencies and the efficiencies in the bill.

Bill C-51 would make it possible for the Attorney General or other provincial authority to request the Minister of Public Safety to recommend to the Governor in Council that a provincial protection program be designated. This would then allow the RCMP to assist with obtaining the federal documents for secure identity change without the witness having to be admitted into the federal program.

Though there have been recommendations to bypass the RCMP and have the provinces request secure identity documents directly from the various federal organizations involved, we believe it is more prudent to maintain a single point of contact for this process. That is all part of the security and the efficiencies built into Bill C-51 in terms of the protection of witnesses.

The RCMP is the organization best suited to act in this capacity and bring continuity, which would ensure efficiency and enhance security. The Commissioner of the RCMP would coordinate at the request of the provinces and we would look to help those who are admitted to the designated program.

I see that I am running out of time. What it really all comes down to is that the amendments, the federal organizations with mandates related to national security, defence or public safety, such as CSIS and the Department of National Defence, may also refer witnesses to this national program. That means that those issues that I talked about earlier with respect to breadth and some of the issues that had not been brought into the witness program in 1966 are here now.

I look forward to the support and the passing of this important bill.

Safer Witnesses ActGovernment Orders

9:55 p.m.

NDP

Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB

Mr. Speaker, I heard the comments by the hon. member and his colleague from Okanagan—Shuswap and I have to say that both members actually made the case for the very recommendation by the commission that looked into the Air India incident.

My understanding is that there was only one recommendation for amendments to the federal witness protection program made by the commission: to create the national security witness protection coordinator. Why? It was because a number of witnesses in the Air India inquiry refused to testify because they did not feel they were going to be adequately protected. This protection coordinator's mandate would include providing confidential support, psychological and legal advice, independent confidential arbitration disputes and acting as an advocate for witnesses.

The member said that the government has made comprehensive amendments and yet it chose not to implement the single amendment recommended by the commission. I wonder if he could speak to that.

Safer Witnesses ActGovernment Orders

9:55 p.m.

Conservative

Bev Shipley Conservative Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my comments, there may be police officers and members of law enforcement agencies that are much more into the details of it than I am.

As a government, we in fact have the responsibility to make sure that we reach out to some of the most significant tragedies that have happened around the world, not just in this country. We learn, unfortunately, from incidents that have happened around the world. We want to make sure that when people come forward, we give them the most secure opportunity we can, and not only to change their identity over a period of time. As I mentioned, they will always carry a fear because they have been part of something that has dramatically changed their lives. We do not want that extraordinary fear to stick with them because they do not have the security of a new identity.

Safer Witnesses ActGovernment Orders

9:55 p.m.

NDP

Ève Péclet NDP La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' last speaker said that my colleague was not an MP in 2006 when the Conservatives announced their cracking down on crime initiative.

It is really demeaning to refer to the knowledge of a member just because he was not elected then. Does he also mean that the members for Mississauga South or Ajax—Pickering should not have spoken on this bill just because they were not elected then? It is very demeaning when a member is referred to as not credible or not knowledgeable because he was not elected in 2006.

That was my comment. Now I am going to ask a question of my colleague.

I know that my colleague represents a rural region, and the RCMP's website clearly says that funding problems impede investigations.

Could my colleague tell us why the government has not allocated more funding to a program that the RCMP has said needs more funding?

Safer Witnesses ActGovernment Orders

10 p.m.

Conservative

Bev Shipley Conservative Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON

Mr. Speaker, we will often reference new members. We respect the fact that they are new, but it also gives us the ability to say we had a program in place. It was only to provide knowledge about where the government started and where it is going. The comment was never meant to be derogatory to anyone. I would never, nor would my colleague, ever do that.

Clearly, in terms of funding, we have to understand that this could have been a full national program, but we know that the provinces did not want to let go of some of their authority. I come from a small rural riding. Some members think, particularly over there, that we cannot build in efficiencies, that we just have to keep throwing money at it. We provided funding for 2,500 police officers. We have enhanced funding for police officers.

Industry, Science and TechnologyCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10 p.m.

York—Simcoe Ontario

Conservative

Peter Van Loan ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the parties and I do believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, the remainder of the debate, pursuant to Standing Order 66(2) on the motion to concur in the First Report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology be deemed to have taken place and the motion deemed adopted on division.

Industry, Science and TechnologyCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

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

Industry, Science and TechnologyCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Industry, Science and TechnologyCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House for the motion?

Industry, Science and TechnologyCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Industry, Science and TechnologyCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

(Motion agreed to)

Foreign Affairs and International DevelopmentCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10 p.m.

York—Simcoe Ontario

Conservative

Peter Van Loan ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the parties and I do believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, the remainder of the debate, pursuant to Standing Order 66(2) on the motion to concur in the Sixth Report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development be deemed to have taken place and the motion deemed adopted on division.

Foreign Affairs and International DevelopmentCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

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

Foreign Affairs and International DevelopmentCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Foreign Affairs and International DevelopmentCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House for the motion?

Foreign Affairs and International DevelopmentCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Foreign Affairs and International DevelopmentCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

(Motion agreed to)

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with DisabilitiesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10 p.m.

York—Simcoe Ontario

Conservative

Peter Van Loan ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the parties and I do believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, the remainder of the debate, pursuant to Standing Order 66(2) on the motion to concur in the Fourth Report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities be deemed to have taken place and the motion deemed adopted on division.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with DisabilitiesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

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

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with DisabilitiesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with DisabilitiesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House for the motion?