Debates of May 30th, 2013

Safer Witnesses Act

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on the comments by my colleague on the other side of the House.

The RCMP website indicates the following:

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

The RCMP is referring to small law enforcement agencies that enforce the law, such as municipal forces, not the RCMP. The RCMP has never claimed to have a funding problem. That is not what we are talking about. The problem is that the costs associated with this program are borne by the provinces and small entities such as local police forces.

I would like my colleague to comment further on the difference between the RCMP and local law enforcement agencies.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for pointing that out. It is clearly there on the website.

Commissioner Todd Shean said that the RCMP was comfortable that it could have an effective program. That is not to say that it would be adequate for all the communities in the country. The RCMP acknowledged that investigations would suffer. That would be at the local community level, and when we have the police boards that look after these communities across the country saying the same thing, I have to worry, frankly.

I appreciate my colleague pointing out that website quote. It is something the RCMP itself acknowledges.

There is logic to this, as well. If we increase the eligibility, more people will be invited to participate because of the broader criterion. More people would be able to apply, but without more money, we would have a crunch.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, ensuring that all Canadians have safe communities in which to live has been a priority for our government since taking office. Our government has undertaken numerous initiatives to ensure the safety of Canadians. For example, our government is following through on its commitment to give the RCMP the tools it needs to enhance public confidence and increase accountability to its members and Canadians. This is apparent through our support for Bill C-42, the enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police accountability act. This legislation would enable the RCMP to continue its ongoing transformation toward a strong and vibrant national police force that Canadians will continue to believe in and value.

The enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police accountability act would help the RCMP remain accountable and relevant now and in the future. First, this act would create a modern, independent civilian review and complaints commission for the RCMP which would strengthen civilian oversight. Second, investigations of serious incidents, such as death or serious injury involving RCMP members, would be more transparent and accountable to the public through the implementation of a new framework. Third, the act would modernize processes with respect to discipline, grievance and human resources management for RCMP members, because it would put in place mechanisms to prevent, address and correct performance and conduct issues fairly and in a timely manner. These changes would help address concerns that have been raised by both the Canadian public and RCMP members themselves.

Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act, is another important legislative change that would support the work of our police and ensure that we meet our commitments to Canadians. Witness protection programs offer protection, sometimes including new identities for certain individuals whose testimony or co-operation is vital to the success of law enforcement operations. In Canada, the RCMP administers the federal witness protection program, which was officially established in 1996 with the passage of the Witness Protection Program Act. Through the federal witness protection program, the RCMP can provide emergency protection in the form of permanent relocation and secure identity changes for witnesses under threat.

The legislation governing the federal witness protection program, however, has not been substantially changed since 1996, when it first came into force. This has posed challenges for the RCMP, who must contend with the constantly changing nature of organized crime. The safer witnesses act would help strengthen the current federal witness protection program and thus support the RCMP in effectively combating crime, particularly organized crime. Bill C-51 would also help protect individuals, including RCMP members and other law enforcement officers and civilians involved in administering and delivering witness protection.

Disclosing information about individuals in the federal witness protection program is prohibited by the Witness Protection Program Act. Bill C-51 would expands on this by also prohibiting the disclosure of information about individuals who provide or assist in providing protection for witnesses as well as how the program operates. Under Bill C-51, this prohibition would extend to both the federal and designated provincial programs. Bill C-51 would also positively impact the provision of protection by promoting greater integration between federal and provincial witness protection programs.

Under the current legislation, if an individual in a provincial witness protection program requires a secure identity change, he or she must be temporarily transferred into a federal witness protection program so that the RCMP can obtain the appropriate documents. This may introduce delays in the process. The changes proposed by Bill C-51 would allow provincial and territorial governments to request that their programs be designated under the federal witness protection program act. This one-time designation would mean that the witness in the witness protection program could receive a secure identity change without needing to be admitted into the federal one. These reforms would support the provision of protection at all levels by streamlining the process to obtain secure federal documents for these purposes.

Another change proposed by Bill C-51 responds in part to a recommendation made in the final report of the Air India inquiry. The legislation proposes to expand the categories of witnesses who may be admitted to the witness protection program to include persons who assist federal departments, agencies or services that have a national security, national defence or public safety mandate and who may require protection as a result.

More organizations would also be able to refer candidates. Examples of such organizations are the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the Department of National Defence. Currently, referrals are only accepted from law enforcement and international courts or tribunals.

The RCMP has administered the witness protection program for the last 15 years, during which time it has gained significant experience and insight into factors that make for a successful witness protection program. Bill C-51 would build on this experience and address a number of operational issues that the RCMP has experienced.

For example, Bill C-51 would clarify the process for voluntary termination from the federal program. It would also extend the amount of time emergency protection might be provided to candidates being considered for admission into the federal program. Emergency protection would be increased from the current 90 days to a maximum of 180 days.

In addition to these changes proposed by Bill C-51, the RCMP is currently taking measures to enhance the federal witness protection program, including incorporating psychological assessments of candidates and counselling for protectees and their families, incorporating risk-management principles into the admission process, enhancing training for witness handlers and administrators, creating a database that would better inform program design and, lastly, offering the services of legal counsel to all candidates being considered for admission into the federal program.

The RCMP would also continue to use the existing seven criteria outlined in the act to assess whether to admit an individual into the program, including the risk to the witness, the danger to the community if the person were to be admitted into the program, the nature of the inquiry and the importance of the witness in the matter, the value of information and evidence to be given by a witness, the likelihood that the witness can adjust to the program, the cost of maintaining a witness in the program, alternate methods of protection and other factors deemed by the commissioner to be relevant.

Our government has been quite clear that one of our top priorities is to keep our streets and communities safe and to support families, as outlined by the Prime Minister. Our plan involves tackling crime, supporting victims' rights and promoting a fair and efficient justice system.

Today, our government builds on the success of the last seven years and would provide the RCMP with the tools it needs to do its job more effectively.

This and other legislation would ensure that we have a fully accountable national police force that will continue to fulfill its role to protect Canadians here at home and abroad.

For that reason, I urge all members to support this legislation and work toward ensuring it is passed in an expeditious manner.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this does not happen very often, but we are talking about a bill to which all of the parties are in agreement. We did not make any changes in committee, yet we are spending five hours tonight discussing something with which we are all in agreement.

I am having a bout of déjà vu because I think I heard exactly this speech earlier today from the member for Crowfoot. It seemed almost identical to the one the member for Crowfoot gave.

The five hours tonight cost $50,000 an hour in overtime, in one day, which could help us hire 80 summer students.

Let us use the money intelligently and debate the real issues and move on to Bill C-56, which is next on the agenda.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the member is not interested in the debates of Parliament, he can certainly leave. I know it is typical for the Liberal caucus to not show up for debates or votes. If he wants to continue that practice, he is welcome to leave.

However, I think we should encourage discussion on weighty matters like this and encourage debate. Certainly, that is one of the real values of our Parliament. To say it is not important or relevant to have a thorough discussion on public safety and supporting the needs of the RCMP is inappropriate. It goes to show that the Liberals have been consistent in not supporting the justice agenda to make sure Canadians are safe. This pattern of showing no interest in law and order is one of the reasons they continue to be defeated at the polls by Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member a question about funding.

Last year, 30 of the 108 candidates received funding. Ninety-nine of them were not funded. All this cost $9 million. Members will admit that this is still quite costly.

Now the program is to be extended to gangs. The reasoning is that there is a real need to take action and tackle crime. We support the bill.

How will the process be carried out? What about the 99 candidates who were not granted protection? How are certain candidates chosen over others? Will it be based on the financial implications associated with their actions as witnesses? Will people be treated fairly and equitably when there are witnesses? If dealing with terrorism, for example, will the process be based on the incident? What are the criteria?

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, obviously it will be left to the experts to decide, based on the seven criteria, how many of the potential witnesses would be put into this program. I would note that Tom Stamatakis, the president of the Canadian Police Association, when it came to cost said that it is obviously important, but he said that this would “...deliver the best possible community protection at a reasonable cost to the Canadian taxpayer”.

I think that is why we have seen the RCMP and the Canadian Police Association express the importance of this legislation because it is reasonable and the costs are manageable, but fundamentally what is important is the safety of Canadians, and this would enhance that.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for Barrie who was on a team tonight that went out and played hockey against the media and beat the media, six to four. Now he has come back to this place at 11 o'clock to give an outstanding speech on this bill.

[An hon. member]

How many goals did he score?

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Is that my question? How many goals did he score? No.

Mr. Speaker, Bill Blair, the chief of the Toronto Police Service, stated:

In Toronto, we have seen the fear caused by intimidation and the threat of retaliation in gang investigations. Witnesses with valuable information are deterred from coming forward. We support the government's initiative as a valuable step in protecting public safety.

Could the member for Barrie elaborate on that statement?

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yes, this bill certainly would do a lot to enhance safety in our communities.

I would note, on the member's first question, that the teamwork in the Conservative caucus and the great work from the member for Brampton West in back-checking helped ensure that we held the day against the media. We were very pleased to work together on a hockey rink, just as we do in Parliament to ensure the best interests of Canadians are accounted for.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House to speak about a bill that is dear to my heart, and that is Bill C-51.

The NDP has said that it will support this bill. Why? For various reasons. First, the bill broadens the eligibility criteria for the witness protection program to include witnesses recommended by the Department of National Defence. It will also extend the period of emergency protection and clear up some of the technical problems that were occurring in relation to coordination with provincial programs. It has been said many times in the past several hours that the program will likely generate additional costs. The members opposite do not seem to believe that. Time will tell.

When it comes to witness protection, in Quebec in particular, there have been clear examples in recent years of why it is absolutely necessary to have witnesses to help target and stop criminal groups. Many police operations would have failed miserably had it not been for the co-operation of informants. Take for example, Opération SharQc, which resulted in the arrest of 115 Hells Angels, thanks to the help of an informant and the protection he was offered by the police. In Quebec, the Sûreté du Québec protects witnesses.

There have also been other arrests, such as those of all of “Mom” Boucher's Nomads, a chapter of Hells Angels. Once again, an informant, “Godasse” Gagné, worked with the police.

Clearly, the witness protection program covers a wide variety of activities. When it comes to terrorism, there is a certain type of witness that needs to be protected. When it comes to organized crime and street gangs, we are not talking about some poor innocent witness. It is important to be clear on that. These are not choirboys. They are people with rap sheets longer than the government's mammoth bill.

Although these witness protection programs have been very effective recently in the fight against organized crime, there have also been some abuses, things the public felt should not have been done. Informant witnesses, under the protection of the police and the government, received large sums of money for their co-operation. Of course, giving up 115 notorious criminals for arrest has its price. One witness was given $3 million. The public saw this as an abuse. There have also been witnesses who received new identities and then went out and committed crimes a few years later. That happened in Quebec, and the public is not okay with those types of abuses.

I would like to point out that the witness protection program is managed by police forces. We know nothing of the agreements between the police and witnesses. The rules are not clear, and there is no transparency.

Tonight, there has been a lot of talk about the need for transparency with these kinds of agreements. Based on what I know about how the program is administered, I can say that, in Quebec, there was no transparency. There was so little transparency that there were abuses involving the public as well as reformed and protected witnesses. They challenged their agreements with police, to the point where they formed an association, the Association des témoins spéciaux du Québec. That shows just how bad things got. These protected witnesses sued the Quebec government for $6 million for breach of contract.

What I am trying to say is that transparency is an issue.

There has been support for the improvements made to the bill. There is support for the fact that Bill C-51 expands the witness protection program to include criminals involved in street gangs. I think that is key to eventually eliminating that scourge.

Members have also said that this bill assumes that the funding currently allocated to the RCMP is sufficient. We do not feel that is the case. In addition, the bill unfortunately does not follow through on the recommendation to create an independent organization to oversee all of the witness protection programs.

It is important to understand that when a police force is dealing with a witness from organized crime who made the first step to access this type of program, there is no proper balance of power between the police and the criminal. A lot of pressure and responsibility is put on the commissioner. The new statute, especially clause 12, indicates that the commissioner must protect the witness' identity, but may also disclose the witness' identity if the commissioner deems it appropriate to do so. In fact, the commissioner becomes judge and master of this program. We know that sometimes he is put in a position of being judge and jury. It does not serve the justice system well for police forces to be judge and jury. We often see this when police forces investigate other police forces. This does not necessarily produce the best results.

An independent agency made up of specialists that are completely independent from the police forces could manage this program effectively, have clear criteria and agreements that are respected and deemed appropriate by the public. When we negotiate agreements with criminals, we must remember that we represent public ethics and power and that we cannot negotiate any old thing. I would say that in this type of program, it is a bit like shaking hands with the devil. We have to be careful. I am not the only one who prefers to have this safeguard in the bill.

I would like to quote from a letter sent to the Minister of Public Safety from the Barreau du Québec.

Under clause 12, the commissioner may disclose confidential information if the protected person consents to the disclosure or has previously made such a disclosure or acted in a manner that results in such a disclosure.

We can agree that if a criminal under witness protection wants to terminate his protection, it is up to him.

Furthermore, the commissioner could disclose that confidential information if he has reasonable grounds to believe that the disclosure is essential for the purposes of the administration of justice; this could be necessary in the context of investigating a serious offence if there is reason to believe that the protected person can provide material information or evidence in relation to, or has been involved in the commission of, the offence; preventing the commission of a serious offence; or finally, establishing the innocence of a person...

The commissioner can lift a witness's protection for about a dozen reasons. This is a very serious decision. This disclosure could put the commissioner in a conflict of interest.

As we have also seen, it is not the role of the commissioner to act as judge and jury. The committee recognizes the importance of this issue, but does not feel it compiled enough information to be able to make an informed decision. In its final report, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security recommended the establishment of an independent body to administer and manage the federal witness protection program.

Furthermore, in the report that followed the Air India tragedy, the commission recommended the creation of an independent body, specifically, a national security witness protection coordinator.

I agree with those recommendations. It would have been better if this bill had included a provision to create an independent body to oversee Canada's witness protection program.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for giving us one of his typically passionate speeches.

I would like to quote Clayton Pecknold, assistant deputy minister and director, Police Services, Policing and Security Programs Branch, British Columbia Ministry of Justice. He appeared before the committee on March 19, 2013, and said:

It's important from my perspective that the program be adequately funded and effectively and efficiently administered. The cost of major investigations is a concern to municipalities. As a consequence, whether it's the cost of actually conducting the extraordinary investigative measures that are necessary or managing the file from a witness protection or witness management perspective, it will indeed be a concern for municipalities.

What does my colleague think about that statement?

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will not repeat what has been said all evening.

The NDP is of the same mind as some of the police chiefs and police associations that testified in committee, and it shares some of the concerns expressed by municipal officials. Transferring the cost of a program to other levels of government is a fairly common occurrence with Conservative bills. Conservative bills often result in increased pressure on provincial budgets. In the case of employment insurance, the effect is obvious: people who exhaust their benefits will turn to welfare, which is a provincial program. Therefore, the province will absorb these costs.

In the case of prisons, the provinces will have to build more of them to enforce the government's proposed law and order regulations. That will also result in additional costs that will have to be borne by the municipalities. It is crystal clear.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this topic of underfunding has been surfacing all night.

The members from the opposition have said that it is underfunded, and they have given all these quotes from provincial organizations. However, I have not heard any quotes from federal organizations. We on this side have said that from a federal perspective this program is funded and it is going to make good law.

Does the member have any facts from federal organizations that say this program is not adequately funded?

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, having worked for a long time with municipalities, I know the situation in Quebec, and I imagine that the situation of municipalities elsewhere in Canada is no different.

Municipal funding is a major challenge because infrastructure is crumbling everywhere and money has to be allocated to projects that the municipalities are working on. They have to provide local services for the people. The municipalities are already having a great deal of difficulty covering their expenses, and additional costs will only make things more difficult for them. I believe that if the federal government introduces bills, it must follow up with the money.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech and I must say that I did not learn anything new, because that same speech has been repeated over and over by NDP members, much like Conservative Party members repeat their speeches.

I have a simple question. In the last five hours, we have spent about $250,000 in additional costs to hold this debate in the House tonight instead of continuing to study other bills. That kind of money could buy 30 insulin pumps for people with diabetes.

Could the member tell the Canadians watching at home how the two parties debating this issue justify spending this money?

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have an answer for that. Members of Parliament are paid to be here. This is not additional spending.

Witness protection is very important. Do they remember Ma Chouette, the anonymous witness who spoke out about the sponsorship scandal? They always wanted to find out who that was. It is important to protect witnesses.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be here to debate the bill, unlike my colleagues way over there in the far corner. They want to go home, but that is not new. That is what they want to do all the time. We want to be here. We want to debate this legislation. Those members say they support this legislation, that they agree with it, but they want to go home. They want to go home because they support it.

I am very happy that they support this legislation, because this is pretty new. This is quasi-judicial. This is quasi-criminal justice reform. It is almost a justice bill—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order. There are some members who wish to carry on conversations far away from each other. I would suggest they sit near each other and have a closer conversation so it does not distract the hon. member for Brampton West.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say I am pleased the members opposite are going to support our criminal justice reform bill, because that certainly has not been their record in this Parliament. Just the other night they voted against amendments to the not criminally responsible legislation. They did not even want it to go to committee. They voted against it at second reading.

I can understand if they want to vote against it, but they do not even want it to go to committee and be studied. They voted against substantive, well needed reforms in the not criminally responsible legislation. They voted against the Safe Streets and Communities Act, broad sweeping legislation to protect our communities, protect families and protect Canadians. They voted against it, so I am very pleased that they are now indicating they are in support of this legislation. I guess I will grudgingly thank them for that.

Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act is another piece of legislation we are bringing forward to, again, try to make our communities safer. That is something that we, on the Conservative side of the House, think is very important. We think strong communities are safe communities. That might not be the position of the party in the corner.

I understand, as well, there is great support for this legislation. It has support both here in the House and at committee and from stakeholders across the country. This is an issue that should not be partisan, despite the continued catcalls and heckling from the third party in the corner.

Protecting witnesses is a vital component of the justice system. We have to have witnesses who feel they are able to come forward and testify. Why is that? That is because we cannot always just rely on other forms of physical evidence. In many circumstances, when trying to get a conviction, especially in cases of organized crime, we are going to need a witness to come forward. When those witnesses do come forward, they can put themselves at great risk, in some in circumstances. That is why we have to be able to make sure they are going to be safe, because of the broader goal of making sure our communities are safe.

Oftentimes these people may have been involved in organized crime, so they know the insides of what is going on in organized crime. It takes a great, brave person to come forward and testify. We want to help that. We want to make sure they are going to be safe.

There are important updates that we are bringing forward in this legislation, updates to the Witness Protection Program Act, which first came into force in 1996, so it is time to make some amendments and some changes. It would strengthen the protection of witnesses and those who protect them. These recommendations put forward in the legislation have come about as a result of broad consultations, both with law enforcement agencies and with the provinces, and also as a result of reports such as the 2008 report by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security and the report of the 2010 Commission of Inquiry into the Investigation of the Bombing of Air India Flight 182.

I want to talk about a couple of things that are contained within the legislation. I only have 10 minutes. I am not going to be able to cover the entire bill, but I want to highlight a few things that are quite important. First of all, there are five provinces in Canada that have their own similar protection programs: Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.

One of the things this legislation would do is ensure greater efficiencies between the two systems, the federal system and the provincial system. In a case where it is determined that the protectees require security changes, they have to be transferred to the federal program. We have learned from our provincial counterparts that this can be a time-consuming process and not necessarily an efficient process.

One of the key ingredients in this legislation would be greater integration. This greater integration would be between the federal and provincial programs by enabling the provinces to have their respective program designated under the federal act. This designation, authorized by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Minister of Public Safety, would permit the RCMP to work directly with a designated provincial program to obtain and secure federal identity documents for a protectee.

However, it would not stop there. It also would provide help for the RCMP. Under Bill C-51, federal organizations would be required to help the RCMP obtain federal documents required for secure identity changes for witnesses both in the federal program and, of course, in the designated provincial programs I was just describing and talking about. The RCMP would continue to act as a liaison between the federal and provincial programs. This would make sure we have a much more streamlined approach, which is another important aspect.

We would also broaden prohibition disclosures, ensuring the protection of provincial witnesses at both the federal and provincial levels. The amendments would address the call from the provinces to ensure that the witnesses in the programs are protected from disclosure of prohibited information throughout Canada.

The safer witnesses act would broaden the prohibition on disclosing information in several ways. First, it would prohibit the disclosure of information related to individuals who are protected under the federal and designated provincial programs.

Second, it would prohibit the disclosure of any means or method of protection that could endanger the protected individuals or the integrity of the programs themselves. Again, this goes back to making sure we would have witnesses who felt safe and were able to come forward and provide important testimony in important matters that were before the courts, which would help keep our communities safer. This of course would include information about the methods used to provide or support protection and to record or exchange confidential information, as well as data about the location of secure facilities.

Third, it would prohibit the disclosure of any information about the identity or roles of persons who provide or assist in providing protection to the witnesses. That is, of course, providing protection to those who are protecting witnesses, which is an important enhancement as well.

A fourth proposal under Bill C-51 seeks to expand the list of entities that are able to refer individuals to the commissioner of the RCMP for consideration for admission into the federal program. What many of us do not know is that at present, only law enforcement agencies and international criminal tribunals can make these referrals. We would expand the program as well, which would ensure that more witnesses would feel safe and would be able to come forward to give that valuable testimony. Bill C-51 would expand this list to include federal organizations that have a mandate related to national security, defence or public safety, so they could refer witnesses to the federal program. This would include organizations such as the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

Fifth, the safer witnesses act would provide other measures that would allow for voluntary termination from the federal program and extend emergency protection to a maximum of 180 days. That would double the previous limit, which was 90 days. Both of these improvements should address some of the concerns that have been raised by both federal and provincial stakeholders.

This is a practical and comprehensive piece of legislation that would make significant improvements and changes. Collectively, all these amendments would strengthen the current Witness Protection Program Act, making the entire program more secure, more streamlined and better for those who need protection and for those who provide that protection. Provincial programs are integral to Canada's witness protection network, and we are pleased to address many of those concerns in this legislation. It has received a great response in the House, for which we are thankful.

In summary, I would encourage all members to support this legislation. I think we do have support for the legislation. We have raised important issues in the debate tonight. We have certainly heard lots of productive questions from the members of the NDP, asking about certain issues with the program. That is the purpose of debate and that is why we are here.

I am pleased to stand and support this piece of legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his contribution to the debate. I agree with him. It would open up the program and ensure there would be more witnesses protected under the program. That is why we support it.

It would be done by expanding the criteria to national security and national defence or other public safety agencies that could refer witnesses to the program and by expanding it to include youth gang members. We are anticipating growth in this program.

However, as early as 2007, it was identified that there were inadequate resources available. Why are we standing pat on that and whistling past the graveyard, as I call it, with respect to the need for funding? We are hearing time and again from members from his party that there is no need for any new money, yet we are talking about expanding the program, doubling it from 90 to 180 days. Where is the connection?

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can say one thing. Bill C-42, an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, added approximately $10 million to the RCMP. There are additional funds flowing to the RCMP on a global scale. We will certainly have to take a look at how the program operates in the future to make sure there are proper resources. The important thing about the legislation is the efficacy of it and what it would do to protect witnesses. I am pleased to have the support of the NDP on this particular piece of legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, people have been beating up a bit on the member for Ottawa South for suggesting we were wasting time and money debating. Nothing is ever a complete waste. There is always some benefit in having debate, even though we all agree that Bill C-51 should pass and we all support the protection of witnesses.

I want to clarify for the member for Brampton West that my own reasons for raising this earlier tonight had nothing to do with wanting to go home, but rather with wanting to have a chance to debate the bills about which we do not agree, such as the omnibus budget bill, Bill C-60, for which we have never had an adequate opportunity to even touch on its various sections. I thought I might clarify that for him.

I completely support this bill. I appreciate that the Conservative majority has brought it forward and I look forward to voting for it and stopping the debates that continue until midnight in this place on matters of which I have no understanding why they are still subject to debate.