Debates of May 30th, 2013

Safer Witnesses Act

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

Mr. Speaker, the member's presentation was excellent and I want to contrast some of her remarks. We have heard some very strong remarks from the other side, people with experience like the member for Northumberland—Quinte West, who was a policeman and recognizes this is a valuable tool. I think we all do and that is why we are supporting the bill.

However, it is very unfortunate that members on the other side are very selective in their quotes from witnesses at the committee and have ignored the voice of the Canadian Association of Police Boards. Civilians comprise it, for the most part, and represent the boards that oversee police forces across the country.

For example, Dr. Alok Mukherjee, the president of that organization, said, “Our chiefs have said to us that their ability to access fully, proportionate to their need, is not there”, and complained about the financing and lack of ability.

My colleague mentioned the fact that only 30 out of 108 people who applied in the year 2012 were able to get funding. That will get worse when we expand the criteria, which we have all called for and agree must be done, so others can apply, as was recommended by the Air India inquiry and many others. Does it not logically have to get worse if only a quarter are getting funded now and we are going to expand the criteria?

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is right. With expanding the admissibility and allowing more people to apply to this program, common sense would say that more money would be allotted to this. More people would be applying; hence, more people would be accepted. I think that on both sides of the House there is general consensus. It is good legislation and we are definitely voting for it.

However, when the money is not there, it is something that bothers me. With more people applying for this, I would hope the government could at least ensure there will be financing for it to ensure these people are accepted and witnesses are protected. It is only right.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for her presentation tonight on Bill C-51 and for indicating the NDP's support for something that, for six years, we have been pressing for in terms of a stronger justice system. This is not only about a stronger justice system, but also helping to protect the innocent and victims.

Going back to funding, the RCMP has said the resources are there. The federal government makes transfers each year to the provincial governments. We have increased those over our term, and I do not want to get too specific, about 25%. Some of those transfers go to social programs and education and some are general transfers to the provinces. Does she have any sense that the provinces may have the opportunity to use some of those transfers for the protection of victims?

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, he said that the government has been waiting for this for six years. Why did it not act any sooner?

The member for Trinity—Spadina has been on record many times pushing for more accessibility and reform of the witness protection program for many years. We are very happy that it has come to fruition.

As I said, we could have a battle of quotes. I was not on the committee, but I could read more quotes. Just to keep it simple, 30 people were accepted in this program in 2012 and if we are to accept more applicants, I am really worried the funding will not follow. I do not want there to be too much downloaded on the municipalities when we know they do not have enough resources at times.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-51.

I would like to begin by citing an example of the Conservatives' financial logic. We are talking about programs designed to assist Canadians, whether they be victims, students or others. The Conservatives want to help them.

I have previously risen in the House on several occasions to speak about the Canada summer jobs initiative, which is an excellent job market springboard for students. Unfortunately, the program has not been adjusted for inflation or the increased minimum wage since the Conservatives came to power in 2006. As a result, fewer and fewer students have access to the program and fewer and fewer organizations have the opportunity to offer students work experience. However, the Conservatives say they want to help students and are concerned for their welfare. It would have taken twice as much money to cover all the student applications in my riding of La Pointe-de-l'Île alone.

I understand that the decision to take money and give it to Canadians who really need it is never an easy one for a government. I understand, but that unfortunately means that some students will not have the same opportunities as others and that there will be an unstable supply of jobs offered by organizations.

If I may draw a parallel with criminal justice, exactly the same thing is happening here. For example, the Conservatives introduced very strict criminal justice legislation a few months ago. Those bills provided for minimum sentences, which, as we know, were criticized by all organizations. Yes, it is true: they want to ensure that our streets are safer, and, yes, they will spend money to build prisons and cause delays in the criminal justice system. However, when it comes to trying to catch criminals, they may not have enough money.

What does Bill C-51 do? It enables people to testify, and it helps catch criminals. Am I telling you anything new here today? They invest billions of dollars to build prisons, create delays in the justice system and introduce minimum sentences. They have the money for that. However, when it comes to protecting witnesses and catching criminals, that is another matter.

They want to amend the act, except that they are going to offload the entire burden onto the provinces and local police forces. The Conservative government does not understand the connection between witnesses and criminals. The Conservatives want to catch criminals, but you need witnesses in order to do that. If there are no witnesses, there will be no one to put in prison. As I said, only about 30 of the 108 applications filed were accepted in 2012. We agree that something needs to be done.

We want to support the bill because it contains some very good measures. It implements some of the recommendations made by the court in the Air India affair. However, making a good law is not everything. That is the work of members. Parliament must also allocate the necessary resources to those who enforce the legislation. There too, one would think this is a principle the Conservatives do not really understand. Yes, it is good; we are going to pass Bill C-51, which is a good bill. We are going to support it. However, what will the local police forces do? What will the provinces do? Are we going to leave them with the entire economic burden?

That is what the Conservatives are doing, and we are very afraid.

It is all well and good to have a system that works on paper, but it also has to work in the field.

This program has been around since 1996. Yes, 1996. It is now 2013. I just wanted to point that out. From 1996 to 2013. It seems to me that all the changes needed to make the program a success could have been made long ago.

Unfortunately, it is thanks to our colleague from Trinity—Spadina putting forward bills and asking the government to act that we find ourselves in 2013 debating a suddenly urgent bill until midnight. A tragedy like the Air India tragedy had to happen first and an investigation had to be carried out before the government took any action.

It is a good bill. For example, it will ensure that members of street gangs who want to get out of that life and would like to testify can be protected. The issue of national security will also be covered. All of these recommendations were made by experts.

However, funding is still the main problem. I understand that this is a social choice and a government choice. I would like to be sure Canadians understand that what the Conservatives are proposing to us today is good, but that they will not take the next step for it to be even better. That is the government’s choice.

A political choice involves passing good legislation in Parliament. However, the legislation must also be enforced on the ground.

For instance, on its website, the RCMP acknowledges that there are instances when the costs of witness protection may impede investigations, particularly for smaller law enforcement agencies. They mean local police stations. The RCMP recognizes this problem on its own website. It is a shame that this problem exists.

Why ignore the most important facts? Why ignore everything the police are asking for? They need resources.

I think it is really important to pass this bill. However, resources are also needed on the ground to ensure the bill truly protects witnesses and makes our streets and our communities safer.

We know the government’s line about victims, among others. How can it claim to be protecting victims, if it does not even ensure that the police can arrest criminals thanks to information from witnesses?

As I said, it is a good bill, but it has to be enforced on the ground. I am going to say that ad nauseam, because it remains a choice to be made by the government. It is a government choice, but there is nothing there right now. There is only paper.

The NDP has been asking for these changes since before 2007, but it was not until 2013, at 8 o’clock in the evening, that the Conservatives decided to proceed with the changes.

Once again, one step is being taken, but one more step is needed. People can be sure that the NDP will keep on pressuring the government to make the streets safer for Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's speech, and I really appreciated it. She raised a number of very relevant points.

I would like her to speak more about the lack of transparency in the selection process and in deciding who is eligible for the program.

Could she point out some of the flaws? How could the process be improved?

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

Mr. Speaker, this is great: I spoke for 10 minutes, yet the government members do not even want to rise to ask questions.

[Pierre Dionne-Labelle]

They are quiet.

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

Exactly, they have been very quiet for 10 minutes.

If it is so interesting and so important, why are they not capable of asking me questions about a bill they are trying to shove down our throats? They moved a time allocation motion after just two speeches. They cut debate short and are trying to shove this down our throats.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, we are grateful to the hon. member and to the NDP for hounding us about this bill.

Does the member agree that the NDP will have plenty more chances and opportunities to support us in fighting crime more effectively, in helping victims in this country, in building a stronger police force across the country and in countering terrorism?

We have been working in those areas for the past six years, but the NDP just recently—as in five minutes ago—started to support us on these things.

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

Mr. Speaker, if the parliamentary secretary thinks the NDP will vote with the Conservatives on a bill that violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that prevents Canadians from enjoying their fundamental rights, he can think again.

I would like to remind him that we supported the government on Bill C-2, on street gangs.

The government also has our full support when it comes to the current RCMP investigation into Nigel Wright's actions and the $90,000 cheque he wrote out to a senator. We support the government 100% on that.

They should let the RCMP investigate the fraud involving dealings between the PMO and the senators.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raised a good point and that is the importance of having a back-and-forth discussion on a bill as important as C-51.

I think it is great that my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île is willing to work with the Conservatives so that they might finally give us an explanation and answer a simple question. The Conservative government has been here for seven years. During that time, the RCMP and the provinces have repeatedly called for changes to the witness protection program.

Why has it taken so long to make proposals? Are the Conservatives finally prepared to invest the necessary federal funding for proper law enforcement? We want more laws, but we also want those laws to be enforced and that is what our police forces want.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is a simple reason why this took such a long time.

It took a tragedy, an inquiry and recommendations to get here. Everyone knows how the government works: this is damage control.

However, I would like to know when the Prime Minister was first informed that his chief of staff wrote a cheque for $90,000.

How is it possible that the government, which claims to uphold law and order in Canada, cannot even call on the RCMP to investigate electoral fraud?

What I want to know is, what witness are they protecting in their cabinet?

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I just want to inform the member for Oxford and the House that we are now moving on to the portion of debate where speeches will be 10 minutes and questions and comments will be 5 minutes.

The hon. member for Oxford.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour today to rise to add my voice in support of Bill C-51. As my colleague is leaving the room, I would like to remind her that we support the Charbonneau inquiry and truthfulness at that inquiry looking into the corruption in Quebec in the construction trades.

Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act, a strong federal witness protection program is critical to helping our law enforcement and justice systems work effectively. Over the years, the federal witness protection program has frequently proven itself to be a useful and important tool for effectively combatting crime, particularly organized crime.

However, the Witness Protection Program Act has not been substantially changed since it first came into effect in 1996. During that time there have been enormous changes in the nature of organized crime. It has adapted to become more transnational and pervasive. Organized crime groups are increasing in sophistication and becoming adept at using new cyber-technologies to avoid detection and arrest. These groups are known to be exceedingly secretive and difficult to infiltrate, often posing unique challenges for law enforcement officials.

Meanwhile, crimes committed by organized crime networks present a serious threat to the safety of our communities and are of great concern to police and to Canadians.

Many organized crime networks are involved with the illicit drug trade, a lucrative business that has been growing significantly. For instance, according to Statistics Canada, cocaine trafficking, production and distribution in Canada has grown nearly 30% over the last decade.

Bill C-51 is a practical and comprehensive piece of legislation that effectively addresses the need to modernize the witness protection program. It would amend the Witness Protection Program Act to improve the effectiveness and security of the federal witness protection program and make it more responsive to the needs of law enforcement from across Canada.

The bill was designed to do four main things: improve the process to obtain secure identity changes for witnesses from provinces and territories that have designated programs; broaden prohibitions against the disclosure of information; expand admissions for national security, national defence and public safety sources; and extend the amount of time emergency protection may be provided.

From day one, this government has been quite clear that keeping all Canadians and Canadian communities safe is one of our top priorities. We have taken strong action to address this priority by providing law enforcement officials with the tools they need to do their jobs more effectively. This government has provided law enforcement officials with more resources.

We have enacted legislation to stiffen sentences and to increase the accountability of offenders. We have taken steps to modernize Canada's national police force. We have enhanced the ability of all law enforcement officials to keep Canadians safe. Bill C-51 further builds on our track record and would go a long way to enhancing our collective efforts to combat organized crime. Not one of us here today would argue against the critical role that witness protection plays in the criminal justice system.

Most of us know that for many cases, law enforcement officials have had to rely on the co-operation of individuals formerly involved with organized crime organizations in order to combat their activities or to successfully prosecute ringleaders. In other cases, law enforcement has relied on the testimony of key eyewitnesses. These were individuals who agreed to help law enforcement or provide testimony in criminal matters with the end goal of removing criminals from our streets and making our communities safer.

In many cases, these individuals often had inside knowledge about organized crime syndicates or the illicit drug trade because they themselves were involved with these elements. The information they provided to authorities was often invaluable, but sharing it with law enforcement officials could often also place their lives at risk. Witnesses are all too aware of the risk and they fear not only for their own safety, but for the safety of their family and loved ones.

That is why witness protection programs in Canada and around the world offer protection, including new identities, for certain individuals whose testimony or co-operation can be so vital to the success of law enforcement operations. I believe most Canadians understand that.

In order to give our police and courts the best chance to apprehend and convict offenders, we need individuals to feel confident and safe in coming forward to help with investigations. In fact, protecting witnesses is vital to our justice system. Witness protection is recognized around the world as one of the most important tools that law enforcement has at its disposal to combat criminal activity. In the case of organized crime in particular, these witnesses are often the key component to achieving convictions.

The safer witnesses bill contains several changes to the Witness Protection Program Act that would help better protect informants and witnesses. Together, these proposed changes would strengthen the current Witness Protection Program Act, making the federal program more effective and secure for both the witnesses and those who provide protection, because this is really the crux of this program, to keep those involved and their information safe and secure.

As I said at the outset, a strong federal witness protection program is critical to helping our law enforcement and justice systems work effectively. We must take steps to ensure that individuals who decide to become informants or to testify against criminal organizations do not face intimidation or danger. This is why our government is committed to strengthening our federal program and to ensuring a stronger, more streamlined connection with designated provincial programs.

In order to address the threat of organized crime and drugs in our communities, it is critical that informants and witnesses collaborate with law enforcement. Therefore, it is vital that we continue to support an effective federal witness protection program and make it more responsive to the needs of law enforcement, while ensuring the safety of the program participants.

We believe very strongly that Bill C-51 does just this, and the response we have received from stakeholders and parliamentarians only increases our confidence in this legislation. Strong witness protection programs are invaluable to investigations and court proceedings. I believe we are on the right track with this legislation. The proposed amendments would modernize the act that is key in our collective fight against serious and organized crime, in collaboration with provinces and territories. They would enhance protection provided to key witnesses and those involved in administering witness protection programs across Canada.

The changes our government is proposing also respond to many of the needs of provincial and territorial governments. They respond to the needs of law enforcement officials and other stakeholders involved in the criminal justice system. They respond to the needs of Canadians from coast to coast to coast who wish to see our government continue to build safe communities for everyone.

I therefore encourage all hon. members to support Bill C-51 and help us keep our witnesses and all Canadians safe.

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

Mr. Speaker, I truly respect the perspective and the career experience the member has brought to this House as a former police officer.

I would like to ask the member just one question, and it is not a surprise question. Many of us have had this concern. There seems to be underplaying from the government benches on the issue of resources for provincial and local police forces. Ultimately witness protection is bundled up with investigations, and even if the RCMP is involved, it bills back to the police at the municipal and provincial levels.

We have heard testimony in committee that at that level there are concerns about inadequate resources already. Does the member share those concerns? If so, would the member not agree that while this bill is first step, those issues have to be addressed later?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I come from a community with a smaller police agency than many of the large communities have.

This particular program is actually one that assists us in our resources. It means that the RCMP will handle the witness protection. We are not able to do that with a smaller community and smaller police agency. This program, which is funded by the federal government and administered by the RCMP, is a great tool for police agencies across the country.

Police agencies are always concerned about resources, as they should be. There is never enough in any circumstance, but this particular program is one that I think will go a long way to providing that opportunity for smaller departments to have opportunities to deal with witness protection in conjunction with the RCMP.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the question of resources just came up with my hon. friend. However, the RCMP and the Assistant Commissioner, Todd Shean, who is involved with the federal and international operations at the RCMP, are comfortable that they have the resources within their existing base to run a very effective witness protection program.

Could the hon. member expand upon are his thoughts on how the provincial programs work more seamlessly with the federal program?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, some of the provinces have their own programs, which operate somewhat independently from the federal program and yet in conjunction with it. They are fairly seamless. They operate well and they provide the protection to witnesses that all of the programs are intended to do.

I heard numbers here a few minutes ago about how only so many people were admitted into the program. That may not have anything to do with the resources that are available. They may be folks who, for whatever reason, decide that when they understand what is involved and no longer wish to go into the program.

There has not been an issue about a lack of resources hindering the program itself. We are always cognizant that there are never enough resources to do all the things that we would like to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question about the recommendations made in the report that was produced following the Air India tragedy.

One of the recommendations had to do with the fact that witnesses who need protection are often themselves involved in crime. For instance, this is often the case with members of street gangs and organized crime. When the RCMP has to choose witnesses and protect them on the one hand, while also possibly investigating them on the other hand, this can cause a conflict of interest. The recommendation had to do specifically with the lack of independence in the process, which could be problematic.

I wonder if my colleague could talk a little more about that. Does he think this flaw in the bill will be corrected in the future?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there will be a lot of discussion about who may or may not go into the program. He talks about someone who may be responsible for a crime, but that is one of the issues that the witness protection program has do deal with in one way or another.

Many of these people are the people who have been in the middle of the organized crime unit, drug unit or whatever it might be. However, we have to have them as witnesses, so the program provides that protection for them to be used as witnesses.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying what I think has been fairly clear in the contributions from colleagues all along, that the NDP will be supporting the bill.

Bill C-51 does some important things, and nobody is going to claim that it does not. In particular, it adds to the categories of folks who might eventually receive witness protection. For example, those who have been assisting agencies in the federal security or defence or safety realms are added, as well as those associated with them: friends, family, et cetera, who may also need protection. There are any number of contexts that we could all refer to and know about that indicate that witness protection, if anything, is a growing need on the law enforcement side of government.

The Air India inquiry was one of the contexts in which we heard that the national security context was a gap in the system. Surely that has to be the case with other forums and other terrorism investigations, which cannot be much different.

The member for Oxford spoke very well about the burgeoning transnational nature of organized crime and how it is becoming more and more sophisticated, which has been a trend line for decades. Law enforcement is always playing catch-up in the role of witnesses to somehow or other get ahead of the game, and the witness protection program must surely be very important there.

One area that is very important to those of us from more concentrated urban areas is the whole question of street gangs and especially youth gangs. How is it that we can actually break the codes of silence, encourage witnesses to come forward, such as in the Danzig shootings that took place in Scarborough not so long ago? Also, how is it that we can use the witness protection program as part of a broader strategy in getting youth out of that environment?

Nobody is contesting that the bill, as far as it goes, is a good bill and deserves to be supported. Nobody is saying that the context is not one that presents a crying need.

That said, working briefly through three themes, I would like to suggest that the bill does not go nearly far enough when it could have, which is the problem. We have had many years of warning. The NDP started in 2007, and we had reports from 2008 on, saying that the system needed to be upgraded. With the upgrading of the system at the level of effectiveness, we have heard all kinds of concerns, including about funding and the need for an independent agency from the RCMP to be involved. We know from the various interventions that have occurred already that those elements really were not addressed, and so it is a lost opportunity. At some level I would like to think of this as sort of a battle between the real and the rhetorical.

We also went through this recently with respect to Bill C-37, the increasing offenders' accountability for victims act, which I was involved with when I was on the justice committee. The NDP also supported this bill, despite considerable concerns we had that it was totally avoiding any federal public support philosophy for victims and instead was trusting in sort of a combination of surcharges that offenders would pay—and many of them would not be in a position to pay—and provincial programs that were a patchwork quilt and often nonexistent across the country. However, the government at that time presented that bill as making a major contribution to support for victims when it was largely devoid of any kind of a federal role with respect to true victim support programs.

However, again, we supported that bill. It was not because we thought it was the greatest bill in the world, but it was because it added something. Although we had some problems at the level of rights protections, we ultimately felt those could be worked out down the line.

This is why I have joined with the mother of a murdered youth from Toronto—Danforth, Joan Howard, whose son Kempton was murdered 10 years ago literally around the corner from my house. He was murdered by handgun. He was a youth worker who contributed in amazing ways to his community. His mother is of the view that we need to focus more on the needs of victims when it comes to the kinds of public support mechanisms that we associate with other causes, which are the kinds of support mechanisms people need, such as psychological support and social service support.

The supports are needed not just for the immediate victims who survived crime, but quite often for their families—maybe even more often, especially when it is violent crime that has taken a life. It is true that provinces jurisdictionally have the responsibility for this, but the specific link to crime means that the kind of victimhood that occurs because of crime is really not taken into account for the most part in most provinces. We get to legislate the Criminal Code and a bunch of other areas of criminal law through other statutes up here, but we kind of back off when it comes to how we deal with the consequences of crime. Somehow, that becomes purely a matter of another jurisdictional level.

At some point, the federal government has to, obviously under an initiative from Parliament, really catch up to other countries that take public victim support programs a lot more seriously than we do, rather than simply downloading costs on offenders and provinces and thinking that somehow or other we have accomplished the task. I see this bill as falling a bit into the same trap. It would do a fair bit that is important, but at the level of making sure the system functions in a way that all witnesses who need protection will be protected—which is a goal that is necessary for making sure all crime that can be prosecuted is prosecuted—then it is a bill that would fall short.

Therefore, I move on to the second thing, which has been emphasized a lot: funding. The government MPs are focusing often on comments coming from government witnesses, including RCMP witnesses, before the committee; basically comments saying that the funding is adequate. I will read an example that has been read, at least in part, by others. This is from assistant commissioner Todd Shean of the RCMP. He said, “We will immediately increase resources. We have increased the resources allocated to our witness protection unit”. And he goes on to say then, “I am confident that we have the means to manage the program effectively”.

What is the problem here? First, he speaks of “...our witness protection unit”. Of course, the RCMP has its own costs, runs its own program and sometimes assumes all the costs because it is an entire RCMP or federal investigation that the witness protection program is latching onto. It is good to know that he is projecting an increase in resources, but there is no reference here, or recognition even, to the provincial or local police force costs associated with witness protection programs. These levels of government, provincial and municipal, and more particularly their police forces, are charged for the costs.

The member for Oxford made it clear to us that of course costs are saved for police forces. I am not saying that is not true, but ultimately when there are costs that are not simply the costs from the fact that there is an overall system that they can tap into, they get billed for it. What we know is that there is already a problem with funding for these levels. In 2007, this was pointed out. We are in 2013, and there was no evidence before the committee that it has changed. There was clear and persuasive testimony before the committee on this, and I will return to some of it as I end.

However, let me first go back to the RCMP. Its own website states, “There are instances when the costs of witness protection may impede investigations, particularly for smaller law enforcement agencies”. What is the second problem with this, apart from the fact that it really probably is only focusing on the RCMP's own costs? The second problem is that none of this is actually a budgetary commitment from the government. It does not indicate anything more than that the RCMP sees increases in resources, and it is no small irony that this is the case when we know that we are in budget season, and that it would not have been a big deal to coordinate this bill with a very clear budget line item indicating that there would be adequate budgetary support for our partners in crime prevention, the provinces and the municipalities. Every million dollars counts; I recognize that. However, a $9-million budget for the last fiscal year for the witness protection program is not exactly a huge budget when we know, from all the testimony before the committee, mostly from police services boards, that there is a need.

I do not think we should end this debate thinking that by having what might be unanimous support for the bill, we have somehow addressed the issue of resources. I would much prefer it if my colleagues across the way would say that the bill does something and is important—we are supporting them on that, let us take that—but let us not throw a cloak over it and pretend we have solved the whole problem.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the hon. member and his party are going to support our bill. In his opening remarks he was fairly fulsome in his description of the witness program, its needs and the improvements to it being, generally, very good.

I have a couple of questions for him. He talked about other nations and how they provide witness protection. I would like him to describe or perhaps give an example of how another nation does that.

As well, he talked about being rhetorical or literal and he is a little vague when he says it falls short. He does not really provide any particular suggestions on how it could be improved.

The third part of this is that not everything comes with a price tag, necessarily. A lot of this program is administratively driven, and changes to administration still accomplish the same thing in terms of witness protection, but it is much more streamlined where the provinces can go right to the RCMP, who would be the central point of contact for much of that. I would like to know what kind of price tag he envisions. That needs to be attached here, because I am not seeing it.

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

Mr. Speaker, on the whole question of comparative witness protection programs, I was actually talking about victim assistance programs. I could go into some more detail on that. I do not have a lot of knowledge about witness protection programs in other countries. Spain, Italy and Honduras are all places I could tell a little about, but I think it would wear out my welcome with the Chair in terms of how much time I have.

On the question of the financial resources, it is all great if the bill does what is being claimed, that it has administratively efficiencies and actually enhances some of the co-operative elements of the program. No one is denying that.

We are also emphasizing that we are supporting it, but we are just disappointed that there is not the recognition that at the local and provincial level, there was evidence to say that the downloading of costs has consequences for investigations. Therefore, as we go forward, Parliament, or the government on its own perhaps, needs to address it.

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

Mr. Speaker, authorities who work on combatting street gangs welcome this bill and say it will allow them to protect witnesses who are members of street gangs but want to leave that lifestyle. They see it as another tool for their toolbox.

As we know, protecting witnesses costs money; in fact, it is very expensive. We also know that the government has not made any plans to transfer additional funds to the provinces that have witness protection programs or to the RCMP.

My question is as follows. If the government wants to create a cardiac unit at a hospital and forces the hospital to create it, how is the hospital supposed to balance its budget if it does not eliminate another service? It is a question of credits and debits.

Why did the government not plan any transfers to pay for these changes?