Debates of May 30th, 2013

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

(Motion agreed to)

Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader 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 Third Report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics be deemed to have taken place and the motion deemed adopted on division.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

(Motion agreed to)

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

Safer Witnesses Act

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, contrary to the apparent perspective of some in this place, I think it is actually worthwhile to debate these bills. Each one of us learns a lot more by hearing the perspectives of the other side. I am grateful for the opportunity, despite the late hour, to participate in this debate.

At the outset, I would like to say stricter sentencing provisions without effective investigative powers, resources and timely judicial processes are empty. I would bring attention to the failure of the government to take timely action in the appointment of judges, including in my jurisdiction, as raised by the Attorney General of Alberta, and the failure to fill that vacuum by providing sufficient aboriginal police, as first nations are calling for. That certainly would help with the situation of gang action and in helping to bring witnesses forward.

I am rising in support of Bill C-51, an act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act. There are many measures that are worthwhile. It is good that after many years the government is finally moving forward to improve and enhance the program, which, by the way, the Conservatives did not invent. It has been around for quite some time, but to their credit, finally, after seven years, they are coming forward to actually improve it.

We support the fact that it would expand the eligibility criteria in certain circumstances to expand access in the case of witnesses dealing with crimes related to street gangs and certainly for witnesses recommended by CSIS and National Defence. As I understand it and as outlined by the government members, there would be improved efficiency and coordination with provincial and municipal police forces to achieve more effective access to the program by those authorities. I am hoping that is the case, regardless of the fact that there is no additional funding.

These are important changes that the New Democrats have been calling for as improvements for quite some time, particularly to fight street gangs and organized crime. I bring to the attention of the Speaker that the New Democrat member for Trinity—Spadina called for this exact reform some time back, specifically in relation to the mass shootings in Toronto. I know that we and everyone certainly support her efforts to have some increased measures to deal with these kinds of activities and to respond to the increasing concern over terrorism. In that case, people may be even all the more nervous about stepping forward and serving as a witness or providing testimony or evidence to the authorities.

The bill would expand access to more individuals seeking to deal with gangs, although I would have to add that I wanted to put this question to a number of the members here who are participating in the special task force on missing and murdered aboriginal women. I am not convinced that the measures we are debating today are sufficient to address the complex issue in aboriginal communities of witnesses coming forward. That would be something that is probably worth pursuing.

The federal witness protection program has long been criticized for its narrow eligibility criteria, for its poor coordination with provincial programs and for the low numbers of witnesses admitted to the program. Apparently only 30 of the 108 applications that were considered were accepted in 2012. I am not sure that the committee heard all of the detail for why that was, but on the basis of some of the testimony from police authorities, certainly part of it is a lack of access to funding. I am surprised, given the government's enthusiasm for ensuring that these cases come to trial with solid evidence and testimony from witnesses, that it would not also want to address this funding shortage issue.

One of the things that particularly bewilders us is that the Prime Minister commended the report from the Air India commission. One of the strong recommendations from the Air India inquiry, and apparently the only one related to the federal witness protection program, was to appoint a national security witness protection coordinator.

The government has chosen to disregard that recommendation. There do not appear to be really clear arguments for why it would turn down that position.

My understanding of the recommendation is that the coordinator would not provide the actual physical protection. The national security witness protection coordinator's mandate would include such things as ensuring consistency in the handling of sources and resolving disputes between agencies that may arise in negotiation or implementation of a protection agreement. The coordinator would also provide confidential support for protectees, including psychological and legal advice so that they could decide whether they wanted to sign the protection agreement. The coordinator would also provide for independent and confidential arbitration of disputes and act as an advocate for witnesses.

That all seems very clear and obvious, because in many cases the very reason for the existence of this witness protection program is that witnesses are reluctant to come forward. There could be many reasons. They could be terrified. They might be nervous of police authorities. It seems perfectly logical that a non-police body would work with those individuals and would be less intimidating.

The government's decision remains a puzzle to us. It had the opportunity to also include that recommendation. Hopefully in future it will also bring that one forward.

One of the key problems that has been raised by my colleagues in this place is the refusal by the government to admit that the program is inadequately funded. As has been stated many times in the House, only 30 of 108 applications considered were accepted in 2012.

A great number of witnesses came before committee, many of whom spoke to exactly this issue. One was Commissioner Micki Ruth, a member of the policing and justice committee of the Canadian Association of Police Boards. Micki Ruth said:

Like many issues facing government today, funding is one of the biggest and toughest ones to find solutions for. The problems identified back in 2007 with the adequacy of funding for the current witness protection are not addressed in Bill C-51. Unfortunately, we see problems with the ability of municipality police services to adequately access witness protection because they lack the resources. ... CAPB has a duty to its members to ensure that legislation passed by the government does not result in a downloading of additional costs to the municipal police services....

This is the very concern. We have heard member after member defending the position that there is no need for further funding, but in most cases they are citing the RCMP. The problem is that the downloading occurs to the municipal or provincial police authorities.

That concern was also raised by the British Columbia Ministry of Justice through Clayton J.D. Pecknold, who is the assistant deputy minister and director of police services, policing and security programs branch, as well as Dr. Alok Mukherjee, the president of the Canadian Association of Police Boards. Those are citizen boards and commissions representing a broad spectrum of society.

Dr. Alok Mukherjee said:

Without the availability of sufficient funding, our ability to take advantage of the program will be limited. In places like Toronto, that's a big problem because, as you know, we're dealing with serious violent crimes and often rely on witnesses from the community, not informants....

Very serious concerns are being raised.

When we go to the very purpose of this legislation and program, which is to encourage witnesses who may otherwise feel intimidated to come forward, we have to scratch our heads and ask why the program would not be fully funded, particularly when we are dealing with incidents of terrorism.

We will remain puzzled. We support the initiatives that the government has brought forward in the bill, but we will continue to pursue, on behalf of those agencies and the public and those who might be compelled and approached to testify, the availability of funding to support them to testify.

As I mentioned at the outset, in the case of aboriginal or isolated communities there may have to be additional measures, because it may be a bit harder to address the fact that individuals will be picked up and relocated or that they may not even speak English or French and would be quite intimidated by being removed from their community.

I look forward to further discussions on this matter within Parliament.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite mentioned a number of items. I am going to focus on two areas.

First, I appreciate the NDP's support for this bill. It is important for our national interests to have security for witnesses who choose to come forward to deal with organized crime, as the member for Okanagan—Shuswap said.

The member said that one of the original recommendations in 2008 was to have an independent office outside of the RCMP and not conducted by it. It has been brought up that one of the challenges with that idea is that there are many skills specific to keeping witnesses safe. To suddenly switch from one system in which there is an extreme amount of experience to another in which there may not be that same level of experience may cause a reduction in the safety of these witnesses.

The second point is the question of funding. The provinces and municipalities set their budgets for policing. There is direct accountability there, obviously, with a national program that is decided by the RCMP, and it is decided by this place what that funding will be. That is more of a comment on the funding. There is sufficient funding for the national program, and municipalities and provinces should set their own budgets and tax accordingly so that people can hold them accountable and can have their say when they go to the ballot box and elect their leaders.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy serving on the OGGO committee with the hon. member. We are working on a very interesting report, which I hope comes forward before we adjourn for the summer.

I am not sure if the member caught what I said when I spoke about the recommendation from the Air India inquiry. I was very clear that the recommendation from that commission was that this body, this independent protection coordinator, would simply help with the handling and the processing and negotiation of the agreement. That person would not actually deliver the protection program. Program delivery would remain with the RCMP or the police authorities, so I do not see any way there could be interference. We could be assured that the office would include people who were fully qualified to deal with these kinds of activities. They could even be former police officers, who could be seconded into the program. However, it would be stand-alone.

In a lot of cases and a lot of communities, people do not trust the police. They may have had bad incidents and experiences and so forth. In this case, it might be really useful for the person to be seen clearly as not being an enforcement officer and to work with the witness and encourage him or her to come forward.

On the second point, about funding, I suggest that most police forces would say that they could always use additional funding.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague about the point she just mentioned regarding funding.

The government is bringing in a system that will potentially—almost certainly—attract more witnesses. A number of government speakers have said that provincial and municipal police forces would be able to accept more witnesses. We know that this will cost money.

I would like my colleague to talk about the worrisome fact that there will be additional costs. I would also like to hear what she thinks about the fact that the government is once again introducing a bill without properly consulting municipal and provincial authorities.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member both for the fabulous speech he gave this evening and for his question. He sets the bar high in this place.

I too remain troubled. Very clearly, the government is saying that the intention is to expand the witness protection program and enable the various police forces to bring more witnesses into that program. I do not know how police forces are going to do that. I know that police forces are stretched in most jurisdictions. They are stretched even in my province, which is supposedly financially stable but is also suffering from a deficit.

The priority is that people are demanding more police boots on the ground. I do not see a lot of people coming forward and saying that the priority should be witness protection, yet the police forces themselves know that in order to win these cases, they need these kinds of programs and greater access.

We have $3.1 billion missing for the anti-terrorism program. Perhaps if we could find that, it could go into expanding the witness protection program.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, the safer witnesses act is intended to help strengthen the current federal witness protection program, a program which could play a better role to effectively combat crime, particularly organized crime.

Let me state at the outset of my remarks that Bill C-51 is the result of consultations with law enforcement agencies and our provincial counterparts. The safer witnesses act will, first and foremost, improve the interaction of the federal witness protection program with provincial witness protection programs.

As it stands presently, an individual in a provincial program obtains several documents required for a secure identity change if he or she is temporarily admitted to the federal witness protection program. As members may be well aware, this process can result in delays in obtaining a new identity.

Bill C-51 proposes a remedy to the situation by establishing a straightforward process in which provincial programs can become designated witness protection programs. A province would request this designation from the Minister of Public Safety, at which time the provincial authority would provide assurances of the program's capacity to protect both its witnesses and its information.

Once a program is designated and upon the request of that program, the RCMP would be obliged to help in obtaining federal identity documents for a provincial witness requiring a secure identity change, without the individual being temporarily admitted into the federal program.

The proposed amendments contained in Bill C-51 enable the program to become more efficient and more secure.

Under the designation regime proposed by Bill C-51, the provincial official from a designated provincial witness protection program would request federal documents on behalf of the law enforcement agencies. This process would limit the number of individuals involved in the process, thereby making it more secure.

Among other improvements, Bill C-51 would expand referrals for admissions to the federal witness protection program to sources assisting national security, national defence or public safety organizations, such as the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

Bill C-51 would also enhance the security of all witness protection regimes in Canada by broadening and enhancing the existing prohibitions against the disclosure of information.

Currently, the federal Witness Protection Program Act prohibits the disclosure of information about individuals within the federal program. Section 11 of the current act says, “no person shall knowingly disclose, directly or indirectly, information about the location or a change of identity of a protectee or former protectee”. Bill C-51 would strengthen this prohibition in a number of important ways.

First, Bill C-51 would not only prohibit the disclosure of information about individuals in the federal program, it would also prohibit the disclosure of information about how the program operates, as well as about those individuals who actually provide or assist in providing protection for witnesses. Both of these prohibitions would also extend to designated provincial programs; that is, disclosure of information about witnesses, people who provide protection and information about the programs themselves will be prohibited.

Current provincial prohibitions against the disclosure of information currently apply only within the legislation of the particular provincial jurisdiction, not across jurisdictions. Bill C-51 would also clarify the prohibition with respect to what and how information is being disclosed.

As I have stated, section 11 of the current act contains the phrase, “no person shall knowingly disclose, directly or indirectly, information about the locations or a change of identity of a protectee or former protectee”. The phrase “directly or indirectly” was considered to be unclear.

The proposed amendments in Bill C-51 clear up any ambiguity to ensure that the prohibitions will clearly apply to cases where a person discloses information in a range of ways. Some examples include telling someone what a protected person's name is, leaving information about the protected person unguarded and telling someone where a protected person lives.

Bill C-51 would prohibit all of the above disclosures by specifying that no one shall disclose any information, either directly or indirectly, that reveals the location or change of identity of a protected person or the information from which the location or change of identity may be inferred.

By extending referrals to this category of witnesses, we are also delivering on one of our commitments under the Government of Canada's Air India inquiry action plan released in 2010.

The current federal witness protection program has served the criminal justice system well. Today there are hundreds of individuals under the protection of the program.

In 2011-2012 alone, the RCMP considered a total of 108 cases for admission into the federal witness protection program. Thirty protectees were admitted to the program, of which 27 were granted a secure name change. The number of admissions fluctuates from year to year, depending upon factors such as the number of cases being investigated or the number of people in a witness' family.

During the same time, the RCMP also provided assistance to other Canadian law enforcement agencies under the existing Witness Protection Program Act. The Witness Protection Program Act has not been substantially changed since 1996. The fact that the federal witness protection program serves the criminal justice system well does not mean that there is no room for improvement.

Ongoing consultations with provinces and law enforcement agencies, among others, have revealed that improvements could be made to adjust to the increasingly sophisticated, evolving and global nature of organized crime. The government's consultations with provinces and territorial stakeholders have also helped to highlight some areas where stronger provisions are needed, which I have mentioned today.

The witness protection program is a vitally important tool in our ongoing efforts to combat organized crime groups.

Bill C-51 addresses the need for modernization, as well as enhanced information protection and integration with provincial programs. Bill C-51 introduces reforms to the present witness protection environment that will build on our collective efforts to combat organized crime, as well as terrorist organizations, and in that way help us all continue to build safer streets and communities for everyone.

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

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

I would like to remind him that the Conservative government has been in power for almost seven years. During that time, the RCMP and the provinces have asked several times for changes to the witness protection program.

My question is simple: Why did they wait so long before making concrete proposals?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear. This government has been very focused and committed to keeping our streets and communities safe. We are putting forward an effective and reliable witness protection program and we know this is valuable in fighting crime, especially organized crime and terrorism.

This is very different from the approach the NDP members have taken of essentially voting against the majority of legislation we brought forward to both protect victims and to move forward in dealing with organized crime.

We are introducing this new legislation with a number of amendments in an effort to ensure Canadians are safer, that they find themselves safe in their communities and on their streets.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am curious as to why the parliamentary secretary has to make an ideological battle out of every argument.

We are supporting legislation that the government is bringing forward. We are saying what we like about it. We are arguing about ways that could perhaps improve the legislation.

Is that not what parliamentarians are supposed to do? Why do we always have to descend to some sort of argument about “You guys are the bad guys, and we are the good guys”? Why does the very well-educated hon. member have to descend to that in every debate that takes place in the House?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find that very amusing. I sat in the House some time ago on Bill C-44 and commended the opposition on its significant support for particularly ill children. It is important that we highlight there are certain differences between the two parties.

I am pleased the opposition members are supporting the direction of this. I look forward to working with them more in the future, as I did with my critics on the human resources committee with respect to Bill C-44.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is strong legislation, and I am happy that the NDP and the Liberals have decided that they will join with us to support it moving forward.

One thing I do know is the member consults with Canadians on a regular basis. This set of legislation took time to review and consult with both the provinces and a wide variety of individuals to ensure these witnesses were protected.

With this legislation, particularly in working with the provinces, what aspects of it does the parliamentary secretary appreciate most in creating that sense of safety? If we cannot protect our witnesses, we cannot bring those people forward to give their testimony so we can, as the members opposite said, put away the bad guys. That is an important point on which I would like us to focus.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one thing that has taken place in the broad consultations with provinces, territories across the country and number of different stakeholders are the amendments that have been put forward.

Whether that is an improvement in the processes to obtain secure identity changes for witnesses in the provincial programs and the interaction of the programs provincially with those federally, whether it is a broadening of prohibitions against the disclosure of information or the extension of time for emergency protection that may be extended, these are all significant amendments to the act that will greatly improve it and provide opportunities for all Canadians to feel safer in their homes and in their communities.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to have an opportunity to speak in the House this evening to this important legislation, Bill C-51, which amends the Witness Protection Program Act and makes other consequential amendments.

This is an important public safety tool, as has been mentioned by a number of members on both sides of the House. It is a tool that enhances the opportunity to prosecute crimes, particularly, crimes that undermine the security of our communities. such as organized crime and gang crime. Where do we need witness protection? We need witness protection when the criminals we are seeking to prosecute are prepared to use further criminal acts to retaliate and to exert violence or other forms of repression on people who co-operate with the authorities to try to make our communities safer.

This really gets at the heart of what we need to do to protect our communities. We see this across the country. We see it in prisons, in the cases of gangs. We see it in our communities as well. We see it in the case of organized criminal organizations, such as the Hells Angels, which have been very active in various parts of the country. We see it in the drug trade, in general. We also we see it in other security-type activities and very significant terrorist measures, such as the actions in the Air India disaster and the need for a strong witness protection program to fully prosecute those guilty of engaging in that enormous frightening terrorist event.

Improvements to the witness protection program have been sought for many years. Since 2007, our party has been calling, specifically, for better coordination of the federal and provincial programs and for better overall funding for the program. These demands were repeated in 2009 and again in 2012. Specifically, the member for Trinity—Spadina was concerned about the inability of the police forces to get witnesses in the bad summer of shootings at the block party on Danzig Street, for example, and the difficulty that the police had in finding witnesses to come forward.

We do support theses measures.

I do not sit on the public safety committee anymore, although I did a few years go. I did sit in one or two of the meetings, listening to some of the witnesses on this program. There were acknowledged significant improvements being made to expand the coverage of the program of eligibility. It is very important for national security that national defence or other public safety departments will be able refer witnesses to the program. It extends the period of emergency protection and clears up some technical problems.

We are very disappointed that the bill does not include more of the recommendations, for example from the Air India inquiry, such as a more transparent and accountable process for admissions to the program. We are also very concerned that local police departments will have the support necessary to ensure that witnesses can come forward in a gang situation, for example.

We have heard again and again tonight that there is a lack of recognition of the high cost borne by local police departments and the concern about the adequacy of funding.

We know what the RCMP officials said at the hearings. They said that they were satisfied they could handle the problem. However, I have a problem with that. The only statistics that have been floating around are from 2012. They noted that out of the 108 individuals who sought the protection and were considered for the program, only 30 were accepted. That is a pretty significant turndown rate.

What was the fallout from that? How many cases did not go to court because there was no protection offered to those witnesses?

We had the Minister of Public Safety himself acknowledging that the cost of the program is one of the criteria used to determine whether someone is accepted. He diminished it as being only one of the seven, but the cost of the program is one of the criteria, and we have two-thirds of them being turned down. We would be increasing the eligibility opportunities, so more people could apply in more circumstances.

We hear from the other side, and we ourselves are concerned, about gangs and other forms of organized criminal activity. What we see from all that is that there is going to be significant pressure on this program to admit more people, and the resources are not going to be there, or the lack of resources could be used, because it is one of the criteria, to turn down people who seek admission to the program.

I am not saying that every person who asks for witness protection is entitled to it. Do not get me wrong. I am not taking some sort of extreme position. I am doing my best to be reasonable with respect to this matter, because what we are seeking is a bill that is going to work. The problem I have, despite the quotes we have heard from the hon. members opposite, and I am not saying they are making them in bad faith, is that they seem to be a bit selective in leaving out the concerns raised by witnesses at the hearings.

I want to emphasize the comments and statements of the Canadian Association of Police Boards. Who are they? We heard from the Canadian Police Association. This is all the police officers in Canada. I do not know if we heard from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. I do not see any quotes from them being raised here.

The police boards are the civilian boards that are appointed by the communities and are responsible for oversight of the policing activities in their areas and the safety of their communities. Obviously, the enforcement is carried out by the police officers themselves, but the police boards are responsible for how these communities operate. We talked about small communities, but they are even in big communities.

The president of the Canadian Association of Police Boards, on March 19 of this year, testified before the committee and said:

Without the availability of sufficient funding, our ability to take advantage of the program will be limited. In places like Toronto, that's a big problem because, as you know, we're dealing with serious violent crimes and often rely on witnesses from the community, not informants and others but witnesses from the community. Their needs may not be significant, as was mentioned. All they may need is a little bit of protection, but that requires that sufficient funding be available for us to be able to do it. That, for us, is a problem.

Elsewhere in testimony, the same individual said:

...our chiefs have said to us that their ability to access fully, proportionate to their need, is not there.

That is in Ontario. We have also had other representations. Andy McGrogan from the Medicine Hat Police Service said that, provincially, they are working on witness protection legislation as well, but right now they are looking at how to absorb these costs. He said:

If you look at a community such as ours, the protection of one witness, if funded through the municipality, has a major impact on our budget. We're watching this legislation and really trying to determine where it's going to unfold at this time.... We totally understand that. How it's going to impact us financially, of course, is our biggest concern.

I have only one minute to complete my remarks, but I want to say that we support this legislation, but we have concerns that we do not have a stand-alone organization, which we have asked for. We do not have adequate funding, which we have asked for, and no commitment to it, and there seems to be a failure to recognize that it is what has to happen.

I would be very pleased to respond to any questions or comments that members opposite, or my colleague, might have.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for St. John's East has made some statements, as have many of his colleagues, that this program is underfunded. He gave some quotes just now from the hearings, but of course, there are other quotes.

The Assistant Commissioner of federal and international operations of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Todd Shean, in the same hearings my colleague referred to, said, “with the changes this bill brings about, the RCMP is comfortable that we have the resources within our existing resources to run an effective witness protection program”.

That was a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who said that. I suppose the member can come along and say that he has another source who would say that the program is not funded appropriately. I would like to know if the member is relying on statements that someone else made. We have quotes from others who have said that the funding is appropriate. Does he have facts that show that the program is not funded appropriately?

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

Mr. Speaker, I could quote Commissioner Micki Ruth, a member of the policing and justice committee of the Canadian Association of Police Boards. He testified on March 7 that the problems identified back in 2007 with the adequacy of funding for the current witness program are not addressed. He said, “We urge you to appreciate our position that unless the issue...is addressed, the legislation will not produce the result that is intended”.

We think there ought to be an independent board, and not the RCMP. The RCMP says that it is comfortable with the funding, but it is the one deciding who gets witness protection and who does not. We have seen from the statistics in 2012 that of the 108 people who were considered, only 30 were given access to the program. We do not know what is going on there for sure.

What we are saying is that we have people such as the police boards, who are in the communities policing people and are the ones looking for secure and safe communities, saying that funding is not adequate. It was identified as long as five or six years ago. Where is the increase? We are increasing the eligibility. Where is the increase in funds?

[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.