Debates of May 30th, 2013

Third Reading

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his intervention, because I think he is reinforcing what we heard literally from across the country. We heard it from one end of the country to the other. All the municipal police forces and the Association of Police Boards said the same thing. It is very difficult to dismiss that when we hear it everywhere.

If there was only one police force that came forward and said that it had one case where it could not afford this, that is not a problem, probably. However what we heard universally from all of them and from the Association of Police Boards was that this is a problem for the municipal police forces.

Therefore, it behooves the government to pay attention to that if it actually wants to build safer communities. If that is actually its goal and that is what this tool is supposed to help us do, then we need to pay attention to that problem.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, duplication between the provincial and federal programs had been mentioned in committee.

I wonder if the hon. member could speak upon what he spoke to at committee and what was mentioned by the chair of the committee as well: the importance of limiting the duplication, not only for the safety of the witness but also for the continuity by police and their overseeing of the witness.

I wonder if you could talk for a bit on duplication.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Once again, I will not comment on that, but I presume the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca will.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, given the topics before the House this week, I think duplication in general is a topic about which I would love to speak.

We have another House that seems to duplicate what we do and spends a lot of public money in its duplication, and perhaps even misspends public money in its duplication.

However, that is not the question from the hon. member, and I do think that one of the positives of Bill C-51 is that, by allowing a designation of provincial programs as recognized witness protection programs, it would eliminate a lot of the back and forth and to and fro between the two programs and eliminate the possibility—and the member is quite right that it might endanger the safety of witnesses. However, it would make a much more efficient use of resources. I think that is one of the positives of Bill C-51.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague about something that I remember talking about during previous readings of the bill, which is the fact that these measures could create additional costs for police forces.

Does the government plan on helping police forces at all levels do their jobs? I would also like to know whether there will be any additional costs.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Sherbrooke for his question, but I actually want to jump back to the question he asked the member for Crowfoot, because I think he put his finger on something very important in that question when he asked about co-operation in the committee.

Again, I want to pay tribute to the member for Crowfoot as the chair of the public safety committee, because he has been a very fair and accommodating chair who has worked very hard to make sure we can make progress on things like the bill.

It seems as if our problems only come when the PMO extends its tentacles into the committee and starts trying to interfere or direct the Conservatives in the way things ought to go.

It seems in the bill we made great progress in co-operation until we came to this sudden decision that we need some kind of restriction on the amount of debate we can have, which came out of nowhere. It did not come from the chair of the committee. It did not come from a parliamentary secretary. It blew in with the minister on some kind of strange wind this morning.

I think the member for Sherbrooke was right in his question about the importance of co-operation in committee.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to add my voice to the discussion on the safer witnesses act.

It is encouraging to see support for the bill coming from all quarters. We have heard the merits of the legislation and how it would strengthen the federal witness protection program.

Thanks to television and the movies, people in our country often think they know all about what is going on with witness protection programs. The concept seems straightforward. However, when a witness is offered protection in order secure his or her help in investigating and prosecuting a criminal act, sometimes it is just a truly innocent witness to a crime, who has agreed to come forward to help the courts convict the offenders, and sometimes a witness may have formerly been involved in criminal activity, and in fact, it may surprise some people to learn that these are the vast majority of witnesses who require protection.

The range of protection can vary from a secure hotel room during a trial, for example, to a secure identity change. For the more serious cases that require providing witnesses with a secure change of identity to avoid retaliation from criminal organizations, witnesses must leave their communities, friends and jobs and essentially make a complete change in their life circumstances. It is, therefore, critical to have a robust program in place for those witnesses to feel safe in coming forward.

Witness protection is recognized by experts across the globe as one of the most critical tools that law enforcement has to combat terrorism and organized crime. We continue to see the benefit of the witness protection program in supporting national priorities, including the dismantling of organized crime groups here in Canada. Indeed, one of the prime purposes of the federal witness protection program is to enhance public safety by protecting persons who, as a result of providing assistance to law enforcement or providing testimony in criminal matters, are deemed to be at risk.

The federal program is used not only by the RCMP but also by law enforcement agencies across Canada. There are also provisions within the current act to allow for protection of foreign witnesses in cases where they can no longer be protected in their own country.

As we have heard, the Witness Protection Program Act was introduced to improve accountability and consistency in the protection practices at the time, but it is time to modernize that legislation.

The commissioner of the RCMP is the administrator of the program. Certain responsibilities for various processes, such as admission and termination from the program, are delegated to the assistant commissioner of federal and international operations. Furthermore, there are specifically trained witness protection coordinators who operate at arm's length, as we have heard, from investigative teams. This separation helps to ensure that a standardized and objective approach is used when assessing an individual's suitability to become a federal protectee.

There are a number of factors outlined in the act that must be considered to determine if a witness should be entered into the program. These include the degree of risk to the witness, the degree of danger posed to the community, the nature of the inquiry and the importance of the witness, the value of the information or evidence that law enforcement believes would be given by the witness, the likelihood that the witness would be able to adjust to the program, the estimated cost required to protect the witness, consideration of alternate methods of protection and other factors deemed to be relevant to the RCMP commissioner.

It is interesting to note that there is no specific list of offences for which witness protection is offered. In fact, each case is considered on an individual basis depending on the nature of the inquiry and the investigation or the prosecution. If there is a real threat to the life or safety of a witness as a result of his or her involvement with law enforcement or the justice system, a request can be made by the police force of jurisdiction for the witness. In other words, a provincial or municipal police force might decide that a witness needed a secure change of identity. That leads me to the legislation before us.

One of the key benefits of this legislation is to address the need for better streamlining of federal and provincial programs.

Let me turn now to Bill C-51 to examine this and the other proposed improvements to the current Witness Protection Act.

As we have heard in the debate, the legislation would make the federal witness program more effective and secure. It would improve interaction between federal programs and designated provincial and municipal programs. It would better protect those individuals who put their lives on the line to provide testimony against criminal activity.

The changes proposed in the legislation fall within five broad areas. First and foremost, the bill will address the issue I just mentioned. It will promote streamlining between federal and provincial programs by allowing provinces to have their programs designated. A province will make its request to the Minister of Public Safety and then be designated by the Governor in Council.

Currently, the only way for the RCMP to provide documents for a secure identity change for provincial or municipal protectees is through a process where the provincial witnesses requiring federal documents for secure identity changes are temporarily admitted into the federal program. This process has been widely panned by provinces as it means their witnesses will have to meet federal criteria to receive federal documents. As well, it can add further red tape and delays to the process. In consultations with the provinces, this government heard that it was cumbersome and inefficient.

The proposed solution is to have these programs designated so provincial witnesses do not have to be transferred into the federal witness protection program in order to receive a secure identity change. Under this framework, once the program is designated, an official can contact the RCMP, which is now required to assist in obtaining secure federal documents for these witnesses. Through this new process the, bill would create a more efficient and secure process for obtaining these documents by identifying a single point of contact, namely, the RCMP.

The next proposed change under Bill C-51 is to put in law an obligation for other federal organizations to help the RCMP in obtaining secure identity changes for these witnesses both in the federal program and the designated provincial programs. The RCMP will act as liaison between the provincial and federal programs.

Let me turn now to the third element of Bill C-51, which relates to the broadening prohibition of disclosures. In other words, the changes would ensure a more robust protection of provincial witnesses and information at both the federal and provincial levels. It would also protect officials involved in the process.

Permit me to delve into this third section a bit more in-depth as a critical part of the legislation. As it stands currently, the Witness Protection Program Act prohibits disclosure of information about location or change of identity of federal protectees only, both those currently in the program and former protectees. The proposed changes will extend the disclosure prohibitions to be broader and include information about those providing protection and how they provide it, as well as information about designated provincial witness programs.

Bill C-51 would do this in a number of ways, including prohibiting the disclosure of information related to the protectees who are under the federal protection designated provincial programs, prohibiting the disclosure of the means and methods of protection information that could endanger the protectees or the programs themselves for both the federal and designated programs and prohibiting disclosure of any information about persons who actually work in the federal or designated provincial programs.

The bill also proposes to amend the language found in the current act. To this end, it will make it clear that any measures apply to situations when a person either directly or indirectly discloses information. Furthermore, Bill C-51 would make it clear in order for a person to be charged with an offence, it must be proven that the person knowingly revealed this information.

Along with these enhancements, the bill would provide for exceptions to when protected information could be disclosed. The wording in the current legislation states that a current or former protectee has the right to disclose information about himself or herself as long as the information does not endanger the lives of other protectees or former protectees and as long as the disclosure of the information is not considered a risk to the integrity of the program itself.

The government proposed to change this wording in two critical ways. First, it would remove the reference to the “integrity of the program”. Second, it would clarify the protectee would be allowed by law to disclose information if it could not lead to “substantial harm” to any other protectee.

Further, the legislation before us outlines a variety of situations in which the Commissioner of the RCMP can disclose prohibited information. As the law reads today, the commissioner can currently disclose prohibited information in situations such as if the protected person has given the consent for the information to be disclosed, or if the current or former protectee has already disclosed the information or has acted in a way that has resulted in the information being disclosed if the RCMP commissioner determines that disclosing the information is essential to the public interest, such as instances where it could prevent a serious crime or have implications for national security or national defence. Finally, if during criminal proceedings, the disclosure is deemed necessary to establish the innocence of a person.

Bill C-51 proposes to change this wording as it relates to the commissioner disclosing prohibited information when it is seen as in the public interest. Under the legislation, the commissioner will only have the authorization to disclose prohibited information when there are reasonable grounds to believe the disclosure is essential for the purposes of the administration of justice.

Bill C-51 also proposes changes regarding disclosure of information for national security purposes. If the bill is passed into law, the commissioner will have the authority to disclose prohibited information if there are reasonable grounds to believe the disclosure is essential for national security or national defence.

Similarly, the legislation has a number of other proposed changes to the disclosure of information as it relates to specific situations. For example, in order to provide protection to federal protectees or allow for a secure change of identity for provincial protectees, the RCMP commissioner will be able to disclose information about both federal and designated program-protected persons. The commissioner will also be able to disclose information about federal and designated program protectees if the protected persons agree to the disclosure or have already disclosed the information themselves. This can include situations when a protectee has revealed his or her change of identity to family or friends.

Furthermore, the bill addresses situations in which the commissioner can disclose prohibited information when he or she believes the disclosure is essential for reasons of the administration of justice, national security, national defence or public safety. In any of these cases, if necessary, the commissioner can disclose information about the federal program itself, the methods and means of protection, as well as about the individuals who provide protection under the program. These measures will work together to provide a strong framework to ensure the information of protectees in designated provincial programs is equally protected.

Let me move on to the fourth main set of changes proposed under the safer witnesses act. The bill proposes to expand which organizations can refer individuals for consideration for admission to the federal witness protection program. As the law reads today, the only organizations that can refer an individual to the federal program are law enforcement agencies and international criminal tribunals.

Under Bill C-51, all federal organizations with a mandate related to national security, defence or public safety would be able to refer witnesses to the federal program. For example, CSIS and the Department of National Defence would now be authorized to refer individuals to the program.

Finally, Bill C-51 contains a number of measures that would improve the current program by allowing individuals to voluntarily leave the federal program by extending emergency protection from the current 90 days up to a maximum of 180 days.

In summary, the changes detailed within the safer witnesses act will do a number of things. They will help make the federal program more effective and secure for both the witness and those who provide protection. They will streamline the interaction between provincial, municipal and federal programs. They will more clearly define when prohibited information must be safeguarded and when it may be needed to disclose for reasons of national or public security. In short, these changes will enhance the effectiveness and security of the witness protection system in Canada, ensuring it remains a critical law enforcement and criminal justice tool well into the future.

I hope all my colleagues on the other side of the House will support this common sense legislation to keep our streets and communities safe.

[Jean-François Larose, NDP, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I thank the committee, which did an excellent job of developing an absolutely necessary tool.

I am a former corrections officer and peace officer, so I quite often had the opportunity to see the tools at our disposal. However, there was no budget associated with these tools. Members of the House often have good intentions, but, unfortunately, the money is just not there.

There are plenty of witnesses we could have heard from. I hope that the Senate will do its job and that these witnesses will come talk about the problem.

What does my hon. colleague have to say about how the Conservatives plan to help local police services that do not have the money for this?

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I can talk about the assistant commissioner, Todd Shean, who was one of the witnesses. He said:

It's not a question of resources; it's a question of the assessment that's done. Once the assessment is completed...during the assessment process the person may decide that they do not want to enter into the program, they don't want to proceed on the route they're on, or we may assess that they're not suitable for the program.

It does not necessarily mean a total additional resource. It would all depend on whether the individuals needed the protection, wanted the protection or were actually suitable for protection under the witness protection program.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on that question. Where there are other jurisdictions that have a witness program and they would like to work in co-operation with the national program, my understanding is there is a financial obligation that they would have to provide in order to get them into that federal program or to get that co-operation. Could the member comment as to whether that is the case and, if so, to what degree?

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with each municipal police force and what its funding requirements is, but it still comes down to the fact of whether the individuals need protection and whether they are suitable for it.

One thing another member indicated was that police might not proceed with it because it was too costly. My guess is the police would proceed if the witness needed protection. Otherwise, the police are probably not doing the job needed to protect the witnesses who in turn would help to reduce crime.

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I was reading about the bill, and Bill C-51 is clearly a very important bill, I found a quote from Tom Stamatakis, president of the Canadian Police Association and I would like to read it. He said:

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

Would my colleague comment on this and whether he sees any further detail in this that he would share with the House?

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we did have a number of witnesses and Tom Stamatakis, the president of the Canadian Police Association, came forward and had high praise for the bill. He sees it as an opportunity to expand not only from the federal point of view of being able to add national defence and CSIS, but also provincially.

This is a really important step to enable our provincial and municipal police forces to enter the federal witness program with less rules, regulations and hassle. However, they would still have to go through the process of determining whether the individual was suitable for protection.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I found the speech given by my colleague from Medicine Hat very interesting. I have been fortunate to work with him for the past few weeks on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

I want to come back to the issue of costs because I have not heard a satisfactory answer. My colleague said that even though there is no new money to accompany the new provisions in the bill, we will not necessarily see an increase in costs or service demands in the various police forces.

Yet, we already know that some municipalities spend 50% of their budgets on their police. This is huge. The police are short of resources. My colleague could see this as well as I did, in the work of the committee.

If we increase eligibility for these programs, there will be an increase in service. Can my colleague really tell the House that there is no need for new federal funding, just as police forces are undergoing massive cuts? I am specifically thinking of the elimination of the police officers recruitment fund, among other cuts.

In light of this situation, how can he continue saying that there is no need for new federal funding to help our police forces?

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I did travel together on committee business, and it was an excellent trip.

What I would like to say is that each municipal police force is responsible for its own budget. The provinces were consulted in this whole process. From that standpoint, the provinces were quite fine with the way the program was being laid out. They are on board. The municipal police forces, through their cities or municipalities, must provide the appropriate funding for police services.

It is not necessarily up to the federal government to provide funding for anyone other than federal agencies.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, just to reiterate, the hon. member is quite correct.

I have been on the public safety and national security committee for a good seven years now in three different Parliaments. The member is quite right, police forces and provinces have been consulted, and they prefer to maintain their appropriate jurisdiction because provinces are responsible for policing.

Any time the federal government works in conjunction with them, of course they say they would like more money. There is never enough. I have been around this place for seven years, and I could probably count on one hand the times when people said they had enough money or did not want more.

This is a question for most police forces, that some changes were needed to the witness protection program. The committee heard from those various players in policing, including police associations, who lauded these improvements to the Witness Protection Act. Indeed, that is probably why the opposition is saying that they are reluctantly going along with this, because it has been universally accepted as the right thing to do.

I wonder if the member could comment further.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I travelled on the trip with hon. member as well. It was a very productive trip.

Indeed, the member is correct. When we look at municipal police forces, their budgets have to be provided by those municipalities. The provinces were consulted, and the municipalities were consulted.

I have only been here for four and a half years, but I do not believe that there has been any occasion when someone has said that there is enough money, enough funding from the federal government. Everybody would like to have more money, but one has to remember that there is only one taxpayer.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to indicate that I will be sharing my time with my wonderful colleague from Vancouver Kingsway.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-51, the purpose of which is to better protect witnesses who help the police in the fight against organized crime and terrorism.

For some time, the federal witness protection program has been criticized for its overly strict eligibility criteria, its poor coordination with federal programs and the low number of witnesses admitted to the program. Only 30 of the 108 applications examined were approved in 2012.

The NDP has been asking the government for years to broaden witness eligibility for protection programs in order to guarantee the safety of all Canadians at risk. The NDP has been insistently calling for better coordination of federal and provincial programs and improved overall program funding since 2007.

Although the Conservatives have taken their time in addressing this growing problem, we are pleased that the government has finally listened to our requests to expand the witness protection program.

That is why we are going to support the safer witnesses act. One consequence of this bill is that it will allow federal departments and agencies with a mandate related to national security, national defence and public safety to use this investigative tool.

Bill C-51 also proposes extending the amount of time for which emergency protection can be provided to witnesses while they are working with the police or testifying in court.

Finally, the bill also seeks to further limit the public dissemination of information that could compromise the safety of witnesses and informants. Some of these measures were recommended in 2010 by a House of Commons committee that examined the problems with the investigation and legal proceedings related to the 1985 Air India attack.

The Canadian Press obtained a detailed document from the RCMP dated May 2010 on the reform of the witness protection program. In that document, the RCMP indicates that, regardless of whether the provinces choose to go with their own program, the RCMP must still ensure that the witness protection program is able to better respond to current challenges, such as street gangs and violence. The RCMP also proposed broadening the program eligibility criteria in order to make it easier for potential witnesses to qualify.

The NDP believes that Bill C-51 does very little with regard to some changes that need to be made to the witness protection program. The NDP will continue to push the government to address a host of concerns. Bill C-51 is a step in the right direction.

However, the witness protection program, run by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, costs around $9 million a year. Even though more people could be eligible under the proposed changes, the RCMP will not receive any additional funding.

Although the NDP supports Bill C-51, it deplores the fact that the Conservative government has refused to allocate additional funding. We are also concerned that the Conservatives' requirement that the RCMP and local police services work within their existing budgets will prevent the program from improving. If the Conservatives really, truly, sincerely want to improve the witness protection program, they should also commit the money to make that happen.

Here is what Commissioner Micki Ruth, from the Canadian Association of Police Boards, had to say when she appeared before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security:

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 program 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.

Although we support the idea behind Bill C-51, we must ensure that the legislative measures being passed by the government do not burden municipal police services with additional costs.

In our opinion, the bill will not be effective unless the problem of adequate funding for the witness protection program is resolved.

We on this side of the House are also disappointed that this bill does not contain more of the recommendations from the Air India investigation, namely a more transparent and accountable eligibility process.

What is more, the bill contains no provisions allowing for an independent organization to administer the program, as recommended in the Air India investigation report. The RCMP will continue to bear the responsibility for the program, which will eventually place it in a conflict of interest, because it will be both the investigating body and the one to decide who benefits from protection.

We also hope that the government truly intends to work with the provinces in order to facilitate the administrative process for changing the identity of individuals in the witness protection program. In late 2009 and early 2010, the government consulted the provinces and territories about this program. A number of them expressed concerns. However, now that the Conservative government has a majority, it thinks it can do whatever it wants and, unfortunately, it does not often listen to its provincial counterparts.

Many provinces have their own witness protection programs, but they often provide only short-term assistance. What is more, they need to co-operate with the RCMP to get new identity documents for witnesses. That is why the NDP will keep pushing the federal government to continue working with the RCMP and the provinces to provide funding for the witness protection program so that local police forces can continue their important work.

The NDP is committed to building safer communities. One way of doing this is to improve the witness protection program to ensure that our streets are safe and to provide police forces with additional tools to combat street gangs and organized crime. Need we remind the government of all the spending scandals?

Three billion dollars earmarked for the fight against terrorism is missing. If the government had invested all that money in a program like this, things would be different now. We could perhaps move forward and assure our local police forces that the federal government supports them, not just in word but in deed, by providing them with funding. Perhaps that is the problem, because this government does not seem to understand the importance of adequate funding for this program.

That is what I have been trying to say throughout my speech. The people and experts actually doing the work are saying that Bill C-51 will allow us to move forward but that, unfortunately, the funding is not there. That is too bad.

To conclude my speech on this bill, I would like to talk about the police forces in my beautiful riding of Quebec City. The city is very safe and is a great place to live. That is likely because community groups, such as Pech, which provides support and housing assistance, are doing such great work.

Pech also works with the Quebec City police service, which attends every event. That is what social and community involvement looks like. That is the kind of support they expect from the federal government. Many positive initiatives start at the grassroots level and are run by people who work on the front lines—police, volunteers and people working in community organizations, for example—and who tell us what they need.

It is our duty, at the federal level, to respond to the needs they express and see how we can help them. This bill is one example, but the funding needs to be there. Otherwise, it may completely miss the mark.

The government could end up implementing legislative measures without adequate funding.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we need to recognize that the number of gangs in Canada has dramatically increased over the last number of years. In fact, gang membership in communities, for example in the province of Manitoba, is well into the thousands today. This is in comparison to the nineties, where gangs were virtually non-existent.

It is becoming more and more apparent that one of the ways we are going to have to deal with a lot of the street crime that has spread throughout many different communities from coast to coast to coast is to deal with the issue of gang violence. In dealing with that issue, I believe we will find that there are law enforcement officers who will reinforce the fact that quite often, in order to break into a gang, they have to get an informant who is a part of these gangs. To be able to do that, we need programs such as the witness protection program.

All members of the House will be supporting this bill, as I understand it. Would the member agree with the idea that there is a very strong correlation between making our streets safer by addressing the issue of gangs and the benefits of this particular piece of legislation in being able to assist the police and prosecution to make our streets safer?

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we will in fact be supporting this bill. All parties will because it is a necessary bill that is long overdue.

I think it is a shame that the government across the way has been in power for seven years and is only now realizing that it is time to introduce something like this. It claims to make public safety its personal business and its top priority. However, we are here today because it finally decided not just to deal with major terrorists, but also to take care of witnesses. That is what is important. It is time to protect the witnesses. Some questions remain to be answered and then we will have to think about funding for this program.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will try and get this right. I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong and if I am speaking to the wrong person.

One of the interesting things that I hear from the opposition all the time is that we need more money. Municipalities fund themselves through municipal taxation. They do not get funding through the federal government. It is done individually through every community.

One of the things that is of real interest to me about the witness protection program or any witness, for that matter, is that the side opposite has not in any way supported any of our crime initiatives, mandatory minimums or anything to do with crime. Despite that, it wants to keep throwing money at things. The fact of the matter is that witnesses who are victims also want to be ensured that criminals stay in jail for a long time or have mandatory minimums.

Could she tell me that her party is going to start supporting our crime initiatives before we start throwing around more money that witnesses do not necessarily understand from the perspective of the witness protection program?

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very Conservative attitude.

The NDP believes in a balanced approach. We listen to our provincial counterparts, local police forces and municipalities. By working together we can find programs that work and adequate funding. I am not talking about unrealistic funding, but adequate funding.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives believe, and will always believe, that they do not have to listen to anyone, that they are right and that they know what to do, whether or not there is funding. Sometimes they introduce legislation without providing the funding and, better yet, sometimes they spend $3 billion to combat terrorism. How do I explain to Canadians that the government has wasted $3 billion and does not know what happened to it? Three billion dollars. People working for minimum wage will never be able to earn that much in a lifetime. How do we explain that to them? Then the Conservatives say that the NDP is incapable of putting together a fair and decent budget. Quite frankly, they should be ashamed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Resuming debate.

There is seven minutes remaining in the time for government orders.

The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand to speak on Bill C-51 and to speak in support of the bill at third reading on behalf of the official opposition, the New Democratic Party.

The NDP has long called for the government to expand the eligibility of witnesses to enter protection programs to ensure the safety of all Canadians in potential danger and, more important, to secure the participation and obligation of citizens of this country to co-operate and participate in the justice system. Since 2007, the New Democrats have specifically called for better coordination of federal and provincial programs and better overall funding for the witness protection program.

Contrary to what I hear from the Conservative side of the House, effective crime prevention and crime interdiction measures require resources; appropriate funding, not just spin, not just talk, not just rhetoric, but actually public resources put behind those words. New Democrats have long understood that connection. Our demands were repeated in 2009 and, again, by the NDP member of Parliament for Trinity—Spadina, in November last year.

Bill C-51 would expand the eligibility criteria of the witness protection program to include witnesses recommended by CSIS and National Defence. This is a positive development.

It would also extend the period for emergency protection and clear up some technical problems that have plagued witness protection programs, with respect to federal-provincial relations.

I think we should say that these are laudable achievements and the government deserves credit for bringing these forward.

Having said that, while the NDP supports Bill C-51 as it attempts to improve the witness protection program, we are concerned that the Conservative government has refused to commit any new funding for the system. We are concerned that the Conservatives' requirement that the RCMP and local police departments work within their existing budgets would hinder the improvement of the program.

I will pause here just to bring to all Canadians' attention the testimony that we heard before the public safety committee. We learned that the RCMP would administer the witness protection program at the request of municipal and provincial police forces and the RCMP would then bill them for those services.

So, while the RCMP does not perhaps need more resources to implement the provisions of the bill, local municipal and provincial police forces do need more resources because if they want to access the provisions of this program, they have to pay for them and the RCMP would bill them accordingly. We heard that from municipal police forces across this country.

The bill also would not include provisions for any independent agency to operate the program, as recommended by Justice Major in the Air India inquiry report.

The RCMP would continue to be responsible for the program. This would leave the RCMP in a precarious situation and a potential conflict of interest as they are often the agency both investigating the case and deciding who may or may not get protection.

As we have heard on all sides of this House, often the people who are requiring witness protection are people who have engaged in criminal acts themselves. They are often the subject of investigation at the same time they are co-operating with police in the prosecution of crimes, and so New Democrats believe that potential conflict should be addressed. Unfortunately, it has not been in the bill.

While some RCMP and public safety department witnesses at committee said that they did not see funding the program as an issue, once again, it was clear from other witnesses that funding is in fact a real problem for municipalities and police forces and that Bill C-51 would place an even heavier burden on them through downloaded costs.

I would like to now summarize a few key points.

While the Conservatives are late to respond to this growing issue, New Democrats are pleased to see the government listening to our requests to expand the witness program and the requests of police forces and provinces across this country.

Second, we want to emphasize that if the Conservatives truly want to improve the witness protection program, they must be prepared to commit funding and the resources to ensure that would happen.

New Democrats are committed to building safer communities. One way to do that would be through improved witness protection programs that would keep our streets safe by giving police the tools that they need to fight street gangs and organized crime.

I want to address the background of the bill. The federal witness protection program has long been criticized for its narrow eligibility criteria, for poor coordination with provincial programs and low numbers of witnesses actually admitted to the program.

Here are the real numbers. In 2012, only 30 out of 108 applications considered for witness protection were accepted. That is less than a third. Since the witness program passed in 1996, both the Liberal and Conservative governments have done little to respond to the criticisms of the system. While some bills have been presented in the House of Commons to address small components of the protection program, the overarching issues of eligibility, coordination and funding have not been addressed.

The NDP is on record repeatedly asking the government to address the three key issues in the witness protection program, that is, expanded criteria eligibility, co-operation with provinces and adequate funding. As late as last year we called for these very things in the House and we pointed to the difficulty that Toronto police were facing at that time in convincing witnesses to come forward in response to the summer's mass shooting at a block party on Danzig Street.

Similarly, in Vancouver, the city I am privileged to represent, organized crime and criminal gangs have long been a problem. Effective, efficient, accessible witness protection programs will be a key component in giving our British Columbia police forces the tools they need to apprehend those who are responsible for serious crime in our communities.

Mr. Speaker, I see you rising--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Yes. The time for government orders has expired. The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway will have three minutes remaining when this matter returns before the House.