Debates of May 30th, 2013

An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (prize fights)

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to an order made on Wednesday, May 22 the division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 5, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

[For continuation of proceedings see Part B]

[Continuation of proceedings from Part A]

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

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Resuming debate.

The hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques has the floor. He has three minutes left.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I had come to the end.

I spoke at length about the commission of inquiry into the Air India events. This was really one of the key events that gave rise to the bill now being considered, even though it took a long time for the various governments to act and ensure that witnesses were safer and better protected.

I repeatedly said that the bill, which is likely to become law, requires resources to be properly implemented. These concerns were raised by the RCMP and others, but downplayed by other police services. This is why I want the government to be aware of the importance of providing these resources.

I would also like to raise the issue of street gangs because it has not really been discussed within the context of Bill C-51. Offences that are related to drugs or street gangs should be dealt with by local police forces. However, since they are drug-related offences, they are sent to the RCMP.

The RCMP can make decisions about witnesses needing protection because it is an area of federal jurisdiction. However, the costs are borne by local police forces. There is no guarantee that local police forces will have adequate resources to ensure that witnesses are protected in a secure manner.

As well, when we talk about the need to protect witnesses, we need to remember that in 2012, of the 108 candidates eligible for the witness protection program, only about 30 were admitted to it. In addition to the criteria that were used to determine if the witness protection program should be used, there was also the issue of resources.

I want the government to really take this issue seriously and ensure that resources will be made available to the right people—the RCMP, for one—but I also want it to create a special fund for the witness protection program. I would also like government members to start addressing this issue when responding to questions.

We will not let it go. We will continue to ask these questions when Conservative members speak to this bill. However, as I said, because there has been significant progress in this situation, which was untenable, we will vote in favour of this bill. Our support is contingent on having the resources put in place to ensure that the bill is properly implemented.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques for his speech. He always provides us with facts and clear examples, so people can easily understand.

Although this bill is a first step towards ensuring enhanced protection for witnesses, it gives police forces greater responsibilities without giving them any additional financial resources. Drug enforcement falls under federal jurisdiction. Can my colleague elaborate on that?

My riding is close to the American border, and there is a lot of drug trafficking. The RCMP is asked to deal with these problems, but it does not necessarily have the financial resources to do so.

What impact does my colleague think this could have on the community?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, this does have a serious impact on border communities.

Other matters that come under federal jurisdiction include immigration and terrorism. The issue of the border we share with the United States often comes into question.

For that reason, it is very important to ensure that the progress achieved through Bill C-51—although it should have come a long time ago—is done in a pragmatic way with adequate resources to guarantee the safety of witnesses.

It is clear that this government has no plans to increase the existing budget envelopes allocated to the various police forces responsible for guaranteeing the safety and protection of witnesses. As a result, although this is an important bill, it is merely wishful thinking, since it will be impossible to implement it.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is really refreshing to see the NDP actually supporting some initiatives that will make our streets and communities safer.

A number of times in the last little while, we have heard reference to the question of whether there are the adequate resources to implement the bill. I want to remind my colleagues on the other side that on two different occasions, the assistant commissioner indicated that there were, in fact, sufficient resources. I will quote from a meeting on March 5, when he said:

I am confident that we have the necessary resources to conduct an effective witness protection program, even with what Bill C-51 adds.

He also 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.

With those statements clearly on the record, could my colleague explain to Canadians why he thinks, in spite of this evidence, that there are not sufficient resources?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the question.

In fact, the NDP does support good crime legislation. I believe we began with Bill C-2, immediately after the election, when we suggested working with the Conservatives to quickly pass a bill that would make it easier to hold megatrials for criminal gangs. We are not afraid to support good bills; we are proud to do so.

I understand the evidence that was presented in committee. However, we have to realize that it was somewhat ambiguous.

My colleague mentioned that the RCMP had enough resources. However, this is what it says on the RCMP website:

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

Major police forces across Canada and the associations that represent them believe that the resources are generally available. However, in very specific local situations, there may not be enough resources, and this can compromise the safety and proper protection of witnesses.

The evidence is contradictory, and that is why we are asking for a guarantee from members of the government. They must assure us that, if there are not enough resources, they will be the first ones to fight for additional resources and to ensure that Bill C-51 is in reality a good law.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

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

There are intentions and then there are actions. In his speech, the hon. member emphasized the issue of resources. In my opinion, if we want to go beyond intentions and take action, we definitely need the appropriate resources.

Ever since I came to this House, we have often voted on bills based on their intentions. One could say it has become a habit. We do not think about what is needed for our intentions to become reality, to move from intentions to actions.

Besides pointing out that the Conservatives did not consider this and are not talking about it, what can we really do to move forward and begin to calculate the costs, to see where the needs are, and in the end, to pressure the government so that intentions become actions?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Louis-Hébert for his question.

There are many ways to get a more precise idea of the resources that exist at the local level—the micro level, we could say—compared to the whole country.

First, since the provinces already have their own witness protection plans, it would be wise to talk to them and find out about needs. Is there a need in Medicine Hat, for example? Are there enough resources to provide witness protection in a municipality of that size? The same goes for various municipalities in Quebec.

The provinces and the local police forces, or at least the provincial police forces, are capable of assessing their needs in this area. There are differences through the years and there are cycles. In some years more resources will be allocated because the police will need more resources. Some years they will need less. Thus, budgets are likely to fluctuate. The RCMP and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police are not necessarily equipped to make these estimates. They may consider the country as a whole but it is the local, regional and provincial authorities who are better placed to see the evolving needs for witness protection.

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

Mr. Speaker, the challenge I have is the previous member asked a question about walking the talk. That party voted against doubling the victims' surcharge, which goes to the provinces so they can offer that.

On Bill S-9, the nuclear terrorism bill, that same party agreed with it at committee and then proceeded to put up speaker after speaker at third reading. I asked the member for Ottawa Centre why his party continued to put up members if they all agreed.

Those members complain about the lack of process. We give them process and they continue to filibuster. They continue to say they support the legislation, but they will not really work with us.

Could the member please leave the rhetoric aside, see the legislation as being in our national interest and let us secure the Canadian public through it?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we were having a good debate here. We were communicating, so I am sorry this tone is being used. Still, the questions are interesting.

He asked about process. I believe we could agree that if the parliamentary process were adequate, more than 0.7% of all proposed amendments would be accepted. Moreover, most of the amendments that were passed were not even debated by the government. The other 99.3% of proposed amendments to government bills, whether about crime, the budget or other issues, were rejected.

So I do not think we need any lectures from the government about the parliamentary process with respect to the various bills it has presented. When there are good bills that we agree with, we say so.

We will support this bill despite our reservations about the resources and about the fact that some recommendations from the commission of inquiry into the Air India bombing were not included. The inquiry recommended instituting a rigorous and transparent eligibility process for admission to the witness protection program. It was an important recommendation in the report, but was not included.

It is an improvement on what is there now, but there are important elements missing. That is why we need this time to debate the issues, tell the government about our reservations and hesitations and suggest that these recommendations could be included in a future bill, if not in this one. That is why we will be pleased to support this bill.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for from Northumberland—Quinte West.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak about this legislation before us, which would make important amendments to the Witness Protection Program Act.

I would like to spend my time today taking a look at exactly how witness protection programs work in Canada, as well as who, in fact, is being protected.

Of course, there are things we do not know and cannot know and are not privy to because of the need to keep witnesses protected. The sensitive nature of this type of work means that witness protection programs and the law enforcement agencies with which they are associated are very careful about the information they make public concerning their operations and the methods they use.

However, there are still some things we do know. For instance, at the federal level, the program is legislated by the Witness Protection Program Act and is administered by the RCMP. Several provinces run their own witness protection programs, namely Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.

As we have heard, there are some distinctions between the provincial and federal programs. One example is that the federal program considers its protectees to be in the program for life, but in the provincial systems, protectees may be under the protection of the program for a shorter term, such as leading up to or during a trial.

As well, if a provincial program determines that its protectee needs a secure identity change, he or she must temporarily transfer into the federal program.

Third, only the federal program is mandated to provide national protection services to all Canadian law enforcement agencies as well as to international courts and tribunals.

This is how witness protection programs are structured in Canada.

Who, then, are these witnesses and what determines if they fall into the provincial or federal programs?

According to the Witness Protection Program Act, a witness is defined as:

(a) a person who has given or has agreed to give information or evidence, or participates or has agreed to participate in a matter, relating to an inquiry or the investigation or prosecution of an offence and who may require protection because of risk to the security of the person arising in relation to the inquiry, investigation or prosecution, or

(b) a person who, because of their relationship to or association with a person referred to in paragraph (a), may also require protection for the reasons referred to in that paragraph.

More details about program participants can be found in a report prepared for Public Safety Canada by Dr. Yvon Dandurand in 2010. The report, entitled “A Review of Selected Witness Protection Programs”, gives a clear picture of the type of individual who is referred to the federal witness protection program.

Interestingly, the vast majority of protected persons are not actual victims of crime, as one might imagine. On the whole, they are either criminally involved themselves or have connections to criminal organizations. This is due to the nature of those specific crimes.

One of the defining characteristics of organized crime groups and the gangs that run the illicit drug trade is their closed nature, which makes traditional investigative methods very difficult.

As such, law enforcement often relies on the help it receives from informants, who place themselves at considerable risk to co-operate with the authorities. In order to secure this collaboration, it is critical that we have in place an effective witness protection program that will keep these witnesses and informants safe.

As to the question of which program the witness ends up in, police can refer a person to either the provincial or federal programs, depending upon the complexity of the crime and the jurisdiction.

As stated previously, in some cases associates or family members of the witness are also admitted into the program.

A large number of witnesses in the federal program are former police agents who have infiltrated criminal organizations as part of an investigation. Once they disclose their information, they may be at risk of retaliation by that criminal group or organization.

The number of people admitted into the program each year varies widely, depending upon the law enforcement activities that year and the number of family members who may need protection along with the witnesses. For example, last year there were about 30 new admissions to the federal program, bringing the total number of protectees to approximately 800 individuals.

If the circumstances of the crime and investigation warrant, the individual may need a complete change of identity and location in order to remain safe.

Under the federal program, the RCMP can help the protected person undergo a secure identity change as well as help the person find new employment and housing as needed. Last year, for example, the RCMP helped 27 witnesses to undergo secure identity changes.

As I mentioned earlier, the federal program also assists witnesses from other countries in accordance with international agreements signed with foreign governments.

It is clear that these programs must deliver on their mandates to keep witnesses safe from reprisal for their actions. As such, law enforcement must have access to strong, reliable programs that offer a high level of comfort for those witnesses before they agree to share their information. Bill C-51 contains a wide range of changes that would further strengthen how the provincial and federal programs work, as well as streamline how these two levels interact.

The legislation covers several broad areas of change.

First, it authorizes the Governor in Council to designate provincial programs in order to allow the RCMP to provide secure identity changes to provincial protectees without transferring them into the federal program.

Second, it establishes the RCMP as a liaison for provincial requests for secure identity change documents.

Third, it expands the prohibition on disclosure of information to include provincial protectees, as well as information about both the federal and provincial programs themselves and those who administer them.

Fourth, it broadens exceptions to the prohibition of disclosure of information to permit disclosure in certain circumstances.

Fifth, it broadens the obligation of program authorities to notify the protectee before the prohibited information is disclosed, except in specific circumstances.

Sixth, it facilitates volunteer terminations from the federal program.

Seventh, it extends the maximum time that emergency protection is provided to the witness.

Eighth, it enshrines in law that federal institutions outside of law enforcement agencies, such as those with a mandate related to national defence, security or public safety, may recommend the admission of individuals into the federal program.

The safer witnesses act would encourage a more streamlined approach to witness protection between the provincial and federal governments, as well as between the RCMP and other federal institutions with a mandate related to national security or national defence.

We are pleased to see such strong support for this legislation from the Province of British Columbia and the Province of Saskatchewan, as well as the Canadian Police Association and the Toronto Police Service.

We were also very pleased to see broad support for the proposed changes among witnesses and committee members during a recent committee study of Bill C-51. They believe, as do we, that it would ensure a more effective and more secure federal witness protection program both for the witnesses and for those who provide protection to these witnesses.

Therefore, I encourage all hon. members of the House to support this important legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's intervention was quite informative and well researched. However, there are points that I still think need to be addressed.

The member did mention that last year there were 30 more people admitted into the program, for a total of over 800 people, but last year alone over 100 people applied. One of the points of this bill is to increase admissions into the program. How does she juggle the fact that there would be stable funding and increased admissions? How do we square that peg?

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there have been quite a few questions today about how these changes would be funded. I know that numerous answers from witnesses at the committee have been quoted, and I will repeat those quotes because although the members of the NDP think that costing would be an issue, the witnesses themselves indicated they did not think so.

Also, I want to talk about the fact that the changes we have made would broaden the scope of who can apply, but the Assistant Commissioner, Todd Shean, said that he did not think that would be the case when he was pressed about whether there would be a flood of new applicants into the program. He also indicated that he felt there would be enough resources, even with the broadened scope of Bill C-51 and the changes in it.

I might add that when we talk about the changes in this bill, we are also talking about efficiencies in the program. Because I am not sure if I have heard this quote today, I will quote Mr. Stamatakis, the president of the Canadian Police Association, who talks about the changes. He stated:

I should also note that the parts of this legislation that deal with extending the authority to designated provincial or municipal protection programs and not just the federal program remind me of some of the testimony I recently gave to this committee around the economics of policing and the need for us to adopt and embrace operational efficiencies in order to deliver the best possible community protection at a reasonable cost to the Canadian taxpayer.

He went on to say:

I do believe that this legislation will have an impact on streamlining that work.

Therefore, the concerns of the NDP are not really justified.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in the member's speech there was some discussion with regard to cost. I wonder if we have thought of the benefits of managing to get criminals off the street.

Part of what this bill is all about is the ability to set cases and get some of these people who are affecting individuals in this country off the streets and into incarceration.

I wonder if you could comment on that, please.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I will not comment on it, but perhaps the member for Scarborough Centre might.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yes, a large focus has been on the cost, but I think the important factor that we must remember is that this measure will help people come forward and offer testimony that will help to deal with people who are involved specifically in organized crime.

My riding of Scarborough Centre has had several incidents of gang-related violence in the past number of years. I want to quote from the Chief of the Toronto Police Service, William Blair. I think it is imperative that this quote be referred now to this House. He states:

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

Coming from the GTA myself and being part of Toronto in the heart of Scarborough Centre, I agree wholeheartedly with Toronto Police Service Chief William Blair. I believe this will be a very effective tool to get more people to come forward in order to get those criminal activities and criminal organizations off the street.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to join in this debate on the legislation our government has introduced to modernize and strengthen Canada's federal witness protection program.

I have listened with a great deal of interest to several hon. members who have spoken, some eloquently, about the need for Bill C-51 and about our government's ongoing efforts to combat organized crime. The message we have heard from right across the country is that the witness protection program continues to be an effective tool for law enforcement to combat terrorism and organized crime.

We continue to see the benefit of the program as an important initiative in support of national priorities, including the dismantling of organized crime groups in this country. We have also heard about the need for reforms, given the changing nature of organized crime groups and terrorist organizations.

Our government has undertaken extensive consultations with our stakeholders in provinces and territories as well as with law enforcement representatives. With Bill C-51, we are addressing these calls for reform and are moving ahead with strengthening our federal witness protection program.

I would like to briefly outline some of the ways our government is responding.

Some hon. members will know that the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security conducted a review of Canada's witness protection program through 2007 and issued a final report in March 2008. That committee heard from experts from the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada as well as from representatives from the RCMP, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Department of Justice and the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP.

The standing committee's final report made some keen observations about the federal witness protection program and made a number of recommendations. What the report noted is that, and I quote directly from the report itself:

[A]ll witness protection measures, whether at the municipal, provincial, territorial and federal level, are indispensable in the fight against crime....

One reason for this is, again in the words of the report:

[C]riminal organizations have, in the majority of cases, “many ways of gathering information” on their accusers. Traditional investigative methods are rarely effective in infiltrating these types of organizations because of their secret nature. Law enforcement agencies must, therefore, use informers and/or human sources who themselves are often members of the criminal organizations under investigation....

At the time, the standing committee noted the need for an effective federal witness protection program. It also identified several areas where the program could be enhanced.

I am very pleased to note that Bill C-51 supports in principle many of the standing committee's recommendations as well as other calls for reform from stakeholders from other levels of government.

The report from the standing committee noted in particular, and again I quote directly from the report, that:

[The organization] responsible for federal witness protection can enter into agreements directly with provincial and territorial governments...to accelerate the processing of witness protection files.

Bill C-51 supports the underlying intent of this committee recommendation, which mirrors a concern expressed by some provincial and territorial governments.

Bill C-51 would improve the interaction between the federal and provincial witness protection programs. This in turn will help accelerate and streamline the process of obtaining secure identity changes for provincial witnesses within designated programs.

Today, any provincial witness requiring a secure identity change must first be temporarily admitted into the federal witness protection program before the RCMP will assist in obtaining the federal documents required for that secure change of identity. Bill C-51 would change this by introducing a regime whereby provincial witness protection programs can be designated so that secure identity changes can be obtained without having to temporarily admit a provincial protectee into the federal program.

Bill C-51 would also enhance the security of both the federal and designated provincial witness protection programs.

First, it would broaden and clarify the federal Witness Protection Program Act's current prohibitions against disclosure of information.

Second, Bill C-51 would extend the prohibitions against disclosure of information to include individuals in designated provincial witness protection programs. This is significant, as provincial legislative prohibitions against the disclosure of information for individuals in provincial witness protection programs can only be enforced within that respective provincial jurisdiction. In other words, there may be limitations on provincial legislation applying a prohibition on witness information outside its jurisdiction. Bill C-51 would extend the prohibition across jurisdictions so that information is protected across Canada. Without this change, the provinces would have to rely on their own legislation, which is, of course, limited to within their borders.

Bill C-51 also extends and expands prohibitions against disclosure of information about the federal and designated programs.

The Standing committee on Public Safety and National Security also recommended in 2008 that psychological assessments of all candidates over the age of 18 be conducted prior to their admission to the program and that potential candidates should be automatically offered the assistance of legal counsel. I am very pleased to note that the RCMP has already begun to engage psychologists to conduct assessments of candidates as well as to offer counselling both to candidates and to protectees already in the program. In fact, the RCMP is implementing a wide range of other administrative changes to the federal witness protection program to enhance its effectiveness.

Today, the RCMP is taking steps to separate admission decisions from investigations by changing its internal reporting structures. It is also establishing memoranda of understanding with federal partners to enhance the secure administration, transmission and storage of protected information.

As well, the RCMP is introducing program enhancements within existing resource levels, including the use of risk management principles regarding admission decisions and protectee management practices; enhanced training for protectee handlers; and database development to better manage information about protectees.

The administrative changes the RCMP is implementing, in conjunction with the provisions within Bill C-51, would strengthen, modernize and streamline witness protection processes across Canada. They would enhance the capacity of the federal witness protection program to make consistent and fair decisions about the safety of witnesses and sources.

In addition to the changes I have mentioned, Bill C-51 would allow federal institutions with a national security, national defence or public safety mandate to make referrals of their sources to the RCMP for possible admission into the federal witness protection program. Such organizations include the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. This provision within Bill C-51, as well as improved and culturally sensitive training now being provided to individuals involved in the delivery of the federal witness protection program, will largely respond to an Air India inquiry recommendations related to the program.

For all of the reasons I have mentioned, I am pleased to support Bill C-51, and I encourage all hon. members to join me.

I am now prepared to take any questions that may be offered.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his speech.

I would remind him that the RCMP has already spoken about underfunding of the witness protection program, but I am not going to talk about that.

I will talk about the recommendation that came out of the Air India inquiry, which recommended that there be more accountability and transparency around admission to the witness protection program.

My question is simple: why is the government not committed to increasing the transparency of this program?

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

Mr. Speaker, how wrong the member is. He says that the RCMP has already stated that it needs additional funding. I can quote one of the witnesses before the committee, as I have been a member of that committee for seven years. Todd Shean, Assistant Commissioner of federal and international operations of the RCMP, said:

[W]ith 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.

I have several other quotes that reflect similar sentiments.

The member talks about accountability and clarity. Had he been listening, that is what Bill C-51 actually does. The RCMP has increased its ability to protect information and has increased its ability to work with witness protection programs in those provinces and with those police departments that already have them. That was the purpose of it. I was on the committee when we did the initial study in 2007 and the report in 2008. It actually addressed these very concerns.

The member has asked a question that is being dealt with right in this piece of legislation, and I think he needs to refresh himself on some of the matters that came up in that report.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of serving on the public safety committee with my colleague. I know that he was a police officer for a number of years and has a very good understanding of police work and what is required.

We have heard from the other side numerous times that there is insufficient funding and about who is responsible for the funding. I would like to ask my colleague about provincial and municipal funding for police forces.

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

Mr. Speaker, we all know that funding for municipal police forces generally comes from municipal funds, and sometimes the provinces assist in that endeavour. However, essentially, provinces and municipalities handle the funding of their own police forces. For those provinces with RCMP, that agreement is pursuant to an agreement they have with the federal government.

There is something more important to police officers in this piece of legislation, and that is the protection of the people it is designed to protect and the protection of the handlers, who are generally police officers. This better protects the information they need to have.

Mr. Tom Stamatakis, president of the Canadian Police Association, articulated that very well. He said that the association strongly recommended its adoption. He said that it would be a benefit to law enforcement communities across Canada who are tasked with that information. He went on to say that it would also help protect the men and women he represents. That protection is a responsibility of his association and the government, because there are over 50,000 police officers in this country, and we want to make sure that at night they go home to their families.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île.

I am pleased to speak today in support of this bill. The issue is a very important one that the NDP has worked hard on for many years. I know that my fellow New Democrats who were members of previous parliaments often pointed out the need to expand the federal witness protection program.

In fact, ever since this program was created in 1996, the NDP has called for improvements. It has often called upon the government to act and protect the safety of all responsible Canadians who do their duty. I am pleased that the Conservatives have finally listened and that the government has finally decided to act. I might say their hearing is selective, though, because some elements are missing.

The people who need the witness protection program are people taking risks, putting themselves in danger and sometimes putting their very lives in danger, in order to help the police and ensure public safety. They must have access to a robust and effective program that will protect them.

For years we have been calling specifically for better coordination between the federal and provincial programs and better overall funding.

We are not the only ones who have pointed out problems. As I was preparing my speech I came upon quite a few criticisms of the rigid admission standards. Stakeholders have sounded the alarm about poor coordination with the provincial programs and the small number of witnesses admitted to the program.

Before this bill, witnesses in cases involving national security were excluded from the program. Justice O'Connor criticized this exclusion in his 2010 report on the Air India tragedy. The report revealed that a number of witnesses were afraid to divulge important information to the RCMP, fearing for their safety. He recommended broadening the admission criteria to include witnesses in cases involving national security. More than two years after the report, the government woke up and decided to take action.

Even though Bill C-51 is late, we are satisfied with it in general. It proposes a better process for supporting the provincial witness protection programs and applying the program to other organizations responsible for national security, as I mentioned.

The bill will broaden the criteria for admission to the witness protection program by including a new category of individuals who may come forward to help the federal authorities, for instance, street gang members.

Federal departments and agencies with a mandate related to national security, national defence or public safety will also be able to refer witnesses to the program.

The bill will extend the period for emergency protection and clear up some of the technical problems that were occurring in relation to coordination with provincial programs.

However, in order for it to be effective, the bill should also include provisions for an independent agency to administer the program, as recommended in the Air India report.

We were quite surprised that this recommendation was not included in Bill C-51. We see the Conservatives' selective hearing at work here. As a result, the RCMP will continue to be responsible for the program. This may be cause for concern since it could put the RCMP in a conflict of interest since the RCMP would be responsible for investigating the case and deciding who would get protection.

My biggest concern is related to funding. I listened carefully to the speeches given by my colleagues on both sides of the House, and I believe that we all agree on the importance of this bill.

However, I have a hard time understanding the arguments the members opposite are making about funding. How do they think they can expand a program without giving the RCMP and other police forces the money they need? That is not realistic. It seems as though this will prevent more people from participating in the program.

I thought that the bill was at least partly designed to expand access to the program. Will that be possible without the necessary funding?

We are not the only ones who have raised this concern. A number of witnesses addressed this issue when the bill was studied in committee. I want to share a quote from testimony given by Micki Ruth, from the Canadian Association of Police Boards, with my Conservative colleagues:

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.

She went on to say:

Therefore we urge you to appreciate our position that unless the issue of adequate funding is addressed, the legislation will not produce the result that is intended.

If the Conservative government really wants to improve the witness protection program, it must provide the necessary funding. That is obvious considering last year's figures: only 30 of 108 applications were approved in 2012, mainly because of financial constraints. That undermines the program's value enormously. Seventy-eight witnesses were put at risk but did not receive the protection to which they rightly felt they were entitled. I really think that is a problem.

Adequate funding is essential if we want to bring about changes that yield tangible results, particularly as regards street gangs, a new group contemplated by this bill. We cannot tell young people we want to help them leave gangs, use their testimony in court and then leave them without protection. We know that gangs are very difficult to leave and that they can be aggressive toward individuals who decide to stand up to them and change their ways. Gang members are often youth who have made mistakes but are trying to right the wrongs for which they have been charged. We must support them in that effort.

I would also like to emphasize that this bill will help witnesses, but it will also ensure the safety of our communities. The NDP is always searching for intelligent and viable ways to ensure the safety of our communities. One way to achieve that is to improve the witness protection program in order to guarantee the safety of our streets by giving police forces additional tools to assist them in combating street gangs and organized crime.

In closing, I am pleased to see that the Conservatives have finally taken action on this matter and have selectively listened to the NDP's advice. Note, however, that, if the NDP were on the government side—and I can assure you that will be the case in 2015—we would go further. We would be sure to give the RCMP and police forces the financial and legislative tools they need to do their jobs and protect the public.

I will vote in favour of this bill, hoping that it will open the door to an expanded, more accessible program, which is necessary for the sake of national security and our public safety.