moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-78, in Clause 5, be amended a ) by replacing line 32, on page 2, with the following:
"5.(1) Subject to this Act, the Commissioner"; and b) by adding after line 36, on page 2, the following:
"(2) Any decision made by the Commissioner, or by a member of the Force on behalf of the Commissioner, under section 5, 9, 11 or 14 of this Act may be reviewed by the Minister on application by a law enforcement agency."
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand before the House today to address pressing issues on criminal justice, specifically Bill C-78, the Witness Protection Program Act.
There is an urgent need for legislation of this nature. I can relate to that on a personal level. For the past 22 years I have been a police officer in the city of Calgary, serving my constituents as well as the city in general. A good portion of that time has been devoted to the investigation of major crime. I have gained practical insight about how valuable witnesses are in the conduct of an investigation.
There is no doubt in my mind that certain witnesses need to be protected from potential harm, particularly when their testimony relates to organized criminal activity such as drugs and alcohol, tobacco smuggling operations, and trafficking or other conspiracies to commit violent capital crimes.
The decision for one criminal to turn in other criminals can be a difficult one, not only for police departments that have to handle this individual but also for the criminal himself. If justice is to be served, we must take strong measures to protect from any potential harm those witnesses who step forward. They may come from one of two categories: they may be active criminals themselves or they may have inadvertently been caught in some criminal act in some fashion, unknowingly.
Simply put, without the testimony of those individuals who come forward to present their knowledge or experience of a criminal activity or conspiracy to a police officer and eventually to a court there would be no investigation, no charges, and ultimately no convictions.
Violent and organized crime is on the rise in Canada. I do not think this government understands that. No longer can politicians live in denial of this reality. Wherever there is a dollar to be made illegally, the criminal element will organize to beat the law.
A prime example of this organized criminal activity is motorcycle gang violence and the resulting turf war spilling out into the streets. We see that in Toronto and in Montreal. There is little to do on the part of this government right now to change a lot of that.
It is no secret in law enforcement circles that the Hell's Angels are in an all out war with the Outlaws motorcycle gang over control of the lucrative drug trade, prostitution, and a mass of contraband smuggling and distribution business. The recent spate of bombings and killings in Montreal and Toronto continues as kingpins make money and people die. The carnage must stop if law and order is to be restored on Canadian streets.
It is extremely unsettling that this government would not acknowledge the new reality of organized criminal activity in our country. Furthermore, this do-nothing government has jeopardized the security of law-abiding citizens by burying their heads in the sand and hoping that crime will disappear.
Consider that the budget for this witness protection program in Canada will accommodate approximately 80 to 100 individuals in any given year. That is very small. The budget established by the Solicitor General of Canada, a mere $3.4 million, is fundamentally inadequate, given the resources required to penetrate the culture of organized crime and to properly identify and recruit criminals willing to inform on their own kind.
The RCMP would intensify their efforts in this regard if more resources were available. My chief concern is not only the witness protection funding deficiencies, but also the lack of vision on the part of the Solicitor General. Instead of funding special interest lobbies who advocate criminal rights, the Solicitor General might instruct his fat cat colleagues to consider the safety of the public for a change.
Perhaps if the minister were to rescind his gold plated pension and convince others in the government to do the same, the government could then find the funds to give the RCMP the tools they need to get the job done. But those pensions are near and dear to the hearts of the government side.
Bill C-78 certainly is a step toward strengthening the RCMP witness protection program as it exists presently. However, there were some problems with the legislation before this bill came into being, which have given rise to the amendments we are proposing here today. The first is the absolute authority of the RCMP commissioner in the decision making process in the following areas: (a) to determine whether a witness should be admitted into the program; (b) to terminate the protection of the witness if in the opinion of the commissioner it is warranted; (c) to disclose the identity and the location of the witness or the protectee; and (d) to
make arrangements with other law enforcement agencies, attorneys general of the provinces, or other provincial agencies.
With respect to the agreements that are struck between the parties involved in the witness protection program, I wish to point out that as it stands with this bill there is no resolution mechanism or appeal procedure for agencies, agents, and protectees to air their concerns beyond the commissioner. It is a crucial that a resolution mechanism become part of this bill. I know personally of disagreements arising between law enforcement agencies and the RCMP, which ended abruptly upon the decision of the commissioner. Take for example the concerns expressed by two witnesses who came before the standing committee on justice, one of whom was a serving police officer representing dozens of police agencies and officers across the country.
As it stands, the individual witness under protection is restricted in taking up matters of concern regarding the conditions of protection to the public complaints commission but not to the Solicitor General's office. I submit that this process is totally inadequate.
Most police departments have an informant control officer who regulates the handling of an informant for the appropriate department. This type of arrangement allows a process of appeal in the event of an unsatisfactory decision on the part of the commissioner and would be available to agreements between individual police agencies and the RCMP via the informant control officer. I submit that this provision would make the program much more effective, thus enabling agencies greater flexibility in their investigation of organized crime.
I have had an opportunity to visit various parts of this country and specifically this province. Organized crime has a firm grip in certain areas, and the police agencies can do little or nothing about it. One such area several Reform MPs visited was the area of Cornwall and the reserve of Akwesasne, where there is organized smuggling and it is being distributed across this country.
A lot of people do not understand the effects of drug smuggling as it applies to their own lives and their own communities. Drugs that come through areas such as the Akwesasne reserve at Cornwall and are distributed across the country do make it onto the streets of our communities and into our schools.
I would strongly urge members to support this particular bill, which brings forth more accountability to deal with crime of that nature.
That is not the only area in the country that is subject to the will of the organized criminal. Until we get some real firm legislation and a strong commitment on the part of the Solicitor General to increase the funding in this particular area to combat the organized syndicate, we will not gain any headway and the streets of our country will not be any safer.
