Kevin Sorenson

[Canadian Economy, October 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would certainly apologize if the member feels that I made a partisan attack. The opposition stands and offers policy, and then six months later the same policy it offered becomes a partisan attack against them if we use their policy.

Thanks to Canada's economic action plan, Canada has enjoyed strong economic performance during both the recession and the recovery. Over a million new jobs were created. Let us think about it, nearly 90% are full-time jobs and over 80% of those full-time jobs are in the private sector, since July 2009. Everywhere we look, the IMF, the OECD, any international agency that looks to Canada looks with optimism. They say Canada is the place to be in the future. The only ones who have dismal, pessimistic views of Canada seem to be across the way. I am sorry to state the obvious. It is not a partisan attack.

[Canadian Economy, October 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the question that came from my colleague across the way, Canada is well positioned.

We talk about more job creation, and that is what we are focusing in on. We understand that if we are going to have jobs for our young Canadians there are a number of things that we need to do. First, we need to improve innovation. When we have innovation and when we have new jobs being created because of innovation, generally speaking it is the youth, the younger people, the educated, who those jobs will be available for. Innovation is going to be very key.

Canada is well positioned because, as members know, Canada has one of the best educated labour forces in the world. There are still too many people without jobs, but going forward, especially in a fragile global economy, those countries that have a highly skilled labour force are those countries that are going to succeed and prosper.

That is what the government is committed to. The government is committed to skills training. The government is committed to providing opportunities for young Canadians, men, women, aboriginals, all sectors, to get the proper education for those jobs, which are going to be available, tomorrow's jobs. We are well positioned. We continue to look to innovation and to education. We continue to look to reinvestment back into businesses, and to businesses' reinvestment back into their own businesses to help create those jobs.

[Canadian Economy, October 17th, 2013]

I also thank you for your congratulations and wishing me all the best luck in this position—

[Canadian Economy, October 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome back my critic across the way.

It is no secret that our government has been focused on job creation. We have seen the history. We know that jobs are what matters to Canadians. We know that economic growth is what matters to Canadians. We understand that the economic growth is going to create jobs.

Unlike the New Democratic Party, our government is not planning just to increase the public sector and say we have now created jobs. We are building and creating. We are helping to foster an environment that is conducive to the private sector creating jobs. We realize that, if jobs are going to last, they are going to be created by small and medium-sized business. We understand that in small-town Saskatchewan, Alberta, Nova Scotia and all across the country, small and medium-sized businesses are the drivers of job creation. That is what we are continuing to work on.

Even though the global economy remains fragile, as the member mentioned, especially in the United States and Europe, our economic policies have helped protect Canada and helped with the more than one million new jobs that have been created. As I said In my speech, by far the majority of those jobs are full-time jobs in high-paying industries.

[Canadian Economy, October 17th, 2013]

moved:

That this House take note of the Canadian economy, and

(a) recognize that Canadians' top priority remains economic growth and job creation; and

(b) commend the government's economic record which includes the creation of more than one million net new jobs since July 2009, a banking system recognized as the safest and soundest in the world for the past six years, and the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio among G7 countries.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all parties for the speeches that have just been given in congratulations of the birth of Prince George.

It was an important moment to sit here and listen to all parties being on the same page. I am optimistic. We are moving into debate on the throne speech, and maybe it will carry on and we will all be able to support this very good throne speech.

I am very pleased to rise in the House on this day and take part in today's debate. Two and a half years ago, Canadians elected our government with clear instructions: navigate the global economy; create jobs; create growth; keep taxes low.

Canada has faced challenging times, and we have made some tough decisions. I am pleased to say that we have made the right decisions, the right choices, for Canadian employees, businesses, families and communities.

The results of these choices are clear. Debt is low and deficits are falling. Businesses are creating new jobs, new opportunities for Canadians, and Canadians are working today more than ever before. Under the strong leadership of the Prime Minister, and as we all know, the world's greatest finance minister, Canada has weathered the economic storm well, and the world has noticed.

Both the International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development expect Canada to be among the strongest growing economies in the G7 over this year and next year. For the sixth year in a row, the World Economic Forum has rated Canada's banking system as being the world's soundest. Real gross domestic product is significantly above pre-recession levels, the best performance in the G7. In addition, three credit rating agencies—Moody's, Fitch, and Standard & Poor's—have reaffirmed their top rating for Canada, and it is expected that Canada will maintain its triple A rating in the years ahead.

Since the depth of the recession, over one million net new jobs have been created, an outstanding achievement for Canada and the best record in the G7. In fact, we are not only leading the G7 in job creation but also on the strength of our balance sheet and in political stability. However, as we all know, and are too often reminded, the global economic recovery is fragile, and global economic turbulence remains. Our largest trading partners, the United States and Europe, continue to wrestle with serious challenges and are struggling to find lasting, effective solutions. Not only is the global economy uncertain, it is also increasingly competitive. Canada faces increasing competition from a host of rising powers.

In addition to the threats to the Canadian economy that lie beyond our borders and beyond our shores, I am concerned about the potential threats to the Canadian economy from within our own nation, such as the threats we hear from the leader of the New Democratic Party. As if imposing a $20-billion carbon tax was not enough, the leader of the New Democratic Party has another multibillion dollar tax hike that he would love to impose on Canadians. Last week, the New Democratic Party leader reaffirmed his plan to take over $10 billion each year out of the pockets of Canadian entrepreneurs, out of the pockets of Canadian business, to fund big, bloated government schemes.

As I traveled throughout my constituency this summer, I did not hear anyone suggest that Ottawa needed more money and that they needed less. Everyone wanted just the opposite. The New Democratic Party tax hike would target job creators, especially small and medium-sized companies, with a nearly 50% increase in their tax bill.

This NDP tax scheme would kill jobs and stall the Canadian economy, all of this during a time of global economic uncertainty.

Canadians know better. That is why Canadians gave our Conservative government a mandate to keep their taxes low. I am pleased to report that this is exactly what we have done and continue to do.

Dan Kelly, president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, said:

At a time when the economic recovery is still quite fragile, it’s important that governments focus on balancing their budgets and not hitting entrepreneurs with payroll tax hikes.

We agree with him.

Year after year we have lowered taxes not just for business but for families and indeed for all Canadians. For example, we have cut the GST from 7% to 6% to 5%. We have established a $5,000 tax credit for first-time home buyers. We have reduced the lowest personal income tax rate and have increased the basic personal exemption. We have introduced income splitting and pension splitting for seniors. Overall, the federal tax burden is at its lowest level in 50 years. As a result of our government's low tax plan, in 2013 the average family now pays $3,200 less in taxes than it paid in the past.

Not only are we delivering on our promise to keep taxes low, we are also delivering on our commitment to balance the budget. Last year's deficit was less than forecast. Our government will balance the budget in 2015.

Unlike the opposition members, who support reckless tax-and-spend policies, our government knows that Canada needs responsible fiscal management. Responsible fiscal management ensures the sustainability of public services and lowers the tax rate for future generations. In an uncertain global economy, the most important contribution our government can make to bolster confidence and growth is to maintain a sound fiscal position.

I will quote Denis Mahoney, chair of St. John's Board of Trade, who said:

We are pleased that the federal government is staying the course of their long-term plan. There is still much volatility in the global economy and a prudent course of action is a safe course of action for our federal economy.

We agree with him.

Just as our government manages debt, we are also tackling spending. We are reducing the size and cost of government to ensure that tax payers get value for their money. Through economic action plan 2013, we announced further savings in government spending totalling $2 billion through numerous common-sense improvements. These include reducing wasteful departmental spending, reducing travel costs through the use of videoconferencing and other technology, and eliminating tax loopholes.

Economic action plan 2013 announced a number of measures to close tax loopholes to address aggressive tax planning, to clarify tax rules, to combat international tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance, and to improve tax fairness. Ensuring that everyone pays their fair share helps to keep taxes low for Canadian families and businesses, thereby improving the incentive to work, improving the incentive to save, and improving the incentive to invest back in Canada.

By 2017-18, both program expenses as a share of gross domestic product and the federal debt-to-GDP ratio are expected to fall to pre-recession levels.

Our government's commitment to sound public finances will help to ensure that Canada will by far maintain the lowest debt burden among the G7 countries. This is just one of the many ways we are leading the G7. I mentioned earlier that we lead the G7 in job creation.

In regard to economic action plan 2013, Lori Mathison, chair of the Government Budget and Finance Committee of the Vancouver Board of Trade, commented that our government is “...demonstrating a commitment to returning to a balanced budget in the short term, but at the same time, supporting economic growth and job creation”.

Ms. Mathison is correct. Since we introduced the economic action plan to respond to the global recession, Canada has recovered more than all of the output and all of the jobs lost during the recession. Since July 2009, employment has increased by over one million and is now 605,000 above its pre-recession peak, the strongest job growth among the G7 countries over the recovery. Almost 90% of all jobs created since July 2009 have been in full-time positions. Close to 85% of those jobs are in the private sector, and about 60% of those jobs are in high-wage industries.

These statistics are just a few of the many examples that demonstrate our strong record on job creation, but they also demonstrate that we have not been willing just to stay there, just to stop there.

Economic action plan 2013 also helps connect more Canadians with available jobs. This includes the creation of the Canada job grant, providing $15,000 more per person in combined federal, provincial or territorial and employer funding to help Canadians get the skills they need for real jobs that are in demand. We have strengthened the apprenticeship program, making it easier to get needed experience for journeyman status. We are supporting job opportunities by providing tools to persons with disabilities, youth, aboriginals and recent immigrants to help them find a job. Economic action plan 2013 will not only help individuals to find employment, but it will help all business, small, medium and large alike. It will help them to succeed.

For example, the hiring credit for small business will be expanded and extended for one year, allowing Canadian small business to reinvest $225 million in job creation. Our plan will increase support for small-business owners, farmers and fishermen by raising the lifetime capital gains exemption to $800,000 in 2014 and indexing the new limit to inflation, thereby providing federal tax relief of $110 million over five years.

In the forestry sector, we will provide $92 million over two years, starting in 2014-2015, to continue to support the industry's ongoing transformation to higher value activities and its expansion into new export markets.

Our government is also announcing economic and security initiatives that will implement Canada's commitments under the Canada–U.S. beyond the border action plan, with a view to ensuring the secure and efficient flow of legitimate goods and people across the border.

I could go on, but I also want to say a few words about our government's investments in world-class research and innovation. Since 2006, our government has provided more than $9 billion in new resources to support science, technology and the growth of innovative firms, helping to foster a world-class research and innovation system that supports Canadian businesses and economic growth. Canada's entrepreneurs and risk takers are confronted with the many challenges of a globally competitive marketplace. As the global economy becomes more competitive, Canada must continue to break through with new ideas, so our businesses can become more competitive and create and sustain high-paying, value-added jobs. By supporting advanced research and technology, our government is choosing to invest in the current and future prosperity of Canadians.

To ensure that Canada remains a global research and innovation leader, economic action plan 2013 announced a number of investments, including $225 million to support advanced research infrastructure and the Canadian Foundation for Innovation long-term operations.

In addition, there will be $37 million annually to strengthen partnerships between industry and researchers, to help transform knowledge into innovative new products and services; $20 million over three years to help small and medium-sized enterprises access research and business development services at a not-for-profit research institution of their choice; and $325 million over eight years to Sustainable Development Technology Canada to support the development and demonstration of new clean technologies, which can save businesses money, create high-paying jobs and drive innovation. By consistently supporting advanced research and technology, our government is choosing to invest in the current and future prosperity of Canadians.

We are also choosing to invest in infrastructure. That is no secret. We have been doing that over the period of the global downturn. Infrastructure investment creates jobs, supports trade, drives productivity, and contributes to economic growth and prosperity. For Canadians, our government's infrastructure investments will mean less pressure on daily work life, less congestion and shorter commutes, which mean more time at home with their families.

That is why this year our government launched the new building Canada plan, the largest long-term federal commitment to job-creating infrastructure in our nation's history. Over the next decade, we will invest $70 billion in federal, provincial, territorial and community infrastructure. This includes projects such as making improvements to Highway 63 in Fort McMurray, Alberta; building subways in the Greater Toronto Area; replacing Montreal's Champlain Bridge; building a new Windsor-Detroit crossing; and the twinning of Highway 11 in Saskatchewan. All of these projects will create jobs and are welcomed by communities across Canada.

Let me quote the mayor of Regina, who said he is “glad there's a long-term, predictable, sustainable infrastructure investment in Saskatchewan, in Regina, and right around the country”. The Toronto Region Board of Trade “commends the federal government for making important, long term enhancements to infrastructure development while supporting economic growth”. It agrees that “Long-term, predictable and sustainable infrastructure financing is imperative to helping build the Toronto region transportation plan...”. The board stated that it is “pleased the federal government has renewed its commitment to helping meet this objective”. Mark Gerretsen, Mayor of Kingston, said he is “pleased to see infrastructure spending“ and that our government's long-term commitment to infrastructure investment allows Kingston to better plan for infrastructure priorities.

Of course, there are many other steps we are taking to create jobs, many other steps that are promoting growth and many other steps that are helping to realize long-term prosperity for Canada and for Canadians. I have only had time this morning to highlight a few. Thanks to our strong leadership, Canada is universally recognized for its resilience through the global recession and recovery, its low-tax environment, its highly educated and skilled labour force, its natural resource endowments and a financial sector that is the envy of the world.

By staying the course, the Government of Canada will continue to promote economic growth, continue to work toward job creation and continue to plan for the prosperity of all Canadians.

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, all groups are included in this program. Youth are also included in the program.

The problem with the witness protection program, as far as youth are concerned, is that in most cases we are now not talking about the relocation of one young individual. We very well could be talking about the entire family.

Although youth are included in this, I think we asked the RCMP if anyone had been not permitted into the program because they were youth. The answer was no. The RCMP said that anyone who needs to be in this program gets into it.

In a few cases when witnesses understand the severity of what the program would entail, they do not always want to then move into that program. Not everyone who is bringing forward testimony against crime wants to give up the life they have now, their circle of friends and in some cases their family. They do not necessarily want to be in this program. However, for the most extreme measures, even for a short term, there is a need enter the program.

To relocate an entire family becomes difficult, but if that is what is needed, I think the answer is that it would happen.

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, that is one of the things that I am not certain was expanded on in committee, the extension from 80 days, I think, to 180 days.

Basically, what the different witnesses talked about when they came forward were the provincial requests. The provincial requests were about the length of time it took to move from the provincial program, which a number of our provinces have, into the federal program or the federal department in order to secure identities. The main thrust of what the provinces were pushing for was streamlining. I think they felt it would help save money and time for the provinces and for the police forces if we could have this type of thing streamlined. That was one of the big ones.

Another was disclosure. Most witnesses brought forward the idea that we should toughen up on those who would disclose who they were or where they were hiding or were relocated to. Those were some of the issues.

It was good legislation before, and it is better now. It has evolved to this point. It has taken a few years from both governments, but we have taken all the things that needed to be done that had been brought forward and included them in this bill. There are no gaping holes. That there were no other amendments attests to that. We worked well together with the other political parties.

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, obviously the member was listening to my speech, and I appreciate that.

Yes, that was one of the pieces of information that came out. We have a very specialized police force, and its members are very professional. There are many on this side of the House who have served in the RCMP and other police forces. They all say that individuals within the departments, the RCMP, the Toronto metro police or any metropolitan or municipal police force all have their areas of expertise. All of a sudden, someone is renowned in the force as being one of the individuals in charge of the witness protection plan. These individuals have their connections, their people and their locations, and pretty soon they have a real expertise.

People come and go on the forces, and as the old saying goes, loose lips sink ships. It may not necessarily always occur in the police force; it may come from some of the witnesses who have been protected. All of a sudden the talk begins, “Constable X or Sergeant Y or so-and-so did a great job”, and now these folks become targets.

It is important for the law enforcement officers who help provide this major service to our justice system that we put a further stamp on the important jobs that they do and in legislation and statute say that they need to be protected even more.

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to chair a committee that really wants to accomplish some things. I give credit to both the NDP and Liberal members on this committee, as well as the government members. We worked well.

To be quite frank, there are times in committee, as here, that politics may want to be played, but there has to come a time, especially at committee, when we say we want to accomplish something. I do not know the constituency of the Liberal member who sits on the committee, but the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca and others on the committee worked together with the government on this bill.

We heard from some very good witnesses. We heard different individuals ask us to move this bill forward as quickly as possible. We heard from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Assistant Commissioner Todd Shean. We also heard from Sergeant Abraham Townsend, who said, “On behalf of those I represent, I wish to thank the government for advancing Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act, which will in turn advance the public safety interests of all Canadians”. He said he wanted to thank “the government” for advancing Bill C-51, but I think we can look back and say he wanted to thank Parliament for advancing it, because we are moving it through quickly, and all of those involved in this very important legislation understand the importance of doing that.

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all those who have spoken to the bill.

I have the privilege of chairing the public safety and national security committee. Our committee did the study and research on Bill C-51, which is why I am pleased to rise today and speak to the safer witness act.

If members would indulge me for a moment, I would like to paint a picture of what I believe most Canadians, indeed most people across North America, think the witness protection program is about and how it works. For that, we can thank Hollywood with the movies it puts out, TV shows, reality shows, cop shows and shows about crime. To a certain degree, the image of witness protection has almost been glamorized.

For example, in a typical movie, the underappreciated subordinates in some gangs or crime rings decide they will step away from their gangs and go to the police to spill the beans about the gangs' criminal undertakings and talk about the bosses of the crime rings. The movie shows the informants receiving false IDs and law enforcement taking them to new cities where they begin new lives as a different people. They are given new jobs and acquaintances who hopefully will become their friends, and that is where they now live their new lives.

Being a Hollywood movie, their real identities are eventually discovered by the old crime gangs and they pull out all the stops to silence them before they get to trial. Indeed, if they do get to trial and spill the beans, then the gang finds them and they get some payback for the testimony they gave against their former colleagues.

Thankfully, that is not reality. Quite frankly, the Hollywood version is oversimplified. It certainly makes for a good movie, but it is not the way the witness plan works.

In real life, being part of a witness protection program does not mean a life of bodyguards stationed outside one's door or home, or being drawn into wild action scenes such as being followed while running down the street, avoiding gunshots and, thankfully getting back to the safe hiding place. That is not the way it is. However, this is not to say that protecting witnesses is not important or dangerous. After all, there is a reason why witnesses need protection and the police understand that. I think Canadians also understand it.

These individuals have generally agreed to help law enforcement or provide testimony on criminal matters with the end goal of removing criminal elements from the streets and making our communities safer. The inside knowledge they have agreed to provide to authorities may be invaluable, but could place their lives at risk.

Witness protection is recognized around the world as one of the most important tools that law enforcement may use and should at least have at its disposal to combat criminal activity. If we cannot provide adequate protection in our country to those individuals who agree to come forward, despite the danger they face, we lose a very critical source of information in getting to the bottom of the criminal charges and crime.

In the case of organized crime in particular, these witnesses are often the key components in achieving convictions. To ensure a fair and effective response to organized crime, terrorism and other serious crimes, government and police agencies must provide protection to informants and witnesses who can face intimidation, violence, reprisals and indeed, the loss of their own lives. Offering protection to these informants and witnesses allows law enforcement to obtain and sustain their collaboration. For this reason, we must ensure that we have the best system in place to protect these individuals.

Here in Canada, we have two separate witness protection programs. We have the programs run by the provinces and the federal witness protection program. While informal witness protection has been practised since 1970 in Canada, the federal witness protection program was officially established only in 1996. It is administered by our national police force, the RCMP. The provincial programs, found in Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan, typically provide shorter-term protection and could include relocating the person temporarily or providing limited financial support.

In cases where provincial protectees require secure identity changes, they must be transferred to the federal program. At the federal level, the Witness Protection Program Act provides a range of emergency protections to witnesses under threat, from temporary protection to permanent relocation to, in some cases, complete identity changes.

As members have heard over the last several years, extensive consultations and studies of the federal witness protection program indicated a clear need to modernize the current legislation and to improve how the federal and provincial programs intersect. The safer witnesses act contains a number of amendments to the Witness Protection Program Act that do just that. They fall within five broad areas.

First, the bill would enable the provinces to have their respective programs designated under the federal act, thereby allowing their witnesses to receive secure identity changes without having to be admitted into the federal program. This measure would cut back on duplication. It would mean that they could continue without beginning the program and then having to move to the federal program. They would now be part of their own provincial plans.

In stakeholder consultations, some provinces indicated that having to transfer their protectees to the federal program for identity changes can be cumbersome and time-consuming. Bill C-51 addresses these calls for change. Any time we have duplication and cumbersome, time-consuming regulations for an act, it costs money. The provinces have recognized this and have asked for this part of the enablement to be done through the provincial program.

Second, the federal organization would be required to help the RCMP obtain secure identity changes for witnesses in both the federal program and designated provincial programs. It would give the federal organizations or departments the requirement that they will help provide these for the provincial plans. The RCMP would continue to act as the liaison between the provincial and federal programs.

Third, Bill C-51 would broaden the prohibition against disclosure, ensuring the protection of provincial witnesses and information about both the federal and provincial programs. This measure addresses calls by the provinces, again, to ensure that witnesses in their programs are protected from the disclosure of prohibited information throughout Canada.

Fourth, the legislation proposes changes that would expand which entities could refer individuals to the federal program. Currently, only law enforcement agencies and the international criminal tribunals can make referrals to the witness protection program.

Under Bill C-51, it would be broadened to include other organizations, such as national security, defence and public safety organizations. They would be able to refer witnesses to the federal program. When we heard witnesses, all parties said that it should not just be the RCMP. Indeed, in some cases, it needs to be the Department of National Defence or CSIS that steps forward. We are just broadening the groups that can refer to this program.

Fifth, the bill addresses a number of other concerns from federal and provincial stakeholders, such as allowing for voluntary termination from the federal program and extending emergency protection to a maximum of 180 days. I think it is currently 90 days. This says that in this day and age, temporary emergency protection timelines may have to be doubled.

Together, the proposed changes would serve to strengthen the current Witness Protection Program Act, making the federal program more effective and secure for both the witnesses and for those who provide the protection.

The crux of the program is to keep those involved and their information safe and secure. Our committee was taken with this. As we heard this morning, already five meetings have been held, because there is a need to extend protection.

Mr. Speaker, I know that the parliamentary secretary, in her speech, highlighted these points, but as this is a matter of importance to front-line police officers and witnesses, I would like to turn your attention to the proposed changes to disclosure prohibitions.

Currently, the act prohibits the disclosure of information about such things as the location or change of identity of a current or former federal protectee. A concern was brought forward that these disclosures be extended to include information about provincial witnesses and about the provincial witness programs and those they protect.

The safer witnesses act addresses this concern with changes that broaden the prohibition on disclosing information in a number of areas. First, and maybe most important, it prohibits the disclosure of information related to the individuals who are protected under the designated provincial program.

Second, it prohibits disclosure of any means or methods of protection that could endanger the protected individuals or the integrity of the programs themselves. This includes information about the methods used to provide protection or support. It also includes information about the methods used to record or exchange confidential information as well as data about the location of secure facilities.

Third, it prohibits the disclosure of any information on the identity or role of persons who provide or assist in providing protection to the witnesses. Not only is the witness going to be protected, but the person who organizes providing the secure identity and location and so on will be protected. This would broaden the prohibition to include not being able to disclose information about those involved in changing identities.

Further, the bill clarifies language in the current act to ensure that these measures apply to situations in which a person directly or indirectly discloses information. The bill also specifies that one must knowingly reveal this information for it to be an offence. Mens rea applies. It has to be willing disclosure. That would become prohibited.

Bill C-51 includes changes that would further strengthen the legislation in this regard. For example, as stated in the current act, the protectee or former protectee can disclose information about him or herself, as long as it does not endanger the life of another protectee or former protectee and does not compromise the integrity of the program itself.

Under Bill C-51, this wording would be changed to remove the reference to the integrity of the program and would clarify that the protected person could disclose information if it would not lead to substantial harm to another protected person.

The current act also allows for disclosure of prohibited information by the RCMP commissioner for a variety of reasons, such as if the protected person gives his or her consent or if the protectee or former protectee has already disclosed the information or acted in a manner that resulted in the disclosure. If the disclosure is essential to the public interest for a purpose such as investigations or for the prevention of a serious crime, national security or national defence, the Commissioner of the RCMP may be able to disclose it. Most people understand that in those cases, under certain conditions, the RCMP commissioner may have the ability to disclose if that disclosure is going to protect our society. In criminal proceedings where the disclosure is necessary to establish the innocence of a person, again, the RCMP commissioner may be able to disclose under certain conditions.

Under the safer witness act, the wording would be changed as it relates to the RCMP commissioner disclosing prohibited information for the “public interest”. As such, under Bill C-51, he or she could only disclose this information when it was essential to the administration of justice. I think all parties recognize that reasonable grounds include disclosure to uphold justice.

Furthermore, we propose to change the wording for national security purposes. Under Bill C-51, the commissioner could disclose prohibited information if he or she had “reasonable grounds to believe that the disclosure is essential for...security or national defence”.

Along the same vein, Bill C-51 contains several proposed changes that would authorize the RCMP commissioner to disclose information in specific situations. For example, he or she should disclose information about both federal and designated program protected persons for the purpose of providing assistance to federal or provincial protectees in need of secure identity changes. The commissioner would also be able to disclose information about federal and designated program protectees in situations where a protected person either agreed to the disclosure or had previously disclosed information. For example, the protected person may have revealed his or her change of identity to family or friends.

According to the bill, the commissioner would be authorized to disclose information about the actual federal program and methods of protection and about the role of a person who provided protection under the program. This would only be done when the commissioner felt there were reasonable grounds to believe that the disclosure was critical for the administration of justice or for national security, national defence or public safety.

Other changes relate to the disclosure of information about protectees under the provincial designated programs and to issues related to the disclosure of information by an official of a designated provincial program. The RCMP commissioner does have some leeway here if it is for the protection of Canadian citizens.

This is a good overview of those elements in Bill C-51 that relate to safeguarding and disclosing information that could compromise the safety of protected witnesses.

To recap, the bill would broaden the prohibition on the disclosure of information beyond name and location of federal protectees to include protected persons in the designated provincial programs. It would also extend disclosure prohibitions to include information about all witness protection programs and the people who administer them. The bill would also provide exceptions to the disclosure of information to permit disclosure in certain circumstances, such as when it is in the interest of justice or public safety.

As I said at the outset, individuals who decide to become informants and to testify against crime organizations can face intimidation and danger. In his 2010 report entitled “A Review of Selected Witness Protection Programs”, Dr. Yvon Dandurand noted that the overwhelming majority of witnesses enrolled in witness protection programs are either involved in criminal activity or are somehow connected with criminal elements.

I see that my time is up. I thank all other parties for working with us on this. It was a good time going through this at committee. We appreciate the support of the House for the bill.