Peter Milliken

[Questions On The Order Paper, October 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[Committees Of The House, October 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the 89th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to.)

[Committees Of The House, October 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table the 89th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which deals with the list of associate committee members.

With leave of the House, I intend to move for concurrence in this 89th report later this day.

[Government Response To Petitions, October 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to two petitions.

[Committees Of The House, October 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That four members of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons be authorized to travel to Halifax, Nova Scotia to attend the meeting of provincial disability advisory councils October 17 and 18, 1995.

(Motion agreed to.)

[Witness Protection Program Act, October 5th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I rise to participate in the debate following the remarks of the hon. member for Fraser Valley West. I will try to draw the debate back to the bill before us, instead of the scatter gun treatment we have had all over the place on all the other legislation the hon. member says he does not like. When he gets a good bill he does not know what to say; he is almost tongue tied. I sympathize with him, but I want to address my remarks to Bill C-78, the witness protection program act, which is the one we are debating in the House of Commons today.

The purpose of Bill C-78 is to establish a solid legislative and regulatory basis for the RCMP source witness protection program. This is necessary to ensure that our national witness protection program offers the best protection possible to potential sources and witnesses. Given the importance of the program and the fact that we are strengthening it and making it more open and accountable, it would be useful to provide the House with a brief historical overview of the RCMP source witness protection program and some background that went into the development of the witness protection program act.

I am sorry the hon. members find this so amusing. I do not think it is.

Historically witness protection programs are most closely associated with the investigation of organized crime. The term organized crime covers a broad range of criminal activity, including large scale drug trafficking, murder, serious assault, money laundering, extortion and robbery.

I wish hon. members would restrain themselves. They seem to treat serious legislation as a joke. The hon. member for Fraser Valley West in his remarks did not talk about the bill, and I did not find his remarks amusing.

The hon. member says that the speech was written for me. I am assisting the solicitor general in my capacity as his parliamentary secretary today. I am trying to impart information to the House concerning the bill so that hon. members perhaps will make more enlightened comments later. I wish the hon. member for Fraser Valley West had not split his time. He could have made his remarks after mine and would have benefited from listening.

As often as not, the crimes committed by these organized groups go hand in hand with the use of fear and intimidation to ensure the silence of potential witnesses and informants.

Using a broad definition of organized crime, it can be said that at the present time approximately 50 per cent of RCMP source witness protection program cases deal with organized crime. However witness protection today has a broader application. The disturbing trend in recent years has been the use of fear and intimidation by lone criminals. These people are willing to go to any lengths to avoid conviction or to extract retribution from witnesses. As a result a growing number of people need protection as a result of their role in cases that have nothing to do with organized crime.

To deal with the growing need for witness and source protection, and in response to increased enforcement priority placed on fighting major national and international drug trafficking organizations, the RCMP source witness protection program was started in 1984. Although originally intended for the use of the RCMP alone, the program now provides protective services to provincial and municipal police forces across Canada. While many police forces rely entirely on the RCMP for witness protection services, some of the larger police departments have formed their own witness protection units. These larger police services usually come to the RCMP for assistance in cases where federal help is needed to facilitate a change of identity for a witness or an informant.

Most people entering the RCMP source witness protection program in the mid-1980s were associated with major drug trafficking activities. However, as I mentioned a moment ago, this has changed of late. Today a growing proportion of people entering the program have been involved in Criminal Code offences such as murder and serious assault. Since starting the source witness protection program the RCMP has built up an infrastructure of experienced members and contacts. RCMP members are available in every province and territory to support witness relocations and protection, to obtain secure identity changes, and to help obtain the necessary provincial documents to authenticate those changes.

At headquarters in Ottawa RCMP members have developed national RCMP witness protection policy procedures and contacts to facilitate the changes that must be made within numerous federal government data banks when a witness or an informant receives a new identity.

The annual cost of the RCMP witness protection program is $3.4 million. As my learned friend, the solicitor general, has already pointed out, no additional costs are expected as a result of the legislation. The average cost per case is $30,000 and approximately 60 per cent of cases cost less than $20,000.

At any given time there are approximately 80 to 100 people, including family members, in the program. The success of the RCMP source witness protection program speaks for itself. Of the large number of witnesses, informants and their families who have been relocated since the program began, none has come to any harm. It is difficult to establish precise conviction statistics for cases involving protected witnesses. However, based on available data, approximately 85 per cent to 90 per cent of cases involving witness protection result in convictions, usually because of the testimony of the protected person.

From my brief remarks I am sure the hon. members can appreciate how important the witness source protection program is as a law enforcement tool. There is no more devastating evidence than the firsthand testimony of a trusted accomplice exposing the inner workings of a criminal organization or that of a witness who has seen a serious crime take place and can identify the perpetrators. Whether a witness or an informant, these individuals are invaluable assets of the police and the judicial system.

That is why it is our responsibility, as legislators, to do everything possible to ensure that our national witness protection program is as efficient and effective as it can be. It is for this purpose that the government is introducing this bill.

The proposed legislation was drafted in consultation with all major stakeholders and after all issues had been thoroughly examined. In my view, it is particularly important to point out that police forces across the country were consulted. In 1992, a questionnaire was sent out to about 400 municipal and provincial police forces in the country.

Our goal was to assess how much protection witnesses were afforded, determine the types of offences being committed and nature of the protection provided, examine the problems facing service users and recommend improvements. We also conducted a comprehensive review of witness protection programs in place in other countries, particularly the U.S., United Kingdom and Australia.

Bill C-78 incorporates the results of the analysis performed on the data collected and the lessons drawn from this extensive research. In short, this bill is the result of many years of research and effort and it will ensure that our national witness protection program remains modern and effective. Under the provisions of the bill, our program will continue to provide safe and effective support to witnesses under protection while at the same time remaining open and transparent.

Witness protection in itself will not check violent crime or organized crime. But it is nonetheless a major element of the investigative techniques available to law enforcement officials and a tool very useful to police in fighting against organized crime and major criminal activity in Canada. We must therefore make sure that it remains such a tool.

The solicitor general has already given the House the broad outlines of the bill and proposed changes to the RCMP's sources-witness protection program. All hon. members will agree that the need for such changes is crystal-clear. It only remains for me to associate myself with the closing remarks made by the solicitor general and urge all hon. members to ensure the speedy passage of Bill C-78.

[Questions On The Order Paper, October 5th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[Motions For Papers, October 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motion for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.

[Questions On The Order Paper, October 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[Committees Of The House, October 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 88th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in relation to the committee's consideration of the objections filed in accordance with the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. The committee respectfully requests that the deadline be extended to November 30, 1995.

If the House gives its consent I would move that the 88th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to.)