Roxanne James

[An Act to Bring Fairness for the Victims of Violent Offenders, October 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak up for the rights of victims. Far too often, victims are not given a voice when it comes to our criminal justice system. Violent crimes place a heavy burden on individual victims, their families and our communities. Our Conservative government recognizes that for individual victims and their families, it is a burden that may never be completely erased.

We have heard the calls from victims and victims' rights groups in this country for a greater voice and a greater balance in the criminal justice system, and we have taken decisive action to support them. As part of our commitment to fighting crime, protecting Canadians and holding offenders accountable, we brought in the Safe Streets and Communities Act. Through this legislation, we have already made significant improvements to the way victims are informed of an offender's progress in the correctional system, as well as ensuring that the victims' concerns are taken into account at parole hearings. Our government has also provided more than $90 million to a number of initiatives that provide support to the victims of crime.

While we have made real progress in this area, we are taking action to accomplish even more. Early this year, in February, we announced our plan to bring forward legislation to develop a Canadian victims' bill of rights. We have been working diligently to better understand the various views of what rights should be recognized and protected for victims and their families. We have sought input from the public through online consultation processes. We have held in-person consultations with victims of crime and justice advocates from across the country. Input from all of these consultations will ultimately contribute to advancing victims' rights in our country.

I would now like to recognize my colleague, the hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, for his dedication to bringing about meaningful changes in supporting victims. As part of this dedication, he has introduced Bill C-479, an act to bring fairness for the victims of violent offenders. I would also like to thank my colleague for bringing forward the bill, one that our Conservative government is very proud to support. The bill would help our government fulfill our commitments under our plan for safe streets and communities, including our promise to strengthen victims' rights.

Members of the House have heard heart-wrenching accounts about the impact of violent crimes on victims and their families. We have heard the bill's sponsor speak so passionately about one of his own constituents, who is one of these victims of violent crime. She is a woman who not only had to endure the pain caused by the murder of her sister, niece and nephew, but also the pain of revisiting those memories when delivering her victim impact statement at the offender's parole hearings. One cannot help but be moved by such accounts. Tragically, the experience of this particular constituent is but one of many relived every day by victims of all types of violent crime all over the country.

Our government is committed to supporting these victims. That is why I am honoured to rise today and lend my voice in support of Bill C-479. The bill's proposed changes to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act are important and would provide for a greater level of input from victims. In fact, some of the provisions the member has proposed in his bill are similar in spirit and scope to those of the Safe Streets and Communities Act. For example, the ability of victims to present statements is now enshrined in law, as is a necessity for the Parole Board of Canada to consider them. In this way, victims are being given an effective and permanent voice.

Bill C-479 contains a number of measures to help and support victims. First, in the case of offenders convicted of more serious violent crimes, it would increase the amount of time in which the Parole Board conducts a review of parole following a previous denial of parole. This change would mean that after these offenders are denied parole in a review of their case, it would be required every five years rather than the current two years. We believe that two years is simply too short a time period for some victims and their families to have to relive the events that brought them into contact with the criminal justice system.

Another important way the bill would support victims is by ensuring the parole process is more accommodating to their needs. The bill would ensure that victims are provided with additional information and the opportunity to be more involved in the parole process. The bill would recommit to the importance of enshrining that the needs of victims and victims' families are taken into consideration at parole review hearings. This is an essential element of the parole process that we are implementing, one that I would note is already enshrined in law, governing the Parole Board of Canada.

In support of this, the bill would also require that in instances where it is not possible, for various reasons, for a victim to attend a parole hearing, the proceedings would be made observable by an alternate means, such as by teleconference.

We have heard about the challenges for victims in the face of these parole hearings. To address these challenges, the bill would give the Parole Board the authority to cancel a review hearing to which the offender would otherwise be entitled if the offender had refused, without a valid reason, to attend or had waived review of a scheduled hearing on short notice more than once.

This bill will also require that victims be provided, at least 14 days in advance, with details such as the date, conditions, and location of the offender's release on parole, statutory release, or temporary absence. This is an important step being taken to ensure that victims and their families are kept informed and are aware.

Further, this bill will ensure that victims are provided information about the progress being made by the offender toward meeting the objectives of the offender's correctional plan. These measures will provide meaningful improvements in the lives of victims. These changes will further ensure that victims' voices are heard. These changes will bring us closer to a parole system that gives victims a greater voice in our criminal justice system.

In conclusion, I would like to note the support signalled by the hon. colleagues across the floor during the first hour of debate on this bill in this last session. So often we are used to seeing the Liberals and NDP members putting the rights of criminals before the rights of victims. It is encouraging at first reading and also today to see opposition parties come to their senses and realize the importance of putting victims first. With this bill we have an opportunity to see to it that victims are able to participate in a parole process that is more responsive to their needs.

At committee we intend to propose amendments to ensure that the bill may be implemented effectively. I believe that we can all agree that victims deserve to benefit from the provisions proposed in this bill. In every criminal offence, it is the victims who suffer most, and as such, it is the victims who deserve our greatest support.

I therefore call on all members of this House to offer their support for this very important legislation.

[Correctional Service of Canada, October 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, our government is continuing to take concrete steps on the issue of mental health in prisons. Both access to treatment services for inmates and training for staff have improved as a result of our strong leadership of this Conservative government. In fact, it was our government that ensured faster mental health screening, we created a mental health strategy for prisoners and we extended the mental health psychological counselling. Above all else, we have improved staff training to help in this area.

[Correctional Service of Canada, October 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, first this is a very sad case and our thoughts and prayers do go out to Miss Smith's family.

Our government, as the opposition members know, was directed by Corrections Canada to fully co-operate with the coroner's inquest, and it has done so. Our government takes the issue of mental health in prisons very seriously. That is why we have taken action to improve access to mental health treatment and training for corrections staff in prisons.

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 30th, 2013]

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.

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 30th, 2013]

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.

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 30th, 2013]

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.

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, originally when the act was brought into force, I believe that the only things that could not be disclosed were a change of name or the actual address or location. I know the member touched very briefly on how the changes we are making will better protect our hard-working men and women who serve our country through police agencies and so forth. Could the member speak to why it is so important to expand what specifically can and cannot be disclosed within the legislation before us?

[Taxation, May 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, last week we learned that two members of the NDP caucus owe tens of thousands of dollars in back taxes. If we can believe it, one is the former revenue critic. The NDP advocate for higher taxes for Canadians and at the same time cannot be bothered to pay their own.

Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport update the House on the measures the government has taken to keep taxes low for hard-working Canadian taxpayers?

[Sri Lanka, May 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, this week Canadians will remember the terrible tragedies endured by the Tamil people in Sri Lanka during the 25-year civil war.

My riding of Scarborough Centre is home to many Canadian Tamils. I stand today with Canada's Tamil community in remembering the thousands of innocent civilians who lost their lives or were displaced by the conflict.

Our government has worked hard to address the ongoing and serious human rights concerns in Sri Lanka. We have urged the Sri Lankan government to demonstrate accountability by investigating the allegations that up to 40,000 civilians were killed by Sri Lankan troops in the final phase of the civil war.

Our government calls on Sri Lanka to demonstrate a commitment to fundamental Commonwealth values, including respect for human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Our government is committed to working with the international community to prevent such horrific violence from ever happening again.

[Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, May 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree with the member. It is simple. First nations should have access to safe drinking water and those types of measures, the same things that every other Canadian enjoys in Canada, including every member in this House. My understanding is that this legislation before us today has been seven years in the making. There has been continuous dialogue between the Government of Canada and first nations. Some of the concerns first nations brought to the table have been incorporated into Bill S-8.

The member mentioned consultations with first nations. Could she elaborate and provide this House with more information regarding those consultations between first nations and the government, and also, after seven years, why it is so important to move this legislation forward?