JUST Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA JUSTICE ET DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, June 7, 2000

• 1537

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.)): Good afternoon, colleagues. I think we should begin today's business of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, which is Bill C-223, an act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act and to make related and consequential amendments to another act (protection of spouses whose life is in danger).

The sponsor of this bill is the member of Parliament for Prince George—Peace River, our colleague Jay Hill.

I invite Mr. Hill to make his opening statement.

Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It's a pleasure to be here today.

I'd like to start by thanking the committee for the opportunity to introduce Bill C-223 today. It's not often that a private member's bill, let alone one sponsored by an opposition member, makes it this far.

In my remarks today I will address, in a very brief manner, the problem of domestic violence in our society, the inadequacies of our present laws, and the current new identities program. I will explain the initiatives proposed in Bill C-223 and share with you my personal motivation for the bill.

Domestic violence is one of the most horrendous problems facing our society. For me, crimes committed within the family seem much more heinous than those committed by strangers. I believe it is the violation of trust that makes the difference.

The statistics are truly horrifying. In 1996, 21,901 cases of spousal assault were recorded in a sample of 154 police departments across our country. Approximately 80% of victims of criminal harassment or stalking were women. Between 1977 and 1996, there were 2,048 spousal killings in Canada. In 1998, there were 70 spousal homicides; four out of every five victims were female; and 57 women were killed by current spouses or ex-spouses. A further 10 women were killed by boyfriends or ex-boyfriends. In all, slightly more than half of all female homicide victims were killed by someone with whom they had an intimate relationship.

Of the 13 men killed by spouses last year, 12 were killed by current spouses and one individual was murdered by his estranged partner.

• 1540

In six out of ten incidents of spousal homicide, there was a history of domestic violence between the accused and the victim, of which police were aware.

The process of eradicating domestic violence is not easy. I am fully aware that the process will take some time. There is a lack of laws focused on preventing domestic violence and spousal abuse. Aside from anti-stalking laws and restraining orders, there are few remedies available.

Most of our laws focus on punishment for crimes already committed and are often too late for the victims. I believe we must make deterrence a greater factor in our lawmaking. Current sentencing practices, such as conditional sentencing for these types of offences, are inappropriate, in my mind. In other words, the punishment does not fit the crime.

Restraining orders and peace bonds require voluntary compliance. They require a rational respect for the law to supersede the emotional rage the assailants feel toward their spouses. I stated earlier that many of these cases had a long history of abuse. If they have beaten their spouse once, they have already demonstrated an irrational behaviour. How can we, as legislators, expect that person will then obey the terms of a court order? In many cases, the recourse is a murder charge. How will we serve the interests of the victim?

Such was the case for Terry-Lynne Miller from Dawson Creek in my riding. In February 1997, Brad Neuman, Miller's former common-law spouse, while on probation, beat her into a coma in her own apartment. Terry-Lynne suffered on the floor with severe head injuries for over 21 hours before getting medical attention. Then she remained in a coma until March of this year, when she finally expired from her injuries.

One of Neuman's probation conditions was that he was to have no contact with Terry-Lynne Miller. Other than going into hiding, Terry-Lynne could not ensure her own safety and paid the ultimate price. It was this case that really opened my eyes to the tragedy of domestic violence. Sadly, there have been thousands of others equally tragic—many, too many I submit, in your very own constituencies.

In January 1999, I read an article in The Province, a newspaper in Vancouver, detailing what I would call a maverick program run by bureaucrats in the department of Revenue Canada, in cooperation with Human Resources Development Canada. It provides new identities for those people who find themselves in life-threatening situations. It allows them to change their names and social insurance numbers in order to hide from an abusive spouse or former spouse.

The woman featured in the article had endured beatings, death threats, and emotional torture. The new identities program helped her relocate and get new documents. Unfortunately, her academic credentials and resume were not transferable to her new identity. This meant finding any job she could in order to support herself and her child. When her husband caught her trail again, she would have to run and start the same panicked process of self-preservation all over again.

I'd like to speak a little now about the making of private member's Bill C-223. I've been in contact with over 500 women's shelters and transition houses across Canada. They've replied with letters of support and tragic horrifying personal stories. They also returned petitions signed by hundreds of people in support of the bill. I want to impress upon this committee that they are hopeful that we, as parliamentarians, can enact laws to help protect them.

As part of my list of potential witnesses, I will bring forward testimony, either in person or in sworn written submissions, of women currently living with new identities. They will share their stories with us and, most importantly, describe from firsthand experience the shortcomings present in the existing new identities program.

The new identities program is an ad hoc one that provides assistance to those in need. However, the program is not well-known and operates without a mandate or formal funding. We should recognize the tremendous service the bureaucrats in these departments have undertaken. These individuals went far and beyond their job descriptions to help those in need. They exemplify to me the true meaning of the term “public servants”.

During second-reading debate, government members stated in their speeches that a partnership was underway between the provinces and the federal government to address domestic violence, and the new identities program was best suited to help these women.

While these deliberations are being carried out, two people per week in Canada, on average, are dying at the hands of their present or former spouses. If there were no need for this program, that homicide rate would be much lower. Although no law can end these deaths, preventing even one would be an extremely positive first step.

• 1545

I believe that the witness protection program is the natural home for New Identities. Women brought into the program will benefit from the expertise and knowledge of the RCMP, who already relocate crown witnesses. All law enforcement agencies across the country are connected electronically, granting access to this program from the most remote reaches of Canada. By bringing the new identities program under the Witness Protection Program Act, I believe we can do more, mainly for these women and their children. The Witness Protection Program Act defines protection as including relocation, accommodation, and change of identity as well as counselling and financial support.

These are services presently lacking in the new identities program—the existing new identities program. The witness protection program is not functioning as well as it should. The study of this bill by your committee will allow us to revisit the Witness Protection Program Act and address any shortcomings we find.

This program is not for everyone. In fact, the exact opposite is the reality. The new identities program is an escape of last resort, and I want to emphasize that. It would only be used as a last resort for those who the law has failed and are in fear of their lives and the lives of their children. These people, mostly women, would cut off all their ties to their families and friends so that they couldn't be traced by their spouses or former partners. It is not a decision that is entered into lightly. It is a life-and-death decision.

There are critics who have asserted that this is a means for women to abscond with their children. I say there are easier ways, and we will hear from these witnesses. I believe their concerns are valid. That is why there must be criteria and safeguards to ensure that abuses are minimized or eliminated. To protect from abuse, there's a list of factors or criteria to be considered for admission into the program. The nature of the risk to the security of the person would be assessed. Alternative methods of protecting the person without admission into the program would be considered, and the nature of the injuries suffered by the person, or the severe psychological damage inflicted by the spouse or any criminal history, would also be considered. The circumstances that caused the spouse to believe that their life was in danger would obviously be addressed and assessed, and such other factors that the Commissioner of the RCMP would deem relevant.

So I believe I have built in enough criteria that we would ensure the program would not be abused. I believe the criteria are fair and, as I say, would ensure that those who truly need the program will have access to it.

In closing, many of you on the committee I think know me and you know that I'm a practical, common-sense type of person. The witness protection plan helps people to disappear. It has been argued that it is only for crown witnesses. I say look outside the box. Canadians are inventive people who through hardship are forced to be creative. Why should we be any different? Are we really serving Canadians well to be finite in our approach to lawmaking? We are dealing with life-threatening situations. I say we roll up our sleeves and work together to find the solutions. We are parliamentarians elected to represent our constituents and pass laws in their best interest. This bill deals with the preservation of life, to aid those whose lives are in mortal danger, to save the most vulnerable members of our society, primarily women and children. I'm here to ask the committee to study domestic violence carefully, and I believe we have much work to do.

As I mentioned earlier, our laws do not deter or prevent these atrocious acts from occurring, but my bill will help save lives while we address those shortcomings. For those of you who may be opposed to the bill, I ask you: Where do we go from here? If not this bill, then what? If not now, when? Political loyalties and partisanship have no place in this debate. We need to put such things aside and find answers. You have my assurance that if a better means of protection is found as a result of your deliberations, I will withdraw this bill and replace it with the committee's recommendations.

Thank you, and I'll be pleased to try to address any questions, concerns, or comments.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Hill. We'll go to questions. First, we'll go to your colleague, who looks eager to put you on the spot here.

Mr. Cadman.

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): I wouldn't do that to my whip.

The Chair: We all know about whips.

• 1550

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Hill, for appearing. I think it goes without saying that all my colleagues around this table, I'm sure all our colleagues in the House, certainly have serious concerns about the issues you're trying to address here.

I have one fairly simple question here and it goes to the issue of funding. I'm assuming that this would fall under the auspices of the RCMP, and of course especially those of us in the west know the constraints—and the financial constraints—the RCMP are operating under these days. I'm wondering how much thought you've given to what this is going to cost, and are there resources available to the RCMP to take this on?

Mr. Jay Hill: Of course, yes, I have given some thought to that, and it's very difficult to get a handle on what the projected cost would be given that we don't know exactly how many people would be admitted into the program; we don't know how expansive the assistance would be.

Under the existing Witness Protection Program Act there are varying degrees of assistance that can be provided, for example, to crown witnesses at present, and therefore we don't know exactly how much would be given. I suspect it would be on an individual basis as to whether the individual is relocated to the far reaches of the country, into a different province, for example. Of course, the further you're going to relocate them there would be corresponding increases in cost.

I think it's a very valid concern. A number of people in their speeches—and I respect that—at second reading debate in the House of Commons, when the bill was before the House, brought up the issue of the cost the RCMP would incur.

I think it's something that would necessarily be addressed by the committee during deliberations on the bill. I suspect certainly it's not within the parameters of the individual member from any party, even the government party, to put forward private members' legislation that incurs costs. That's why, instead of designing a new program specifically for spousal protection, I had to look at other avenues, and I've made the obvious suggestion that's contained in this bill that it be included under the existing Witness Protection Program Act. If I were to bring forward a bill that set up a new program that would require new funding, it would be ruled out of order, because only the government can bring forward so-called money bills.

But the funding issue is a very valid concern. I think that were the committee to pass or amend this bill...it's going to have to be addressed by the government, obviously, because, as you point out, Mr. Cadman, the RCMP are stretched to the limit now and there would have to be new funding available for this program.

I would sum up by saying that while I recognize that, we've often heard the term in the House of Commons: at what price do we value human life? These are, as I said in my opening remarks, the most vulnerable members of our society. I think it would be a small price, whatever it is, for additional funding for the RCMP to expand the witness protection program to include spouses, to pay to save those lives. There isn't a week that goes by when we don't see in the news, or when we pick up a newspaper, that there's some other woman, or in some cases children...sometimes it's a murder-suicide situation where people lose their lives to domestic violence. I think it would be money well spent.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Ms. Venne.

Ms. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Good afternoon, Mr. Hill.

Obviously, the first issue is that of money. We don't know all the whys and wherefores of all this, but we know that it will certainly require additional funding. We will see when the time comes.

My question is the following. You have decided to define the law enforcement agencies. That is what I have read in your bill. You specify that they include any department within the meaning of the Financial Administration Act. I will tell you quite frankly that I did not have the time to check in the Financial Administration Act. So I would like to know what departments you are referring to that could recommend that a woman be admitted into this witness protection program.

• 1555

[English]

Mr. Jay Hill: How I envision it is that the various police departments could recommend it. Certainly they're in the know. As I pointed out in my remarks, in the majority of cases of spousal homicide there's been a history and the police forces, whether it be municipal, provincial, or the RCMP themselves, know about the history of the individual case. So obviously they would recommend to the victim that they might want to consider accessing the program.

Is that the question?

[Translation]

Ms. Pierrette Venne: No. In the existing Witness Protection Program Act, if I am not mistaken—I have looked into it carefully—law enforcement agencies are not described. You have deemed necessary to give a definition and I want to know why.

The definition is right here, in subsection 3(2) of your bill. You say that they include “a department within the meaning of the Financial Administration Act”. So I am asking you what departments are referred to and why you now find necessary to define the law enforcement agencies. Is there a specific reason for that or is it simply a clarification? That's all I want to know.

[English]

Mr. Jay Hill: That particular clause is written in there because the existing program, the ad hoc program, the new identities program that is run by the well-intentioned government workers I referred to in my opening remarks, is under the Human Resources Development department in cooperation with Revenue Canada, the Solicitor General, and the Justice Department. There are actually several federal departments working together on that ad hoc program to assist these people, because obviously if someone's going to disappear and have a new identity, they have to have some way of tracking them for tax record purposes and that type of thing.

By the same token, they have to be kept highly secretive so that if the spouse or estranged spouse hires a private detective, for example, they can't actually find out that information. So while the government needs to know who this person became, that they didn't just drop off the face of the earth, and those departments need to know, you have to also keep the information secret.

[Translation]

Ms. Pierrette Venne: Okay. That is all I have for now. I will continue to examine your bill with a keen interest. If I have other questions, I will certainly ask them. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Saada.

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): First of all, Mr. Hill, I want to tell you that I find what you are doing quite commendable. The objective that you are pursuing is extremely commendable. I spoke in the House on this bill and, even though I came to the conclusion that I had to vote against this bill, its objective appears to me to be quite desirable. It seems desirable to me because indeed, a new identity is not enough. That is quite obvious. There is a lot of work to do in this regard and a lot of progress to be made in this area. We are all in agreement on this point.

I also agree that you cannot justify voting against this bill, as far as I'm concerned, based on funding issues. These are considerations that come after, once we have established the mechanism.

I had serious concerns and I still have serious concerns because the witness protection program, for this kind of situation where a spouse is being threatened, cannot take place in a vacuum. There must be support services. There must be social services that contribute to the implementation of this program. These matters come under provincial jurisdiction. Your bill is a unilateral bill. What approaches have you done to know how provincial governments react to this initiative?

[English]

Mr. Jay Hill: I think that's a valid concern. It's certainly something that would be encompassed by the deliberations and the study that would take place by the committee, but I do think that what I've endeavoured to do here.... My short answer to your question is that I haven't approached the provincial governments. I understand there are different laws from province to province. What I've tried to address here is what can be done at the federal level to assist these victims.

• 1600

Yes, those same victims would have to have access to counselling, transition houses, safe houses, and things like that. There's no doubt about that. There's going to have to be some work in the discussions that are currently taking place that you referred to during your remarks in the House of Commons. There's going to have to be some cooperation between the two levels of government.

What I'm endeavouring to do here, obviously, is address what can be done at the federal level that would be uniform across the country to create a program that every Canadian could access as a last resort to try to save their lives.

I guess I'll just let it go at that for the moment.

Mr. Jacques Saada: If you pursue an initiative that is going to speed up the process or attempts to address the issue faster than it is being addressed at the present time with the federal-provincial meetings, what leads you to believe that because we're going to have this bill in place, things are going to be implemented faster when we talk about provincial services to be dispensed within the application of this bill?

Mr. Jay Hill: Well, unless I'm mistaken, I don't see that the problem is the speed that provincial governments are implementing the services they provide.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I'm referring to the...you put a very valid question in your introductory remarks. You said something to the effect that if we don't have this bill, what else do we have, and when?

Mr. Jay Hill: Right.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I understand that means one of the purposes of this bill, failing something else, is to speed up the adoption of measures aimed at addressing the objectives you are pursuing. I think it's logical. Right?

Mr. Jay Hill: Well, no. I don't see it as a need to speed up. I see it as a need to provide a program that provides certain services, certain protection, for the victim that aren't provided now by this ad hoc program. All this ad hoc program does now is provide the individuals with a new social insurance number, basically. It allows them to change their name. That's it.

In checking with the women's shelters across the country, I found that very few people, even in the industry itself, in the women's shelters—the counsellors, the people who are supposedly helping these domestic violence victims—knew about this ad hoc program. They didn't even know it existed to even recommend to a victim that they might want to avail themselves of it.

What I'm suggesting is that obviously the program is well intentioned as it is, but without a mandate, without funding, without communications and enough correspondence out to the affected groups, people don't even know it exists, for one thing. Even if they do have access to it, the existing program is not funded. It can't really help. A lot of these people are very desperate people, as I'm sure you are aware, and they do not have the wherewithal to go into hiding on their own, with their own financial resources. They might need a little bit of help.

The existing witness protection act, as run by the RCMP, can provide that. That's the difference I see. I don't see the problem so much as trying to speed up the process; it's to allow us to have a truly worthwhile program in place at the federal level that the individual can access.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Okay.

I'm sorry, do I still have time?

The Chair: Go ahead.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I understand what you're saying, but you're saying at the same time that it's more to give an impetus to some form of new protection for these people who need help than to solve the problem, concretely speaking, because the problems would not be completely solved unless there were provincial intervention in the process.

Am I correct in understanding that, or would you agree with that?

Mr. Jay Hill: Well, I guess no, I wouldn't agree with that. I think in many cases a program like this can solve the problem—it depends on the individual case—if the person does not require counselling, for example, and they feel that all they need to do is be relocated, either themselves or a combination of them and their children, to a different province.

• 1605

In talking with them, I was struck by the desperation of these individuals. I can't personally imagine being in a position where you say, okay, I am going to cut off all ties with my family, my friends, my past. I'm effectively going to take my children and disappear. In many cases, their career is gone, even if they spent years going to university, getting degrees, whatever, because they become this new person.

What I see is that we need a program in place to allow the individual in those desperate cases to relocate, and to assist them to relocate and basically start a new life, a life hopefully free of fear.

Some of those individuals will not need—I can't imagine why they would—access to, for example, a safe house, which is run provincially, or provincial counselling and those types of provincial programs. There are going to be some cases where, yes, those individuals probably do need the assistance of provincial programs to help them overcome this tragedy in their lives. But in other cases, I don't think they would. The program might be all they need.

The Chair: Mr. Cadman.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a short question, Mr. Hill, and this comes from more of a practical consideration.

You spoke in your opening remarks of having witnesses come forward who could basically tell us the story of their lives and why this is such an important thing to them. I would suggest that some of those witnesses are probably going to be very sensitive about their identities. How are they going to feel about coming into an essentially open committee, before the public spotlight, and identifying themselves for all the world to see, including their spouses, who they're living in fear of?

Mr. Jay Hill: It's a good question. Some of them I don't think will. Some of them who have gone to great lengths to effectively disappear already, who could give the greatest testimony, if you will, to the committee to really make them understand what they've had to endure, will not be willing to appear before the committee. For those individuals, as I said in my opening remarks, I think sworn testimony, an affidavit as evidence of their testimonial, will be all we'll be able to get.

For others...perhaps there will be cases like a woman who came into my office here on Parliament Hill. She came in disguise. She just came in for a brief half-hour meeting, and she was obviously terrified. But she felt the issue important enough that she came forward.

I would certainly call upon the committee to consider that when they start deliberations of this, and as sensitively as possible, try to ensure the security of anyone who does come forward.

It's a very valid question. The very people we, as a committee, would want to hear from the most are those who are the most afraid of showing up before the committee.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Thank you, Mr. Hill.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Cadman.

[Translation]

Ms. Venne.

Ms. Pierrette Venne: You do not mention children in your bill. Is this because you consider them to be included? Is it implied? I am simply wondering.

[English]

Mr. Jay Hill: When you look at clause 7—and I did refer to it in my remarks about the criteria—certainly, what was in the best interests of the child would be considered when the RCMP considers each case on its own merits. I think in most cases, and where there's sufficient evidence to support the individual, male or female—in the vast majority of cases it's the woman—being given protection under this program, the children would go with the mother. That's what I foresee. I haven't spoken to it specifically, but I did mention the children on a number of occasions in my remarks.

• 1610

There have been a couple of very tragic, high-profile cases in the very recent history of our nation where an individual murdered the entire family and then committed suicide. So obviously the interests of the children are paramount, in addition to the spouse whose life is in danger.

[Translation]

Ms. Pierrette Venne: For my last question, I don't want to be redundant and rehash what you have already said, but do I understand that women would seek this form of protection as a last resort?

[English]

Mr. Jay Hill: That's certainly how I see it. As I said, I can't imagine any person entering into this type of situation lightly, because of the very nature of the new identity they would be taking on where they would have to cut all ties with the past, as do the crown witnesses who are protected under the existing witness protection program that's run by the RCMP. I can't imagine being called upon never to contact my parents again, never to talk to my best friend, and never to have any contact with past co-workers. It's as if you've died.

When I say that to me it would be a program of last resort, I think that's how the victims themselves see it. That's why it's not going to stop...and neither is any one thing that we as legislators can do. We're not going to solve the problem with any one program. Unfortunately, there are still going to be people in Canada who are going to be murdered by their spouses or former spouses. I'm merely trying to save some of them, those who are willing to take this extraordinary and very tragic step where they have to sever ties with their past and take on a new identity. That's why I say that to me it would be a last resort.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Maloney.

Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Hill, are there any other jurisdictions in which this type of system exists?

Mr. Jay Hill: Do you mean in Canada?

Mr. John Maloney: No, outside of this country. Does any other country have a similar system?

Mr. Jay Hill: I don't know of any. Do you mean whether in the United States, for example, or England or Australia they have a program similar to what I'm suggesting here?

Mr. John Maloney: Yes.

Mr. Jay Hill: I'm not aware of any, but I must admit that I haven't done that degree of research to check internationally. A member of my staff says that he did do some preliminary checking and couldn't locate any. That's our best guess.

Mr. John Maloney: You can appreciate that there would appear to be an overlap of jurisdictions vis-à-vis the custody of children, which would be a provincial matter under family law, and the support of children. What you're proposing is that unilaterally a commissioner of the RCMP, on the recommendation of other RCMP, would make this decision. You haven't consulted with our provinces. Where do they stand in this picture? The determinations with regard to support and custody are made by a judge under provincial legislation, and now we've sort of wiped that away.

Mr. Jay Hill: I would say that under the existing program, the ad hoc program, that decision is being made by government workers, by bureaucrats, to assist individuals to get new identities. So I think it would be an improvement to have the Commissioner of the RCMP, guided by certain criteria, making that decision, rather than these government workers, no matter how well intentioned they are.

Mr. John Maloney: Under the existing program, does a witness take a new identity and the children go along with that individual?

Mr. Jay Hill: In some cases the children are allowed to get the new identity with the mother.

Mr. John Maloney: Without any recourse to anyone else.

Mr. Jay Hill: I beg your pardon?

Mr. John Maloney: Without any involvement of any other judicial branch or agency, the decision is made and away they all go.

Mr. Jay Hill: That's my understanding.

A voice: [Inaudible—Editor]

The Chair: Excuse me, Mr. Hill. I have no problem with your staff member commenting, but I'd like him to please identify himself.

• 1615

Mr. Rob Taylor (Legislative Assistant, Office of Jay Hill, MP): I'm Rob Taylor, Jay's legislative assistant.

One of the women Jay mentioned in his remarks is currently within the system. One of the areas that needs to be addressed is that her husband is getting legal aid to try to use a private investigator to find the child with the mother, even though there is a police file about seven inches thick. She does have custody of the child, but because there wasn't a decree allowing her to leave the province with the child.... It's one of those areas that needs to be ironed out. We felt that the RCMP and the federal government would be the best ones to deal with that, rather than the bureaucracy.

Mr. John Maloney: Will you be bringing forward representatives from the policing community, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, or the Canadian Police Association itself, to give us testimony as to their support of this program?

Mr. Jay Hill: Can I?

Mr. John Maloney: Are you?

Mr. Jay Hill: We've contacted them, and they've yet to confirm whether or not they would. In the case of the RCMP, I'm just going by what I saw in the news coverage that came after the passage of the bill. For example, the RCMP expressed concerns, as did Mr. Cadman, about funding, and they were reluctant to endorse the program on that basis. So there are going to be concerns there.

Certainly, as I said in my remarks in the House of Commons, I would support that the committee hear from the stakeholders—I hate to use that old terminology—anybody who has a vested interest in this issue, be it police chiefs, associations of policemen, or police officers who are dealing with this issue of domestic violence on a day-to-day basis. I think it would be very valid for the committee to hear testimony from them on this issue and on whether they believe the program could be of assistance or should be amended. I would certainly support that. I don't have them confirmed on my list of witnesses that I'm submitting to the chair today, but I certainly wouldn't be opposed to adding them to the witness list, or one of the other members of the committee could put that forward. Certainly, I would support that.

Mr. John Maloney: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Cadman.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: I'm done.

The Chair: Mr. Saada.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Since your assistant called you Jay, I'm going to call you Jay, too, as colleagues.

Mr. Jay Hill: Thank you.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I'm impressed with your sincerity. I have problems with the bill, but it doesn't detract from what I just said.

When you consult victims, I understand that of course there are all kinds of emotional states that justify that they would be eager to see anything to improve the situation or to reassure them. That's very logical and understandable. But it may not be the best source of information as to what is going to be best in the situation, I would suggest. What about the staff of these shelters and so on? Did you consult with them? What were their reactions? How did they feel, for instance, about being under a police-run program versus a non-police-run program? What did you get out of these consultations?

Mr. Jay Hill: I think you're right. I just referred to the speeches I made in the House of Commons on this subject, and, as I said, I would certainly encourage the committee to call individuals like that who are involved in this—I hesitate to call it an industry—occupation of trying to assist victims of domestic violence, whether they're counsellors or workers at women's shelters or transition homes, that type of thing. I would encourage the committee to hear directly from them.

I did consult with a number of them. You're right, they had some concerns about a program run by the police. They expressed those concerns. They certainly were supportive of the intent of the program, but I'm not going to try to delude you into believing they just rubber-stamped the existing bill. They did have those concerns about whether it would be best to have the Commissioner of the RCMP making the ultimate decision about who goes into the program and who doesn't. I think all these things need to be brought out during deliberations by the committee.

• 1620

I have always maintained that if the committee, through its deliberations, can come up with something better, can change the bill and make it a better bill, if the government—and I've said this to the government itself, to the justice minister—can bring forward something in addition to or separate from the witness protection program as currently administered that will be a better program, I'm certainly in favour of that.

My intention, as you said at the opening of your remarks, is very sincere. I just want to assist these people. I believe our country is failing them, and failing them tragically. I think there is more we can do, and it's incumbent upon us to do it. I don't think there's a greater task this committee could take on than to address in a comprehensive way the issue of domestic violence, and, in these rare circumstances where the individuals are actually facing murder at the hands of their spouse or former spouse, design a program to help them.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I've tried to recollect how many times, and I think it's at least three times, that federal-provincial meetings have taken place over the last few months, and I believe at every meeting this item was on the agenda: improvement to New Identities, or whatever form it would take. I stand to be corrected, but I also believe that one of the provinces was very reluctant to attend the meetings on this issue for all kinds of reasons, most probably jurisdictional, but I cannot affirm it. I wasn't there and I didn't have any report on that.

I would hate to see an initiative such as yours just hit a wall and nothing replace it. I would favour more something that would put pressure on the federal-provincial ministries and departments to address this issue.

Amending your bill, especially in terms of the role of the police, is such a fundamental amendment that it is no longer an amendment but a new bill. I'm prepared to listen, and I'm looking forward to the hearings, but if you take into account the concern of women about being under a program run by the police, if you take into account the complexities of dealing with federal-provincial relationships, and so on, if you take into account the fact that the police are reluctant, not only for funding purposes.... It is one of their concerns, not one of my concerns, but they have other concerns.

The witness protection program has been designed for specific purposes. Here you are just changing the witness protection program. You cannot change it only one way. If you change it, you change it on the whole, which means you also affect the way it was for the original purpose for which it was intended. So there are a number of concerns addressed here at the same time.

If we get away from the concept of the police running it, we have no federal jurisdiction to impose anything, because the cornerstone of your bill is the RCMP.

I want to hear what the witnesses will have to say on that, but at this point, I'm really not prepared to support the bill the way it is now for these very specific reasons.

• 1625

As one last point, in follow-up to a question put by John Maloney, yes, indeed, decisions are made by bureaucrats under the present program. They will be made by the police under the new program. But at least under the present program they are made by bureaucrats within the framework of an agreement, a federal-provincial agreement, whereas this police decision, as it would stand if we adopted the bill as is, would be made outside an agreement between the federal and provincial organizations.

To give you the difference in terms of what I would perceive to be a guarantee, I think the best guarantee of success of any initiative in this regard rests on the common will throughout the country to do it.

Mr. Jay Hill: While I did say there were a number of people who expressed concerns about the RCMP, and specifically the RCMP commissioner, making the final decision on who would have access to the program, I myself would still like to hear their arguments both for and against that type of thing. Like you, I would look forward to those arguments.

Having looked at this issue fairly thoroughly over the last year, I think it would be an improvement. The RCMP obviously has federal jurisdiction. They obviously have jurisdiction throughout our country, from the far reaches of the north to Toronto, for that matter. So it's a way in which we can offer a program, just as they do protection for crown witnesses, no matter what corner of the country they're in.

If they believe they should have access to the witness protection program, then that individual gets access to that program, and I believe it could work. Would it have to be amended? Perhaps. But you're quite correct in the sense that the same basic components of the existing witness protection program would have to remain in place for the spousal protection as well. That's the way I designed the bill.

I've already stated both publicly and in the House of Commons on many occasions that the primary reason I chose this route of trying to provide additional protection for abused spouses by placing them under the witness protection program is because it was the only avenue open to me. I'm not the Minister of Justice. I don't have the ability to design a program from the ground up and say, okay, there, this is going to be a better program. I can't do that as a private member, but I recognize that it's quite possible that there could be, and out of your deliberations you may find, something the government would bring forward that would be better than this. I've always maintained that.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Saada.

Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance): Thank you.

I've made a special effort to be at this meeting because of an interest I have, having been approached by a number of real-life people who have fallen under the current witness protection program. I think the bill you've brought forward, with the addition of the spousal component, gives us an excellent opportunity to take a look at that, and I support your bill in that respect, but it also opens up an opportunity for the justice committee, or whatever the appropriate body of Parliament, to take a look at the whole issue of the witness protection program.

The experience I have had with it on behalf of people who have been drawn into the program is that there are many aspects of it that are highly unsatisfactory. I have been made aware of serious allegations, allegations that I have found very plausible in the way in which it is presently structured, of abuse by people involved in the enforcement community. These are rare exceptions, but they do happen. I've also been made aware of the fact that there is a woeful lack of financial resources for the program at the same time.

Yesterday we had a very good justice committee here, where we were seized with Mr. MacKay's motion, motion M-79. We decided as a committee to work in unison toward a very worthy goal, and we have made certain recommendations to the justice minister. As a committee we can do these things, and it was a very good day yesterday.

• 1630

I would like the committee members to consider that while it is true that the justice committee plate is very full to overflowing, and that is a serious problem for us, nonetheless this does give us an opportunity to take a look at an area that would be helpful for the spousal protection issue, which is what the focus of this bill is, and also to take a look at the whole witness protection issue. I believe it is such a valuable tool for enforcement agencies in Canada, and yet at this point it is in desperate need of tuning. You'll notice I didn't say fine-tuning.

I caught the gist of where some of the questioning by Mr. Saada was going, and perhaps he's reflective of where the government is coming from on this issue. He was saying, “This is fine, but....” So maybe we won't be going any further.

I would like to suggest that we give very serious consideration to finding some way within this Parliament, recognizing that we are in June and coming up to the end of this particular session, but nonetheless within this Parliament.... Rather than simply turning back Bill C-223 and saying it's nice but that's it, we should seize this opportunity, even if we have to get involved in a subcommittee, to take a look at the whole issue of witness protection, particularly with the addition of spousal protection to the Witness Protection Program Act.

Mr. Jay Hill: Well, far be it for me to speak for Mr. Saada, but I didn't get that from his remarks. In fact, I got quite the opposite: he was looking forward to the deliberations of the committee if they do indeed have the time to deal with this issue. At least, that's what I got from his comments, questions, and queries.

I do agree with you that this does provide the committee with a huge issue to deal with in the sense of the whole issue of spousal abuse and domestic violence. But a study of this bill as it's presently drafted would allow the committee as well—well, it wouldn't allow them; it would be incumbent upon them—to look at the existing witness protection program and how well it is or isn't functioning. In effect, we could do a review of the witness protection program at the same time because it's obviously going to come up. It did when I started doing research for this bill.

Individuals, maybe even some of the same individuals who have been in contact with you, came to me and said, “Why would you consider expanding the witness protection program when it isn't working all that well for me? I'm a crown witness who accessed it and it's not working all that well. It needs to be revamped, reworked. Therefore, why would you carry it further to have spousal protection under that umbrella?” Once I explained the situation to them, that there wasn't really any other slot, as it were, for me to put this, they understood that. Actually, they welcome this bill, because, as you have said, they feel it would allow the committee the unique opportunity to conduct a review of the witness protection program at the same time as they're looking at the whole issue of how to protect those most vulnerable from spousal abuse.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Abbott and Mr. Hill.

I'm going to go to Mr. Saada, but before I do, I just want to clarify a little bit. Like Mr. Abbott, I was quite excited by the emerging consensus yesterday and the fact that the committee did good work. But I think we also have to recognize that we've been mandated by Parliament, on a very close vote, to do a specific function.

While witnesses will appear and questions may come and go as to the effectiveness of the witness protection program and so on, the reality is that we're here looking at a very specific piece of legislation on the basis of an order of Parliament on the basis of a very close vote. I don't think we can be too expansive in terms of what we take on in that exercise.

• 1635

Secondly, some members of this committee will be aware that in other places in this associated activity, we're also looking at related subjects. I don't want us to become redundant. I only make the point so that we don't get too carried away in our enthusiasm to take on and solve all the problems of the world in this committee this afternoon.

Mr. Saada.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, I promise you I'll remain enthusiastic, but I will not get carried away.

Jim, you made a suggestion. I would like to remind everyone that we have given ourselves the mandate, as parliamentarians, to look at anything having to do with organized crime. We have a subcommittee that has been created following a motion adopted unanimously in the House. We know that the overwhelming majority of people who follow the witness protection program are people who are protected because they are appearing within the framework of organized crime activities. So we have this opportunity if we want it.

I would find it extremely difficult to compare the performance of a program that has been in existence within a certain pattern with the program as it could be. Which is it? It's difficult to have both at the same time.

My answer to you is simply that in terms of revisiting the witness protection program, that's one thing, and we have the tools to do it. It's up to us. As for the pertinence of the witness protection program as it would apply to Mr. Hill, that's really what we are looking forward to hearing witnesses about.

Am I clear? Am I making sense? You don't have to agree, but at least tell me I'm making sense.

Mr. Jim Abbott: You're making sense.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Okay.

The Chair: Now that we've identified that we may not agree but he's making sense, we're going to Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): On that note, I'll try to make sense. I don't expect you to agree. You agreed yesterday, though, and I appreciated that.

Mr. Hill, I want to commend you for the work you've done on the bill. I think you've tapped into a very noble cause and principle, and I support you wholeheartedly in your efforts. I do have a couple of questions with respect to the current legislation.

My understanding of the reading of the bill as it stands is that there.... I know what you're trying to do; you're trying to draw attention to this and have it emphasized in statute that spouses should be included in the current legislation. But there's nothing right now to exclude spouses. If they meet the criteria and they're deemed to be a person in jeopardy, they can currently apply, and they do. In the past I've encouraged witnesses who were in this exact situation of spousal violence to apply for the witness protection program, and they were accepted. It's not prohibitive of that now, is it?

Mr. Jay Hill: No, it's not. But the key criterion, as you're well aware, is that they must be willing to testify against their spouse in order to qualify for the program. That's the difference. Under my changes, they wouldn't be called upon to do that. Many are reluctant to do that because they feel that just heightens their vulnerability and the chance that they'll be harmed by their spouse.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Yes. I think you've tapped into the major issue. The caseload pertaining to spousal violence is voluminous across the country, as you know. This is the issue you run into invariably. As it approaches trial, the spouse often, of their own volition, decides they don't want to go ahead with the prosecution. Often it's under threats of further violence or there are children involved. There are all sorts of psychological factors. It's a massive problem that, again, you're to be commended for trying to aid.

The way you have it phrased now, you're essentially saying that spouses themselves should be exempted from the necessity of testifying after they've entered into the program.

Mr. Jay Hill: Well, the way it is now, if they chose not to testify against their spouse or former spouse for criminal proceedings, that would not eliminate them from access to the program. That would be their personal choice.

• 1640

I would hope that in some of the more horrendous cases where beatings, assault and battery, and threats have taken place, and you're well aware of all the tragic cases, they still would be encouraged to become a witness and testify against their spouse or former spouse.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Is there a concern...and I'm sure you've thought about this, but it's a program enhancer. You're trying to expand the envelope, to put greater emphasis on the eligibility of spouses, and perhaps this draws us into the context of looking at the bigger picture. I can think of similar situations where a witness who isn't necessarily a spouse or they don't have that connection to the accused should also be in the program and exempted from testimony.

Mr. Jay Hill: To be completely honest, I haven't looked outside of that particular box. I haven't looked, either, at instances where an individual might be in mortal fear of their life and not be in a position where they would be a witness in a criminal charge against an individual.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I'm not trying to put you on the spot here, because I know you and your party have taken a certain position on this, but what is the spousal definition you've put forward in this bill?

Mr. Jay Hill: Basically, we've left it loose enough that anyone would qualify. I don't think it actually is clearly defined. I've left it open. I've been asked about whether or not same-sex couples would qualify in the way it's written. I've asked for a legal opinion and that opinion is that they would qualify. When I drafted the bill it was with the intent that individuals who could meet the criteria and prove to the Commissioner of the RCMP that yes, their life was in real jeopardy from a spouse or former spouse....

I've said in interviews that I particularly don't care as far as sexual orientation is concerned. If it's the case that a Canadian citizen's life is in danger, then they should be able to qualify for the program and be protected.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Certainly, so make it as inclusive as possible when it's public safety....

Mr. Jay Hill: Exactly.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I'm sure this has been touched on too by our colleagues. Resources to do what you've envisioned here...the number of people is going to expand exponentially, based on the eligibility requirements. It's a huge challenge to administer this program now, and that's probably the biggest failing. For all intents and purposes, you're asking to rehabilitate or rebuild a person's life, sometimes in a new community and sometimes for a sustained period of time. That I suppose—and this is more of a comment than a question—is going to be the biggest hurdle to get over, by doubling or perhaps even tripling the admission of people into this program, given the current financial restraint they're under. It's going to be a very difficult uphill battle to get that commitment.

I'm sure you knew that coming in and you forged ahead. Again, I commend your efforts thus far.

Mr. Jay Hill: Thank you. Just on the issue of costs, it's already been raised a couple of times in our discussions this afternoon and I certainly recognize the fact that it's a major consideration. I think all of us present here, and indeed all colleagues in the House from all parties, are aware of the constraints that the RCMP are currently operating under.

As I pointed out already, the committee, or at least the government would have to address that issue of funding at some point. It's really difficult to get a handle on how much it would increase the costs because you don't know how many people would access the program. We know that the existing ad hoc program run by these well-intentioned government workers who set it up have helped just over 200 people to obtain new identities over the last six years.

As I pointed out in reply to an earlier question, the reality is that there are a number of different levels of assistance that can be provided under the Witness Protection Program Act: relocation, helping them to get a job, providing some level of assistance until they do get employment.

• 1645

Not all individuals who go into the program qualify for exactly the same costs. There would be additional costs, as I pointed out earlier, if you were relocated from Nova Scotia to British Columbia, rather than from Nova Scotia to New Brunswick.

So it's hard to really get an exact handle on what it would cost and how many people would access the program. There's no doubt there would be a substantial increase in the cost to the RCMP of the program were this bill to go ahead.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Just to follow up on that, would you feel that those resources would be perhaps better spent by enhancing programs surrounding safe houses? We know these are suffering from the same constraints as other programs. I know it's basically a provincial bailiwick, but it's federal money at the end of the day.

While we're discussing it, it occurs to me that this would be a more direct and more timely intervention. It seems that sometimes the paperwork and the admission policy that has to be followed is very problematic for a spouse who's in need of an immediate reaction and a place to go.

I know that's outside the scope of your bill. Your own personal feelings on whether that money would be perhaps better spent in that area....

Mr. Jay Hill: I haven't looked at it as an either/or situation. Since you posed the question, I would say no, because I don't think it matters how high a wall you build around a so-called safe house. The fact of the matter is that the spouse or former spouse knows that the person whom they intend to harm is within those walls.

Unless they're going to become a prisoner in that place forever, I guess you're looking at different levels of life. I can't imagine living my life in fear, as some of these people have to endure. I would suggest to you that the resources would be better spent on a program like this to assist people to get out from under this fear that they live in day after day. You're not going to do that by building a stronger, more fortified safe house.

Mr. Peter MacKay: No. I guess my point was that it's more immediate. You're right, and I appreciate your answer. As far as a long-term, rehabilitative, quality-of-life program is concerned, certainly witness protection and the ability to build a real distance and anonymity is perhaps more important in the bigger picture.

Thank you.

The Chair: Finally, Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I have a question on the definition of “spouse”, where it says:

for a period of not less than one year

Was that done because of some statutory reason? Could it be less? Do we have to have one year, or would a shorter time be practical as well?

Mr. Jay Hill: I think it's because there is a recognition, for example, by Revenue Canada, for income tax purposes, that if you live common law with a person for a year, cohabit with them for a year, they're considered your spouse. That was the reason, if I recall, why we put it into the bill.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Hill.

Thank you, everybody.

Mr. Hill, if I might call on you to stick with us for a couple of minutes, we could use your obvious knowledge of questions of justice, and we could also use your warm body, as we need nine people here. As a whip, you would understand, we can either have you stay or call you and get you to send someone. So perhaps you could stay.

Mr. Jay Hill: I volunteer to stay for a little.

The Chair: I give the floor to the chair of the subcommittee on organized crime.

Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): The subcommittee on organized crime, at its meeting on Monday, June 5, passed a motion that the subcommittee seek authorization to travel and that a provisional budget be allocated.

I think the proper procedure is for the standing committee to adopt or accept that motion. We were going to be sending our chief negotiator to the liaison committee, but I guess he's absconding. So I'll be presenting it at the liaison committee tomorrow, hopefully.

The Chair: And I'm sure you'll do a very good job, Mr. Chair.

If there are no objections, I will call the question.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Is there any other business?

Mr. MacKay.

• 1650

Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Chair, this has to do with scheduling. Bill C-18 is going to be coming back to us for clause-by-clause, which I assume is going to be rather instantaneous. Is that fair to say?

The Chair: Well, unless anybody wants to inform us.... I think as it stands right now we will be dealing with Bill C-18 tomorrow morning—

Mr. Peter MacKay: Right.

The Chair: —and I was under an impression that we would perhaps move through Bill C-18 quite quickly because it was something that had been discussed. A piece was pulled out and it's being brought back, that remaining piece, but I'm advised by my clerk that I've received three notices of motion calling for witnesses, etc., by the member who is responsible for our clock, which hasn't moved much, I should say.... Our clock is filibustering, if you get my drift.

So I cannot anticipate with certainty what might happen tomorrow morning when Bill C-18 is presented, but the government officials are scheduled to appear.

In terms of your other position, you would be aware of the discussions that have taken place that caused us to believe this perhaps might move quickly, but we have motions to suggest otherwise.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Okay. That's why I was inquiring.

I don't mind sharing with you that it has come up at the House leaders' meeting. I hope people realize the implications of this. I mean, we may be sitting into July. That's not beyond the realm of possibility, because people do feel very strongly about this particular bill and about having it completed before we leave.

The Clerk of the Committee: May I just address the committee?

The Chair: The clerk would like to address the committee.

The Clerk: I would just like to inform the members that, as the chair mentioned, I received three notices of motion from Mr. Bellehumeur. I'm having them translated as we speak. They should be in your offices when you get back.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.