Bill C-51 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Safer Witnesses Act
An Act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedDec. 11, 2012
- Debated in principleFeb. 12, 2013
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberJune 3, 2013
- Passed the second chamberJune 19, 2013
- Became lawJune 25, 2013
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Stephen HarperPrime Minister
- Bob RuncimanSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Ted OpitzExplicitly states support and thanks others for supporting the bill.
- Rick NorlockJoins debate to modernize and strengthen the witness protection program via the bill.
- Candice Bergenexplicitly states support for the bill and criticizes opposition delays.
- LaVar PayneAdds voice to discussion and notes encouraging support from all quarters for the bill.
- Kevin Lamoureuxcalls the bill positive and wants it to move forward as a tool for law enforcement
- Kevin Sorensonstates he is pleased to speak to the bill as committee chair after study
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
What it set out to do
On 11 December 2012, the Minister of Public Safety introduced Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act (Safer Witnesses Act), in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. The bill amends the Witness Protection Program Act. Among other things it: • provides for the designation of a provincial or municipal witness protection program so that certain provisions of that Act apply to such a program; • authorizes the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to coordinate, at the request of an official of a designated provincial or municipal program, the activities of federal departments, agencies and services in order to facilitate a change of identity for persons admitted to the designated program; • adds prohibitions on the disclosure of information relating to persons admitted to designated provincial and municipal programs, to the means and methods by which witnesses are protected and to persons who provide or assist in providing protection; • specifies the circumstances under which disclosure of protected information is nevertheless permitted; • exempts a person from any liability or other p…
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
That the Bill be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. · 2013-02-12 · Passed
How it changed on the way
70% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (5,827 words introduced, 4,368 passed).
minor changeintent mostly kept
The core provisions on witness protection programs, disclosure prohibitions, and program designations remained intact from introduction to royal assent. Limited additions clarified the Commissioner's authority to disclose certain information in specific cases.
- Expanded the exception allowing the Commissioner to disclose protected information.
Before: “11.2 (1) The Commissioner may make a disclosure described in”
After: “paragraph 11(1)(a) that relates to Exception — Commissioner (a) a protectee, for the purpose of providing protection to them; or (b) a designated program protectee, for the purpose of facilit”
How precisely it is written
vagueChallenging the law: EasyDisputing a charge: Moderate
The text mixes defined terms and specific lists with repeated subjective standards and official discretion. This leaves many key decisions open to argument over what counts as substantial harm, reasonable grounds, or essential purposes.
Open to argument
“the Commissioner considers appropriate in the circumstances”
Uses an official's subjective judgment rather than an objective test.“knowing that or being reckless as to whether the disclosure could result in substantial harm”
Relies on the undefined mental state of recklessness and the defined but still open-ended term substantial harm.“the Commissioner has reasonable grounds to believe that the disclosure is essential”
Broad discretion granted on the basis of an official's belief rather than fixed criteria.“in the Commissioner's opinion, the urgency of the situation requires the disclosure”
Purely subjective opinion test with no further objective limits.
Clear-cut
“"designated program" means a provincial or municipal program that is set out in the schedule;”
Uses a closed list created by regulation for clear identification.
Discretion. Extensive power is left to the Commissioner, provincial officials, the Minister and the Governor in Council to decide admissions, terminations, disclosures and designations by regulation or personal opinion.
Challenging the law itself. Multiple subjective phrases such as reasonable grounds to believe and in the opinion of invite vagueness and overbreadth arguments under section 7 of the Charter.
Disputing a charge under it. An accused can readily argue that their disclosure did not meet the subjective tests of knowledge, recklessness or substantial harm, requiring the Crown to prove the official's state of mind.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
no evaluation found
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.