Public Safety Committee on April 19th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

We're going to the third round now.

Ms. Barnes.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Thank you.

I should put on the record that I'm very supportive of having a witness protection plan. I think it's essential for public safety in this country. I want one that's well run, that we're not hearing complaints about, that's doing the right thing for the right people, and that's respected by the general public. These are what the goals here are.

There are a couple of lines of questioning, and I believe we're going to need more time with you and maybe with some others at some point.

I'm going to go to your 2005-06 annual report. There we play out for Mr. Brown that the number of Canadian witnesses who requested termination increased in that time period to 21, from 16 in the previous year. Was it family groupings, or was this just 21 individuals from different cases? Was it because they all just missed home? I don't think this is sufficient; there must be more reasons than that.

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

We don't have the exact nature. I think Derek may have a little more detail.

I'll preface this by saying that sometimes the number of spikes in one year is simply a carry-forward from the previous year. So you have terminations. As I said, we have to give notice of termination and allow the individual who has given the notice to make representation. Sometimes it carries over several weeks or several months. Then one year may end up with a spike as a result of carry-overs.

Derek has some details on the nature of this.

[C/Supt Derek R. Ogden]

It can be for a number of different reasons. The exact details I don't have here, but I have enough to give you a pretty good idea.

We had 19 voluntary withdrawals from the program in a three-year period, from April 2004 to April 2007. Out of that, we had three who returned to the area of threat. So they made the conscious decision to voluntarily withdraw from the program and go back. We had one who thought it was too strict for family visits. One agreement was breached for association with gang members. One witness didn't want to comply with the terms of the protection agreement any longer. We had one who was charged with theft under $5,000. We had cases where people were using drugs, and they didn't want to stop, so they withdrew from the program.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Okay, maybe I will go to the involuntary terminations, because again you talked about having to give notice. What is the protocol when the witness protection program basically decides to oust somebody?

You said that it's non-compliance with the conditions of the original agreement. But I'd like to know whether there's a protocol, whether there's a procedure. What type of appeal is there, if any, or is it just to say, here's notice and goodbye?

[C/Supt Derek R. Ogden]

There is a procedure that is taught. We have a witness protection coordinator course that is two weeks long. Through scenarios, it covers that very type of instance.

But when a person does something outside of that protection agreement, they are served with a written notice that's standardized across the country. It's a breach form, and it outlines the exact reasons why you have breached your protection agreement.

If it's a serious breach ,we may at that point refer it to be terminated at that time. It may be that you have breached your protection agreement because you've committed a criminal offence. At that point we do the paper work. There is a form designed for all the workers in this area across the country. It outlines in detail exactly what that serious breach was, why they are being terminated, what our obligations are, and how to contact us if they're not in agreement with the reasons for termination. It gives them a period of time to get legal counsel and come back to the witness protection coordinator to say, “I don't agree with your reasons for termination.”

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

They're provided with 20 days from the point they're notified of termination. So they are given a notice of breach, and when the decision is made to recommend to me that the person be terminated, if I agree to terminate, the individual is given a notice of termination. It's explained to them why they are being terminated, and they have 20 days to make representation.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

How long is it before they're out of the program?

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

They have 20 days to make their presentation, and if they don't—

David wants to jump in.

[David Bird]

They have 20 days to notify the coordinator that they wish to make a representation and contest the notice. Then they can ask for an extension for a reasonable time to make the representation they wish to make.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Okay.

I'll have more questions. It's really an inefficient way right now of getting to the—

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Mr. MacKenzie is next, for five minutes.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to thank the members who are here before us today.

There was some talk from Mr. Ménard a few minutes earlier about domestic violence, and certainly that's a concern for you people, as it is for us. The program under Human Resources Canada that provided new identities for victims wasn't particularly well known in the police community or in the public. But I know that has changed. A private member's bill was brought forward that would have put that under the umbrella of this program. But I believe the new program out there, with some changes, will satisfy most of those concerns.

I'm concerned about two or three things. One is that there seems to be the perception out there in the public, perhaps as a result of some of these press articles, that people under protection are not charged with criminal offences—that it gives them a free pass. Can you explain, so that Canadians understand, what happens when somebody who is under protection commits a criminal offence—the investigation that would lead to charges?

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

Absolutely. I think this is a very important point, because this is exactly the perception that seems to have been in the media over the last little while.

As I said, the filtering process starts at the outset, before we even use the person as an agent—I've explained that assessment—and continues into admission into the program. It is very clearly explained in the protective agreement and the letters of acknowledgement between us and the human source as to abstaining from any criminal activity, abstaining from drugs, abstaining from any activity that would make him unsuitable and put him outside of the section 7 criteria of the Witness Protection Program Act.

Once they're in the witness protection program, any criminal history they had prior to getting into the program follows them. If they had convictions of drugs, assaults, robberies, whatever it may be, it follows them to the new identity. The other thing is that any time they come into contact with the police we are notified. As soon as a police officer checks them, our witness protection coordinator's office will ring and we are able to go on the system to see that they've been checked by police. We can then inquire as to why and we'll know if they're under a charge.

This perception that there is a bubble within which a person in the witness protection program lives is completely false. They're not in any kind of bubble that allows them immunity from committing crimes. They are subject to all the laws of the country, as anybody else is. Their criminal record follows them. If they commit a crime, they will leave evidence behind. Their fingerprints don't change. Their DNA doesn't change. They will be investigated, and they will be prosecuted. They will go to jail, just like anybody else does. The fact that they're in the program does not allow them to hide. That's the perception that seems to be out there.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

I don't think there would be any disagreement around the table about what Ms. Barnes said, that the program itself is one we want to see and that we believe Canadians want to see. Her comment with respect to complaints I think is very valid.

If I understood correctly, you said there are about 700 people in the program right now.

[C/Supt Derek R. Ogden]

We have a little more than 700 people in the program who we are actively managing. Then we have a little more than 300 people for whom police agencies have asked for secure documents, we've provided those secure documents, and that agency looks after the moving and monitoring of the person.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

I think we would agree that's a fairly significant number. Last year's report indicated there were three complaints or civil actions. Is that with respect to that body of people?

[C/Supt Derek R. Ogden]

That's correct.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

That would not seem, to me, to be an unrealistic number. If it's possible, could you tell us the context of the complaints? Are they minor complaints that can be resolved? Is there a process? If that's a consistent number, then I think there's some comfort for Canadians. That is not a large number of complaints.

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

Keep in mind as well that these are not easy individuals to work with. They're not individuals who come from a very disciplined background. They will complain for any number of reasons. They will complain because they think they're owed more money or they want more money, or because they want more concessions. We'll serve them a notice of breach that they won't be happy with. They'll complain because we say they're no longer suitable to be in the program because they're continuing to use drugs. They will retaliate sometimes by complaining. Some of the legal actions I suppose are founded; some are not. But I think it's something to keep in mind. The agreement is very clear at the outset, but they're not easy people to deal with.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Another thing is that you indicated that we do reciprocals with other countries. I'm assuming—and tell me if I'm wrong—that it could be Great Britain, the United States, France, whoever, and that it's fair to say that when we do reciprocals with any of those countries, those people who come in here operate under our program, and when our people go to another country they operate under those programs.

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

That is correct.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

And it's not tremendously different from country to country? Is it easy to operate the program? Is it operable between countries in the sense that protection is offered to Canadians if they end up in another country and/or if another country's citizens end up here, we offer them the protection?

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

Typically we'll enter into such agreements with countries where there is some similarity in the programs, but everything is explained at the outset to the agency with which we're interacting as well as the witness, the potential individual or family entering the witness protection program.

[C/Supt Derek R. Ogden]

I just want to say that within Canada it would be very rare that we would look to relocate somebody. We obviously have a large country and we have lots of options.