Evidence of meeting #43 for Public Safety and National Security in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was provincial.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:15 p.m.
A/Commr Mike McDonell
Can I clarify something? The RCMP also does manage some of those 300.
12:15 p.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Oh, I thought I had made that clear. I understood from Assistant Commissioner Souccar that they managed--I got the sense--a good number of them, actually.
In terms of the supervision, is it all done by police officers, as opposed to social workers, psychologists, or people in the social services?
12:15 p.m.
S/Insp Steve Izzett
In the case of Toronto, it's done by police officers.
12:15 p.m.
Supt Gordon B. Schumacher
It's not necessarily done by police officers entirely. The program is a provincial program, and they have provincial employees who happen to be ex-police officers, who do this type of work. We, in Winnipeg, have two full-time people assigned to witness protection. The RCMP, in “D” Division, have one person, I believe, assigned full-time. They will work hand in hand with the province when they need some assistance, but the province does have specific people identified to deal with protected witnesses.
12:15 p.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
In that situation, when there's a prospect that it's going to be terminated, it would be these people, whether they be police officers, retired or otherwise, who would be making the recommendations. Is that correct?
12:15 p.m.
S/Insp Steve Izzett
Yes.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
Thank you very much for coming today and enlightening us with some additional information with regard to the witness protection program.
I think we've touched on this, but just to make it clear, people in the program are not immune from any criminal prosecution. They don't receive any protection or immunity from criminal prosecution, and if they do, they're automatically out of the program. Is that correct?
12:15 p.m.
A/Commr Mike McDonell
That is correct in the federal program.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
12:15 p.m.
S/Insp Steve Izzett
That is correct.
12:15 p.m.
Supt Gordon B. Schumacher
Yes, for Manitoba, that's correct as well.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
But it wouldn't include provincial offences, because they're of a minor nature? Or would it?
12:15 p.m.
Supt Gordon B. Schumacher
Our program would not give any immunity for any offences, provincial or otherwise.
12:15 p.m.
A/Commr Mike McDonell
They're on their own. It may not include exclusion from the program or termination from the program, but they're accountable for their every action.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
So if they get a speeding ticket, they pay the ticket, etc.
12:15 p.m.
A/Commr Mike McDonell
They pay up.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
Thank you.
Would it also be correct to say that because we're dealing with human beings and their various idiosyncrasies, that the program, although it has rather exacting rules and criteria and protocols...? Dealing with human beings is not an exact science. Would these protocols and rules, in your experience during your time with the program, be amended or changed according to circumstances that have arisen as a result of the implementation...or of someone in the program or something turning up?
12:15 p.m.
A/Commr Mike McDonell
I'm not quite sure I understand you. It's not so amenable that it's tailored to an individual's needs.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
No, I'm saying that if experiences occur, if the practical application of the program results in the identification of some need for change, have there been slight changes to the way in which the program has been implemented, and so on, or protections offered because of certain circumstances that have arisen that say, hey, we better put this in place, because this could happen in other cases?
12:20 p.m.
A/Commr Mike McDonell
I would say our policy is ever-evolving to reflect the ever-evolving society we work in and each distinct case. It's like every lesson in life: the more you learn, the more you realize you don't know. So with every individual we bring into the program, we do learn something, and then that's brought back into policy.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
12:20 p.m.
Supt Gordon B. Schumacher
Yes, I would agree with that. Clearly, this is a fluid process. If I can go back to a number of years ago, before the provincial program, the reason we moved into a provincial program era was because of the fluidity of the national program.
We went in there. Some things worked and some things didn't, and to fill the void of the things that weren't working we moved into a provincial program. Of course, there were some learning curves and some growing pains, and over the years we've ironed a lot of those out, but there are going to be more, and we'll continue to change and move to make it a better system.
