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.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Okay. We are now going on to the fourth round.
Mr. Cullen, please.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Roy Cullen Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Staff Inspector Izzett, if you're talking to Chief Blair, ask him about our conversation. He may not remember, but if he does, it would be useful if he could elaborate. I remember taking notes at the time, and I think I fed that into the RCMP or the department when I was on the other side. It was a couple of years ago.
My understanding was that it was the kind of thing you referred to, but it was also.... For example, if someone witnesses a murder in Rexdale, they might not want to come forward, but they might arrange a little meeting somewhere and say they are prepared to sign a statement or an affidavit. If that appears in court—I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not sure if that can be done with any anonymity or if a person is then required to come in and be grilled by lawyers. I thought he was referring to procedures like that. If you are chatting with him, ask if there is anything he can offer, if you're coming forward with other information.
I'd like to come back with--
12:35 p.m.
S/Insp Steve Izzett
He did want me to mention Stinchcombe today, on the very point that you're discussing in relation to somebody wanting to provide information. Well, the rules of disclosure require that as soon as we get that information from that individual and it is relevant for the defence or the prosecution, it has to be disclosed.
If you can drill down and visualize how a defence lawyer receives a briefing package and the individual he or she is representing is incarcerated, a copy of that briefing package is given to the individual who's incarcerated, and they have nothing else to do for eight hours a day other than to review that briefing package. Contained within that briefing package are the names of the witnesses and the information they've provided in the allegations against the very individuals who are incarcerated. So that creates a real challenge for us.
On the one hand we score points with the witness protection and confidential informant process, and on the other hand, when they find out that this disclosure occurs, they ask the police, “Why are you giving them my statements?” We have to explain to them that we have to give them their statements; it's part of disclosure. The process now is such that defence gives everything, every single piece in the package, to the individuals who are incarcerated.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Roy Cullen Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Okay, well, maybe that's something.... I don't know how to deal with that, but it's something maybe we should look at.
I'd like to put out two quick questions, because I'm sure I'm going to be cut off.
Staff Inspector Izzett, I know there are certain federal prosecutions in terms of certain crimes--smuggling, drugs, gun smuggling, stock market fraud, I guess, counterfeiting. In practical terms, what are the examples where, in the city of Toronto, the Toronto Police Service, you could work with the RCMP on the witness protection program if it were more operable and the kinds of prosecutions you could work with them on?
As to my second question, you talked about having a flat organization with a province and how that program works--local decision-making, which I can relate to. I think that's a good thing. You have the provincial program people making an ultimate determination of whether that person should actually come into the program, but there's an on-the-ground decision to bring that person within that orbit.
Some might argue that given the current circumstance that has been publicized where someone was brought into the RCMP program who actually turned out to be totally not credible in terms of the information they said they had, or was reliable, what kind of...? I know there are always mistakes that can happen. We all make mistakes; that's why they put rubber on pencils, but sometimes they can be pretty serious mistakes. What kind of due diligence do you go through to make sure that the person is going to be a reliable witness, that the information is credible? I think we've talked a bit about the other side, the propensity to commit crime later on. Is that something...?
The first question is the credibility of this person. They say they have all this information. How credible is it that they do or don't? Who makes that determination?
12:35 p.m.
S/Insp Steve Izzett
In the first instance, I'm very fortunate to have three very experienced detectives who have excellent intuitive skills in dealing with individuals who potentially could be entering into the program. There's an entire background check process. They interview the individual. They speak to the investigating officer. They speak to the prosecuting crown attorney. Now, this is outside of the actual crown attorney who oversees the witness protection program; it's completely outside of it. Through the discussions of those individuals, they come together with a consensus as to the credibility. As I say, there are no guarantees. They discuss the credibility, the veracity of the information the individual is providing, and they assess that in terms of their current circumstances and their past history in terms of their dealings with the police. So it's an all-encompassing assessment process.
It happens very quickly. I can tell you that the assessments I receive to approve are two inches thick; they have a great deal of material on the individual. They talk about their debts. They talk about their educational background. They talk about what jobs they've held, what criminal investigations they've been involved in. It's an all-encompassing process, and it has worked for us; it is working for us.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
Roy Cullen Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Regarding the first question on the federal prosecutions, it would be practically irrelevant.
12:40 p.m.
S/Insp Steve Izzett
As you may all be aware, in 2005 we had a very tough year in terms of gun violence in the city of Toronto. We developed the Toronto anti-violence intervention strategy. It was a two-pronged approach, and basically we wanted to disrupt and dismantle the activity in our communities. It was predicated on two assumptions, the first one being that all gun violence is drug related and the second assumption being that it's committed by repeat offenders.
If you take the “all drug violence is drug related” approach and ask the question, which offences would we like to pursue and provide protection regarding, either for witnesses or agents, it would be drug-related investigations that perhaps fall underneath the level of what the RCMP may be involved or interested in at the importation level. But they fall within our jurisdiction, and they are a poison in our community. They are the very drugs that flow through the community and create the rivalry and violence.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
You're fine? You could have followed up on what he was saying with all this gun violence and stuff. How effective is the registry?
12:40 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
There's a witness protection program that really needs more funding; I'm surprised you didn't go there, Mr. Brown.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
Sue Barnes Liberal London West, ON
Regarding both programs, as you brought up the background check for witnesses and their debts, when witnesses with debts get into the program, do you clear their past debts, or do their creditors just lose?
12:40 p.m.
S/Insp Steve Izzett
In the case of Ontario, each case is assessed on an individual basis as to whether or not you're going to assume their debt in order to get them into the program. There are instances where, for example, you have ongoing support payments. They carry those support payments in their new identity. It has nothing to do with the entry into the program. If they had debts and were economically viable enough to continue carrying those debts, in most cases they would be responsible for them.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
12:40 p.m.
Supt Gordon B. Schumacher
Yes, the same answer.
12:40 p.m.
A/Commr Mike McDonell
They are responsible for their debts.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I have one short question.
Superintendent Schumacher dealt with the issue of jurisdictions in the city of Winnipeg and immediately adjacent where it's the RCMP. If the area immediately adjacent to this is RCMP, is it on a contract?
