Public Safety Committee on May 29th, 2007

[Paul E. Kennedy]

Yes, we do have cases where they talk about “unknown members”, and we'll work with the RCMP. They would do it in the first instance because they have to respond in the first instance. They would identify who the people were. Yes, we've had that. We've gone back and identified who the people were.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

All right. Do you see any other constraints that would be put on you in terms of conducting that particular type of investigation?

[Paul E. Kennedy]

No.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

I want to go to the other end of the spectrum where, under the act, the authority is in effect to dismiss somebody from this program. You have a complaint, and again the same type of fact situation. There's been a serious injury or even a murder of a family member. The family member or somebody else from the public comes forward and says they want you to find out why this individual has not been kicked out of the program. Would you entertain that complaint?

[Paul E. Kennedy]

We could, because an officer would be running the program. They would assign responsibility for that, and we'd have to know what facts there were and whether or not the member considered those facts—they may or may not have—and if they did, whether or not they exercised their decision-making pursuant to their policies and procedures. It depends on how it's fashioned, but we could look at some of that.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Going back to the information I'd asked for before, I would like to know whether you've had complaints historically in those two areas. What was the screening process, and why was somebody admitted when we don't believe they should have been, and why weren't they dismissed when they should have been?

[Paul E. Kennedy]

I have no personal knowledge of facts. It's more the case of somebody wanting to get into the program and not getting in, or some individual who was put out of the program as opposed to a third party complaining about that. I don't believe so. I could find out.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

If you get any of that information, you'll provide it to the committee?

With regard to the point you made earlier, I think in response to Mr. MacKenzie's question about the—I don't want to say public relations around it or promotion of a program—general public education of availability of this, what do you do in that regard? I'm thinking again specifically not of individuals who might be in the program or who wanted to be in the program, but individuals from society who are concerned about how the program is operating.

[Paul E. Kennedy]

To my knowledge, we're doing nothing vis-à-vis the witness protection program. I'm endeavouring at this stage to raise the profile of the commission itself so people know it's there and can generally hear complaints we can conduct on their behalf. Because we are a small commission in terms of resources, we've looked at the most vulnerable and marginalized right now, who we think are aboriginals and newer immigrants to this country. We're now trying to put our products into nine different languages beyond English and French. So clearly we haven't targeted this as an audience. What we try to do, obviously, is make active use of our website, but part of your challenge is that it requires people to be computer literate and to use the website, and for us to be picked out of that spectrum of dust that's there. Everyone's on the web these days.

So that's the challenge we have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Your five minutes are up. Are you just about finished?

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

I have just one quick question in terms of facts.

If you ascertain that you've had complaints from individuals who either wanted to be in the program or were in the program, and if you have anybody outside that, will you also indicate in a summary fashion what the results were of those complaints?

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

I have only one more name on my list of questioners. Mr. Volpe, you had a brief question?

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Kennedy.

I'm not sure I heard you correctly. A few moments ago, you indicated that while people are not compelled, not required, to speak to you—I thought you made an editorial comment. You said it's kind of difficult to imagine that this would still be the case in this day and age. First of all, did I hear you correctly?

[Paul E. Kennedy]

Oh yes.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Why is that such a shock to you, that people would not be compelled to talk to you if they didn't want to?

[Paul E. Kennedy]

Because if you're going to have civilian oversight of policing, and we've given police extraordinary powers, then I think there is a quid pro quo in terms of accountability for those powers.

Historically, as members of society, we enforced public safety. Then we moved to institutionalize policing, and we've given police powers that citizens don't have. You, as a citizen, can't intercept private communications. You, as a citizen, cannot break the law to enforce the law as per subsection 25(1) of the Criminal Code. There are all sorts of things out there that are unusual powers. They get to use deadly force, if need be, to administer the law. These are unique powers. If you have them, you have to account for them.

What I'm saying is that an officer then has to account, but conversely, the officer has to be given protection. So he's accounting, because I have to find out if there is a behaviour problem with the individual officer, or is there a systemic problem or a lack of clarity, and so on?

The public, to have faith in the powers given to police, has to have a sense of transparency and accountability. So when I ask what you did and how you did it, I will never find out if it's a systemic problem or a policy or training problem unless someone tells me what they've done and why.

But as I say, the officer has to be protected. He cannot be used in any other administrative procedures and so on. We should be able to make remedial recommendations to improve the officer's behaviour and ensure that others don't have to in the future.

But these are unusual powers people have.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

I agree with you.

The officer in question might quite legitimately say, “That's fine. I'll give you all the information you need, and I'll be protected.” What kind of guarantee does the public have that your recommendation will have the same power of enforcement that, let's say, a judge's decision would have in court?

[Paul E. Kennedy]

Well, there's a difference between us and judges, and I say this as a former prosecutor. The rules are very tight if you want to do a criminal prosecution. There are rules of evidence, there's admissibility, and there's proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If our focus is remedial, we get to hear an awful lot more and see an awful lot more that would not necessarily be legally admissible but would be relevant. So you don't apply the same standard.

In terms of recommendations, with our key decisions, we're taking them now and depersonalizing them in the sense of removing the names of officers and witnesses, and we're putting that up on our website. So if people can get out there and look at it, that's how we think we have to bring pressure, through transparency.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you very much.

I'd like to thank our witnesses this morning, Mr. Kennedy and Mr. McNabb, for coming and giving us this information.

We're going to suspend for a moment and move in camera. Thank you.

[Proceedings continue in camera]