Justice Committee on Oct. 23rd, 2009

[Supt Brian Brennan]

The laws in the United States, in terms of fighting organized crime, are different in certain areas. There would have to be an examination of the specific laws in terms of how they deal with organized crime, based on the laws they have and based on the laws we have. However, I think legislators should always be examining other best practices from like countries with the same problems to see if those legislative changes could be adopted into our rules. So I think there's definitely an avenue for analysis in that regard.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Mr. Woodworth.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

My thanks to the witnesses for being here with us today.

There are two areas I want to inquire about: witness protection and the forfeiture of property. Chief Beazley touched on the issue of witness protection. All these years, perhaps somewhat naively, I assumed that we had some kind of witness protection program. I would like to know what we do now. We've heard evidence that one of the chief weapons of organized crime is intimidation and fear—that is how they maintain their power. So it seems to me there is definitely a place for a witness protection program of some kind.

I would like to know what we do now. Who pays for it, if it's not federally funded? How many instances would you see in the Atlantic area where this might be required? What is the estimated cost per witness? This is a matter on which I would like to hear Chief Beazley and RCMP Inspector Brennan.

[Chief Frank A. Beazley]

I mentioned witness protection, but I put the word “funded” in front of it. The Government of Canada, through the oversight of the RCMP, does have a federal witness protection program, and it's a very good one. I have absolutely no criticism of the program.

But for me to use it, I have to pay the costs. In the last few years, it has cost me somewhere in the area of $800,000 to $900,000 to put people into this program. I turn the witness over to the RCMP and then they bill me for the use of the program. It's not uncommon to get a bill every couple of months for $40,000 or $50,000. We write the cheque and away it goes.

Right now I probably have four or five people in that program. It is very costly. That's why I was hoping someone would look into it. I've brought this up in other federal forums. About 60 miles up the road from me there is a small police department that had to do the same thing. It was a small department of about 35 people, and they had to go to their council to get the money to put somebody into the program.

This is something we need. With all the technology and all the investigative hours, you may still need a good insider who wants to come work with you, and you have to be able to afford to do that type of thing. The program we have is good. What I'm concerned about is the affordability of the program.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

On that $800,000 or $900,000 figure you mentioned, is that a per witness figure or is it your department's annual total? Can you help me quantify your department's requirement for this kind of operation?

[Chief Frank A. Beazley]

It's a special cost. It's above and beyond my budget. I go back to the city and I tell them I have a situation and I'm going to spend this kind of money. That's my total cost over the last number of years. Putting someone in today, for the next two years, would probably cost $150,000 to $200,000. Each case, though, is a little different.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Is that a per annum figure?

[Chief Frank A. Beazley]

Yes.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Inspector Brennan, do you have any comment?

[Supt Brian Brennan]

The RCMP is responsible for the federal witness protection program. It is robust. It's being used in every province in Canada. The complexity and the cost of running the program is enormous. To put a cost on an individual witness is almost impossible, because it depends on whether we are simply relocating the person to another part of the country or changing the person's identity, together with the family's, and backstopping all the information behind this effort.

It's important in our attacks against organized crime to continue this program and to continue to supply the funding necessary to move these witnesses and to give them a sense of security. When they come into the program, they have to know that they're going to be protected. If we fail to use the program, and fail to get those witnesses, it's going to become harder and harder for police agencies to infiltrate organized crime to the very core.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

Just for the record, it's Superintendent Brennan. The place card is wrong.

Ms. Jennings, five minutes.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

To piggyback on the questions that Mr. Woodworth was asking about the federal witness protection program, given the challenge that it represents to most police forces because it's not built into their budgets, and given what Superintendent Brennan has just told us, do you think that we legislators should be looking at recommending to the government that it be a stand-alone, federally financed program to alleviate some of the burden that it represents on our law enforcement?

[Chief Frank A. Beazley]

Yes. I like you.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

I understand, Superintendent Brennan, given that you represent the RCMP, you may be in a difficult position to say yes to that, but I think it is something we might want to discuss amongst the committee, whether or not it would form part of a recommendation or suggestion to the government to look at that as a possibility.

Now, coming back to the issue of the technological challenges and the fact that you need to be able to recruit people who are trained as civilians, but who are the little geniuses now, to come in so that the front-line officers can do what they need to do, has it been built into your human resources structure so that whether it's a police officer who proves himself or herself to be extraordinarily talented on the technological front—and we have many, I know—or a civilian who's brought in, they're able to remain in that field, and those of you who become specialized in criminal intelligence are able to remain in that field but also be able to progress without having to shift out? Because one of the problems you face is the fact that people come in, they gain some expertise, but in order to continue to progress in their career, they move out, and that's human capital and intelligence that has been lost.

Are your police forces looking at your human resources model in order to take into account that you need to have these people stay here, but they also need to be able to progress in their careers--so that the models are shifted and changed?

[Supt Brian Brennan]

Within the RCMP, our human resource areas are looking to the idea of career streaming and career opportunities. As in most police services, a lot of our employees come in at the lower rank level or pay level and then work their way up. Then they tend to hit a glass ceiling, especially in those areas of specialized units. As those units grow and become bigger, the opportunities grow as well. It's sometimes hard to keep those people in those specialized sections because there are other opportunities, either outside the organization or within another department, that they move to for a promotion. It's difficult, because you never want to limit your employees by career streaming, but we do need to find ways to give them the opportunity to advance and to further their skills. We are looking at it.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Okay.

[Chief Frank A. Beazley]

It's pretty much the same for me, except that we've civilianized some of those highly technical areas, and hopefully we can keep the civilian in those positions longer than officers who want to be promoted and do other things.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Mr. Rathgeber.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for your attendance and for your excellent presentations.

I represent and live in Alberta, where the geography and topography is quite dissimilar to the beautiful surroundings here at Halifax harbour. I'm guessing that provides different challenges.

Chief Beazley, you talked about the 105 guns you've seized in this calendar year, and the other contraband that shows up on your streets. Do you have any way of knowing, by anecdote or by estimation, what percentage of that contraband comes from water and boat, as opposed to land or air?

[Chief Frank A. Beazley]

On the contraband, no.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

What about the guns?

[Chief Frank A. Beazley]

For the most part, the guns are local. They are guns that people legally own and have in their homes, and they mostly come from break and enters and thefts.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

With your problem with street crime and organized crime, is there a significant number of contraband items ending up on your streets that come into the city by water?

[Chief Frank A. Beazley]

As my colleagues have talked about, in past investigations we've seen things coming through the ports and going to other organized crime groups, particularly in Ontario and Quebec, and then coming back down, in and through....

There have been cases where some of these people who facilitate the movements will take a piece of it off, if they can get it out through the port themselves. But it mainly goes up and then it comes back again.