Justice Committee on April 13th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I call the meeting to order. This is meeting number 11 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Today is Tuesday, April 13, 2010.

Members, you've got the agenda before you. As you know, we are continuing our study on organized crime. To help us with our review today we have a number of witnesses.

First of all, we have Ken Froese, representing Froese Forensic Partners Ltd. Welcome.

We also have Inspector Don Perron from the Ontario Provincial Police Organized Crime Enforcement Bureau, the asset forfeiture and identity crimes program. Welcome.

Then we have the RCMP, represented by Chief Superintendent Thomas Bucher, as well as Inspector Greg Bowen. Welcome to both of you. We have David Bird as well.

I believe you have been told what the process is. Each organization has 10 minutes to present, and then we will open the floor to questions from our members.

Just a reminder to those of you who are here and have cellphones with you: make sure you put them on vibrate or turn them off. If you do receive phone calls, please take them outside of the room.

Members, just so you know, right at the end of our meeting we've got a little bit of committee business to take care of, just trying to line up the final witnesses that we'll see perhaps Tuesday, one week from today.

Why don't we start with Mr. Froese? You have 10 minutes to present.

[Ken Froese, Senior Managing Director, Froese Forensic Partners Ltd.]

I've been on a five-day motorcycle trip, and I flew in last night from San Francisco, so I have very rough notes. I'm going to be speaking mainly on the forensic accounting aspects.

My background is that I am an investigative and forensic accountant. I have been doing this for about 20 years in both the public and private sectors. I have worked with the OPP, occasionally with the Toronto Police Services, with the RCMP, as well as looking into municipal corruption--Project 80 in Ontario dealing with municipal politicians--and doing some work with the City of Vaughn and the City of Mississauga in relation to politicians. Nothing related to MPs.

One of my experiences was in relation to the Hells Angels and working with the OPP to look at the financial profile of two Hells Angels who eventually brought Hells Angels into doing the patching over in Ontario. It was looking at, from a forensic accounting perspective, what assets they had, what their income was, whether their income was legitimate or not, and whether you could work through the financial documentation to paint a financial profile of those members to assist in their trial.

That's partly what I am bringing to the group here, as well as working with CRA, looking at complex net worths and figuring out whether there is unreported income.

One of your objectives is dealing with organized crime and the financial aspects, and one of the things we do is assist police forces, as well as doing private investigations dealing with financial aspects.

On the job involving the two Hells Angels, the issue of tracking and identifying assets involved roughly about 300 search warrants. Our job then was to analyze the information coming in, identify other sources of potential assets, and work through that process. One of the issues is that cash and cash proceeds often don't go through financial institutions or don't get recorded.

You get mistakes leading to little bits of information. As an example, if an organized crime member or someone you are investigating stays in a hotel and pays cash, you are not going to find out about that unless they buy something from the mini bar and they forget and it goes on their credit card. We had a few cases where there were $6 charges at $300-a-night hotels, where the only cost going through was this $6 mini bar charge. If you actually go to the hotel, you might find several thousand dollars that has been paid in cash.

Once piece of it is, how do you track and identify cash transactions when you are already looking into a target that either the police have or it is part of a crime investigation, and how do you identify that information? Hotels are an example. In the case of the two persons we were looking into, home improvements were another example. If you look just generally at the underground economy, a lot of home improvement costs are paid for with cash, and when you get home improvements paid for with cash, it's hard to do a financial profile--if you have extensive cash expenses being used to improve roofs, put in pools, or do whatever the expense is.

One that's tougher is restaurant expenses. You can have some pretty expensive meals in restaurants. You can look at someone's profile and identify that they're not spending much on restaurants, but when you look at Statistics Canada information, on the average, say a two- or three-person family, it's giving you statistics for someone who's a normal, in the workforce person. Those stats don't necessarily have the same information as for someone who travels a lot, either with their organized crime connections or whatever they're doing. They're quite often eating in fancy restaurants, staying in hotels, and those things don't track to what a normal person would be spending money on.

So as far as suggestions are concerned, if you are actually trying to improve the tracking of finances, hotels don't have to do any reporting to FINTRAC. It's probably unreasonable to have the same reporting requirements, but it may make sense, if there is a lower cash limit for hotels, that they have to report the VISA information to FINTRAC. it's worth a thought.

It's the same for home improvements. If you have an objective of having to report cash payments, it has a potential impact on both the underground economy and on trying to track what people are actually spending money on, when you're doing a profile.

The other aspect is tracing and trying to identify what individuals own and what they're involved in. If you do a corporate search right now, for example, you can search by company name, but you can't do a search based on ownership. The ownership is not registered or is not publicly available. It's only the officers and directors. When you look at the interrelationship and ownership of companies, although nominees may be there for some of the companies, it would be very helpful to be able to search by the address, as well as the names of the officers and directors. You can't do that provincially and federally right now. It's very difficult when you try to do a profile on who owns what and what they're involved in.

The other piece is on the use of nominees. It makes sense from one perspective, for example, if you're buying a property and you're a real estate developer. It might increase the price of the property if they know who is interested. I don't believe you need nominee companies forever. If there was a limit on how long you can have nominees, and you have to report the owners of companies and not only the officers and directors, I think it would be very helpful when trying to get a picture of the overall involvement of persons under investigation and their finances.

I'll stop now and keep it under 10 minutes. I'll respond to questions as required.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you very much.

We'll move on to Inspector Perron.

[Inspector Don Perron, Organized Crime Enforcement Bureau, Asset Forfeiture and Identity Crimes Program, Ontario Provincial Police]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Unlike Mr. Froese, I didn't have the luxury of travelling on a motorcycle in Nevada and California over the last five days, but I did spend the weekend in an arena at a hockey tournament.

Good morning, I am Inspector Don Perron with the Ontario Provincial Police Organized Crime Enforcement Bureau. I'm currently the program manager for the asset forfeiture and identity crimes program. I appreciate the opportunity to address this panel on behalf of the Ontario Provincial Police.

The OPP has a mandated responsibility to investigate, disrupt, and dismantle organized and serious crime. In order to accomplish this goal, the OPP developed the Organized Crime Enforcement Bureau, which is comprised of specialized integrated investigative units, including the asset forfeiture unit.

My comments today will complement the remarks delivered by my colleague, Inspector Bryan Martin, to this committee on March 25. I'll focus on the provincial asset forfeiture unit and its role in applying the asset forfeiture legislative tools.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

We have interpreters who are trying to interpret what you're saying. Could you slow down a little?

[Insp Don Perron]

I understand. My apologies. I have submitted a copy of my speaking notes.

In our communities, criminal organizations pose a significant threat to the safety and security of our communities. One of the primary motivators of crime is profit. Depriving criminals of wealth acquired through crime and property, and utilized to facilitate crime, is an effective crime reduction strategy that has evolved as an essential element of police efforts to investigate, disrupt, and dismantle organizations.

The first proceeds of crime legislation was introduced in Canada in 1989. Since this inception, we have seen additional legislative amendments designed to combat organized crime by bolstering existing legislation and expanding our ability to seize and forfeit offence-related property or property that facilitates crime. In 2001 Ontario introduced a civil legislative regime that enabled the Attorney General to seek a civil order forfeiting the proceeds or instruments of unlawful activity to the crown.

Although operating at arm's length from the police, the civil remedies for illicit activities play a crucial role in the provincial asset forfeiture strategy. Strong partnerships among law enforcement, prosecutors, and supporting elements of the criminal justice network are key to successfully applying asset forfeiture legislative tools.

The OPP-led asset forfeiture unit is an integrated joint force operations model embedded within the Organized Crime Enforcement Bureau. With a vision of taking the motive out of crime, the asset forfeiture unit is mandated to aggressively and strategically apply available asset forfeiture legislative provisions and coordinate the provincial asset forfeiture within Ontario. The asset forfeiture unit comprises 53 officers, representing 21 different police services. The OPP also has four officers seconded to the RCMP-led integrated proceeds of crime program.

The officers assigned to the asset forfeiture unit provide specialized investigative support services to front-line officers, substantive units, and large-scale projects targeting organized crime groups. In the past five years, the asset forfeiture unit removed $155 million from the criminal economy and forfeited $25.8 million to the crown. It has been nationally recognized as an effective model for applying criminal and civil legislative provisions to remove proceeds of crime and property that facilitate crime from the criminal economy.

The asset forfeiture unit utilizes an all-encompassing philosophy in applying the legislative tools to accomplish one common goal: removal of proceeds of crime and/or offence-related property from criminals and criminal organizations. Adopting this strategic approach demands a firm understanding of the statutes related to asset forfeiture and being able to navigate through the various legislative regimes and processes. The success and the sustainability of the police having access to the asset forfeiture provisions to combat organized crime will depend on our ability to remain prudent and diligent in applying the legislative tools available.

The asset forfeiture unit relies on three legislative processes for removing and forfeiting proceeds of crime and property that facilitate crime. The traditional legislative provision related to the seizure and forfeiture of proceeds of crime is entrenched in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Criminal Code. This provision is applied when investigating the seizure and forfeiture of property that is the profit of crime. This method entails a complex financial investigation where the police must demonstrate, beyond reasonable doubt, that the property was acquired with profits derived from crime.

When we proceed under the CDSA, which is the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the seized property management directorate, a federal asset management agency, assumes the responsibilities related to the management and disposition of the property, subject to a management order issued by the courts. The Public Prosecution Service of Canada assumes responsibility for prosecuting the matter.

When we proceed under the Criminal Code, the provincial Ministry of the Attorney General assumes the responsibilities related to the management and disposition of the property as well as prosecuting the matter.

The legislative provision related to the seizure and forfeiture of offence-related property—that is, property that facilitates a crime, such as a marijuana grow house—is also entrenched in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Criminal Code. This provision is applied when investigating the seizure and forfeiture of property that was utilized to facilitate a criminal act. Applying this methodology is less onerous than the previous provision. In this instance, the police must demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the property was utilized to facilitate a crime. This method accounted for approximately 75% of the property seized and forfeited by the asset forfeiture unit in the past five years. As previously outlined, the legislative statute will dictate who assumes the responsibilities related to the management and disposition of the property and prosecuting the matter.

Civil remedies for illicit activities are the third and final provision relied upon by the asset forfeiture unit to remove proceeds of crime from enterprise criminals and criminal organizations. This arm's-length civil provision is accessed by the police by submitting cases that have faltered or lack the evidence to successfully achieve a criminal forfeiture. We submit the case to the reviewing authority, the gatekeeper, who is an independent crown counsel of the Ministry of the Attorney General. The gatekeeper will review the material and determine whether the statutory criteria of the Civil Remedies Act are met. Once satisfied, the case is submitted to the civil remedies for illicit activities office for consideration. The standard of proof required for civil forfeiture is the same as it is in all civil actions: balance of probabilities.

The achievements of the asset forfeiture unit are directly linked to the strong working relationships established with our partners and stakeholders. As indicated, the asset forfeiture unit works together with Ministry of the Attorney General programs, including the civil remedies for illicit activities office and the criminal asset forfeiture unit. For federally prosecuted matters, the asset forfeiture unit works together with Public Prosecution Service of Canada and the seized property management directorate. All of these programs work together in a coordinated approach to identify asset forfeiture cases and optimize the application of asset forfeiture provisions to reduce the criminal economy. The OPP acknowledges the complexity of funding numerous programs from separate governments, but it is recommended that all the stakeholders contributing to the overall asset forfeiture strategy be considered when funding investments are being considered for one or some of the stakeholders.

Accordingly, justice sector partners must recognize and appreciate that the motive for removing proceeds of crime and property that facilitates crime should not be profit by government or law enforcement agencies. The goal is to reduce crime, assist victims of crime, and ensure that criminals don't profit from crime. The cost of combatting crime in a community is directly related to the level of crime in that community. Removing illicit and offence-related property from the environment reduces crime and assists victims of crime. This reduction in crime translates into savings related to the future costs of mitigating crime in that community. For example, the $155 million extracted from the criminal economy by the asset forfeiture unit during the past five years is funding that is no longer available to criminals or their criminal organizations to finance their criminal activities and support their lavish lifestyles. It is a strong and tangible deterrent to commit crime, and above all, moneys are returned to victims or reinvested into safeguarding our communities.

Although it is never the motive, there is an added financial benefit to seizing and forfeiting illicit assets. Property or money that is not used to compensate victims or is not returnable to an innocent third party will be forfeited to the crown.

Pursuant to the applicable sharing regimes, these forfeited assets are converted to funds and can be reinvested in law enforcement activities. The following grant programs were established as the vehicles to reinvest forfeited moneys back into justice sector initiatives: the front-line policing grant program; the law enforcement grant program; and the civil remedies for illicit activities proceeds of crime grant program.

The OPP acknowledges there has been significant legislative progress and developments that support the asset forfeiture framework in Ontario and strengthen our ability to investigate, disrupt, and dismantle organized and serious crime. However, the OPP have identified the following priorities that would enhance the provincial asset forfeiture strategy.

The first priority deals with legislative amendments to the Seized Property Management Act and the forfeited property sharing regulations in order to: provide greater flexibility to the seized property management directorate in taking responsibility for managing assets that are seized by the police from the time the assets are seized as opposed to waiting for a management order to be issued; facilitate the disposal of rapidly depreciating assets, such as automobiles, in a timely manner to preserve the value of the assets; provide for the use of one management agency responsible to manage and dispose of all assets seized by the police pursuant to any forfeiture provisions, whether provincial or federal; and revise the current sharing regime to ensure an equitable and transparent process is in place that optimizes the overall benefits derived from the asset forfeiture regime. Also, dedicate Public Prosecution Service of Canada counsels to provide legal advice and support to the provincial asset forfeiture strategy; establish clear policies and guidelines that would identify and assign prosecutorial jurisdiction early in the planning stages of a large organized crime investigation; and invest adequate resources in all the stakeholders engaged in the provincial asset forfeiture strategy.

In conclusion, the asset forfeiture unit is a key contributor to law enforcement efforts to combat organized and serious crime. Entrenched in sound partnerships and relationships with municipal police services and justice sector stakeholders, the asset forfeiture unit is achieving remarkable success in depriving criminals of wealth acquired through crime and property used to facilitate crime. We believe that maintaining this momentum of reform and modernization, giving police and prosecutors the support and the tools to effectively combat organized crime, will achieve safer communities across the nation.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

We now move to Chief Superintendent Bucher. You have 10 minutes.

[Chief Superintendent Thomas Bucher, Director General, Drugs and Organized Crime, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, honourable members of the committee. Thank you for inviting us here today.

I am pleased to be here before you today, along with my colleague, Inspector Greg Bowen, who is the officer in charge of national headquarters human source and witness protection, and Mr. David Bird, counsel for RCMP legal services.

If I may, I'd like to begin by providing some context over the years relative to the witness protection program. In 1984, with the fight against major national and international drug smuggling rings becoming a priority, the RCMP established a witness protection program to protect individuals collaborating with the justice system. The witness protection program was administrative in nature and did not have any legislative framework. The program infrastructure consisted of experienced police officers and contacts across Canada who aided in the support of witness relocations and identity changes.

During the mid-1980s, most of the individuals who entered the RCMP witness protection program were in some way involved with major drug trafficking activities. Over the following years, the scope of witness protection grew to include other citizens who needed protection but were not directly involved in organized crime.

In 1994 a member of Parliament introduced a private member's bill in the House of Commons, Bill C-206, which sought to have the witness protection program's fundamental principles, criteria, and procedures defined in law. Though it was not passed, Bill C-206 received a great deal of support in the House of Commons. Subsequently, the government introduced Bill C-78, the Witness Protection Program Act, in an effort to make the witness protection program operate more effectively. It was designed to ensure that witness protection program applicants had a clear understanding of their rights, obligations, and the scope of protection that could be provided. In addition, the bill touched on admission criteria for witnesses, obligations of the administrators, and reporting requirements to the House of Commons.

In 1996 the federal witness protection program was given a statutory standing through the Witness Protection Program Act. This legislation was a significant milestone for Canadians, as it formalized, for the first time, a governance structure for witness protection in Canada. It is important to note, however, that the jurisprudence of the act is limited to the federal witness protection program, which is administered by the RCMP.

Today more than ever the federal witness protection program continues to play a critical and essential role in law enforcement's ability to effectively combat organized crime. The extreme violence demonstrated by organized crime, their extensive financial resources, and their preparedness to exact revenge upon those who speak out against them is well known. The federal witness protection program is one of the few available resources accessible to all Canadian law enforcement that can provide protection, emotional comfort, and support to witnesses who find themselves at risk as a result of their participation in the justice system.

It is important to note that the federal witness protection program is not the only program in Canada. The provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan all have their own provincial programs, and Alberta has expressed its intention to create a program. Two of the prairie provinces currently have legislated programs, and it is anticipated that Alberta's program legislation will come into effect in the near future. Ontario and Quebec have policy-based programs. Most urban and provincial policing agencies have witness protection units within their respective organizations.

I should add that having independent programs does not preclude these agencies from utilizing the FWPP. If, for example, a particularly challenging case arises, the RCMP may be called upon for assistance and the witness will be given consideration for entry in the federal program. These situations occasionally arise because the provincial or municipal programs were generally created to meet the short-term needs of the witness and are not necessarily designed to accommodate those requiring lifelong protection or change of identity.

I would also add that there is no dedicated federal funding for witness protection in Canada. This includes the federal witness protection program administered by the RCMP. This situation therefore creates impediments for the federal program and for smaller agencies who are investigating serious crimes but do not have sufficient resources to pay for witness protection. Currently, the RCMP expends approximately $7 million per year on witness protection; however, this number can easily fluctuate, depending upon the number and complexity of the cases presented.

The Witness Protection Program Act provides the framework for the federal program and defines protection, which may include relocation, accommodation, change of identity, counselling, and financial support for the purpose of ensuring the witness' security or to facilitate the witness' re-establishment or ability to become self-sufficient.

Once the commissioner establishes that a witness is suitable for admission to the witness protection program, the witness must enter into a protection agreement with the commissioner. All protection agreements contain the obligations of both parties. Under the Witness Protection Program Act, section 8, the commissioner must take reasonable steps to provide the protection referred to in the agreement to the protectee.

Section 11 of the Witness Protection Program Act states that it is an offence to knowingly disclose, directly or indirectly, information about the location or the change of identity of a protectee. It is also an offence to disclose such information about a former witness who is no longer under protection. However, it is not an offence for a protectee to disclose such information, if the disclosure does not endanger his or her safety, the safety of other protectees in the program, or does not compromise the witness protection program's integrity.

The commissioner may disclose the location or the change of identity of a protectee or former protectee under certain circumstances. Prior to disclosing any information, the commissioner must take reasonable steps to disclose his intentions to the protectee and allow the protectee an opportunity to respond. However, the commissioner is not obligated to do so if it would impede the investigation of an offence.

The commissioner may terminate protection if the protectee deliberately infringes against a condition of the protection agreement. The commissioner may also remove from the witness protection program a protectee who made a material misrepresentation or failed to disclose information relevant to his or her admission into the witness protection program. Prior to terminating the protection provided to a protectee, reasonable steps must be taken to notify the protectee of the decision and allow him or her a chance to make representations concerning the matter.

The Witness Protection Program Act also allows the Minister of Public Safety to enter into a reciprocal agreement with a foreign government or an international court or tribunal to admit foreign nationals into the witness protection program. In these instances, a foreigner cannot be admitted into Canada without the consent of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada and the Minister of Public Safety. In such cases, the RCMP's role is to administer the agreement between the foreign country and its witness.

Witness protection is recognized as one of the most challenging programs within the RCMP. High risk by its very nature, the program must remain fluid in order to respond to the ever-changing demands placed upon the program by the changing Canadian criminal landscape, public expectations, and the demands made upon the program by both domestic and international law enforcement.

The federal witness protection program is the only program in Canada legislated to respond to the needs of all municipal, provincial, and federal law enforcement interests in Canada, the international policing community, and international tribunals. We share the concerns of our provincial and municipal colleagues relative to resource issues and the social challenges confronting witness protection initiatives in Canada. Of particular note are the unique demands placed upon the federal program as a result of expanding Canadian gang activity and the challenges of offering protection services to those associated with gangs who wish to come forward and provide witness testimony but are afraid to do so for fear of retribution.

The RCMP has been the focus of considerable scrutiny relative to the manner in which it administers the federal program in recent years; however, this scrutiny has been welcomed. Through this process the complexities and challenges of witness protection have been made public. As a result, in 2007 a review of the witness protection program was undertaken by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. The result of the referred committee hearings was the development of a series of recommendations intended to make the federal witness protection program a more effective program.

These recommendations have been taken into consideration by the federal government and resulted in Public Safety Canada and the RCMP initiating a comprehensive review of the federal program and undertaking a series of in-depth consultations with federal and provincial partners and other stakeholders, with a focus on how to make the Federal Witness Protection Program more effective, efficient and transparent.

During the aforementioned consultation process, it was made clear by some provinces that changes were required to the Witness Protection Program Act to facilitate their ability to obtain federal identification documentation, without having to enter their protected persons into the Federal Witness Protection Program which is the current practice.

There was also continued reference to funding challenges for municipalities and provinces in order to offset costs associated to placing protectees into the federal program.

These and other issues identified by our federal and provincial partners and stakeholders became the focus point for discussions and debate by Public Safety and the RCMP as we continue to work together in an effort to promote necessary changes to enhance the federal witness protection program. At the same time, both Public Safety and the RCMP want to ensure that changes to the federal program not only respond to the concerns of partners and stakeholders where possible, but also to ensure that any changes to federal legislation or the federal program will enhance the protection of witnesses in Canada.

Aside from legislative issues, the RCMP has developed a draft document that, once finalized, will introduce a series of recommendations and proposed changes to the federal program that are intended to result in a much more contemporary program. It will be more protectee-focused and more effectively promote public safety, it will focus on the safety of witness protection personnel and critical partners involved in the witness protection process, and it will better meet the needs and expectations of the Canadian public and judicial system.

Thank you for allowing me to make these opening comments, and now my colleagues and I will be pleased to answer your questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Let's move to questions.

Mr. Murphy.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a couple of questions on equitable tracing, cash reporting, and the nominee companies aspect.

I trust you were biking with groups that don't fly colours, or they are colours that aren't in--

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Ken Froese]

It was with a lawyer--

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Oh, a lawyer is good. We cleared the air on that then.

I want to know some specifics perhaps--or maybe you could flesh this out, maybe I didn't get it--on tracing funds and ownership. You talked about ownership of assets, I assume, or cars, etc., but what could be done if there was some sort of coordination across provincial lines or otherwise with registration? What is it that could be done?

[Ken Froese]

I think the information is all there now, but if you want to search it... Let's say you are trying to find companies that are associated with a group or individuals. Right now you can search by company name, but you can't search by address; you can't search by the name of the directors or officers.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

What are you searching, though? I'm going to get to nominee companies.

Let's say that the provincial attorneys general or business ministers, or whoever would be responsible--corporate, commercial, whatever--could be persuaded at a conference of first ministers to amend or improve their corporations act, etc., to limit the timeframe incorporators have to put their name on a document. They'd therefore be compelled to put the ownership in a public forum. Let's say that could happen.

What is it that's being traced? The provincial registries, both real and personal property--is that what we're talking about?

[Ken Froese]

We were talking about doing corporate searches at both the federal and provincial levels. So the information is there on directors and officers, in theory, not on owners. Right now ownership information for private companies isn't captured anywhere. So it would be adding the ownership information to the registry information both provincially and federally.

For a nominee company, it would be setting a timeframe. Quite often the incorporating lawyer will be the person who registers the company when it's incorporated. But this is a requirement, within so many months or the first year, to have the actual owners and officers and directors.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

That does not exist now.

[Ken Froese]

No, it doesn't.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

It would have to be in each provincial corporations act and the CBCA.

[Ken Froese]

You can register companies federally, so there is a federal role--

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Yes, the CBCA.

[Ken Froese]

--or else provincially. So it would be both, that's correct.

I would just add that from a property perspective, when you're doing property searches to look at properties that individuals own, that can vary by municipality to municipality. Again, you normally search by address, but you can't search by ownership.

So improving the ability across Canada to be able to search for individuals or companies and their ownership would be of assistance in investigating financial profiles.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

It seems to me that an awful lot of information is not in the public registries, it's in the Equifaxes of the world that collect commercial information, the subscription information. I'm just wondering if anything can be done in that regard. There would have to be some sort of suspicion, I suppose, on someone for us to...

Short of a warrant, a search and seizure type of thing, is there any sort of positive onus we can put on reporting agencies, such as Equifax, to report? I know there are currency reporting obligations--FINTRAC, etc.--on banks. We're tinkering with something with respect to ISP providers, with respect to Internet, hate crimes, all that sort of thing.

Just blue-skying here, what could be done with regard to the commercial information gatherers? What obligation could be put on them? How would we do that?

[Ken Froese]

The need to report is really something that's in legislation. You are required to report the corporation information, to file things, whether it's provincial or federal, and to file certain corporate information both when you incorporate and then annually. That requirement is already there; it would be expanding what you have to disclose and allowing or requiring the ability to search beyond just the company name.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

On witness protection, you mentioned that $7 million was spent. Just give us an idea of how many people that covers in a year. How many clients—or “protectees”, I think you called them—would that serve?