Public Safety Committee on April 19th, 2007

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

It seemed fairly obvious to me—

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

NIVA—excusez-moi—is new identities for victims of abuse.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

I see.

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

I'm advised it's Human Resources Development Canada that looks after it.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

You said the following:

[...] they are clearly advised that their existing criminal history remains with them even if they have undergone an identity change. In other words, their criminal history will follow them to their new identity.

Obviously, this wouldn't apply to a woman who is afraid of being assaulted by her husband. Has the cost of protecting each witness under this program been evaluated?

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

The cost of relocating a witness varies tremendously, depending on the number of family members and the property in their possession. Furthermore, if the witness owns a house, it most be sold. If he owns a company, the assets must be liquidated. The costs vary considerably.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Yes, I can well imagine they do.

Without asking you to disclose any secrets, how much does it cost on an annual basis to manage this program?

[C/Supt Derek R. Ogden]

We don't have a separate budget assigned for the relocation and moving of these people. We pay for these expenses as we incur them. We pay for them at the divisional level.

It should be pointed out that the witness protection program is not just for the RCMP, it's also for all law enforcement across Canada. Presently we have a little more than 700 people in the program who are managed by the RCMP and approximately a little more than 300 we received from outside agencies.

On the budget side and how much we spend per witness, we're not part of that decision-making process when it comes to cases referred perhaps from Montreal, from the Vancouver city police, or from the OPP. As for ours, we are involved in that decision-making, but it's hard to give an average cost per case because they vary so much.

In some cases when we bring in a very valuable witness on an organized crime case, it may appear to be very expensive when you look at the actual cost of the award and the relocation. But when we put that in the context of what the police force will actually spend to investigate that particular group, when you think about the number of nights, perhaps, that we're eliminating in surveillance on a group, or of all the background work you have to do, we find, with the right witness, that we can quite often infiltrate that group at a level that allows us to do maximum damage to that organization in the shortest period of time.

The annual report does indicate the expenditures, but we're going to revise that because the annual report does not include the actual cost of the RCMP officers—so their salary dollars. We're going to make some adjustments to the annual report so it's a little clearer as to what expenses are attached to moving these people.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

That will answer a lot of the questions.

We can come back to you, Monsieur Ménard.

Mr. Comartin, for seven minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, gentlemen, for being here.

Mr. Chair, and to you, I think we need to straighten out what in fact can be discussed on individual cases. I'm sitting here with two sets of news stories in front of me: obviously the one that originally provoked the motion that got these hearings going; and the one from two or three years ago—the Hells Angel who subsequently committed, or at least allegedly committed, a murder while under the protection program. My understanding is that those news stories got out. The newspapers weren't charged; the reporters weren't charged.

So Mr. Bird and maybe Mr. Bartlett are the ones who should be answering. Where is the cut-off as to what you can tell us about individual cases without getting charged? And where is the barrier?

[David Bird]

Perhaps I can assist. I would direct your attention to section 11 of the Witness Protection Program Act, and the strict prohibition there is the disclosure, directly or indirectly, of information about the location or a change of identity. Essentially, what can be disclosed is any information about a person charged in a court proceeding in one of those identities, but the problem is when they link the two together.

The other problem would be to identify them in the witness protection program and their current location, and that's prohibited information. Discussions about a person in their present identity or in their old identity is not a problem, it's when the two identities are linked in some fashion that problems arise.

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

My understanding in both these cases is that there were pictures taken as these two individuals were going into court, and that's how they were identified—the Hells Angels. I'm quite sure that's what happened, and he was so notorious that a number of people recognized him in the picture, so that did tie both his former identity and his protective identity since we knew who the person was who was going through the door of the courtroom at the time the picture was taken.

Is that not a breach, and why was the newspaper not charged?

[David Bird]

There's an issue of criminal intent in all these cases. The press would have to know that the person is in the witness protection program and that they are indirectly identifying him. The act is not that specific on the issue of photographs or drawings of a person, and that would have to be looked at as an indirect disclosure in some fashion, if they did so.

We caution the press to be mindful of section 11, and that they should govern themselves accordingly. In these cases, they are all looked at in some way to ensure that we aren't permitting and condoning violations of section 11, but so far we haven't been in a situation where we've clearly seen there's a reasonable prospect of a conviction for the press disclosing information. We have made attempts in court to limit the disclosure by invoking the Canada Evidence Act, and have had success in getting bans and publication orders for those kinds of disclosures.

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

In the B.C. case that prompted these committee hearings, are charges being contemplated against any of the people who disclosed information about that particular case?

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

Are we talking about the newspaper disclosures?

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

The lawyer, the newspaper reporters, and the newspapers themselves.

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

That I'm aware of?

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

Is there an investigation going on in that regard?

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

No.

[C/Supt Derek R. Ogden]

With respect to that question, we can't give a definite answer because it's still under review. I can't say that it will be a case where people are not charged.

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

The RCMP took the opportunity, using Mr. Bird's terminology, to warn the lawyer who had acted for the victim of that particular person in the first round before he went into witness protection. I'm concerned about that person coming forward to testify here if he is subject to that investigation.

[C/Supt Derek R. Ogden]

That particular lawyer would be treated like everybody else, including us. The guidelines from the act are quite clear in that we can't have a situation where an old identity is linked to a new identity of a person who is in the witness protection program, so everybody would have to be mindful of what the act says and the way it's written.

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

That includes members of this committee and the minister, from what I can see, that the assistant commissioner passed back to the minister.

[C/Supt Derek R. Ogden]

That's my understanding, yes.

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

Has the RCMP conducted any review of this legislation, of the way we handle it in Canada versus the way it's handled in the United States?