Public Safety Committee on April 19th, 2007

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

I'd like to follow up on some of Mr. Comartin's questions, just to get a few things clear.

Apparently this is a huge case. It's not that national—I don't hear a lot about it where I am—but apparently, out of the 700 cases, we have a case in which a reporter has made some accusations or some innuendo, or not so much innuendo but some accusations. You've responded quite openly, and you were prepared, actually, to come here with some answers, to the extent that you can without contravening the actual law or the actual statute.

If I understood you correctly, if that's the desire of this committee or any individual on this committee, you're prepared to do that.

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

Absolutely.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

You're prepared to get it all out on the table, make sure there are no hidden, bad RCMP people out there doing bad things to people.

It's so easy these days, it seems, out of 700 cases, to pick one off and fire a couple of shots across the bow, and all of a sudden it becomes a huge issue. If there's something there, we need to hear about it, and you say you're prepared to tell us if that's the case.

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

That's correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Are you sharing your time, Mr. MacKenzie?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

I'd just like to follow up.

Mr. Comartin has frequently mentioned the issue with the press. I think I heard comments that there are inaccuracies in the press report. I don't know whether this is a fair question, but is it fair to say that there's been some licence taken in the writing of the report, as to what was said or not said? If that is the case and if there are questions about it, I think perhaps what Mr. Norlock is saying is that the right way to deal with it here is to get the basis of where that report came from, the factual side.

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

To the extent that the case itself is concerned, the individuals conducting the review of the case right now would be here to answer all your questions.

The inaccuracies in what's appeared in the media are to the extent of trying to paint a picture that the witness protection program provides an environment for individuals to commit crimes and go undetected. The only thing the witness protection program allows a protectee to hide from is individuals looking for them to cause them grievous bodily harm or death. Those are the only individuals the program hides the protectee from. Otherwise, they're wide open. They're members of the community and can be detected, if they commit crimes, like anybody else.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

They have absolutely no immunity. I think that's what Canadians need to hear. They have absolutely no immunity simply because they're in the witness protection program.

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

They have no immunity, and it's not an environment that allows a person to hide from committing crimes. As I said, the only thing it allows them to hide from is the people trying to kill them, or find them and commit grievous bodily harm to them.

[C/Supt Derek R. Ogden]

One of the other central themes was that the program is shrouded in secrecy. That's not the case. In fact, after the newspaper articles came out, I gave very lengthy interviews to, I think, three or maybe four reporters—interviews an hour to an hour and a half long—in which I answered virtually every question they posed. The only areas I couldn't talk about, and I was very up front about that in the beginning, are the techniques we use to break the identity chain from the old identity to the new identity chain.

In the case of questions such as why, if a person is not convicted in court as a result of somebody you've taken on as an agent, you would keep that person, the answer is obvious. It's that once we've taken on a decision to work with a person and that person has been exposed to the criminal element, we don't extort that person; we only want them to go into court and provide testimony. Whether we're going to provide protection does not come as a result of the final court decision; it never can.

That's, I think, one of the reasons the Witness Protection Program Act was started in the first place. It provides obligations for the police and provides obligations for the person who comes into the program. That's the whole idea of the protection agreement: that both parties understand what the rules of the game are. And that's what they are.

[David Bird]

Let me add some help to make sure the testimony is accurate.

The Witness Protection Program Act does provide for one immunity for protectees. That's in section 13, where a person whose identity has been changed as a consequence of the protection provided under the program shall not be liable or otherwise punished for making a claim that the new identity is and has been the person's only identity, which essentially gives them immunity from perjury.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Ms. Barnes, do you have any more questions?

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

It depends how much time we have for other—

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

That's up to the committee.

Do you wish to ask any more questions?

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

I'm going to cede my time, because I've had more time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

As chair, I'd sure like at least five minutes at the end of the meeting—at a minimum—for us to look at what we're doing next week.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

I will pass on this round.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Ms. Mourani.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

I'd like to ask a few quick questions.

I understood from the questions Mr. MacKenzie asked that occasionally exchanges occur, that is that we send our witnesses abroad, while we take in foreign witnesses. Despite the fact that Canada is a vast country, this doesn't happen very often. I also understood that these individuals do not benefit from immunity if they commit a crime. Are their actions monitored?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, most of these witnesses are criminals. They are living in the community and giving you information about activities they have witnessed. Sometimes, they are biker gang members or members of the Italian mafia, or some such thing. We know very well that it isn't easy for a person to let go of old habits when he is immersed in this environment. Are these individuals under any kind of surveillance?

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

We don't hold their hands each day and over time, we spend less and less time with them. However, if they are stopped by the police, even for speeding on the highway, they are identified as criminals because their names are in our CPIC database. Therefore, even if they are stopped by a member of another police force, we will be made aware of the situation immediately.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

You say that these individuals are not under any kind of surveillance. Therefore, they are not like offenders who serve their time in the community and must check in once a week, or once every two weeks at the nearest police station or RCMP detachment. I don't know if you have officers who handle this kind of thing. You're saying it doesn't work that way.

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

No, absolutely not.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

You'd find out only if the person breaks the law in some way. However, he can conceivably do many things without getting caught.

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

Just like any other citizen can do.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Just like any other citizen who decides to commit a crime.