Public Safety Committee on May 8th, 2007

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Okay.

Does anybody collect statistics on the employability of people inside the witness protection program, or, as taxpayers, are we funding them? We've heard testimony from the RCMP saying they have problems finding employment in their new lives. Are we keeping any stats on this, or is this open-ended until eternity, that we fund somebody's new life?

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

That will have to be your final question for this round.

[Supt Gordon B. Schumacher]

I'm not aware of any stats.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Does anybody keep records?

[S/Insp Steve Izzett]

We don't have statistics per se, but the objective when they enter the program is to enter them into a sustainable life, which includes training and trying to get them to a state of employability.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

At this point, nowhere in Canada do we know?

[A/Commr Mike McDonell]

I will take that on notice and come back with an answer on behalf of the RCMP.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

We now move to the Bloc Québécois, Monsieur Ménard.

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

I am absolutely convinced of the need for the type of program you administer. In Quebec there have been situations where it has been necessary to use this type of program to infiltrate criminal organizations, trap criminals and convict them.

These procedures are however very costly, and we know why. This is an area the private sector will never be involved in and, unlike the private sector, we will never be able to accurately measure the success of our operations.

I wondered whether over the years you had found a way to assess the success of using these witnesses, after the fact, to determine other options for the future. It is very difficult to determine whether we have made the right decision when we embark on this very costly process. You must have some ideas on that. For my part, I must admit that I don't have many.

[Supt Gordon B. Schumacher]

I can provide a little insight.

Certainly, I agree we need to understand the benefit we're getting when we use witness protection. If I can use an example that occurred this past weekend in Winnipeg.... We have been involved in the trial of a high-ranking Hells Angels member, which was I think a month and a half in the courts. Pivotal to that trial was an agent we used where witness protection was afforded. The reality is he was charged with nine counts of numerous charges, including criminal organization drug-related charges. The jury came back this weekend convicting on eight of those nine.

I can tell you almost with certainty that we would never have been before the courts if it had not been for the use of this particular agent and the use of the witness protection program. This particular agent will be in court a substantial amount for many other Hells Angels members and associates whom we have as a result of Project Defence, which we closed last year.

That's just one example. Clearly, we will not see success stories every time witness protection is used. Some will not work. Certainly we've seen some in Manitoba. But the success of the program is in the success of the prosecutions afterwards.

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

We could certainly find examples of success, but I would imagine you can also think of a few failures. Am I to understand that in measuring the success of your program, convictions are a significant factor? I would also imagine that the size of the criminal organization you're trying to dismantle and the damage done to it are also factors. Would the fact that an organization is violent as opposed to one engaged in basic fraud also a factor you would consider in assessing the success of our operations?

[Supt Gordon B. Schumacher]

Yes. Absolutely.

Clearly, the impact on the organization is a substantial indicator of whether the use of an agent, or informant, or a witness under witness protection was beneficial. I can use this fast example to truly show that absolutely the organization of the Hells Angels in Winnipeg was impacted with the use of this person, who is now in the witness protection program.

There are a number of other examples I can cite. You have mentioned that there are failures, and there's no question that this occurs, and it will continue to occur no matter what we do. But clearly success is in the aftermath of the organization that we've been dealing with.

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

I would simply like to point out, before we move on to another subject, that we can find in the newspapers two cases where witnesses were used. More than likely, these organizations are violent, but some are not. For instance, there were convictions in the Enron case. This trial was highly publicized, and therefore we shouldn't pass judgment on it.

The measures that are taken while you're controlling the offender, that is an issue I find very difficult to deal with. It is one of our major concerns. At the end of the day, many of the individuals are former offenders. They kept their basic nature, even if they've changed their mind.

I'd like you to briefly explain to us how you can make sure that these people will not attempt to manipulate you and resume a criminal lifestyle, that they will actually continue to lead an honest life and not take advantage of their circumstances to commit other indictable offences. Is there a psychological component to your work? Do you have psychologists working with you?

[Supt Gordon B. Schumacher]

Thank you.

Well, clearly, the types of people we have in this program are not the types of people who are highly regarded in our society as upstanding citizens. Not all, but for the most part, the primary people could very well be convicted individuals. The way we're looking at them, the way we're hoping to try to get them to cast aside the shadows of their past...on the national side they have handlers who are constantly involved with them, but there are also psychologists, clearly, who are involved in the process and who will spend time with people within the witness protection program to help them resolve some past issues they have in the hopes that they will move forward.

I have personally seen situations on the national side where, no matter what you do or what help you can provide, it doesn't make a difference. But I've seen success stories on the national side as well.

On the provincial side, provincial programs, as I've mentioned, are much more short term, so they are usually removed from the situation to which they are accustomed, but for shorter periods of time. We move them, for instance, to Vancouver, and we will try to set them up so that they are comfortable and are going on a proper straight path. The reality is, after three or four months, the provincial funding generally will stop in the hopes that they will start working on their own.

We will provide support for them. Even at the provincial level, we have psychologists that we can make available for them. We do what we can, but clearly, there is no way that we can guarantee success on that front.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Are there any other comments from the other witnesses?

Mr. Izzett, did you have a comment?

[S/Insp Steve Izzett]

When you speak of the success, obviously our objective is to be successful in our investigations and subsequent prosecutions. I'm not so sure we have kept statistics or measured that. I will endeavour to check, but I'm not so sure they exist.

The witness protection program, for many, can be a panacea. It's an individual who sees a different location and a new life, when in actual fact what they find is the same life in a different location, with the same troubles that followed them, with the same idiosyncrasies in their human behaviour, and the same propensities for them to be involved in criminal activity. Speaking in terms of the provincial program, they can withdraw from the program at any given time. In fact, it would be deemed that they would be withdrawing from the program if they entered into a criminal lifestyle again, and they would lose support.

So they are monitored, but there are no guarantees--absolutely no guarantees. What we have found, by and large, is that when we relocate individuals, they find out that they didn't get a new life, that they have the same life, and they are probably lonelier, and they have a propensity to return to the location they were relocated from.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

Mr. Comartin, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, gentlemen, for being here.

I think I want to be clear, although I assume you know this, that the primary reason this review is under way at this point is because of a notorious case that came forward where an individual in the federal program was subsequently charged and convicted of murder while still in the program. We believe there's a similar case in Quebec.

What we're concerned about--and Ms. Barnes made reference to the protocols--and what I'm in particular concerned about is the programs you're involved with at the provincial or local level. I'm looking for your criteria for admissibility and your criteria for terminating involvement in the program. So as you send that material forward, could you pay particular attention to those two areas?

[S/Insp Steve Izzett]

I've spoken to the person in charge of the program at the Ministry of the Attorney General, and they are reluctant at this point to release that document. It's a document that contains the rules of engagement that must be agreed to for entrance into a program. I can provide the committee with a contact name and you could ask that individual directly, but at this point I'm not permitted to provide that document to you.

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

Could you provide the clerk with the contact name?

[S/Insp Steve Izzett]

Absolutely.

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

Staff Inspector, to pursue this just a bit, in terms of criteria for admissibility and termination, in Ontario that is entirely determined by the ministry? It's not determined by the Toronto Police Service?

[S/Insp Steve Izzett]

We certainly have a partnership and we have a say in the process, but the ultimate determination lies with the Ministry of the Attorney General, the crown law office.

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

Then just to be a bit more specific, you made reference to those almost split-second decisions that have to be made. You're on the street, there's an issue, and you've got to make a decision. Who makes those decisions?