Public Safety Committee on May 8th, 2007

[S/Insp Steve Izzett]

The very foundation of the flexibility and speed with which we can react has evolved. It has evolved out of necessity. So this program in Ontario continues to improve, always looking for enhancements, and that's why we do have the two-o'clock-in-the-morning autonomy to make a decision to relocate somebody and to know that we have the full support of the Ministry of the Attorney General even if the individual isn't accepted into the program. So there have been changes made to facilitate. It's all about the safety of the witnesses.

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

So the rules are flexible enough to accommodate the exigencies of the situation. That's what you're basing it on.

[S/Insp Steve Izzett]

Yes, in Ontario.

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

Thank you.

I'd like just a comment from each of the witnesses, just an opinion, on how you would rate the program in terms of success in, first of all, the prosecution of crime, and secondly, the maintenance of the confidential identity of the person in the program. You can go on a percentage basis or from 1 to 10, 10 being the highest.

We'll start with the RCMP.

[A/Commr Mike McDonell]

With respect to prosecution, I would say that the effectiveness and success of the program would be a 9. With respect to the maintenance, being able to maintain the security of the person, in our history there has been one failure among a couple of thousand people, so I'll give it an 8.9.

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

Thank you.

[Supt Gordon B. Schumacher]

If we're talking about the national program, the way it currently exists and currently operates, excluding the issues of cost and accessibility, if we're going specifically with the group once they're in there, the program works well. I can echo a high number, 8 or 9, if you would like.

As far as the maintenance of confidentiality, confidential identification, is concerned...was that what you were asking?

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

Yes.

[Supt Gordon B. Schumacher]

I would give that a high score as well, keeping in mind that this is dealing with the higher echelon of people and that there's a whole group who fall outside of that program. The percentage is good there too, but it's not within that program.

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

Mr. Schumacher—and Staff Inspector, if I could just wait to get to you—I'm very interested in your concentration on the funding issues, because that doesn't appear to be the concentration or the extent of the problem in Ontario, and unfortunately, we don't have representatives from other provinces. But are you saying the success of the program is determined by the affordability of the program in the province of Manitoba, and that whether or not a witness should be afforded or someone should be charged is totally a fiscal consideration as opposed to a public safety consideration?

[Supt Gordon B. Schumacher]

Absolutely not. If you're wanting to get somebody into the national program, then it's a fiscal consideration in large part, because somebody has to pay the bill. For a local police agency, coast to coast, that is a concern. Aside from the national program, though, you have something less than that, and certainly the cost is not a factor. The primary concern, of course, is the safety of the witness, without question.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

We're going to go to Ms. Barnes.

I just want to clarify something that Mr. Norlock was asking you about. They are not immune from prosecution, but what happens if something in their past comes up--before they went into the protection program, some murder that they committed? Are they immune from anything in their past that may come to light after they go into the protection program?

[A/Commr Mike McDonell]

I can speak for the federal program. The answer is no.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

They're not immune from prosecution if it's something serious.

[A/Commr Mike McDonell]

No, they are not.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Ms. Barnes.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

I think I might follow up on that a bit.

You're familiar with section 25 of the Criminal Code. Is there any situation where somebody could go into the witness protection program who would have received section 25 authorization or protection?

[A/Commr Mike McDonell]

Are you speaking of subsection 25.1(9), the law enforcement provisions to commit acts or omissions that would otherwise--

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Yes, absolutely.

[A/Commr Mike McDonell]

And your question is just that we have--

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Whether or not somebody who had that, who fell into that exemption--say, an informant, maybe a drug dealer--who then got moved over, under organized crime.... Are they in that program? Do you have people who have gone through the program that have a section 25 situation?

[A/Commr Mike McDonell]

That would be an agent.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Yes, absolutely, it would be an agent.

[A/Commr Mike McDonell]

Yes, an agent was used in a particular...but agents are not all of subsection 25.1(9). The fair answer is yes.