Okay, well, maybe that's something.... I don't know how to deal with that, but it's something maybe we should look at.
I'd like to put out two quick questions, because I'm sure I'm going to be cut off.
Staff Inspector Izzett, I know there are certain federal prosecutions in terms of certain crimes--smuggling, drugs, gun smuggling, stock market fraud, I guess, counterfeiting. In practical terms, what are the examples where, in the city of Toronto, the Toronto Police Service, you could work with the RCMP on the witness protection program if it were more operable and the kinds of prosecutions you could work with them on?
As to my second question, you talked about having a flat organization with a province and how that program works--local decision-making, which I can relate to. I think that's a good thing. You have the provincial program people making an ultimate determination of whether that person should actually come into the program, but there's an on-the-ground decision to bring that person within that orbit.
Some might argue that given the current circumstance that has been publicized where someone was brought into the RCMP program who actually turned out to be totally not credible in terms of the information they said they had, or was reliable, what kind of...? I know there are always mistakes that can happen. We all make mistakes; that's why they put rubber on pencils, but sometimes they can be pretty serious mistakes. What kind of due diligence do you go through to make sure that the person is going to be a reliable witness, that the information is credible? I think we've talked a bit about the other side, the propensity to commit crime later on. Is that something...?
The first question is the credibility of this person. They say they have all this information. How credible is it that they do or don't? Who makes that determination?