Public Safety Committee on May 31st, 2007

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

Okay.

[Gerald Shur]

That would be of the total number. I couldn't tell you how many of the 160 or 165, but of the total number, you have 18%.

As far as murders go, there have been some murders. I would think there are more narcotics violations and other types. We're in transition now, as I think much of the world is, in types of witnesses that are coming into the program. They started out as traditional organized crime and moved on to narcotics gangs, hate gangs, and so on.

Mr. Chairman, if my answers run too long, just tell me, because I tend to talk too much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

The information is very important, sir, so we don't have the same time constraints as normal.

Could you please pose your final question, Mr. Comartin?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My final question, at least for this round, I'm asking to both of you.

If there is a serious violent crime committed, is it automatic that there will be something done in terms of terminating that person's involvement in the program, or are there any other consequences to the individual in the program if they commit a serious violent crime?

[Prof. Nick Fyfe]

My understanding, in the U.K., is that if somebody committed a serious crime, they would immediately be terminated from the program. The part of the memorandum of understanding that is set up between witnesses and the police force that is protecting them would make it quite clear that any form of criminal activity would result in a person ceasing to have protection from that police force. That would be the case in the U.K.

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

Who makes that decision to terminate?

[Prof. Nick Fyfe]

It would be made by the chief officer of the police force that was offering the protection.

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

What's the situation in the United States?

[Gerald Shur]

They would be immediately terminated from their program, certainly upon their conviction and likely before.

In terms of making the decision, I can show you the speed with which that can be done. I received a phone call from a warden one day about a prisoner in a witness protection unit who had been making obscene phone calls to young girls. I asked the warden, “Are you certain it is him?” Of course, they listen on tape to the prisoners calling out. He said, “Yes, I am absolutely certain it is him.” Then I said, “Well, then, he is out of the witness protection program.” He was removed from the unit, put into solitary someplace, and then--gone, into another prison.

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

In terms of who made the decision...?

[Gerald Shur]

I did.

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

Is that always...?

[Gerald Shur]

That would always be the case.

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

Thank you, Mr. Shur.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

We'll now go over to Ms. Barnes. Please give us a brief introduction of yourself.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Thank you very much.

My name is Sue Barnes. I am MP for London, Ontario--London West, specifically--and I am the public safety critic for the official opposition, which is currently the Liberal Party of Canada.

Thank you very much. Again, I apologize for being late. Thank you for providing these charts and the material. We certainly appreciate it.

I'm going to follow up on some of the appeal questions. Do either of your jurisdictions or, to your knowledge, do other jurisdictions have an appeal from a decision that puts somebody out of the program? I'm not necessarily talking about another criminal act while in the program, but some other condition that may have been part of the agreement with the person placed into the program. Are either of you aware of having appeals from the decision? If so, what is the length of the time period and the process? Again, is it the same party who receives the appeal?

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Mr. Shur, would you like to go first?

[Gerald Shur]

We do have an appeal process.

First of all, I want to thank you for providing my wife and me and my children with one of the most delightful experiences. Was it called Fanshawe provincial park? It was an experience that happened many years ago, and it's still here, and we loved it.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Thank you. You're welcome again.

[Gerald Shur]

Thank you.

We do have an appeal process. The program is operated by the United States Marshals Service, as opposed to my group in the criminal division, who are all lawyers and prosecutors and intelligence analysts.

When the appeal is made, it's made from an action committed by either an employee of the U.S. Marshals Service or a prosecutor who works for a United States attorney. We are, in effect, the ombudsman as well as the people who decide who shall come into the program; we decide the equities in disputes between witnesses and whomever they're dealing with. Their appeal process from that is to a federal district court.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Mr. Fyfe, do you have a response to that?

[Prof. Nick Fyfe]

Yes. Our experience in the U.K. is very different, and I think it partly reflects the way in which witness protection has evolved in a very ad hoc way, without any kind of legislative framework until relatively recently and with individual police forces really coming to their own arrangements. Certainly in the work I did in Scotland with the Strathclyde Police Witness Protection Programme, there was no formal appeals process, and witnesses felt acutely vulnerable. If things started going wrong, the only people they had immediate contact with were the officers looking after them. They had no direct line of communication to a senior investigating officer or anybody else, and they felt acutely vulnerable as a result. They had to make that relationship with their protecting officers work; otherwise, they would feel incredibly isolated.

Certainly when I was studying this particular protection program, there was no formal appeals process if people were threatened or were actually told to leave the program.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

In the Canadian 2005-06 annual report, we have the indication that the RCMP accepted witnesses into the program from other countries. We have no further information--for security reasons, I'm sure--but I would like to know whether you feel that international cooperation is highly developed or, to the other extreme, not significantly developed, or if you're aware of problems with international relocations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Mr. Shur, would you like to reply first?

[Gerald Shur]

Yes.