Evidence of meeting #48 for Public Safety and National Security in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was person.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
I appreciate that.
Mr. Bulmer, I think you indicated that this individual—Mr. Comartin talked about him—had infiltrated your office, but if I read the press article correctly, he was already a client of yours before he became involved with the RCMP. Is that right?
11:55 a.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, As an Individual
No, he was an informant for the RCMP at all times, but he became an employee of the RCMP after he actually introduced me to my client. This individual hired me to do a small company bit, then he said he had a friend who was in hot water. They came in. I decided to act for them. My client instructed me that I could use this individual as if he was himself.
He went and took some parts of the file home, was able to read names of some individuals, including a judge and a crown prosecutor, then came up with this scheme that my client was going to have them all murdered, and convinced the RCMP by hiring young people to do counter surveillance. They testified.
Noon
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
Wouldn't you agree, though, that he also convinced you that he was legitimate enough to take those files home?
Noon
Barrister and Solicitor, As an Individual
Then he was a live bug. He became a live bug for the RCMP.
I don't think I finished on your question about the case. Franc v. Webb is 1998 B.C. Supreme Court's C965011 and is a case that talks about the RCMP reneging on contracts.
Noon
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
Mr. Swadron, back a little while ago I think you indicated that the act, in paragraph 11(3)(c), says, “if the disclosure is essential in the public interest”, but it does go on to list “for purposes such as”. Would you be suggesting that those items in paragraph 11(3)(c), the subparagraphs (i), (ii) and (iii), are not broad enough, too broad, or should be better defined?
Noon
Senior Member, Swadron Associates
They could always be better defined. I haven't put my mind to it, because in the one particular case, the Young case that you're discussing, it clearly is covered by subparagraph (i):
if the disclosure is essential in the public interest for purposes such as
(i) the investigation of a serious offence where—[the person]—has been involved in the commission of, the offence.
What more do you want?
The person allegedly has committed murder. It's being investigated by the police, and certainly the RCMP, if it's using him as an informant, would be investigating along with other police forces, and in that particular case it clearly is covered.
How the RCMP has said that anyone is wrong when they say that the RCMP should be able to disclose that, is beyond me. I think it's disclosure 101.
Noon
Barrister and Solicitor, As an Individual
If I might comment, I agree, but this is all at the discretion of the commissioner. It also says that the protectee or former protectee “has previously disclosed the information or acted in a manner that results in the disclosure”. Well, he was in the newspaper, charged with murder, so he has acted in the community in a manner that results in disclosure, in my opinion.
Noon
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
I guess I'm a bit like Mr. Ménard; I'm a little confused. If Young is the current name, and he's charged with murder—
Noon
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
Okay, but if it is and he's charged with murder, are you suggesting that his name wouldn't be released?
Noon
Barrister and Solicitor, As an Individual
No, I'm just saying that the statute says under the exceptions—and you've already covered some of them—that under paragraph 11(3)(b) the exception is that the commissioner may disclose “if the protectee or former protectee has previously disclosed the information or acted in a manner that results in the disclosure”.
What I'm saying is, if you act in the community in a way that draws attention to yourself and such that I can recognize the man's face on the front page of a newspaper, I believe that this, if not the public interest, which you've already discussed, would be yet another method by which the commissioner should disclose at least what the person did, not necessarily who he is now.
Noon
Senior Member, Swadron Associates
Yes, but the thing is, I don't know whether it's for the commissioner to decide. Obviously the commissioner has decided, but he has every right to decide wrongly too, and perhaps it should be reversed.
Noon
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Thank you, Mr. MacKenzie.
We'll now go back to the Liberal side, to Mr. Cullen, for five minutes, please.
Noon
Liberal
Roy Cullen Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Bulmer and Mr. Swadron.
I think your idea that the commissioner may not be the appropriate person in all cases to be deciding what the public interest is offers a very useful observation; the idea that elected people perhaps should be involved in that decision as well is a good point.
I'd like to come back to consider the witnesses from the United States and the United Kingdom whom we had last week at our last meeting. My recollection is that they indicated that most people involved in the witness protection programs were people themselves involved in criminality. In fact, I think the gentleman from the United States said that in the U.S., something in the order of 95% or more of the people in the witness protection programs had criminal records themselves or were involved in criminality.
Mr. Swadron, you seemed to indicate that there were many people in Canada under the witness protection program who were honest, law-abiding citizens. Is that just your particular experience, or do you have any stats on it?
12:05 p.m.
Senior Member, Swadron Associates
Well, it's been my experience, and I have my individual stats. I can tell you that from the get-go there are people in the witness protection program who are members of a family, who have had absolutely no involvement with crime, even if the main player did. We have a lot of wives who are placed in the program, a lot of children who are placed in the program, and they have had nothing to do with crime and nothing to do with informing.
There have been cases of abused women who were taken into the program. Both the RCMP and provincial or municipal police forces are—Some people are involved in crime. I would say the majority of those with whom I've dealt have had no involvement in crime—or petty involvement, which is insignificant.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Roy Cullen Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Thank you. I'd like to move to another point now.
Mr. Bulmer, Mr. Swadron, I think one or both of you have indicated that the RCMP is wrongfully hiding information about this particular case, which we've all been following, and that actually the RCMP, under the act, could divulge more information. Is there an express provision in the act that would allow it, or is it an implicit provision that you think would allow it—in other words, if we wanted more information about this particular situation?
12:05 p.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, As an Individual
Sir, we're repeating ourselves, but it's under section 11, under exceptions, which is paragraphs (3)(a), (b), and (c). This all allows the disclosure by the commissioner, with first of all the consent of the protectee, which you're probably not going to get, although he might; and if the protectee has previously disclosed information or acted in a manner that results in disclosure—I've already addressed that point—and then Mr. Swadron discussed paragraph (c), which is that the disclosure is essential in the public interest for purposes such as the investigation of a serious offence, the prevention of the commission of a serious offence, or national security, or national defence.
Now, as a committee that's concerned with national security, and I think this is a national security issue, you could go to the commissioner and urge the commissioner to reveal more information to you on pretty much any of those points. But my point is that I referred to the Australian method, or at least one of the Australian methods, because my belief is that this non-disclosure shouldn't be about a location or disclosure of an identity; it should be linked to bringing harm to that individual or harm to the program, as opposed to that, because the individual himself is not all that important. In this case, it's your knowing enough of the facts to be able to ask the right questions. He as a person is tucked away and he is fine.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
12:05 p.m.
Senior Member, Swadron Associates
If I go a little further than that, I would say that I would be happy to bring an application against the commissioner under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, because I think that right to know relates to life, liberty, and security of the person. I think that the act of the commissioner in refusing to disclose might be overturned in a charter application.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
We'll now go over to the Bloc Québécois. Mr. Ménard, please.