Public Safety Committee on June 5th, 2007

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

Obviously in a program like this, except for the cases that Mr. Swadron has often defended, concerning perfectly innocent witnesses—I understand that you are talking about people who, over the course of their lives, were witnesses to major crimes, and their testimony was important, but if they are known, they could be threatened or even eliminated. Is that what you are talking about when you refer to totally innocent witnesses?

In most cases—and in the United States, I believe, it is 95% of cases—they are people who have engaged in criminal activities, whose testimony is needed to convict other people who participated in those criminal activities. Those people are risking their lives by cooperating with the police. That is why a witness protection program was created.

I would mention in passing that I started practising criminal law in 1966. At that time, there were no such programs. It seems to me that in all civilized countries that have legal systems comparable to ours, and as reliable as ours, these programs have been created. I was there when they were created. It was done on a bit of an ad hoc basis at first, before there was a law.

One of the things that concerns us is that these people were offenders and are at risk of offending again. When we sign an agreement with them to protect them, we think that there is no danger of them committing further criminal offences in the immediate future. They are well aware that if they commit another criminal offence they will lose the protection they enjoy.

We are even prepared to give them psychological support. After a certain time, however, if they have not committed any criminal offences, we abandon them completely.

You have a practice in this field. Do you believe, in practice, that it would be wise to do regular supervision or regular psychological evaluations?

Obviously, it is very difficult to do a psychological evaluation of someone's tendency to commit crimes, and I recognize that. On the other hand, we do monitor people on parole, where the officer assesses whether the release is a success or not.

Do you have any opinions about the kind of measures we should take to try to prevent these people from committing serious crimes? What prompted us to study the question were cases in which some of these witnesses had subsequently committed murders.

Do you have an opinion about the psychological support or supervision there should be while they are in protection?

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Mr. Swadron, go ahead, sir.

[Barry Swadron]

Let me tell you that I believe you're very much on the right track, and let me say as well that the longer the time that goes by after their testimony or their information, the less interest the police have in them. We have some cases now where we've sued the police or whatever agency is involved and they come with affidavits saying they don't need protection anymore, but in the same cases those police are calling us and they say they don't know where the protectee is and they believe there's a real threat by bikers against them. These are the same people who say there's a real threat against them, but when you sue them, there's no threat.

So they should be monitoring. Eventually the people should fade into the woodwork and have new lives, but there's a period where they need support from the police, who are their only real link, because the police know their past and they know where they are—or they should know where they are. They should follow them and give them the support they need.

The trouble is that it costs money, and if there's money available, the police want to use it for the current cases, where they need the information to get convictions in the cases that are coming up, rather than the long-term following of these people.

I agree with you, sir, that the police should have some responsibility in trying to follow these people to make sure they have a soft landing and they don't get involved in crime again.

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

Does Mr. Bulmer wish to state an opinion on this subject?

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

There's an opportunity for a brief response.

[Tom Bulmer]

I just wish to point out that the commissioner must consider the statutes I've reviewed from Australia. They have psychological review of the individual before entry into the program, psychological support after entry into the program, and ongoing support. That's directly in their statutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you very much.

We'll now go back to the government side and Mr. Hawn, please.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you both for being here.

I missed the start of your testimony, Mr. Bulmer, but I did read the report. You're not indicting the whole program over one case.

[Tom Bulmer]

Absolutely not. I'm trying to make suggestions to make it better. But I really worry about the people who say this is an extreme thing. I know of a couple of problems. If you see two cockroaches in your kitchen, how many cockroaches do you have?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

So you have personal knowledge of other similar cases.

Mr. Swadron, I guess you do as well.

[Tom Bulmer]

Yes, because it's such a secretive situation that it's often almost rumour. But I think the press was so anxious to get this to the public—and they spent a lot of time and money doing a court challenge so they could at least say what they did—because the public has a right to know and be protected. In my situation, I say that a harm was very much predictable. I just want somebody to be overseeing a program that is important but also has a high risk factor.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I'll ask for some suggestions in a second, but obviously there's a fine line here between the right to know, the responsibility to protect, and a person's right to anonymity. We've heard a lot at this committee about requirement for parliamentary oversight of security issues, intelligence issues, and whether it should be a national security committee or something like that.

Mr. Swadron, is that a suggestion you would make, or do you have other specific suggestions for oversight bodies, whether they're by Parliament or some other body above the RCMP in this case?

[Barry Swadron]

First of all, I'd like to know where the money is being spent and whether it should be reallocated, augmented, or increased. On the best way to do that, you have an Auditor General. She doesn't have to know the identity of the individuals, but apparently $2.5 million was spent one year and it's been reduced to $1.9 million. What was that spent on? Did that include the staff, the handlers? Did it include the litigation? I know the Department of Justice is spending thousands of dollars detaining the cases we've brought. Did it cover relocation? As I said before, it's awfully difficult for a committee such as yours to know where to spend the resources to amend the legislation to help when there's a dearth of information.

You tell me you had witnesses here the other day from the United States, and they said that 95% had been involved in criminal paths. Well, that's not my experience at all. I don't know of any lawyer in Canada who has had as many witness protection cases as I have. I've had all sorts, all colours, all sizes, and all shapes, over many years. It's my experience that most of the protected witnesses I've handled have not been personally involved in crime.

Why on earth can't someone from the RCMP come and testify before you that they have had 700 witnesses over a number of years and, say, 350 had been involved in crime, or 500 had been involved in crime, and the balance had not? Why does this Canadian parliamentary committee have to rely on American statistical data? Do the RCMP not have these data? Surely it's very simple. I guess there are ways to get an independent body...and it's very difficult for parliamentarians such as you to gather these statistics. It shouldn't be your job.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I understand.

Would it be fair to say that there are a lot of innocent people in the program? If the head of the family is involved in criminal activity and his whole family is therefore in protection, there may be one guy involved with criminality, but there may be five or six who are innocent.

[Barry Swadron]

Right, and it's also a possibility that the one guy, out of the five or six, has not been involved with crime. I had a very notorious case that resolved a few years ago. It made headlines. It was the brother of the national president of the international Outlaws bikers association. He could not stand what his brother was doing and he infiltrated the bikers—this is all reported—and in the final analysis many were convicted, including his brother.

Now, sure, there was a big involvement, but he had no criminal past, and his several family members were part of it. It isn't necessarily the case that the head of the family or the main person has been involved with crime.

The thing is that some of these people are treated so shabbily it would be a wonder if they didn't turn to crime because of the way they're treated. I have one now, who's not even in Canada, who can't get welfare because it would disclose his name. How is a person like that going to live?

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

One final—

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I just wonder whether Mr. Bulmer has any other comments on that, on the specific question of suggestions for an oversight committee and who it might involve, and how much trust you don't have in the RCMP.

[Tom Bulmer]

I've already said the minister or ministerial designate, perhaps somebody from this committee, somebody from the bench, somebody from the bar, the law society, lay people—pretty well any kind of mix, other than one person overseeing their own job.

[Barry Swadron]

I support that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you very much.

We will now begin our third round. Ms. Barnes, please.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Thank you very much. You're quite right, getting a two-page report doesn't give you enough information to analyze anything. The one good thing is that the RCMP testified and in their last report said that we're going to get reports this year that have a better cost-out on the program, and with more information to us. We'll see that when it's tabled.

I want to talk a little bit about the cost. Mr. Swadron, you talked about wanting a piece of legislation that would, in essence, envelop or be an umbrella over municipal or provincial existing programs. Is it your thought that this should be paid at the expense of the federal government, regardless of what jurisdiction is covering it?

[Barry Swadron]

No, it's just the enacting of the legislation. If they're provincial bodies or municipal bodies, let them pay for their own.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Thank you. I just wanted to have that clarified.

When you spoke, you wanted an umbrella, though, as a standard level for the jurisdiction of Canada, no matter what level was in actual fact doing the implementation of a program—

[Barry Swadron]

Which is done with the criminal law now.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Are there standards you think are not there that you would want to see included? Are there any things not covered that you would define as a standard that's missing in the current legislation?