Public Safety Committee on June 7th, 2007

[David Bird]

Yes, they did. Mr. Young's case was one where it didn't only happen once. So there was a possibility that he met the criteria for disclosure for investigation, the prevention of an offence disclosure, and then again the criterion with regard to prosecution, and in the process was afforded the opportunity to be heard.

[Raymond Chan, Liberal, Richmond, BC]

In looking at this act, wouldn't you say that the information is to be revealed to one person, who swears to keep it to himself or herself? Do you think that to disclose it is still valid?

[David Bird]

What you're really talking about is an issue of whether or not it amounts to a disclosure for the purpose that would....

[Raymond Chan, Liberal, Richmond, BC]

It would be for administration.

[David Bird]

Administration is permitted. If it's necessary for the proper administration of the act, then these disclosures can take place. If Mr. Swadron were here, you might find him dealing with complaints about the RCMP having, for example, too many handlers involved with access to a protectee's file. There's a standard about who has access to the protected information, and it's on a need to know basis.

So you'd be looking at the relevance of that. Is it possible to set up a system where the prohibited information would be codified? Most of the time that's what happens. It's possible you could have this review done in an anonymous way without revealing the sensitive information, and that would not be a problem.

[Raymond Chan, Liberal, Richmond, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you, Mr. Chan.

Ms. Barnes, please.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Thank you.

Further to Mr. Chan's point, I think it would be very useful, especially as we have a longer time period of experience with the program, that we have some social science or humanities research to help us make our decisions. We have the difficulty of hearing your version from an enforcement or a court usefulness perspective that this is a beneficial program, but we're only seeing one side as evidence. The closest we've ever gotten to a protectee is through anecdotes from the lawyers, and just a few of those. It makes our job difficult.

I want to state at the outset that I think it's a valuable program and I'm pleased it's here, but like everything else, it could stand improvement.

I think there are two reasons we're here. One was the original reason why this hearing was called, and I had hoped to be able to do more today on it. When we get the review, we will try to pursue it further, because it will help with not only our understanding but the public's understanding of what happened.

But it's the second part: what recommendations, when we write our report, we will we do for the program as a whole. A couple of things have come up that are separate. Under agreements and arrangements with other jurisdictions, under the act, I see that the commissioner and the Solicitor General can make agreements to accept people into the program from other jurisdictions or other forces inside Canada.

What I don't see, statutorily, is our ability to export into another jurisdiction. How is that done, if it's done? Why is it not in the act? Is that something we should address at this time, if we wish to not only be taking incoming protectees but also having ours maybe travel outside of the jurisdiction? Was it an oversight, or have we done it some other way, or do you not want to get involved?

[C/Supt Derek R. Ogden]

There's a reciprocal agreement in place, I believe. I know for a fact that we have taken people in from other countries. The process for it is quite similar to taking them internally; we do our intake assessment on our side as well. The only exception is that the Minister of Immigration and the Minister of Public Safety both mut agree that the person is suitable to come into the country.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Bird, with respect to the legislation, do you see that there's a need there?

[David Bird]

I would direct your attention to section 14, subsections (2) and (3). Subsection 14(2) deals with the fact that the minister may enter into reciprocal arrangements with foreign governments, and subsection 14(3) allows for admission of witnesses of that jurisdiction to the program.

It anticipates that the foreign jurisdiction would then agree to consider applications for similar witnesses from us, so it opens the door for us to send witnesses abroad to be protected by them in appropriate circumstances.

That requirement was specifically changed in subsection 14(3) by an amendment in 1996 with regard to the International Criminal Court's tribunals, to avoid our having to have this, because they have no capacity to accept witnesses for that purpose. Iif we accept your witness from a foreign country, except for an international criminal court or tribunal, we will expect you to consider accepting our witnesses in future.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

But they don't have to be simultaneous actions.

[David Bird]

Absolutely not.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Okay. So do you do it on a case-by-case basis, or are there standing relationships pre-existing, or agreements made?

[David Bird]

It would be case by case in the future. It just opens the door for consideration. None of these agreements forces us to accept future cases.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

And just so that I understand the costing on it, who pays? When we accept somebody from an outside jurisdiction, which government is paying?

[David Bird]

The general policy would be that the country sending will pay 100% of the costs.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

For the duration of the protection.

[David Bird]

For the protection. That's contained in the specific protection agreement with that individual between the RCMP and the individual. That government would then be expected to compensate the RCMP for its expenses.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

That's fine.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Is it possible to get a copy of those agreements for the committee or not? Are they something that's not available?

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

That is, Mr. Chair, a request for how many of those agreements we have and with what countries, if they're prepared to divulge those, but at least for how many.

[C/Supt Derek R. Ogden]

I should have advised the committee that all these agreements have a non-disclosure agreement that the agreement should not be made public.

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

On a point of order, that doesn't answer my question as to whether they can tell us how many there are.

[C/Supt Derek R. Ogden]

Do you mean whether we can tell you how many times we've accepted people from other countries?