Public Safety Committee on June 7th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

That's it?

I have four more people on my list: Mr. Volpe, Mr. Comartin, Mr. Chan, and Ms. Barnes.

Mr. Volpe, please.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Superintendent and gentlemen, I recall when the bill was first proposed by a colleague of mine in the very early 1990s, Mr. Tom Wappel. Unfortunately, he isn't here to be able to offer his reflections on just how well the system is working, to the extent to which it respects some of the concerns of the day.

As I read through the notes, Superintendent, it seems to me that if we are going to have any questions or judgments about the workability of the program today, we would take into consideration at least some of the following: number one, have we protected and do we continue to protect the new identity of both the individual and all of his dependants, i.e., his family? Excuse me for using the masculine here. I have used the singular, but I think most of the offenders, as I understand it, who enter into the program are masculine. That's the first thing.

Second, we must not undermine public security, police enforcement, and the integrity of the act or any acts in criminal law.

When I look at those and I see what the commissioner may do with respect to disclosing information, it would be a test. I guess somebody has to make an initial decision. In the event that the commissioner makes a decision that would, in the view of others, offend one of those two principles, then we have a serious problem. It would undermine all of the intentions and the work of parliamentarians that went into establishing this program.

I know that at the time--and I stand to be corrected--part of the debate focused around perhaps having an in camera meeting with members of Parliament sworn to secrecy in order to address some of the potential breaches on one side or the other, but I guess because we must always be above suspicion, as Caesar's wife was, the concern was more about the way that the government authorities, in this case the RCMP or maybe a local jurisdiction, would handle this.

Do you have any observations in that regard about going into a closed environment with people sworn to secrecy to address some of the issues that have been raised today and potential breaches of the program?

[C/Supt Derek R. Ogden]

Do I personally? I'm not speaking for the RCMP, and no, I don't.

It's really a challenging issue because there are lots of times when we sit here and we'd like to be able to tell you that this is what happened, and not make it as difficult as it is.

I think that when the legislators got together to make that act, they knew it was going to be a challenge. They knew what we were going to face down the road, and there's not an easy answer.

Even if it's a group of parliamentarians sitting in secret, then where's the public interest really in that? I think people still think that for things to be truly transparent, everybody needs to know the story.

It's a case, I guess, that the more people are exposed to it, the more we could undermine the program.

But to your initial question, if I understand correctly, if there's a particular aspect that you want to examine, if it's a committee in secret and if the act allowed for that, then I would say certainly.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

I guess there's probably a very fine line. I acknowledge what one of my colleagues said earlier on, that these are difficult days for everybody, including the RCMP. But when there is a question of the ethical behaviour of a representative of the RCMP or anybody else, the only way you can deal with that is if you have a body like one of these committees of representatives of the public, i.e., the legislators, who have the ultimate responsibility and accountability to the public--because they will lose their job if they're not believable--in an environment in which they could ask the very tough questions.

And as you say, here we are in an open environment. You're governed by privacy legislation and by other agreements, and you can't say exactly what everybody would want. But the legislators around the table, if they're sworn to confidentiality while they discharge their obligations, would provide that additional buffer that would satisfy the public that the police force did act according to those two basic principles that are the foundation stone of the program.

[C/Supt Derek R. Ogden]

I guess for me it would come down to knowing that if I'm acting within the act, and I know I am not breaching the act, I wouldn't have a problem talking about it. If I'm giving advice to Derek that he's going to break the law by doing that, then obviously I would have concerns.

[The Acting Chair, Mr. John Williams]

Thank you very much, Mr. Volpe.

Mr. Comartin, you have five minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have just a quick comment, I guess, to Mr. Bird and the chief superintendent.

The evidence we got from Mr. Shur would show that about 18% of the participants in the program are recidivists. And their policy, I think with very few exceptions, is that all of them are terminated. In response to a question I put to him, he said that none of them--it was an absolute--had suffered any physical harm as a result of being terminated from the program.

I want to ask this question to follow up on a question that I think Mr. Ménard asked. We have had this news report on Yves Trudeau being in the witness protection program and subsequently being charged with ten crimes. I am being left with the impression that the report identified him as being in the federal program, and in fact he may not be. Are you able to give us an answer as to whether he is in the federal program?

[C/Supt Derek R. Ogden]

Generally, we don't comment on whether a person is in or is not in the federal program. But my understanding is that the case was well before the Witness Protection Program Act even took place.

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

This report is from March 25, 2004. The charge is that he was in court that day.

[C/Supt Derek R. Ogden]

My understanding of the story is that he was in the witness protection program prior to that for the assistance he provided concerning the Hells Angels, and that occurred, as far as I know, well before this act took place.

But the short answer is no, he is not in our program.

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

With regard to that, would the review that was done on the Young file have been undertaken by the RCMP but for the hearings that are going on here and the newspaper articles on his case?

[C/Supt Derek R. Ogden]

I suspect not.

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

So it's not automatic that even when there is as serious a crime as murder there is an automatic review done that would come to your desk.

[C/Supt Derek R. Ogden]

I can't say whether it is or isn't automatic, because as far as I'm aware, this is the first time this has ever happened.

I guess I should clarify. Would British Columbia have started to examine that file beforehand? I am not sure. But I know that the driving force behind my becoming aware of the file and doing this examination was in part through the material that was brought forward through the press.

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

In the nine cases in which people have been terminated, was there a full review done, in preparation for terminating, only after the crime was committed?

[C/Supt Derek R. Ogden]

In the nine cases, I don't believe there were full reviews. If a person commits an offence, such as a break-in or a theft, then we'll be notified of that and we'll take our steps to terminate.

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

In the material that has been provided to us, you call it an agreement, not a contract. I must say, as a lawyer, that I was interested in that kind of wording. I don't know how you can handle an agreement without a contract.

My first question is with regard to the agreement. How long has this particular version of the agreement been in place? Did it start when the law went into effect, or have there been other versions of it?

[C/Supt Derek R. Ogden]

I'm not sure. I can get that information for you.

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

Okay. Do you know who prepared the current version?

[David Bird]

I can tell you that the agreement evolved pre-act, which I was involved with, and it has been changed to incorporate the requirements of the act. So there have been amendments to it, but it basically is an amended version of a document that has evolved over time.

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

I want to draw your attention specifically to paragraph 11 of the agreement. It sets out the basis on which the relationship can be terminated. There are two provisions in it. One is on material misrepresentation or failure to disclose information at the time of admission. The second is a “deliberate and material contravention by me and my obligations under this protection agreement”. But there is no third point that specifically acknowledges that criminal activity will be grounds for termination.

That struck me, because there is a specific part in the policy, near the end of the policy, that says that a crime will be grounds for termination. Do you know if that was an omission or an oversight, or is it intentional that paragraph 11 does not contain a specific acknowledgement by the protectee that crimes will be a basis for termination?

[C/Supt Derek R. Ogden]

I'm just a bit confused by the question, because in the letter of acknowledgement in paragraph 8 we say: “I've been specifically informed that my assistance to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in this investigation does not at any time exempt me from any criminal and/or legal responsibilities.”

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

It's even more specific than that in paragraph 3. The person acknowledges that they'll refrain from activities that constitute an offence against any act. But the point is that in the paragraph that's specific about termination, there's no reference to criminal activity, in spite of the fact that your policy says that will be a basis for termination.

Superintendent, the question is fairly simple. Is it intentional that it's not in there, or is it simply an oversight?

[C/Supt Derek R. Ogden]

I understand your point, and I think it's a good idea to have it in there. It is an oversight, you're right.

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

Thank you.

In terms of the pre-admission policy, again, I'm looking at your policy guidelines.

I'm sorry, there is just one more thing I wanted to ask about the agreement. I forgot to ask this. There is no requirement—we heard from Mr. Swadron at the last meeting—in the agreement for independent legal advice. Correct?