Public Safety Committee on Feb. 4th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Okay.

We'll go to Mr. Hawn, please.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I have two quick questions, and then I'll pass it back to Mr. Norlock, who may have some more.

Do we, or you, have any evidence of anybody being killed after being dumped from a witness protection program, either with or without their agreement? Do we know of any cases of that?

[Yvon Dandurand]

I don't know, because typically they don't broadcast the fact that they've been dumped, in your words—that they have been excluded from the program.

Typically, most programs claim that they have a very high rate—sometimes 100%—of success in protecting their witnesses while they are witnesses. Of course, one can become suspicious of that and say, well, what happens once you stop protecting them, and are you not stopping the protection of those who are high risk just to keep your statistics going?

You will hear that, for instance, about the federal marshal program in the U.S., where they have the reputation that they don't lose witnesses and all their witnesses are safe. But critics of that program have said yes, but those who are at risk you have excluded, so of course you never lose any, because they get killed afterwards. I don't know whether that's true, but that's the criticism.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

That actually falls under my next question, which I realize is subjective, so I don't expect anything other than a subjective answer.

You talked about the police saying “Well, I don't need you as a witness”, which can be construed by some as neglecting that person's safety. But I would suspect there are many criminals who may want protection simply to save their sorry butts because they've fallen out of favour with their own chain of command. Is that the source of some cases that might be construed as neglected?

[Yvon Dandurand]

I think a large number are there precisely for that reason. Law enforcement, for instance, detectives and other investigators, will look for individuals who have been compromised within their own organization. These are the people they can turn. In fact they are often looking for people who have fallen from grace, who have lost some drugs or misplaced some money or whatever, and all of a sudden they need help. Clearly these are cases you will find in a witness protection program.

I would ask why you mostly find criminals in the witness protection program and why the innocent victims are not getting any protection. There are two potential reasons for this. One is that they don't need it as much, and second, sometimes a softer method of protection for a short period of time is sufficient. I buy those arguments, up to a point.

There are other people who really need protection and never get it. They don't get it mostly because of cost and because the logic of those police-based programs is that you don't invest in that witness if you don't need the witness. These programs are seen as an investment in a case, as opposed to extending protection to someone who comes forward either to cooperate or simply to ask for protection.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I think you believe we're investing in some of the wrong people and not investing in some we should.

[Yvon Dandurand]

Sometimes. That would be one way of putting it, yes.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

That very comfortably leads me into a couple of items you spoke about when you said it would be a good idea to set up protocols.

I would ask for your comment. It would be my submission that the best way to protect the sanctity of the program from the evils of budgetary constraints--I hate to use such words--would be to set up protocols for an organization that doesn't have the same budget as the police. That's why I thought it would be better to take it out of the realm of the police, even though they're an intrinsic part of it.

I was very interested when you were talking about “the softer approach”, meaning that maybe it's not the typical Hollywood person, where the whole family is taken to a different country or a different area of the country of residence.

A little bell went off as soon as you said “delayed disclosure”. It seems to me that when we talk about terrorism and the rush to make sure we protect the very people we want protection from, we set up a whole bunch of safeguards. But the Supreme Court has really chastised the police community and crown attorneys for delaying disclosure.

We, as a committee, deal with a specific problem and try to set up the best protocols and procedures. We walk away saying that we did a really good job and we feel good about it. I think of something like the Anti-terrorism Act, which the previous government brought in. We wanted to support that and we continue to support that. But you get together to solve a problem and it seems that a few minutes later some really smart person goes to the Supreme Court and makes all that you've done seem like you've wasted your time.

So when you talk about things like this delayed disclosure, could you explain what you mean?--because I get fearful.

[Yvon Dandurand]

I will not claim that I have worked it out in terms of our own constitution or anything, but the general principle is that one could be able to delay part of the information in disclosure. I don't mean until after the trial, but later on in the process--for instance, about the identity of the witness. You may say “I'm disclosing that I have a witness who will be prepared to say the following”, but the actual identity of the witness will not be disclosed until later.

Countries have explored that. Of course, in Europe many countries have had a lot of success, even in front of their courts of human rights, with various forms of partial anonymity for witnesses. That's very difficult in our system, but I don't think we have fully explored all of the possibilities there. That's beyond my own competence to come up with wording that would satisfy the Supreme Court, but I think there are possibilities there that can be explored.

Of course it's always a matter of finding a balance between the rights of the accused, but I think there are methods there that we have not fully explored, because again, it's fairly recently that we have fully understood the importance of getting the collaboration of people out there who are being intimidated and who are at risk. It has always been a problem. It's been in the last 10 or 15 years that basically the criminal law community has begun to understand that if you're dealing with very powerful conspiracies, whether it's terrorist groups or organized crime or economic crime groups, basically you have to find ways to fight them, and that is with information. These groups are close. They punish those within the group who cooperate or give information to authorities. They go to great lengths to hide themselves, to protect themselves against detection, and so on. So it calls for different methods. Of course, the methods are complicated, as you pointed out. But I don't think we've done all of our homework in terms of looking at what is possible in terms of procedural law that would stand, basically, the various tests of our charter and the constitution, that would allow us do a better job.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

I've come to the end of my list. Does anybody else have any questions or comments for our witness?

Ms. Priddy, do you have another question?

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

I do have all the minutes from last spring; it may be in here and I just did not see it. For the people who are doing the assessments of whether people will be appropriate for a witness protection program, who I expect are psychologists--I don't want to say I assume, but I expect are psychologists--with expertise in that area, just in the work that you've done, or the research that you've done, do we have the appropriate people? Are there enough people with that kind of background to be able to do those kinds of evaluations? Because I would think it would be a fairly tricky evaluation to do.

[Yvon Dandurand]

First, I don't know really whether we have enough, but I have never heard that we do not. You are referring to the evaluation of the applicant, but the other very important part is the evaluation of the risk. The evaluation of the applicant really has something to do more with whether that person will be able to function in a program. The evaluation of the risk is more a police function. That's what I mentioned earlier we're pretty good at.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

I think I speak, sir, for all the members of the committee when I say we appreciate the testimony you've given us today. It's very important and highly regarded. We thank you very much. I personally have gained some good insights, so we want to thank you for coming before this committee.

[Yvon Dandurand]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

You may be excused.

Before everybody else leaves, I have one item I will put to you. That is, you received a notice of motion a little while back from Ms. Priddy. With the consent of the committee, we could briefly allow her to move it, because we have finished a little early here.

Are you prepared, Ms. Priddy, to move that right now?

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Yes, I am, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

First of all, as a committee, are you prepared to do this right now, seeing as we have a few minutes?

I see nobody shaking their head.

Yes, Mr. Ménard.

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

Could we get a copy of the motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

I'm sorry, I don't have it with me.

Can you please read it into the record, Ms. Priddy?

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Absolutely.

The motion that was submitted January 24 states:

That the Minister of Public Safety be invited to appear before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security for one committee meeting to discuss the drug trade and gang activity in Canada's prisons.

I submitted this because we've had four lockdowns in British Columbia, and there are a number of issues relating to some recommendations that have been made. We're very interested in British Columbia--as others will be, I'm sure--in the status of that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Okay.

Is there any further discussion this?

Mr. Cullen, and then Mr. MacKenzie.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank Ms. Priddy for bringing this issue forward--it's an important issue--but I'm wondering if this is the correct way to approach the work of the committee. We decided in this committee we weren't going to have a steering committee but we would set the work plan based on the committee as a whole.

I know I have some pet projects. One I'm supporting Mr. Ménard on is the question of contraband tobacco products. I think it's an enormously huge problem, which we need to look into.

So rather than deal with motions, and then the first person to get their motion in is the lucky one, I'd rather deal with it on the basis of a work plan that we can all agree to and we can go forward with.

I'm not denying that it's an important issue, but I think there are other important issues as well, and as a committee as a whole we should perhaps decide where we go from here, and the next steps.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Yes. And for your information, we have set aside February 13, next Wednesday, as a day for discussion of future business of the committee.

Mr. MacKenzie.