Let me start with a very positive one. I think we do very well in assessment of risk. The RCMP has acquired a competence there that is probably unique, or at least on par with the best.
On decision-making, we could learn from other jurisdictions in terms of the transparency of decisions and accountability for them.
On the rights of people who are denied right now, they really don't have a lot of recourse other than through the courts. But if they are in need of protection, it's very difficult for them to have access to it in practice. So these are two or three areas.
On the cost, it's not so much the cost but the management of the resources. If the resources are managed in a way so they are sort of comingled with other law enforcement resources, they are always competing with other priorities, whether it's to purchase more squad cars, meet the new collective agreement, or whatever. So it is very important that it's an autonomous budget that is returned to Treasury Board if it's not being used, because there's always the temptation to move those resources around. Sometimes when the resources are insufficient the pressure is on the managing organization--the RCMP in this case--to move resources from other areas. That has all kinds of consequences for law enforcement.
I'm not suggesting that the RCMP is taking resources away to do other things; it's just that basically all of the decisions that have cost implications--and I think by now all members of the committee know that those decisions have fairly significant cost implications, and even one case is expensive--are coloured by thinking around other priorities. What else could we do with this? We no longer need....
We've all heard stories in Canada--and I cannot confirm them, so please take them as no more than rumours--about people talking about entering witness protection or benefiting from some kind of protection from the police, when all of a sudden overnight they find themselves without any protection because the police lost interest in them, they're not prosecuting, they don't have enough evidence, or they found a better witness. People find themselves left in the lurch.
I cannot name cases for you, but people talk about those cases. I don't know how many there are, but the rumours are persistent. A number of people want to come forward and have come forward, but they find themselves really short-changed, not only by the RCMP witness protection program but by all law enforcement agencies, because the cost of offering protection is significant. Too many of those decisions are based on whether or not the particular individual in need of protection is required to obtain a conviction, and not on the basis of the significance of the threat that person is facing.
That person may be facing a major threat against his or her life, but the decision seems to be guided more by the fact that they don't need that person as a witness so they'll offer as little as they can in protection.