Thank you.
On the second part of your question, I think there is almost unanimity that there needs to be a very clear separation between the two aspects. Some people will have argued it's sufficient to have that separation within a police force, to have two different branches with some kind of firewall--if you'll allow me the expression--between the two. Generally, experts say it has to be more than this: two separate agencies, separate budgets, budgets that do not impact on each other and so on.
As to where the funding should come from, that's a very complicated question. Currently the funding tends to come from those who are responsible for the administration of justice, so it tends to be from the provinces. The agreements with the federal government are quite complex because in many provinces they are parallel and related to contract policing arrangements and so on. The lack of resources has been an issue.
I would not necessarily say the solution is the creation of a supernational program that is all paid out of one pocket. I know this option has been put forward in some circles. I believe even the RCMP has made such proposals known publicly. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but it would create all kinds of difficulties.
As I mentioned earlier in my opening remarks, the RCMP program is one extreme part of the range of protection measures. We cannot institute a regime where we create the impression that witness protection is about relocating a handful of witnesses. Witness protection has to be taken from the first day a police officer takes a complaint from a victim all the way until after a trial and even after an offender has been condemned, imprisoned, and is being released. To reduce this and to say that witness protection will be a national program under one agency and will be funded by one source of government might be a simplistic response to this, but, yes, the question of resources needs to be addressed.