Public Safety Committee on Feb. 28th, 2013

[A/Commr Todd G. Shean]

No. I too look at the threat assessment to the potential witness or the person involved. The crime can be whatever the crime might be.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Certainly Bill C-51 changes and broadens the definition of who can be included. I guess this would be good news, then, because we had that impression from talking to municipal chiefs and the Canadian Police Association.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Maybe I could just put on the record, Mr. Garrison, that if there are police who presently have any hesitation about bringing forward individuals in street gangs who want protection or witnesses who are the victims of street gangs, our policy remains the same, whether Bill C-51 is passed or not. Obviously we want it passed for other reasons, but I want to clear up that misapprehension. If there are some administrative restrictions that have been made mistakenly, I would only say that the people should contact my officials to get the matter straightened out.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Minister. We welcome that. I believe that misapprehension has been out there and that the broader definition will help remove it, but your statement is I think very important.

One of the suggestions made in the Air India inquiry was that there be some independent review mechanism or some independent evaluation of the witness protection program. I would like to hear, maybe from your officials, whether they feel that will be necessary. It is not included in the bill; they feel this can be handled under existing structures.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

One thing we are doing is to separate the investigation of a crime from the administration of the program. Though both the investigation and the administration take place under the RCMP, we feel the RCMP are best placed to administer the program. I know there have been suggestions of perhaps having the Department of Justice take over the administration. Quite frankly, the Department of Justice does not administer programs per se, and that is not a good fit.

I have not heard of any complaints about the RCMP administering the program, but I think it is important to separate the administration of the program from the investigation of the crime so that the legislative criteria are considered on an independent basis. Obviously they're going to have input from the police, who say they think or don't think a particular person is an inappropriate candidate.

Assistant Commissioner, perhaps...?

[A/Commr Todd G. Shean]

I think you are absolutely correct, Mr. Minister, and we have done this.

The program at one point used to report through an intermediary; now the program reports directly to me. Within the respective provinces, we've severed the relationship between the operational side of our business and the witness protection program, and the work done within the provinces reports directly into Ottawa, into offices that report to me. We are the sole decision-makers with regard to the assessment of that protectee and what resources it will take to protect him or her. In addition to that, we now have psychological assessment and case management plans prepared.

So we have really separated...and our program is protectee-focused.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We'll move now to Mr. Gill, please.

Go ahead.

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I also want to thank you, Minister, and your officials for being here this morning with us on this important topic.

Minister, does Bill C-51 respond to recommendations made in the Air India inquiry? Can you talk about that, please?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

You know, we look at all of these inquiries to determine how to best implement the spirit of the recommendations, and we certainly have taken numerous steps right across the board in implementing the Air India inquiry recommendations. In this respect, I believe the recommendation in Air India was for an independent program within the Department of Justice. For a number of reasons, it was just felt that this was not the appropriate place for the program. The Department of Justice simply is not suited to this type of program.

We felt that we could meet the spirit of the Air India inquiry recommendations by having the RCMP administer the program or continue to administer the program, but that we should separate the operational from the administrative side, as the assistant commissioner has mentioned, so they can clearly focus on the criteria that the legislation presently has and not be influenced by the operational side in an inappropriate or unnecessary way. Perhaps that's the best way to say it.

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Thank you.

I have another question, Minister. You may be aware that I have introduced a bill in the House, Bill C-394, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act, which basically targets individuals who are responsible for recruiting youth, mainly, and other individuals into criminal organizations, or, in other words, gangs. It has passed second reading in the House. I was very thankful to have the government's support on this, and that of the official opposition, but unfortunately, I guess the Liberal Party did not see this as an important initiative.

My question to you as minister is, can you confirm that if the police refer an individual who is part of a youth gang, the RCMP would consider that individual?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you.

I want to thank you for your initiative in that respect. We think that trying to give police additional tools to stop the recruitment in these gangs, especially of young people, is very, very important. To my knowledge, there is nothing that would prohibit the consideration of an individual for the program simply because of the type of organization he or she is in, or the type of organization that the person is being victimized by. The criteria are spelled out very clearly in the act, and those are the ones that are utilized.

I have never heard of a situation where all of the criteria have been met and somebody says, “Well, the organization that you're frightened of is not one that we would consider in the context of these deliberations.” That simply is not the case. Street gangs are every bit as dangerous as more organized criminal gangs.

In fact, the street gangs are often more dangerous because of the tendency to violence—unpredictable violence. I'm sure the RCMP know much more about this, but organized crime is more focused on the business of crime, whereas some of these street gangs are in fact much more violent and unpredictable in their activities. Those individuals I would see as being as vulnerable, if not more vulnerable, than those who traditional organized crime would target.

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Thank you for that.

In Toronto, Chief Bill Blair has stated that they have seen the fear caused by intimidation and the threat of retaliation in gang investigations. Can you describe how the witness protection program and these changes will encourage witnesses with information to come forward?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I think I'll leave that to the assistant commissioner, because that's an issue that he has dealt with over the last number of years.

[A/Commr Todd G. Shean]

With regard to the changes being brought forward, if they're entering a provincial regime, the changes brought forward under this new act will facilitate the obtaining of documents. It clearly spells out within the act the criteria and the protections that are afforded to the individuals who are helping us. Quite frankly, I believe that there's everything that's required there to provide proper protection to any witness who wants to enter the program.

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

It's obviously very encouraging to see that this legislation is standing up for front-line officers.

Can you please explain how the amendments in Bill C-51 will benefit those individuals who administer and protect those in the program?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Right now the focus of the protection is on the protectees. Of course, the more successful we are in protecting the actual individual, the more the focus could be on individuals who are providing that protection and their families. So it's very important not to disclose information regarding those individuals who provide that protection.

This gives front-line officers another layer of protection by ensuring that there are criminal sanctions in place should that information be improperly released. As I've indicated from the president of the Canadian Police Association, this is something that they're certainly supportive of and they welcome these changes.

I note that the official opposition also indicated that they support that aspect of the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Gill.

We'll now move to Mr. Scarpaleggia, please, for seven minutes.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Thank you very much.

If gangs are a growing problem, and if those in gangs are particularly vulnerable...because, as you say, gangs are violent. They do the dirty work of organized crime, I guess, in many situations.

If Mr. Gill's bill is going to target more gang members...and I'm not certain that's the case; I'm not certain it will be effective. But if that's the case, if we're putting a greater accent on gangs, if gangs are a growing problem, and if we want to use witness protection to apprehend more gang members, wouldn't you think that a higher rate of admission into the witness protection program would be an indication that crime-fighting strategies were working?

Let me phrase it another way. If you expect this legislation and crime-fighting efforts with existing resources to be effective in terms of apprehending more criminals, especially gang members, and you expect the witness protection act to be useful in this battle, wouldn't you expect that there would be more people admitted over the next few years, if you're successful in fighting gang-related activities?

[A/Commr Todd G. Shean]

I guess what I can say is that we have a number of successful investigations that are ongoing, so the number of admissions into the witness protection program fluctuates. It really does; it fluctuates—if it's an individual gang member, if it's a gang member with a family.

So if more people come forward, the admissions could rise, but we've seen that the numbers have been relatively steady over the years.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

But now we have Mr. Gill's bill, so one would expect that there would be more apprehensions. Are you budgeting for an increase in admissions, and if not, why not?

Given Mr. Gill's bill, and given the government's effective crime-combatting strategies, wouldn't you expect more admissions?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Scarpaleggia, are you making reference to Mr. Gill's private member's bill?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Okay.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I don't necessarily see that where you have a successful prosecution it necessarily means you have a particular witness in need of protection—

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

But there must be a correlation.

At any rate, I'll move on to another question.

In the confidential report from the RCMP of October 2011, entitled Enhancing Independence between Witness Protection and Investigations: Supporting Operations by Widening a Safer Net—I put the emphasis on “widening”—it gives on page 13, under the topic “Changes to enhance independence”, I guess the conclusion of some consultation:

In fact, it was generally agreed that such independence was positive, as long as resource implications arising out of any changes were properly addressed.

Now what does that mean, “as long as resource implications” are properly addressed? Does that mean as long as more money is available?