Public Safety Committee on Feb. 28th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Welcome back, everyone, to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. We are going to continue with our second hour.

This morning we are commencing our study of Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act.

Our first witness is the Honourable Vic Toews, Minister of Public Safety and National Security. Accompanying the minister from Public Safety Canada is Trevor Bhupsingh, director general of the law enforcement and border strategies division. From the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we have Assistant Commissioner Todd Shean, federal and international operations.

Again, Minister, we thank you for coming to committee. You've appeared here a number of times at our request. Thank you for your availability this morning. We would invite you to make your opening statements in regard to this new bill the committee will be looking into. We welcome your comments.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, committee members, for the invitation to appear before this committee to assist you with your deliberations on Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act.

As indicated, I have senior officials with me from both Public Safety and from the RCMP.

The safer witnesses act will help to strengthen the current federal witness protection program, a program that is often vital to effectively combatting crime, and in particular organized crime. Bill C-51 will first and foremost improve the interaction of the federal witness protection plan with provincial witness protection programs. At the moment, someone in a provincial program obtains federal documents required for a secure identity change only if he or she is temporarily admitted into the federal program. This process can result in delays in obtaining a new identity.

Bill C-51 proposes to remedy the situation by establishing a process whereby the provincial programs can become designated witness protection programs. A province would request this designation from the Minister of Public Safety, at which time the provincial authority would provide assurances of the program's capacity to protect both its witnesses and its information. Once a program is designated, and upon the request of the program, the RCMP would be obliged to help in obtaining federal identity documents for a provincial witness requiring a secure identity change without any need for him or her to be temporarily admitted into the federal program. This new system will cut red tape and make the process more efficient and indeed more secure.

Currently, each law enforcement agency submits its requests for federal identity change documents to the RCMP. Under the designation regime proposed by the bill, the provincial official from a designated provincial witness protection program would request federal documents on behalf of the law enforcement agencies. This process would limit the number of individuals involved in the process.

The bill would also enhance the security of witness protection regimes in Canada by both enhancing and broadening the current prohibitions against the disclosure of information. The current federal Witness Protection Program Act prohibits the disclosure of information about individuals within the program. Section 11 of the current act says:

no person shall knowingly disclose, directly or indirectly, information about the location or a change of identity of a protectee or former protectee.

Bill C-51 will strengthen this prohibition in a number of very important ways. It will not only prohibit the disclosure of information about people who are in the federal program, it will also prohibit the disclosure of sensitive information about how the program itself operates, as well as about those individuals and front-line officers who actually provide or assist in providing protection for the witnesses. So it's those who are administering and working with the protectee who are also protected now.

This legislation, in particular this portion, has received very strong support. Tom Stamatakis, the president of the Canadian Police Association, has stated that the Canadian Police Association appreciates the steps being taken by the Government of Canada to protect front-line officers. He went on to say, “On behalf of the over 50,000 law enforcement personnel that we represent across Canada, we ask that Parliament quickly move to adopt this Bill.”

Mr. Chair, I can't say I disagree. Both of the prohibitions I mentioned earlier will also extend to designated provincial programs. That is, disclosure of information about witnesses, people who provide protection, and sensitive information about the programs themselves, will be prohibited. Such prohibitions against the disclosure of information currently exist only within the legislation of a particular provincial jurisdiction, so they don't apply across jurisdictions. Bill C-51 will also clarify the prohibition with respect to what and how information is being disclosed.

As I've mentioned, section 11 of the current act contains the phrase:

no person shall knowingly disclose, directly or indirectly, information about the location or a change of identity of a protectee or former protectee.

The phrase “directly or indirectly” was considered to be unclear. The bill proposes amendments to ensure that the prohibitions will clearly apply to cases where a person discloses information in a range of ways. Some examples include telling someone what a protected person's name is and telling someone where a protected person lives.

Bill C-51 will prohibit all of the above disclosures by specifying that no one shall disclose any information, either directly or indirectly, that reveals the location or change of identity of a protected person or the information from which the location or change of identity may be inferred.

Among other improvements, Bill C-51 will expand referrals for admissions to the federal witness protection program to sources assisting federal security, national defence, or public safety organizations such as National Defence and CSIS. By extending referrals to this category of witnesses, we are also addressing one of the commitments under the Government of Canada's Air India inquiry action plan released in 2010.

The current federal witness protection program has served the criminal justice system well. Today there are approximately 800 individuals under the protection of this program. In 2011-12 alone, the RCMP considered a total of 108 cases for admission into the federal witness protection program. Thirty protectees were admitted to the program, of which 27 were granted a secure name change. The number of admissions fluctuates from year to year, depending upon factors such as the number of cases being investigated or the number of people in a witness's family.

During this same time, the RCMP also provided assistance to other Canadian law enforcement agencies, as provided for under the existing Witness Protection Program Act. The fact that the federal witness protection program is serving the criminal justice system well does not mean there's no room for improvement.

The Witness Protection Program Act has not been substantially changed since 1996, despite the increasingly sophisticated, evolving, and global nature of organized crime.

Ongoing consultations with provincial and territorial stakeholders have also helped to highlight some areas where stronger provisions are needed, including those that I've mentioned today.

I must mention that this legislation has been well received by police chiefs, front-line officers, and the provinces.

Mr. Chair, before I close, I'm aware of some concerns with regard to the need for funding to accommodate the expansion of organizations that may refer witnesses for consideration of admission into the program, and I want to take a moment to address those concerns.

It is important to note that it is not anticipated that there would be any need for additional funding to accommodate this change. The program is currently funded by the RCMP from existing operational resources, and that will remain the same under Bill C-51. I would like to point out that there are seven criteria the RCMP use to assess whether to place an individual into the program. The cost of the protection is only one consideration.

The commissioner of the RCMP is required by statute to consider the risk to the witnesses, the danger to the community if a person were to be admitted into the program, the nature of the inquiry and the importance of the witness in the matter, the value of the information or evidence to be given by the witness, the likelihood the witness can adjust to the program, the cost of maintaining a witness in the program, alternate methods of protection, and other factors deemed by the commissioner to be relevant. The RCMP will continue to be required to take each of these factors into consideration under Bill C-51.

I've also referenced the fact that many people were applying to get into the program, but only 30 were admitted last year. I'd like to point out that there is no application process. The law enforcement agencies and international courts and tribunals refer individuals to the RCMP for consideration of admission, and each case is reviewed based on the seven criteria I have mentioned.

The truth is that very few people, if any, actually want or apply to be admitted into the witness protection program. It is a tool of last resort to keep them safe in exchange for their testimony. It imposes significant restrictions on their movements, lifestyle, and associations. That said, the witness protection program is a vitally important tool in our ongoing efforts to combat organized crime groups.

The bill addresses the need for modernization as well as enhanced information protection and integration with provincial programs. The bill introduces reforms to the present witness protection environment that will build on our collective efforts to battle organized crime as well as terrorist organizations, and in that way it helps all of us to continue to build safer streets and communities for everyone.

I ask that both opposition parties work with us to move forward this important piece of legislation.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Minister. I know there will be some very good questions coming out of that.

We'll begin with Ms. Bergen, please.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, Assistant Commissioner, and officials for being here.

I want to get right into the issue of cost. What we have found with the opposition, and it's kind of interesting...there's a bit of a pattern. The NDP support this particular bill, yet they were constantly talking about the fact that they think we need to put more money into the program. Interestingly enough, they don't support Bill C-42, for example, but they want more money for it. Even when the commissioner said we don't need more money and the independent chair of the complaints commission said we don't need more money, the NDP just want to keep throwing more money where it's actually not needed.

Can you please tell us very clearly, or the assistant commissioner could tell us, is there more money required when and if Bill C-51 passes?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I'll let the assistant commissioner follow.

I'll just make a couple of comments. In my briefings with the RCMP, they've advised me very clearly that they have the resources to administer the witness protection program. In fact, what this program really does is streamline the process, and it should, in many ways perhaps, even save some administrative costs in that respect. The prohibitions are simply a broader way of protecting individuals in law without requiring any additional resources. But if there are additional resources that are needed to administer the program, the RCMP advises me that they have the capacity to manage within the existing budget.

I want to make clear that when we talk about 107 witnesses who have been considered by the program in any one year, it's not that there are 107 who want to join the program; it's simply a consideration based on the criterion that it might be advisable for these individuals to be in the witness protection program. As indicated, there are some substantive limitations on their lifestyle and where they live, so many people simply do not want to take that route. There are other ways of protecting these individuals.

Perhaps the assistant commissioner can add to my comments.

[Assistant Commissioner Todd G. Shean, Assistant Commissioner, Federal and International Operations, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

Mr. Minister, Mr. Chair, as the minister has stated, with the changes this bill brings about, the RCMP is comfortable that we have the resources within our existing resources to run an effective witness protection program.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you.

Also, during the opposition's comments on this bill—and I could almost quote verbatim—they said several times that 108 applied and only 30 were accepted; they could only assume that's because there were not enough resources.

My challenge to them was that it's probably not a good thing to assume anything. Was their assumption correct? Can you please re-explain that for everyone here?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I'll let the assistant commissioner answer. It's not that there are 108 who require protection but only 27 or so get it. That's simply false. If that's the impression being left by anyone, that is a false impression. Those who need protection receive the protection, if the program is the appropriate one for them to receive that protection in.

[A/Commr Todd G. Shean]

That's correct. It's not a question of resources; it's a question of the assessment that's done. Once the assessment is completed...during the assessment process the person may decide that they do not want to enter into the program, they don't want to proceed on the route they're on, or we may assess that they're not suitable for the program. So the assessment is done, but the person is not necessarily entered into the witness protection program.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

How much time do I have, Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Three minutes.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you.

Can you also speak to those seven criteria? My understanding is that in the act as it exists—not in this legislation, but in the act—seven criteria are laid out, one of them being cost.

I think there has been some confusion. The RCMP website refers to some times when municipalities or provinces end up not carrying through because of costs. There seems to be a misunderstanding that this is because there is not enough money, so that they can't protect people. It seems to me that it's more within the criteria, looking at the cost versus whether there is actually going to be a benefit and whether it will enable protecting the individuals.

Can you speak to the criteria and very specifically to the costs? It's really important. We have the support of the opposition; cost is the only thing they are talking about. I think we need to be really clear on where the costs are incurred and whether there are any deficiencies.

[A/Commr Todd G. Shean]

As you stated, the criteria are under section 7 of the act, and cost is one of the considerations. But I can say that at the end of the day, the witness protection program reports to me, and I'm the one who signs off on the admissions or the terminations. Cost is one of the factors considered, but since my time in the chair, never have I denied an entry because of costs.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

When you say “costs”, do you mean literally how much it is going to cost to protect this person, to change this person's identity?

[A/Commr Todd G. Shean]

The type of protection we are going to have to afford this particular individual is always a consideration that we have, as part of the assessment. Normally it's based upon the type of organization or the type of situation the person finds him or herself in and the type of protection that must be afforded.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

With the changes in this bill, are we expecting that there will be a huge flood of new witnesses who will need to be protected?

[A/Commr Todd G. Shean]

No.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you very much. That concludes my questions.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

On that point, the criteria aren't changing. What we're doing is streamlining the program in respect of the interaction with the provincial program—and of course the additional prohibitions against disclosure of certain types of information.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Yes. Again, the opposition has commented that because we would now take applicants from National Defence and a few other areas, such as Public Safety, there would be a great flood of new witnesses who would need to be protected. But that's not the expectation, because we're opening it up as per the Air India inquiry's recommendations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Ms. Bergen.

Thank you, Minister.

We'll now move to Mr. Garrison.

You have seven minutes in the first round.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thanks to the minister and officials for being here today.

We on this side of the House are very glad to see Bill C-51 before the committee.

Also, of course, we have committed to expediting its passage through the House. We believe it's important legislation. It's something we've been interested in since the time of the Air India inquiry, in which the inability to protect witnesses in national security matters became very obvious.

We are also very glad to see the definition expanded so that it might be useable in protection of witnesses to combat street gangs. We know this has been a very big concern of municipal police forces.

The provincial coordination and assistance program is very positive. I think one matter that has not received enough public attention is the additional protections to those working in the program. We know that organized crime, in an attempt to break the witness protection program, has a temptation to pick on those who administer it, so we think this is a very important provision for protecting the police who work in this program.

The parliamentary secretary has read some of my notes this morning, obviously, and has used them for her presentation. We have heard from municipal police forces that there will be some additional demand on the program if they are going to use the program to combat street gangs, which they weren't able to do before. We had one very specific instance, Chief McGrogan from Medicine Hat, who appeared before the committee and expressed his concern about costs for municipalities of witness protection programs.

I have some personal experience with this as a police board member and as a city councillor. I'm going to save the minister some time, because he usually responds to me by talking about my record as a police board member and a councillor. I'm going to save him a little time in his response on this by pointing out that when I served on the police board and as a councillor, each and every year the police received additional resources, and each and every year I supported the vote and voted for additional resources for the police. I don't know where his confusion about my record comes from, because it's a very clear public record. So I'll save him time this morning by making that response.

I really want to come back to this: the minister has said there will be no additional resources for the RCMP, and we take it in good faith that the RCMP can manage the program, but our question about resources is really at the municipal level. Municipalities face downloading in policing costs of all kinds. The parliamentary secretary made reference to the statement on the RCMP website that there sometimes is a reluctance on the part of municipal police forces to use the witness protection program because if it's for a federal prosecution they will be billed back the full costs.

I would like to have your comments on this issue, concerning resources.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Actually, I wasn't going to mention your record. I have the quotations if you want them, but I thought we were starting off on such a good footing today, with all the nice things you're saying, that I wondered, why get into a cat fight on that kind of stuff?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I appreciate the opposition's supporting this bill in principle and I respect the fact that you have questions you need to ask.

First of all, I am a little confused about the issue that street gangs are now included. In my opinion, the nature of the crime and who commits it is irrelevant; if a witness needs protection, that's the only criterion. We don't make a distinction about whether somebody is part of a street gang or whether it's old Mafia or other types of organized crime that is going against witnesses. The criteria that are considered are those laid out in the statute, and I don't believe there is any restriction on the type of criminal who is causing these individuals to be threatened. Somebody must be mistaken.

Maybe I could get the RCMP to correct me, if I am mistaken in this.