Public Safety Committee on Feb. 28th, 2013

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Minister, welcome to the committee again.

Assistant Commissioner, in policing in general, but in this program as well, have you ever experienced an occasion or occasions whereby witnesses have been reluctant to come forward and testify simply because of their perception of what an ultimate sanction would be. When a witness says he'd like to testify, but at the end of day he thinks person X is just going to get a slap on the wrist, so he's not willing to put his name out there, he's not willing to testify, he's not willing to take the stand. He's not willing to take those risks if he doesn't perceive an appropriate sanction will come down.

Have you ever experienced that in your policing career?

[A/Commr Todd G. Shean]

Quite frankly, I never have discussions regarding sanctions. I think the important thing for a witness is always to understand the process—here's the process, here's what you're going to go through—to make sure the witness has support throughout the process, and certainly to understand the laws that exist and what they could experience before the courts. That's normally the explanation that's provided.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I think, though, if I understand your question, Mr. Leef, it's the broader policing experience than simply the administration of the program.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

That's correct.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Certainly, in my experience, not only as a prosecutor but in other roles I've played in the Attorney General's department in Manitoba, there's always been that reluctance among individuals, especially in communities that are being plagued by gangs. Why should they get involved if the same individual is back out on the street, on bail, very shortly, or even if upon conviction they're out very quickly?

There is a tendency to view the system as not being proactive enough. That's certainly something I've heard over and over again in the course of my career. If witnesses can be assured that somebody with a gun is not going to get bail, they are obviously more likely to testify. That's one of the reasons we made that change, for example, in the reverse onus on bail for those who are carrying illegal firearms. It's a small amendment, but very effective over the long term, in terms of protecting witnesses and giving witnesses confidence.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

You certainly mentioned in your testimony that the witness protection program is a tool of last resort because it restricts movement, lifestyle, and associations. Very few, in respect to witnesses, actually apply for the program. It's understandable that if a person's movement is restricted and lifestyle is going to be impacted by entering the program, and associations will be limited, that one would also want to consider that in coming forward. We have parameters in which we would measure whether they would come into the program. I'm certain that witnesses have their own sets of parameters in their head. One, I assume, would be that if they're going to impact their movement, their lifestyle, and their associations for probably the rest of their lives, they would want to know there's going to be a meaningful sentence and sanction to come along with that. Would that be an accurate statement?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I think all witnesses are different, but that's certainly one of the themes I've heard over the course of my career. If there is no meaningful sanction, why should they risk themselves or their families in testifying? Again, I'm sure that's something the investigators are very aware of when they're trying to put a case together.

Mr. Leef, you've been an RCMP officer. You know what that's all about, how difficult it is in certain communities to get somebody to testify.

I know the real problem we used to have in respect of domestic violence, a horrendous problem where spouses are being abused by the other spouse, and then ultimately, the reluctance to testify for a number of reasons. I think as a society we've moved quite far from the old days. Back in the 1970s when I was prosecuting as a front-line prosecutor, so many women, usually, came to court and simply said, “I don't remember what happened”, or, “I don't want to go forward.” Then the women used to be prosecuted on public mischief charges. We've come a long way since then.

I think some of the steps we're taking on this program are just other steps in terms of protecting witnesses and understanding how the witness is an integral part of the justice system, which they never used to be. They were a sort of afterthought or just an appendage.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

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

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you very much, Minister and officials, for being here.

I have five minutes now to finally put this whole cost thing to bed so that we don't have to talk about it anymore. I have some very pointed questions for you.

First of all, let me say why I'm concerned about cost. We've heard with earlier witnesses, from the government members, and from you here today that you're clearly all on the same softball team. The manager has said, “Whatever you say, it doesn't matter what you say, but don't say that it's going to cost us more money.” That's the impression I have, so that's why I'm concerned about the cost.

The reality of the numbers is that from the last estimates we are seeing a reduction in the RCMP budget, about $58 million. I think the RCMP has said that in 2013-14 they estimate saving $89.1 million. I see money going down, and I know that's part of what the government's looking at.

I assume also, Assistant Commissioner, that your money is kept in envelopes, or most of it, but perhaps you can beg, borrow, and steal from other programs to make it work. The question is, will the witness protection program be protected from cuts?

[A/Commr Todd G. Shean]

Over the past year and coming up, the witness protection program has actually seen an increase in resources.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

I have a further question to that, and I don't think we got an adequate answer last time. Bill C-51 will undoubtedly encourage more people to come forward. That's good, and we're certainly supportive of that.

Let us just say that there may not be exponential numbers coming forward, but there is an increase. You will have a certain bar. You don't want to keep moving the bar higher because you don't have any money, and there are people who are worthy of and interested in being in the program. Will you have the opportunity to borrow from other programs, for example, to make sure that all the people who need and require witness protection will be able to get it?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Go ahead.

[A/Commr Todd G. Shean]

My only answer is that there are a lot of people coming to the witness protection program; some are inadvertent witnesses, but those, in my experience, are more rare. Most of them stem from cases or investigations we have ongoing, so we only have a certain investigational capacity as well. That's why, as I sit here, there are only a certain number of investigations that are ongoing, that are going to generate a certain number of potential people coming into the program. That's why the enhancements assist the program, but I don't see a great new influx of people within the program. That's why I'm very comfortable.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Minister, you—

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Just to reiterate, the RCMP has advised me that it has the capacity to manage within its existing budget if more funds are needed. That's what it's indicated to me, and I have no reason to doubt when it says that to me.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Okay.

Minister, you said a moment ago that if there are funding requests, you hear about them. I'd just like to—

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Not only in the House of Commons from you, but it also happens inside the department and from the agencies.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

My question is specifically about first nations, and I think we can expect with this bill that perhaps there will be more first nations activity in terms of witness protection and so on. There are serious problems among first nations in terms of gangs and so on. So there may be an increased use of that.

Part of the problem, of course—and I'm sure you've heard this many times, Minister—is that first nations police services are woefully underfunded. They do the best they can with the resources they have.

I wonder if you would like to perhaps make a comment about moving forward over the next couple of years and what you have in mind. I don't expect you to jump the gun, but with Bill C-51 there should be increased usage of that among first nations, I would expect, in terms of northern Ontario, for example. They need more money, Minister.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

You mean the first nations police.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Yes.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Well, they've certainly advised me that they would like to see the federal participation continue in the first nations policing program. They've made that clear to me in the discussion I've had with various first nations communities and with every province in Canada.

The Prime Minister has indicated that a decision on that issue will be made shortly.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Do you think the 52%, the federal contribution now—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Rafferty, you are over time.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I see the 52% continuing.

[A voice]

[Inaudible—Editor]