Public Safety Committee on March 5th, 2013

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

We know that one of the reports—perhaps it was the report from the committee on this issue, or it was from the Air India inquiry—mentioned there should be an independent office to make decisions about admission into the program, so these decisions would be separate from the other decisions. You mentioned that you've changed the process so that there is a separation, that the processes are quite separate and independent.

Do you have any sense as to why the report recommended an independent coordinating body as opposed to simply separating the two functions within the RCMP? Do you have any insight on that? No? Okay.

You also mentioned the idea of creating a database that you hope would result in better program design. What kinds of things would you include in that database that maybe you're not tracking now? Why all of a sudden do we need an improved database? Have we just not had a database?

[Insp Greg Bowen]

No, sir. We've had a database since we've been doing this business. What we're doing is enhancing the database to allow us to better track the data, particularly with the introduction of the psychologists and their recommendations. It allows us to better track the protectees. It allows us to fulfill our desire to become a more protectee-focused program.

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

So it's a bit of a function of the fact that you're adding psychologists and other personnel who will be working on a file and you want to keep track of what they are reporting.

[Insp Greg Bowen]

Yes, just the overall general accountability for the program.

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

I don't have any further questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Madame Lefebvre, you have five minutes.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Once again, thank you. I was looking at access to the program. My attention was drawn to something that I found rather interesting about youth and street gangs. I believe that an access to information request was made about this last December, and the press mentioned it. With this reform of the witness protection program, young street gang members would now be included in the process.

I am wondering whether that is the case. I am attempting to determine the benchmark to establish whether someone is a young street gang member. Is it under 18? Can it be over 18? How does that work?

If most of the articles I have read are correct, it means that these people were not previously eligible for the witness protection program, but that they would be now, with the broader eligibility criteria.

Could you enlighten me a bit about this? I would like to know how that works.

[A/Commr Todd G. Shean]

First, as far as I know, there are no age restrictions. If we have a witness, an assessment will be done to determine whether he or she will be admitted to the program. Following the consultation, age may be used to determine whether it is the witness alone or the witness and the family, for example parents or guardians, who will be admitted.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

So there are no age restrictions. If that's the case, how do you explain the fact that we are now talking about including young members of street gangs when they were not included before? Is it because these particular street gangs are not related to biker gangs?

[A/Commr Todd G. Shean]

I don't know. Admission to the program is not based on a particular type of crime; rather, it is based on a potential threat to the witness.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

You can confirm, then, that even young people who are 15 or 16 and committed certain crimes can be admitted to the federal witness protection program.

[A/Commr Todd G. Shean]

I can confirm that there is no age limit.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

These people can therefore enter the program. They were already eligible.

[A/Commr Todd G. Shean]

Yes.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Excellent. I will push my research a little further. I was honestly wondering how it could be that some young street gang members would be less eligible to the program. It is good to know that this can be an excellent way to help young people break the vicious circle of crime when they want to do so, especially the younger ones.

In this regard, I believe the minister mentioned that the witness protection program was one of the indispensable tools in fighting crime, no matter where we are in the country. This is one of the very rare occasions where we agree completely. I find that extremely interesting.

I looked at the content of Bill C-51 and I have a few questions related to speeding up the process for obtaining new identification. How does it work? This is a new topic for me and I am not familiar with the process. Does it take a while?

[A/Commr Todd G. Shean]

No. If the documentation is prepared properly, it can go very quickly.

In comparison, before Bill C-51, individuals had to be admitted to the federal program and we dealt with a number of different police forces. In the majority of cases, what slows down the process to obtain the documents is the fact that the required documentation is not prepared properly. Under Bill C-51, we will deal with one designated person who will have been trained. If the documents are prepared properly, individuals will not have to be admitted to the federal program. That means the documents can be obtained more quickly.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

I see. Basically, a position will be created to ensure that the documents are prepared properly. There will be somebody actually assigned to this.

[A/Commr Todd G. Shean]

The provinces will decide who to assign. We will work with the people assigned by the provinces to ensure they are trained and that they understand what is required to obtain federal documents.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

We'll go back to Mr. Leef, please, for five minutes.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Bhupsingh, you spoke a bit about provincial consultation that occurred across Canada. I understand the provinces weren't really supportive of just abandoning provincial programs and moving to a national program. Please correct me if I'm wrong there. Was that true of the provinces that don't currently have a provincial program? Are some of them exploring the idea of moving to a provincial program based on the models in the other five provinces? If I am accurate that there wasn't overwhelming support to have just one national witness program, why would that be?

[Trevor Bhupsingh]

Yes, you are correct. In terms of the provinces that had a program, their programs were working well. I don't think it made a lot of sense to force a national program onto the provinces. Having said all of that, at the end of the day we've come up with a good solution in terms of the designation of the provincial programs into the federal program.

I'll let Ms. Mugford explain a bit about the points of view of the provinces that didn't necessarily have a provincial program at the time of the consultations, and just explain a bit more about some of those discussions.

[Julie Mugford]

Ontario and Quebec have had programs in place for quite some time. They're policy-based. The three prairie provinces were mentioned. They have legislation in place. The other provinces don't have programs. I couldn't speculate as to whether or not they're considering it. At the time of the consultations, I believe Alberta had introduced legislation, but it had not yet been passed.

The one thing we heard from all the players was that they did not want a national program or national standards because they saw them as encroaching on a jurisdictional responsibility that rested with the provinces. That's why we looked at a different option.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

So the jurisdictional aspect certainly makes sense.

Assistant Commissioner Shean, you spoke a bit about technology, about the complexity of crime, about witness needs now, and about how you think this bill is going to be responsive in protecting witnesses and dealing with the administration of this program as the complexity of crime grows, whether it's through technology or whether it's just through networks, and the needs of meeting court case requirements, investigations getting more and more complex.

In terms of a provincial-federal split, do you think that keeping some provincial programs, the ones that are operating...? I think you made it clear that there's a pretty clear delineation now between federal and provincial responsibilities. Do you think having that provincial-federal split is also beneficial, to allow those provinces the flexibility they may need to deal with the changing nature of the interaction between witnesses and investigations and the investigators and the criminal element?

[A/Commr Todd G. Shean]

The provinces have clearly indicated their decision in regard to what witness protection is, and there's good communication, good dialogue, with us in the federal program. We can see that here, even with this bill, with regard to obtaining federal documents and how it facilitates the provincial program dealing with the federal program.

The decisions are made, so for us, it's how we afford the best protection to witnesses entering witness protection programs, be they provincial or federal.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

There's enhancement in this to incorporate any federal agency that has a mandate of public safety. You've obviously had preliminary discussions with other federal agencies that have those mandates, the Canada Border Services Agency, Corrections Canada, etc. Your general sense on that is that it's going quite well?