Public Safety Committee on March 5th, 2013

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

If the terrorist is in prison for his terrorist acts but is being used as a witness, how do you protect him in prison?

[A/Commr Todd G. Shean]

At that point, it would be more a discussion to have with the Correctional Service of Canada.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

It would be a challenge, I think.

Concerning gangs and teenagers, how do you handle a 15- or 16-year-old who is a member of a gang but is cooperating under witness protection, given that they're presumably still part of a family?

[A/Commr Todd G. Shean]

During the process for admission into the program, the risk assessment is done, and the consultation with the family would be included, and—I continually refer back to this—it's the psychological assessment and the case management plans that are done to ensure the success of the person in the program.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I guess in the opposite situation, in which the parents are the witnesses being protected and the child is dragged along, it would be a bit of a challenge for the psychologist. Teenagers have enough problems adapting normally, and this would be a pretty extraordinary situation, which would be a bit of a challenge for the psychologist, I imagine.

[A/Commr Todd G. Shean]

I didn't get the question. I'm not hearing.... I apologize.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

It seems this is the case today, that everyone is talking quietly. I would encourage you to use your earpiece. You can adjust the volume in cases such as this.

But Mr. Hawn, maybe you could just raise the level.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Okay. I'll use my military voice.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I was talking about the case in which the teenager is in the family and the parents are the witnesses being protected and so on. I'm not sure that five psychologists are enough; I guess that is my question. It seems to me to be a fair load on the psychologists.

[A/Commr Todd G. Shean]

The introduction of the psychologists is relatively new to the program. As we do with all our programs, we continually reassess. As people enter the program, we look at it as the unit entering the program. You are absolutely correct; it could be one of the parents who is the primary witness, but the assessment is done to ensure that the family is successful within the program.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

In the area of personal histories associated with their new identities and so on, anecdotally we've had some people say they are concerned that they haven't had enough input into their personal history. I assume this is done cooperatively and that you would ask them who they want to be, what they want to be.

How much work is done with the witnesses themselves to determine what their new identity is, their work history, and all that kind of stuff? I assume the witness is intimately involved.

[Insp Greg Bowen]

Decisions relative to identity, for instance, as per your question, are a cooperative effort with the protected people, under the guidance of the witness protection coordinators, who may be able to steer them in an appropriate direction.

The end game of witness protection is to provide the necessary framework around the folks coming into this program to give them an opportunity to succeed in the program and hopefully to integrate back into society in as short a period of time as possible.

The family dynamic is always an issue and presents—it's no different from the case of my family or anybody else's—certain challenges. We believe that the introduction of the psychologists we're bringing in currently and the use we're making of psychologists at present is allowing us to better develop case management plans, not just for the primary protectee but for the whole family. Each person within the family would be subject to processes to ensure that they all have the same opportunity to succeed. It is simply based on the premise that if you can deal with their social and psychological needs, it's much easier to protect them and they are happier and more content.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Inspector.

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

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

Thank you.

There are situations where a whole family is protected under the program. Is that correct?

[A/Commr Todd G. Shean]

That's correct.

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

Does the program protect people for life in all cases, or are there different stages at which the program might end?

[A/Commr Todd G. Shean]

There are occasions where there are voluntary terminations from the program. However, even during voluntary terminations we meet the individuals to ensure that the decision they are taking to voluntarily terminate is a well-informed decision. They are certainly advised that at any time, even after voluntary termination, if they have any concerns, to contact their handler and once again we will engage.

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

So as a rule it's for life, unless you decide you want out at some point.

[A/Commr Todd G. Shean]

Even if you decide you want out, frankly, it's still there for you.

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

I'm curious. When whole families are admitted and some of the family members are minors, at some point has it been your experience that there's a bit of a rebellion when the minors have grown up? They may have entered the program at four or five years of age, but they no longer feel comfortable being in the program. Do you get cases where some family members, especially the younger ones who were swept into it, decide they're going to leave?

[A/Commr Todd G. Shean]

As Greg stated earlier, to answer your question directly, yes.

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

That's interesting. I'm still a little unclear about the provincial programs because we keep saying they are emergency in nature, and sometimes they are there to protect the witness until the trial date and so on. Is that the distinction between the provincial or municipal programs and the federal one, that they are more temporary? Or is there any distinction at all? Is it up to the police to determine what they are recommending, whether it be lifetime protection or temporary protection?

[A/Commr Todd G. Shean]

No, there are existing provincial programs that offer protection to people who are testifying in a case within that province. We'll often see the more comprehensive organized crime files that span a number of provinces come to the federal program because it touches a number of different agencies.

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

Are the ones that don't come to the federal program matters of temporary protection? Not every witness protection file that, let's say, the Montreal police would have would be referred to the federal government. Would some be temporary protection awaiting trial? I don't understand the distinction between the provincial and the federal program.