Public Safety Committee on March 5th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Good morning, everyone, and welcome to our Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. This is meeting number 74. Today is Tuesday, March 5, 2013.

This morning we are continuing our study of Bill C-51 to amend Canada's Witness Protection Program Act.

Appearing before us today, from the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, we have a number of returning guests. First, we have Trevor Bhupsingh. He is the director general of the law enforcement and border strategies directorate. As well, we welcome back Julie Mugford, director of research and national coordination in the organized crime division.

Also, from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we have Assistant Commissioner Todd Shean, of federal and international operations; and Inspector Greg Bowen, the officer in charge of witness protection operations.

I invite the Department of Public Safety to open this morning and to make some brief remarks.

As well, the RCMP has a statement. I haven't been given one yet, but if you do have one, I invite you to give me one now. Then we'll move into the first round of questions.

Thank you.

[Trevor Bhupsingh, Director General, Law Enforcement and Border Strategies Directorate, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and committee members, for the invitation and the opportunity to speak again about the proposed legislation that's before us today. The legislation speaks to the modernization of Canada's federal witness protection program.

It is well recognized that an effective and reliable witness protection program is valuable in the fight against crime, especially against organized crime and terrorism.

In Canada, witness protection programs exist at both the federal and provincial levels. Federally, the Witness Protection Program is legislated by the Witness Protection Program Act and is administered by the RCMP. In recent years, the provinces have also started to establish their own witness protection programs.

While some provincial programs tend to focus on witness management, the federal program handles more serious cases that can require relocation and often a secure change of identity. Provincial programs often provide time-limited protection, usually leading up to, or during, a trial, whereas the federal program considers its protectees to be in the program for life. Only the federal program is legislatively mandated to provide national protection services to all law enforcement agencies in Canada, as well as to international courts and tribunals.

Public Safety Canada wants to ensure that our police continue to have the appropriate tools in place to build safe neighbourhoods across Canada by keeping up with the changing nature of crime, as well as with criminal or terrorist organizations.

Through Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act, we are looking to amend the Witness Protection Program Act to improve the effectiveness and security of the federal witness protection program, and to make it more responsive to the needs of law enforcement across Canada.

As you may be aware, the current Witness Protection Program Act was first legislated in 1996, but it has not been substantially modified since it came into force. That's over 25 years. The amendments proposed in Bill C-51 are intended to address the recommendations brought forward by this committee in 2008, as well as the Air India commission of inquiry in 2010.

In follow-up to the SECU report, in 2008 Public Safety Canada and the RCMP undertook countrywide consultations with federal, provincial, and territorial partners to hear their views on how to improve the federal witness protection program, as well as their perspectives on the SECU recommendations.

These provided amendments will also respond to what we heard regarding how to improve the witness protection program in Canada. The proposed legislative mechanisms and amendments in Bill C-51 are intended to improve interaction between the federal and provincial witness protection programs. Specifically, they will improve the process to obtain a secure identity change for witnesses from the provinces and territories through a designation process. Once designated, a provincial program can request that the RCMP assist in the provision of secure identity changes to designated provincial programs, without transferring their protectees into the federal program, which is currently the practice.

Bill C-51 will also broaden prohibitions against the disclosure of information, beyond the name and the location of a federal protectee, to now include designated provincial protectee information about both the federal and provincial programs and those who administer these programs. This is consistent with provincial requests to strength the disclosure prohibitions, so that information about their witnesses is protected throughout Canada.

In response to Air India, the bill will also expand the agencies that can refer individuals to the program to now include any federal agency with a mandate related to national security, national defence, or public safety sources. Referrals can now be made by such agencies as CSIS or the Department of National Defence.

Bill C-51 will also improve the federal program administration by permitting voluntary termination from the program and extending emergency protection from the current 90 days to a maximum of 180 days. These amendments will address operational issues regarding the administration of the federal program.

In addition to the legislative amendments, the RCMP is also undertaking a number of administrative and programmatic improvements to address concerns raised in the past. One important improvement is a change in the RCMP reporting structure to separate admission decisions from investigations, thereby ensuring objectivity in the decision-making process. The RCMP is also taking additional measures to enhance the federal program by incorporating psychological assessments of candidates and counselling for protectees and their families, offering the services of legal counsel to all candidates being considered for admission into the federal program, enhancing training for witness handlers and administrators of the program, and also creating a database that would better inform program design.

To summarize, Canada's federal witness protection program is an invaluable tool that helps our police infiltrate the world of organized crime and gather vital information to reduce and disrupt the illegal drug trade.

The Safer Witnesses Act will encourage a more streamlined approach to witness protection between the federal and provincial or territorial governments, as well as between the RCMP and other federal institutions with a mandate related to national security or national defence.

It will ensure that the federal witness protection program is more effective and secure, for both the witnesses and for those who provide protection to these witnesses.

The proposed changes outlined in Bill C-51 will go a long way toward improving the federal program and to make it an effective tool for law enforcement in the global fight against organized crime and terrorism.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much.

We'll now move to Assistant Commissioner Shean.

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

Good morning, Mr. Chair.

I wish to thank the committee for providing me with this opportunity to participate in your discussions on Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act.

The RCMP recognizes the important step forward that this bill represents in promoting a more complete and effective federal witness protection program.

Significant elements of the bill include the recognition of provincial witness protection programs and the provision to those programs of the same protections the federal program enjoys relative to protectees, former protectees, and sensitive information relative to how the program operates.

Further, the legislation acknowledges the potential risks that may be directed toward those responsible for providing protection, be they personnel assigned to the witness protection function or perhaps public servants who assist in the identity change process.

Another key element is that provincial programs will no longer be required to enter their protectees into the federal program to obtain federal identity documents. This promotes the independence of the provincial programs to more effectively administer their programs, and equally as important, diminishes risk to the federal program by no longer having to admit persons into the federal program solely to facilitate the name change process. This process left the federal program vulnerable as the program had limited, if any, input relative to the protective measures offered a provincial protectee while awaiting the referred documentation.

As a result of the designation regime, the RCMP will deal directly with the designated official for the provincial witness protection program. As a result, the RCMP will no longer be addressing protection issues with a number of law enforcement agencies within a province, but will deal exclusively with the offices of the designated provincial official or officials as designated by the province. This will promote efficiencies in services provided to the provinces and will further enhance the security of both the federal and the provincial programs.

This legislation, in concert with sweeping operational changes being introduced to the federal program, responds to the recommendations emanating from both this committee's report in 2008, relative to the federal witness protection program, and the Air India commission report of 2010. In fact, program changes currently being introduced eclipse the referred recommendations in a number of areas and ensure that the federal program remains well positioned to provide continued elevated levels of service.

Much has been said in the past about the importance of ensuring that the decision-making processes relative to program entry are made independently of investigative decision-making interests. The new entry process for the federal program responds to this criticism and ensures that those responsible for witness protection decision-making operate independently from investigative interests. This has required a significant shift in structure within national headquarters and divisions and the new admission protocols will be in place nationally by May 2013.

The RCMP has introduced a series of specialized and secure protocols developed specifically for the witness protection function, which is unique to witness protection in this country. We have also developed standard operating procedures relative to the enhanced program orientation processes, and we have begun to initiate a more robust outreach process designed to better respond to the needs of protectees who may be struggling with program adaptation.

RCMP witness protection officers are now the benefactors of the most progressive and comprehensive witness protection training in Canada, and by the end of the next fiscal year, we anticipate having five full-time psychologists working exclusively for the federal program. Further, we anticipate the rollout of an enhanced data bank system designed specifically for the federal program. This new system will allow better tracking of individual witness protection cases, it will allow us to better monitor the services we provide to partners and stakeholders, and it will promote program accountability and transparency through the immediate access to program data and statistics.

We have initiated research projects into the witness protection function and are developing workshops to better study the impact of witness protection from a variety of cultural perspectives, and particularly the challenges of witness protection for First Nations persons who may be considered for program entry.

The RCMP has also held meetings with representatives of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP in an effort to ensure that the CPC has full insight into the functioning of the program, the challenges associated with the program administration, and the complaint process. It is anticipated that this interaction will continue in an effort to ensure that the services provided by the CPC to Canadians relative to witness protection will be addressed in a timely, appropriate, and transparent manner. With the implementation of all of the aforementioned, the federal witness protection program will be well positioned to continue to be one of the most professional and effective witness protection programs in the world.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I look forward to answering any questions you may have.

Merci.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much for appearing.

We always appreciate when the department comes, especially when we have a two-hour segment with you. That will give us ample opportunity, I think, for all members to get their questions in.

We'll move, for the first round, to Mr. Leef, please, for seven minutes.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you again to all our witnesses this morning.

Assistant Commissioner, we had you here already to talk a little bit about this bill. We spoke in the past when the minister was here, and I was going to ask about one of the criteria you noted for introducing witnesses into the program, which is their ability to adjust to the program. I see that counselling services and other services are provided. Is one of the determining factors a witness's ability to move away from a criminal lifestyle if that witness had been involved in criminal behaviour?

[A/Commr Todd G. Shean]

Yes, it would be.

When we're considering entrance into the program, the addition of the psychological exam gives you a very good picture of the person you're looking to have enter the program. With the psychological assessment comes a case management plan for how to best help that person adapt to the program and be successful within the program.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Okay.

What would happen—I know it's most likely case by case—if somebody were to enter that program, be engaged in it for a while, and then slip back into a criminal lifestyle or criminal behaviour, or commit, let's say, a serious crime? What would typically occur then?

[A/Commr Todd G. Shean]

The people admitted to the program are continually monitored while they are in the program. There's a continual risk assessment done.

My expectation would be that in any instances we would perhaps see a change in the behaviour of the individual, and we would take the necessary steps to address that.

However, I want to make it very clear to the committee that if anybody within the federal witness protection program commits any type of offence, that does't afford them any more protection than any other Canadian. They would be investigated for that particular offence and the proper measures would be taken.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Great. Thank you.

In your opening remarks you talked about some of the challenges we've had in the past with the provincial programs. Now this legislation is going to allow provincial programs to deal with their own secure identity. In the past, essentially, people were entering the federal program solely to make sure they got federal secure identification. That's a good example of identifying red tape and bureaucracy that are slowing things down. I think you listed a few more examples in your opening remarks.

Where else have you identified those sorts of things within this program, where red tape has made the whole system across the country inefficient?

[A/Commr Todd G. Shean]

I think you've addressed the biggest one, because to obtain that secure identity change.... I think there are two. There are probably more, but I'll touch on two.

To obtain that secure identity change, you were entering the federal witness protection program, so there was whatever was involved with that.

As well, we were dealing with a number of different police agencies. Now we will deal with a designated person within that particular province. We will work with them and train them. Our experience has been that the bulk of the delay occurred when we went to the paperwork that was required to obtain the assistance of the federal partners for the identity change. There would be something missing within that documentation, so we would have to go back. Our sense is that with a properly trained designated person we should cut all that out, so that when the paperwork arrives at the other federal partners it will be in due form. That will accelerate the process, and we will not have entered anybody into the federal witness protection program, so there will be none of the paperwork associated with that either. It's streamlined.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Perfect.

How risky would that delay have been in the past? Having somebody waiting for secure ID—how long could that possibly have taken in the past, and how risky would that be from a general point of view?

[A/Commr Todd G. Shean]

Well, I don't know if I would equate it to risk, because while we're doing that, as we recognize, there are provisions for emergency measures. A lot of the time, even with ourselves, we would have those emergency measures taking place while we're perhaps going through that secure identity change. It's just the lag time, and now it can be done much more expeditiously.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Okay, and would that lag time have an impact? If I were a witness who was waiting, not necessarily understanding process and bureaucracy, I might wonder what is taking so long. Is that something that's popped up in the past with witnesses seeing that lag time?

[A/Commr Todd G. Shean]

I haven't experienced that frustration personally. I could perhaps understand that, but what is done very well in the witness protection program is that we explain the step-by-step process to the protectees who are entering the program. It's explained to them that if there is a delay, the delay is a result of paperwork. Does it increase their level of frustration? Perhaps in some cases it does.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Toward the end of your concluding remarks you talked about some things that I see being clearly defined as resources. You're hoping to have five full-time psychologists working exclusively for the program, more individuals to track witness programs, better monitoring of the services you provide, and an initiation of research projects.

Are you going to be able to accomplish all that with the existing resources within the RCMP, or are there additional dollars being allotted for those specific aspects?

[A/Commr Todd G. Shean]

Yes, it's part of the planned enhancement to the program. We've already started some of the independent research that we were looking for, so yes.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Leef.

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

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being with us again. I know it takes significant time out of your workdays to be here, and I hope there's value added by our getting the legislation correct down the road, to make up for the time you give to us.

I want to start with some questions to the Public Safety officials.

In your presentation this morning you talked about the legislative mandate, saying, “Only the federal program is legislatively mandated to provide national protection services....” But you also talk about the federal program handling the “more serious cases”. Can you talk about how this has come about where the federal program will only handle serious cases if it's the only one with the legislative mandate?

[Trevor Bhupsingh]

I'm not sure I understand the total distinction, but I think the only comment I was trying to make in the opening remarks was on the differences between the federal and provincial programs.

The more serious cases tend to be those that are much longer in terms of the need to protect the witness, first of all, so that's one distinguishing factor; a provincial program may only temporarily need protection for a provincial protectee. Legislatively, the national cases fall under the jurisdiction of the Witness Protection Program Act of 1996.

Those were the only observations I was making with respect to those statements.

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

If I understand this correctly, there is no distinction made in any of the legislation about the kinds of cases for which the witness protection program would be responsible or to which it would be applicable.

[Trevor Bhupsingh]

No, there is not.

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

Okay.

Secondly, you talk about consultations that took place across the country with federal, provincial, and territorial partners. Were those simply with the witness protection programs or did those include other police agencies, such as municipal police agencies?

[Trevor Bhupsingh]

We went out in two rounds of consultations. After the SECU report of 2008, we went out to the provinces. We went to all provinces regardless of whether or not they had a provincial program in place, and we spoke to them about the recommendations made by the committee.

Also, for those who had programs, we talked a lot about how we might be able to integrate the programs more efficiently to address some of the concerns, I guess, that were happening with respect to securing federal documents. With the proposal in Bill C-51 around the designated process for provincial programs, we're hoping to address that.

To answer your question, we also visited law enforcement agencies through the process and got their comments and feedback in terms of improving the federal program itself.

We did a second round coming out of Air India just after 2010, and again we went out to the provinces, and we also engaged law enforcement agencies.