Public Safety Committee on March 7th, 2013

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

We were talking about the delegation of a broader class of information. People dealing with information related to witness protection, whether it be somebody at the provincial licence bureau and so on, do they know that they're involved in this process?

If they didn't or if they don't, then how do they know that they're breaking the law by divulging information? Do they know that they're involved with something very sensitive and that they should be careful? Or would they be oblivious to that fact?

[S/Sgt Abraham Townsend]

Our practitioners, those who are engaged full-time.... Those are some of the relationships and some of the memorandums of understanding we have as an organization with other regulatory bodies.

As Tom has mentioned, it's kept at a high level and as discrete or secretive as it possibly can be. This legislation provides an added level of disclosure protection for those who function within this, arguably, very covert world. Once you're inside the program, it's a second existence.

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

Anybody, for example, who's helping with the process, whether it be somebody within a federal police organization or someone in a provincial agency, they know that they're on a sensitive file, they know that they shouldn't be divulging this information. As a rule, they would know. This law provides an added reminder that if they divulge information, not only is it unprofessional and not very smart, but it's also a crime at this point.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Scarpaleggia.

We will now move back to Madame Doré Lefebvre, please.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Townsend and Mr. Stamatakis, I would like to thank you for being with us today to discuss Bill C-51. We are pleased to have you here.

My first question is for both of you.

In 2007, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security studied the federal Witness Protection Program. In the ensuing report, some questions were left unanswered. For one, it was not determined if the program could accommodate a teenage member of a street gang whose safety might be at risk for cooperating with the authorities.

Perhaps I will begin with you, Mr. Stamatakis. How would you answer that question? Could the program accept someone under the age of 18 who is a member of a street gang? I would also like to know if you have encountered a case where a minor has used the witness protection program—not as a child of someone who has been offered protection, but as a witness in a trial, etc.

[Tom Stamatakis]

What I would say generally that is if there were a situation where someone needed protection, we would take whatever steps we could to provide that protection.

Having said that, when you're dealing with youth it's much more challenging, because there's a requirement to make sure that youth are informed about the decisions they're making. We have some obligation to make sure that they are getting advice from a parent or some other trusted adult in their life. I think that's a complicating factor.

I have to be honest that I don't personally have any experience with youth in a witness protection program or in a situation like we've been discussing this morning. I could certainly follow up and make some inquiries. I don't know if Mr. Townsend has more to offer, but I think youth would present some different challenges. Particularly where there are parents involved, there would be some obligation to engage them in any discussions. Or particularly if you're going to use a young person as an informant in a police investigation, that would pose some challenges.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Do you want to respond to that as well, please, Mr. Townsend?

[S/Sgt Abraham Townsend]

My response will be not very helpful. We have provisions within our organization on using youth as paid informant sources or agents. The likelihood of their being brought into at a level where they would fall within the witness protection program is rare, unless they are the children of protectees as you mentioned.

Probably, for a more fulsome answer, hearing another witness with experience within this domain would be more helpful.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Townsend.

You have a minute and a half.

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

A minute and a half, okay.

I would like to extend the question to include family. There is often talk of entire families being protected. I know that very few studies have been done on how children of an adult witness react. That was another point that was raised. Is that easy to manage? I know that sometimes adults want to leave the program because it is too complicated for their children. Is that easy to manage? I don't know.

[Tom Stamatakis]

I think any time you have children involved, it very much complicates things and makes them more difficult.

It would be just as difficult as it is for any normal person who goes to a young child or a teenage child and says, “By the way, we're going to leave this community and go to a completely different community where you have to start all over”.

Certainly, there are lots of challenges, but I am not familiar with actual research or studies that have looked at the issue, though.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thanks very much, Madame Lefebvre.

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

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to both our witnesses today.

Staff Sergeant Townsend, you touched on relationships a little bit when Mr. Scarpaleggia was doing some questioning. Trust, obviously, is a really important factor between handlers and informants. That must start even before the witness protection program engages, and then there is a relationship that needs to extend throughout the life of the program.

We heard from Assistant Commissioner Shean that RCMP witness protection officers are now the beneficiaries of the most progressive and comprehensive witness protection training in Canada. Obviously, training is a big part of being able to develop that trust, as a handler is able to at least articulate to their informants and the people they are working with that, yes, they are prepared and well trained for this.

How would you describe the RCMP's training and the program as it compares to that of other forces you know of, and maybe on an international level too?

[S/Sgt Abraham Townsend]

I was really pleasantly surprised in preparing for this meeting and doing some research in that area.

These are folks who are already well-trained and seasoned police officers, with two weeks of dedicated training in this discipline, twelve months in the field doing this, and then another three weeks, and continual tactical training.

I was really impressed that we've stepped up our game, given the demands and the complexity of the demands that we've faced over the last 10, 15 years, quite frankly, since I've been operational in this regard.

As far as the level of training is concerned that other police forces in Canada have or would engage in, I know we train folks from other police forces in Canada within our program as part of the integration. We have done that; we do that.

Internationally, we compare our training with other nations that have similar legislation, and our training is world class at this point.

If I can take a minute, and I think this is important for the committee to hear, I did talk to several practitioners who are all well informed about Bill C-51. From my perspective as a representative, I asked the natural question: is there anything more that you could have asked for in BillC-51, stuff that's not there? And quite frankly, they were uniformly pleased in their understanding of the legislation, and there was no more that they would have asked for.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Thank you.

Mr. Stamatakis, maybe just to build on that, did you have an opportunity to ask that same question of your members, and if so, was there anything they suggested that could have been added to this bill?

[Tom Stamatakis]

No, I haven't received any feedback to suggest there was anything missing in the bill, and I'll just echo Mr. Townsend's comments and add that at the municipal and provincial level, I think that everybody has stepped up their game in terms of witness protection.

Most provinces now are moving to a provincial, coordinated unit so that the training can be enhanced and become more consistent. There's lots of integration between the municipal and provincial forces and the RCMP so that the training is consistent and the program is consistently administered.

So we are in a good place in this particular area, I think, in this country right now.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Staff Sergeant Townsend, if a witness to decide to change their identity and relocate their life, there are some big considerations with that. Obviously, protection, legislation, and the quality of handlers are important variables in all of that and the relationship they build.

But would you agree that one of the other decisions that would be made when someone decides to step forward and testify against organized crime, thereby disrupting their life and themselves at great risk, would be that their testimony would actually have some impact and make a difference? By that, I mean there would be a meaningful and sufficient sanction imposed upon the person who is found guilty, courtesy of the testimony by the witness. You probably see what I am driving at, that being the strength of other legislation with meaningful and sufficient sanctions.

Maybe I could just get you to comment on that piece of this puzzle.

[S/Sgt Abraham Townsend]

It's been my experience that those who make the decision to be co-opted into providing for public safety are leaving one life and making a definitive decision to leave that life, and there are huge costs around that. They know better than anybody else the impact that leaving that life has on all of us. Anecdotally, when they choose to leave, they're recognizing the wrongs that they've been doing in that life or the wrongs that that type of life has inflicted on everybody else. They're looking for, and here I don't want to use the words “retribution” or “payback”, but accountability.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much. We're going to have to leave it at that for today.

I want to thank both of you for appearing on this. I think probably you've helped us a bit more than just with Bill C-51. Some of us are new members of Parliament and new to this committee, and our responsibilities in the committee are prisons, parole, police, CSIS, and borders. I think you have both given us a little picture into the life of those who are serving in this capacity and brought forward Bill C-51 very well.

So thank you for doing both of those things for us. We very much appreciate your testimony today and every time you appear before our committee.

Thank you.

We are going to suspend and go to teleconference with Halifax.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We'll call this meeting back to order. We are the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. We're continuing our study on Bill C-51, an act to amend Canada's witness protection program. On this panel, we're hearing from Micki Ruth, a member of the Canadian Association of Police Boards. She's appearing before us by video conference from Halifax, Nova Scotia.

We welcome you this morning. Thank you for making yourself available. I need to apologize in advance, to be quite frank, Ms. Ruth. There is a very good chance there could be some votes this morning, in which case we will be disrupted. It may happen and it may not happen, but we always need to be prepared for that. So we invite you to continue with your presentation on this. We look forward to it, but chances are it may not happen. That's just a warning in advance.

Ms. Ruth, go ahead, please.

[Commissioner Micki Ruth, Member, Policing and Justice Committee, Canadian Association of Police Boards]

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, my name is Micki Ruth. I am appearing today on behalf of the Canadian Association of Police Boards, or CAPB. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the chair and members of the committee for allowing me to speak to you today.

CAPB realizes the important role all of you play, and I am glad to be able to contribute to this discussion.

Let me begin by telling you a little bit about myself. I am a member of the board of directors of CAPB and of its policing and justice committee. I am also the vice-chair of the Halifax Board of Police Commissioners. I'm also a former police officer, albeit that was quite a while ago.

CAPB is a national not-for-profit organization that was founded in 1989, motivated by a desire to find common ground among police governors on matters of mutual concern and matters that have a national implication.

CAPB works collaboratively and proactively to improve police governance in Canada and to bring about change that will enhance public safety for all Canadians. The police boards and commissions, who are our members, are responsible for more than 75% of municipal police in Canada. They manage the police services of their municipalities, hire chiefs of police, set priorities, establish policy, and represent the public interest.

CAPB has been recognized as the foremost national voice of civilian oversight of policing agencies in Canada. I appear before you today to talk about Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act.

CAPB applauds the government for introducing amendments to the witness protection program, and we support the bill in principle. However, we are concerned about some aspects of the bill, especially in the area of funding. I will address the five main aspects of the legislation.

We support the amendment to provide for a provincial or municipal witness protection program to be designated under the federal Witness Protection Program Act.

CAPB appreciates the government's recognition that allowing witnesses access to a secure identity change without having to enter the federal program and having to deal with delays and potential mismanagement has significant advantages.

CAPB also welcomes the intention of streamlining and speeding up the issuance of security identity documents through the RCMP. With this provincial witness protection program designation, it will make the process of acquiring those documents faster and more accessible.

The third area of reform concerning the protection and disclosure of information is also a measure that is badly needed. In fact, in 2007 Dr. Alok Mukherjee, chair of the Toronto Police Services Board, and current president of CAPB, went to Parliament Hill to urge the government to put more money into the witness protection program. At that time he stressed how critical to community safety it is that witnesses come forward in an environment of security and confidentiality. Dr. Mukherjee recommended that legislative changes be made to ensure that court processes encourage and support witnesses who provide evidence in legal proceedings. He appealed for changes to the disclosure rules for criminal trials to help protect the identity of witnesses whose testimony is key to the prosecution's case.

If we want witnesses to come forward and give evidence, anonymity is absolutely critical. Where a judge determines that the identity of the witness has no bearing on the case, and therefore does not prejudice the accused, then the witness should remain anonymous and only their evidence be disclosed. People don't always want to be uprooted from their community and be relocated, but they want anonymity.

The fourth aspect refers to the expanded definition to include referrals from outside agencies with national security mandates, which we also support.

The last part of Bill C-51 covers operational issues, such as changes to voluntary termination, extending the time for emergency protection, etc. While we do not have that specific details of how these would affect the witness protection program, we believe that the intent must be to improve the efficiency of the program so that it is executed properly.

We are happy to see that this important legislation is being modernized and improved to reflect the changes law enforcement has been calling for over the last decade.

Crime statistics may be on the decline, but organized crime, gang-related crimes, and violent crimes are all issues of concern for many citizens and communities in Canada.

We, members of CAPB, have a duty to ensure that our employees, the uniformed police officers, have the tools at hand to enforce laws, help solve crimes, and protect our public. Witness protection is an extremely important tool, but at present it is one that is too costly for many police services and municipalities.

Like many issues facing government today, funding is one of the biggest and toughest ones to find solutions for. The problems identified back in 2007 with the adequacy of funding for the current witness protection program are not addressed in Bill C-51. Unfortunately, we see problems with the ability of municipality police services to adequately access witness protection because they lack the resources.

Currently, when a municipality does make use of a provincial witness protection program and the crime is federal in nature or involves drugs, then the RCMP takes over and charges the local police services the full cost, which is an expense that many services cannot afford. According to the RCMP's website, sometimes the cost of protecting witnesses hinders the investigations, especially for small law enforcement agencies that have a tight budget.

Therefore we would recommend that you give consideration to the following principles in your review of Bill C-51.

Since witness protection is critical for front-line policing, the program should be a tool that is well-funded, easy to access, and increases public safety. Second, there should be better oversight, evaluation, and protection of the interests of witnesses. Third, there should be specific reference to the eligibility of street gang witnesses in the program. Last, there should be independent oversight of the program, instead of having the RCMP as the decision-making authority on who is to be admitted under the program, given that the RCMP is also the investigating authority.

I want to emphasize that while we support the intent of Bill C-51, CAPB has a duty to its members to ensure that legislation passed by the government does not result in a downloading of additional costs to the municipal police services that we represent. This is an important element of our work on the economics of policing, a subject with which you are already very familiar.

Therefore we urge you to appreciate our position that unless the issue of adequate funding is addressed, the legislation will not produce the result that is intended.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Ms. Ruth, for your testimony.

We'll move into the first round of questioning, and we'll go to Mr. Norlock, please, for seven minutes.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

And thank you to the witness for appearing today.

It seems like most of your intervention today had to do with dollars and cents, because police services boards deal with that every day. Given the fact that there is only one taxpayer, whether the money goes to the federal government, the provincial government, or the municipal government, if you ask for more money, that money will come out of the very pockets of the very people who live in your community.

So I guess my submission to you would be that we have heard from many witnesses so far with regard to this legislation, primarily police officers whose job is to actually make it work, and they have had nothing but accolades for the legislation. That would be number one.

Number two is that we have had heard appreciative statements of the legislation by a chief of police of the largest city in Canada and by two ministers of justice—and I strongly suspect most ministers of justice and attorneys general across Canada are as well.

I understand there never is enough money, no matter whom you talk to. But if we could move that part of it aside, if we could move the dollars and cents aside, we're led to believe by the people who actually make the system work that most of their issues have to do with some of the inadequacies of the previous legislation to which this legislation directly refers and seeks to amend. And I refer specifically and directly to Staff Sergeant Townsend, who is intimately involved with the system, that it does do exactly what police officers want it to do. He said in his statement just prior to your testimony that he went to the officers who actually make the system work, who actually deal with this day in and day out, and asked them if there were anything further they would require in this legislation.

The money aside, specifically what did you mean when you said that we needed to have more protection for witnesses who give evidence before the courts?

[Commr Micki Ruth]

Thank you for your question.

First, I would like to say again that we are supportive of the legislation. That is absolutely true.

With respect to funding, it is true that there's only one taxpayer. However, if the funding were to come from the federal government, it would be more equitable because then all municipalities could access it. At present, not all municipalities have the funds to access it. That is still an issue for a number of areas.

You asked what I meant by “more protection”. This legislation provides excellent protection. I applaud the government for the steps forward they have taken. But people who are not admitted to the program, or who can't be admitted to the program for whatever reason, not necessarily because of funding, still need some level of protection in order to testify in front of the courts. While this is one answer to the issue of protecting witnesses, it's not going to cover all witnesses and all cases.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Ms. Ruth.

Our greatest fears have been realized here. The bells are ringing and the lights are flashing.

We certainly appreciated your testimony. I'm glad that you got your opening statement in and that Mr. Norlock was able to ask a question. We definitely won't be able to reconvene today. We apologize for that. Thank you so much for what you've already given us to think about.