Public Safety Committee on March 19th, 2013

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Ms. Bergen please. Mrs. Bergen is my mom.

Good morning to the witnesses. Thank you both for being here.

I do have a question for you, Mr. Dandurand. I want you to expand a little bit more on the aspect you brought forward on clause 12.

Before you do that, Mr. Mukherjee, I'm just not clear about something. As I read this bill, there are a couple of changes that would affect provinces and municipalities in a very positive way, in that these would streamline the process and make it a lot easier for municipalities.... And these actually would be through the province because the province, if it administers a program, would be getting documentation for changes of identity. That would not cost municipalities one cent; it would in fact save them costs or resources.

The other part of this act that has changed is that the criteria are expanded, sir. That means that there would be additional venues whereby people could be referred to the program. For example, the Department of Defence could now refer individuals to the program. Again, that would not affect municipalities in any way, shape, or form. That would be the RCMP, which has clearly testified numerous times that it has the resources.

Sir, it's important. When you say that you don't have enough money and that this act is somehow going to stretch you and stretch municipalities, I really need specifics. Can you please tell us exactly what in this bill would incur additional costs for municipalities? Be brief because I do want to go on to clause 12. Thank you.

[Dr. Alok Mukherjee]

Yes, certainly. As my colleague Ms. Ruth mentioned, we do support the legislation—

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Which is great, but explain the costs—

[Dr. Alok Mukherjee]

—and I was pleased, because way back in 2007 I had spoken to the then minister and the then standing committee about the need for some of the provisions that are in this bill, so that's good. What we are talking about are criminal situations that our local police municipal services—

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Specifically on this bill, where will this bill cost you more money? When you look at the changes that are made, you see that they're administrative. They give greater protection to those who are administering it, and then they expand the criteria.

It's important that when you come to a committee, sir, and you say it's going to cost local police and municipalities more, that a specific bill will cost more.... I disagree with you, and I'm asking you to tell me specifically where it will increase costs.

[Dr. Alok Mukherjee]

Well, it will increase costs because of the related issues. I mentioned that there is not sufficient funding proportionate to the need across the country—

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

For witness protection?

[Dr. Alok Mukherjee]

For witness protection—

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

There—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Let him finish.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

All right.

[Dr. Alok Mukherjee]

—because the province or the local municipal police service has to come to the RCMP when, in cases like Ontario's, provincial funding has run out, is exhausted. The RCMP needs to make a decision. As you've seen or heard, there have been complaints made where protection was not provided—

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

No, sir.

Sir, the RCMP have testified numerous times. It has never been denied because of cost. I'm not sure if you were privy to that testimony.

[Dr. Alok Mukherjee]

—and our chiefs have said to us that their ability to access fully, proportionate to their need, is not there. I am simply reporting to you what we have been told by our chiefs.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Okay.

[A voice]

So the RCMP is lying...?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Well, I guess..... Yes, the RCMP have come and testified completely contrary to that.

All right. Thank you very much for your explanation.

Mr. Dandurand, I'm quite interested in what you were talking about. Could you expand a little more on your concerns over some of the wording? I think I have a bit of a handle on what you were talking about. I'd appreciate a little more explanation.

[Prof. Yvon Dandurand]

Thank you for your question.

Basically, as for the exemption that is created when it comes to communicating information about protectees, or about people offering protection, or about methods used in protecting people, the exception that is created for protectees is very narrow. It covers only one type of information.

I'm saying this for a number of reasons. One is that for the criteria we use, the law currently says “knowingly”. Well, “knowingly” means one thing, but when it says they have “reason to believe” that it will cause “substantial harm”, that is not something that is readily understandable by witnesses, their families, and their relatives. Some of them, as was pointed out earlier, are children. That was one thing.

The other thing is that when we're talking about giving information directly or indirectly, imagine a 14-year-old who isn't a protectee under the program and who's involved in social networking and somehow divulges something that may be conceived to expose someone to harm, maybe his own parents. What would happen in those cases?

Well, common sense, hopefully, would be that nothing happens to that adolescent or that protectee, but if you interpret the law literally, it would seem that people and their families in those situations would always be in a very difficult position and under a lot of stress in terms of what it is that they can or cannot say. I know they will be supported. I know they will have information. I know they will even have psychological assistance. But it's a very difficult criteria for a layperson to understand. It might please people in courts, but in everyday life, protectees may not always understand what that means and what they're allowed to say and not allowed to say.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Okay. Again, just so I'm clear on it, my understanding was that it's replacing what was there previously, where it was the integrity of the program that was being protected, and now it's the substantial harm—

[Prof. Yvon Dandurand]

Yes.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

I'm really interested. We want to make sure that this is the best legislation possible, but to list every possible scenario is pretty difficult—

[Prof. Yvon Dandurand]

It is.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

—in a piece of legislation. I appreciate that and I think it's certainly something that we'll at least take a look at. We want to make sure that we have the best piece of legislation.

How much time do I have, Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Your time is just about out: 15 seconds.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Okay.

Is there any—