Public Safety Committee on March 19th, 2013

[An hon. member]

Done.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

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

Thanks for the countdown.

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

I'm done, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Coderre, welcome to the committee.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Dandurand, when we talk about witness protection, we are dealing with a challenging issue. There are two ways to stop the bad guys. To put an end to a system, you either infiltrate it, or you find someone to do it from the inside. I am not here to lecture anyone and I am not a former police officer either. I know there are security issues. We must find a balance between secrecy and protection, not only of society, but of the system itself.

That is what I would like to talk to you about because that is what bothers me the most. We are saying that this bill is a step in the right direction, but, as you know, it will not be reviewed. So we will have to live with this bill for a number of years.

That is why I would like you to first explain the relevance of setting up an independent organization. The people in the best position to protect witnesses or to bring them into this program are definitely those who talk and negotiate with the witnesses, particularly those at the RCMP.

What would the benefit be of setting up an independent organization to further manage this program?

I am very cynical, but the more people know about it, the more chances there are of leaks. It is a practical question. How can we reconcile this situation and the existence of an independent agency?

[Prof. Yvon Dandurand]

Thank you for your question.

My recommendation was to establish an independent agency, but today, I would like to let the committee know that I am willing to allow for the benefit of the doubt to see how the proposal in the bill will address certain situations.

You are quite right to say that we are dealing with challenges. The people who participate in the witness protection program are often difficult to handle. They are used to a certain lifestyle and so on, which makes it all very difficult. I also agree with you that the more people get involved, the more difficult it becomes to manage the protection of information.

Internationally, the creation of an independent agency is considered good practice. We don't actually want the decisions about witnesses to be too directly, even solely, influenced by investigation and prosecution needs. The rights of those individuals and their families must also be taken into consideration. In addition, in similar cases, we must make sure that the decisions are not necessarily made based on costs and savings by providing less protection.

Once again, I am not saying that this is what is happening. I am not sure what really goes on when decisions are made. At any rate, that is the reasoning behind this type of recommendation. Based on my understanding of the new administrative provisions proposed to manage the program, I would say that the situation will be improved. Will that be enough? It is hard to say. We will have to see. I agree with you that, once passed, this legislation may well be in effect for a long time.

On the other hand, I think many people, both inside the RCMP, in the government, and outside, have given the issue some thought. For the time being, I think it is an acceptable compromise. However, I would like to remind you that I asked or suggested that everything must be evaluated in one way or another. If an evaluation is conducted and the results are made public, we will be able to determine whether the lawmakers made the right choice or not.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Okay.

I'm a radical centre: we need a balance everywhere.

It is all about the evaluation.

In your view, should we propose that a review mechanism be provided for in the legislation? I am not talking about a structural review, but a legislative review, such as a five-year implementation. We are not talking about numbers, but people. There will be a direct impact on the quality of life of the people around them and their children. Those people might not understand the situation. Obviously, I was struck by the whole social media issue. There are fewer and fewer secrets,

less and less firewall.

Everything ends up being out in the open.

First, are you ready to recommend that a provision be added asking to review the legislation after five years in order to determine if it works? Second, if it is a question of an independent body, we also have to think about security clearance.

Would it be more appropriate to rethink the system and opt for a committee of members of Parliament who have the security clearance? CSIS would have a problem with the advisory committee. Just think of Mr. Porter's case. We hear all sorts of things. National security is just as important as this file.

In your view, how could we make our work as legislators more fair and appropriate?

[Prof. Yvon Dandurand]

I think a measure like the one you are suggesting would be very useful, as long as it does not leave a doubt as to the continuity of the program in five or six years. You must understand that the continuity and certainty of a similar program are essential to its integrity. A well-written clause could be useful.

A special committee would likely be useful. I don't really know how a committee like that works. So I don't have a very clear opinion on this. However, I would like to point out that one of the best known programs, the Federal Marshal Program in the United States, has been evaluated. Just because the program meets the needs in terms of the protection of information does not mean that it is impossible to carry out a proper evaluation.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

I have one last question for you.

You must know about Quebec's colour code: the red and green versus the blue. Provincial police officers versus municipal or federal police officers. Do you think the fact that provincial or municipal police officers are required to report to the RCMP may create a slight problem?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Be very quick.

[Prof. Yvon Dandurand]

Probably, but I don't know what to tell you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

We'll now move back to Madame Doré Lefebvre.

You have five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for being here, Mr. Dandurand and Mr. Mukherjee.

Mr. Dandurand, you briefly told my colleague about this issue and you mentioned it in a number of appearances, including the one in 2007. You talked about minors who are witnesses. My understanding is that currently no minors are really benefiting from the program as witnesses, but rather as the family members of an adult beneficiary. I don't think I am mistaken.

[Prof. Yvon Dandurand]

I don't think so either.

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

That is what I thought.

You raised a number of concerns with minor witnesses. I am specifically thinking about anti-terrorism prosecutions. I read the testimony of a child against his parents. That had not crossed my mind. How would that work with the current system where there are legal guardians for minors who are witnesses? Would it be possible to do that?

[Prof. Yvon Dandurand]

It would be complicated, but it would definitely be possible.

As a general rule, in those types of prosecutions, children are rarely called upon as witnesses. They may sometimes be called as informants. Children can give us information, but it is still quite rare for children to act as witnesses.

The issue of children is more a problem in terms of protected children rather than child witnesses. There are probably exceptions, such as 16- or 17-year-olds who may be associated with street gangs, for instance.

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

That's exactly what I was thinking.

[Prof. Yvon Dandurand]

With that exception, in most cases, I think it is more a matter of protected children rather than child witnesses or children related to witnesses. All sorts of complications can come up.

For instance, the accused can be the father of the child whose mother is a witness. You can see the types of complications that may ensue. That has actually happened before. Those are almost always isolated cases. I don't think that is a serious problem.

However, in terms of the disclosure of information, we have to remember that 12-, 15- or 16-year-olds can put people in danger, most likely unintentionally, because they don't understand the scope of their actions. However, that can still happen. So we have to pay attention to all that.

I wouldn't make the assumption that the people managing the program do so foolishly, without paying attention to the needs of the children. However, we know so little about the children in protection programs that it is hard to say.

For instance, I had an opportunity to ask in person whether this type of situation occurred in international courts, such as the International Criminal Court. I was told that, to the knowledge of prosecutors, children have never been witnesses. However, we are often dealing with children of witnesses who, as a result, need protection.

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

Is there a way to improve the protection of children as part of the witness protection program? Will Bill C-51 be of help or is there something we could add to make the protection of minors more effective?

[Prof. Yvon Dandurand]

I have thought about that and I have not come up with a suggestion that might be useful. I think those issues have to do with the management of programs in particular. I am not sure what more we can add to the bill, with one exception. My recommendation to the committee was to especially focus on the issue of disclosure of information by people who are protected. I particularly thought of young people, children who are in protection programs and who are also covered under measures dealing with the protection of information. They can also suffer consequences if they disclose information to their friends, parents, grandparents and so on.

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

Great.

Mr. Mukherjee, do you have...

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Be very quick.

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

...anything to add on the protection of witnesses who are minors or on the street gangs in the City of Toronto?

[Dr. Alok Mukherjee]

Not really. I think Mr. Dandurand has covered the points.

I would add one thing, though.