Public Safety Committee on March 19th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Be very quick. The time is up.

[Dr. Alok Mukherjee]

Very quickly, in places like Toronto we have a significant number of people who do not have documented status, who are not here legally, and our board created a policy called “don't ask”. Our concern is that there are young people and women in that community who are witnesses to crime or victims of violence, etc., and they are very reluctant to come forward for fear they will be deported.

This is something I talked about with Minister Day when he was in the office. We need to pay attention to what can be done in that area.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Mukherjee.

We'll go to Ms. Bergen very shortly, and then to Mr. Hawn, please, for five minutes.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I want to clarify something for all of us. Substantial harm is defined in this act as meaning “any injury, whether physical or psychological, that interferes in a substantial way with a person's health or well-being”. My understanding is that definition is based on jurisprudence. There are precedents within other acts, including the Criminal Code.

My point is that maybe the best solution, rather than trying to place something in the act to deal with this issue, as you very well articulated, is to have better education and processes within the program itself to help prepare young people...and obviously ongoing support and education. The solution, as I'm looking at it now, would not be to change that definition because of the precedent that we already have with it, but to see the program run with a greater amount of information and education.

That's my point.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Ms. Bergen.

Mr. Hawn, please.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to the witnesses for being here.

That was essentially to be my line of questioning.

Mr. Dandurand, you didn't get a chance to respond to that, but would what Ms. Bergen was just suggesting make sense to you?

[Prof. Yvon Dandurand]

It would make sense. No matter what the law becomes, these measures need to be taken to support protected people and to help them understand their obligations.

However, I would say that while “substantial harm” is defined in the legislation, the criterion is not substantial harm. The criterion is potential substantial harm. It could result in substantial harm. You're asking a 15-year old to think in advance, “What I'm doing now, sending a tweet, might result in substantial harm”.

The text is “could result in substantial harm”.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Does that not then go to the suggestion of Ms. Bergen that it is about education? It is about pre-briefing these younger folks who may not pre-think about that before they actually do it.

[Prof. Yvon Dandurand]

I would agree with that and the suggestion that was made. But I'm worried about what the consequence would be for a protected person who in spite of all the support and the information, and all this, is divulging information, particularly when you're talking about a young person, a child, or some person who is not particularly good at making life choices.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Well, I guess at some point we need to rely on the judgment of grown-ups to deal with those kinds of cases.

Earlier on in your comments you talked about the RCMP and their ability to measure results. Do you have any specific suggestions on how they might measure results?

[Prof. Yvon Dandurand]

I understand that the RCMP is changing its database, changing the way it collects data on the cases that are considered and what happens afterwards. That is a huge step. If that database exists, it becomes possible, without too much difficulty, to begin to measure whether those criteria are working.

So I applaud that change. I'm just hoping that this data will actually be used to measure the impact of the criteria and that this information will become public at some point.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

So the review process that Mr. Coderre alluded to, about how we review this, the act, the RCMP, their policies, procedures, and so on, obviously needs to be done in some form, at some period. I think you said that it's obviously important to review it, but the critical thing is to make sure that it is continued with best practices in a cost-effective way.

The RCMP of course have said a number of times that it is costed properly. They don't have a problem with costing. The important thing is the continuity of the program.

[Prof. Yvon Dandurand]

Yes, because the credibility of the program is absolutely essential. If anything is done that would affect the credibility of the program when people make the decision to go into the program, then you defeat the whole purpose of the program.

So continuity is absolutely essential.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Okay.

Mr. Mukherjee, at the association obviously one of your concerns is the protection of the people in uniform on the front lines. Do you agree with the changes made to extend the protections, or the changes of protections, for those who are providing the protection?

[Dr. Alok Mukherjee]

Yes, we do.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Do you have any suggestions to make that stronger?

[Dr. Alok Mukherjee]

We didn't really pay a great deal of attention to the question you're asking because we felt that the protections provided were adequate.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

What about the spectrum of witnesses to be accepted? Again, you've expressed some concern, which the RCMP have said—to our satisfaction, at least—should not be a concern with respect to extending the maximum period and expanding the spectrum of witnesses to be accepted.

Is that something that your board agrees with?

[Dr. Alok Mukherjee]

We generally do. As I said, there are some making the distinction that has been made between the two types of witnesses who require protection. I think we are interested in making sure that witnesses who come from the community, as opposed to informants, etc., have access to protection.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Hawn.

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

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you to both of you for being here today.

I have a question for Mr. Mukherjee, but I would also like Mr. Dandurand to answer the same question.

We've heard today, and we've heard in previous testimony from the RCMP—in particular, the deputy commissioner, who I think was here, and I did ask a question about funding— very clearly that they would have enough money not only to run this program but also to expand program, that they would be able to find the money for that. The chiefs in your jurisdictions, in the boards—some have told you otherwise.

I don't want to talk about that in particular. I'd like to talk about a third area and ask you a question concerning first nations.

First nations police boards are part of your organization, I assume?

[Dr. Alok Mukherjee]

Yes, they are.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Yes. Okay.

Let me first say that we see an increasing crime rate among first nations, in particular gang activity, not just on first nations land but also among urban aboriginal people. I wonder if you see any particular difficulties, whether it's funding, whether it's cultural, or whether it's any host of reasons why first nations police services might have trouble accessing this program—or how it could be made more accessible, to put it a better way, for first nations.

[Dr. Alok Mukherjee]

Once of the challenges has to do with relocation. It works differently in different communities and jurisdictions.

We find in large cities, for example, that often relocation doesn't mean removing from the community entirely but giving a new identity, moving to another part of the city. For first nations, that would be one of the challenges. When you take a young person or informant from a first nations community and relocate them, it's a huge challenge.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

So there are certainly some cultural considerations there—