Public Safety committee  Thank you for the question. There are two types of research. One is on the efficiency and effectiveness of the current program, but there is another type that was alluded to, which looks at the demand for that program. Every time these questions are brought before this committee or other fora, we are basically trading rumours, because we don't really know what the demand is, and it's very hard to put our finger on it.

Public Safety committee  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.

Public Safety committee  I would emphasize the point that was just made, which is that with any visible minority group, there are greater issues with relocation and change of identity, and there are also personal psychological challenges in terms of being cut off from your own cultural group and your own community.

Public Safety committee  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.

Public Safety committee  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.

Public Safety committee  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.

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

Public Safety committee  I don't think so either.

Public Safety committee  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.

Public Safety committee  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.

Public Safety committee  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.

Public Safety committee  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.

Public Safety committee  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.

Public Safety committee  Yes.

Public Safety committee  It is.