Public Safety committee  Absolutely not.

Public Safety committee  It would be case by case in the future. It just opens the door for consideration. None of these agreements forces us to accept future cases.

Public Safety committee  The general policy would be that the country sending will pay 100% of the costs.

Public Safety committee  For the protection. That's contained in the specific protection agreement with that individual between the RCMP and the individual. That government would then be expected to compensate the RCMP for its expenses.

Public Safety committee  Yes, there was.

Public Safety committee  Yes, they did. Mr. Young's case was one where it didn't only happen once. So there was a possibility that he met the criteria for disclosure for investigation, the prevention of an offence disclosure, and then again the criterion with regard to prosecution, and in the process was

Public Safety committee  What you're really talking about is an issue of whether or not it amounts to a disclosure for the purpose that would....

Public Safety committee  Administration is permitted. If it's necessary for the proper administration of the act, then these disclosures can take place. If Mr. Swadron were here, you might find him dealing with complaints about the RCMP having, for example, too many handlers involved with access to a pro

Public Safety committee  I would direct your attention to section 14, subsections (2) and (3). Subsection 14(2) deals with the fact that the minister may enter into reciprocal arrangements with foreign governments, and subsection 14(3) allows for admission of witnesses of that jurisdiction to the program

Public Safety committee  To the process...?

Public Safety committee  I can tell you that the agreement evolved pre-act, which I was involved with, and it has been changed to incorporate the requirements of the act. So there have been amendments to it, but it basically is an amended version of a document that has evolved over time.

Public Safety committee  I'm not aware of any case where it was made public, but it certainly has been disclosed to investigating agencies for prosecuting an individual who's subject to an offence that required that information. So yes, it has happened under the circumstances. Further disclosure of that

Public Safety committee  I'm not aware of any case where that has happened in a civil proceeding. There have been many cases where people who have approached the RCMP with respect to people they knew or who were in the program and asked for service by the police on that person who has been affected. They

Public Safety committee  I would agree with that assessment. The RCMP could not contract with an individual outside of the legal protections that Parliament has imposed upon someone in the witness protection program. In those cases, that person should never be in the witness protection program. Once the

Public Safety committee  Yes, that's correct. My understanding, although I wasn't present at that hearing--the proceedings are sealed--is that this information was given about the background of Mr. Young, and the court ruled that it was not relevant to that proceeding.