Thank you for the opportunity to appear before your committee this morning. I really appreciate this because I think Bill will make it possible to increase the effectiveness of the federal witness protection program, as well as of the available provincial programs. I believe there is a consensus right now that the bill will significantly improve the existing legislation.
As some members of the committee may recall, I had the pleasure of making suggestions to the committee in 2008 when the committee was previously dealing with the witness protection issue. At that time, my suggestions were based on my own research, including the research I was doing for the Air India commission. At that time, I pointed to the importance of making some improvements to the existing program. I will go back to those suggestions this morning and compare them to what is included in Bill . I think most of the suggestions that I made at the time are reflected in one way or another in Bill C-51. I say “one way or another” because, in some cases, the solutions proposed in the bill are not necessarily the ones that I had suggested. However, in most cases, they are still dealing with the problems that the committee and I identified at that time.
In 2008, I made a suggestion to the committee about the decision-making process for the admission of candidates to the federal program. I noted then that the Council of Europe considered that it was important to separate witness protection agencies from those responsible for investigations and prosecutions. I also felt it was important to do so in order to improve the decision-making process, to ensure objectivity and to better protect the rights of individuals. That is why, at the time, I suggested the creation of a more or less independent agency to manage the program. This committee also made similar suggestions or recommendations.
I see today that the government and the RCMP are proposing a different approach to address this need. Organizational changes are apparently in progress to ensure the centralized management of the program and more consistent management properly focused on witness protection. We learned that these organizational changes would be implemented fully this May. We also learned that a new admissions protocol has been developed and will be implemented. I am ready to believe that those changes will have the intended effects and address the pitfalls that were identified in 2008. However, I would be more likely to believe it if I was told that an independent evaluation of the changes will be carried out in the near future. For the time being, I will say that I am satisfied with the solution proposed, but we will have to wait and see if it is sufficient.
At the time, I also said that It was important to add an independent oversight mechanism to the witness protection program. Again, the government is proposing a modest solution, but I think it is a solution in the right direction. The plan is to set up an advisory committee for the witness protection program, a committee that would report to the commissioner or to his delegate. In my view, that is also a step in the right direction, but we still have to see in due course how that committee will operate and fulfill its duties.
[English]
I know that the committee has been looking into the costs of the program and whether existing resources are available to meet the growing needs of the program. I'm not in a position to say much about the resources that are available for the program, but I would assume that the amount of resources required is dictated in part by the growing need for the services that the program offers.
Unfortunately, it is very difficult to estimate the total need or demand for this kind of program. We know that slightly over a hundred candidates are considered every year. Potential candidates do not directly apply to the program; they are referred to it by a police organization—and will be by other security organizations if Bill C-51 remains as is.
We are told also that in fact very few people want to join the program. That may very well be true, as the committee can appreciate, because participation in the program for a witness is a hugely disruptive choice that a witness can make. However, there is no way to independently verify this assumption. We don't know, really, what the demand is, and given the secrecy that must accompany this program, it's very hard to know whether there's more of a demand than we currently know.
I have suggested in the past that, in existing protection programs, full protection tends to be extended to witnesses only in cases involving the most serious crimes, and not necessarily always in cases involving the most serious threats. This is because the logic behind such programs, given their cost and the need to establish priorities, is based primarily on the desire to facilitate the cooperation of the witness and not on the premise that the state has an obligation to protect all witnesses and that witnesses have a right to be protected.
I am well aware of the fact that section 7 of the present law identifies the factors that must be considered in determining whether a witness should be admitted to the federal program. However, the nature of the risk to the security of the witness is only one of the factors to be considered together with the costs involved, the value of the information or evidence given by the individual, the likelihood of the witness adjusting to the program, and other factors.
I would draw the attention of the committee to the fact that there is actually no publicly available data on how these criteria have been applied in the past. It is therefore quite difficult to determine how these criteria are being applied in practice and whether they actually serve the purpose they were intended to serve.
I understand that the RCMP is improving its own database on all cases considered for admission in the program. I hope this will lead to some independent analysis and further transparency in the way in which current decisions are made concerning candidates for admission into the program.
I think all of the changes proposed in Bill C-51 are going in the right direction, but I am still not sure how the RCMP proposes to measure the impact of these changes and determine whether they will achieve their goals. In 2008 I was advocating for independent research on the efficiency and effectiveness of the witness protection program and in the related areas of witness intimidation, the use of criminal informants, and accomplice testimony. I am not sure this kind of research will take place, but it definitely should.
In 2008 I suggested it was time to address the need for an effective complaint and redress mechanism for witnesses at risk and for protected witnesses who are endangered or whose rights may be abused as a result of poor witness protection practices.
I know that Bill C-42 will establish a new civilian complaint commission, and that amendments contained in that bill and in Bill C-51 will allow the commission access to the information it needs to perform its function. I am not aware of other measures that may have been taken to address that issue. I hope this committee will have a chance to look further into this aspect of the question.
There is another potential issue with Bill C-51 that may become problematic. I am referring to the new wording concerning the protection of information found in clause 12 of the bill, relating to section 11 of the law. Protection of information, as the committee can appreciate, is at the very heart of a witness protection program.
On the one hand, I am very pleased that the proposed amendments will enhance the safety of those who provide protection to program beneficiaries. That change was long overdue.
On the other hand, I am worried that the new section may negatively affect the situation and the rights of the beneficiaries themselves and perhaps render them more vulnerable.
The modified version of section 11 of the law contained in clause 12 of the bill provides only a limited exception for protectees from the prohibition against disclosure. I'm not sure how protectees will always be able to determine on their own whether something they may reveal directly or indirectly could result in “substantial harm”. I do not know either whether this new wording may prevent protectees from seeking legal advice about a formal complaint they may wish to make or some other decision they need to make concerning their own participation in the program.
It seems to me that the exception for protectees, as worded in clause 12 the bill, is narrower than what currently exists in the law. It should probably be formulated more broadly. However, I will admit that this is a complicated issue, and I sincerely wish that the committee will study it very carefully.
I will conclude my remarks, Mr. Chairman, with a reminder of the need for greater transparency in the management of witness protection activities and programs. I and others have argued that there is a fundamental imbalance between the rights of witnesses who can be compelled to testify and the rights of the state to demand that witnesses respond to summons and subpoenas, testify under oath, and tell the truth. The imbalance is particularly troubling when one considers that most of the decisions made about witnesses—the information or evidence they bring forward and whether or not they are compelled to testify—depends on police and prosecutorial discretion. This is why guidelines concerning these practices are important and why the careful monitoring of this somewhat obscure part of the criminal justice process is required.
It's also important to ensure that witnesses have access to legal advice and representation with respect to these decisions and the process that leads to them. I'm very pleased by the decision of the RCMP to offer the services of legal counsel to all candidates being considered for admission into the program. That is clearly a positive development. However, it would be important to know also what access protected witnesses have to legal advice or representation once they have been admitted into the program. For example, could they obtain legal advice without breaching their obligation to protect information if they are making a formal complaint against the RCMP or against its protection program?
Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before you today. I look forward to answering any questions you may have.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And through you to the witnesses, thank you for appearing today.
I recall, Mr. Dandurand, your appearance before this committee in 2008, and some of your suggestions. I'm happy that the government has seen fit to incorporate them, although, to use your words, “rather lightly” in some respects, but then we don't get everything we want all the time.
At that time there were, as you may recall, a great many other suggestions, some of them not quite the same as yours. As a matter of fact I wouldn't say they were diametrically opposed, but they didn't necessarily go along the same path yours did. It's good to see that the current legislation goes down that path.
I was making some notes as you were speaking, and I printed the word “trust”. You were talking about the availability of counsel for the people in the program who may have some complaints. If I recall correctly, one of the reasons the committee was looking at the witness protection program was that there had been some issues surrounding the way some of the people protected were being treated. I believe, as a matter of fact I know, that this legislation covers some of that or neutralizes some of those problems.
When we heard from the RCMP witnesses, I believe some of the testimony indicated that there is an availability of counsel, and I think you mentioned that. So how much more...?
We live in a society where everybody runs around yelling and screaming about rights, rights, rights. But there's a huge responsibility living in a democracy, in a country that has the rule of law. Everyone is responsible, not just the state. The individual citizen is responsible for the function of our justice system and public safety. If you go back to the original function of police, it's that the people should police themselves. But in a modern society you have people who put on uniforms to do these jobs.
All that considered, for these great people who take their responsibilities seriously to give evidence for the state, because of the complexity and because of the danger that puts them in, the state now provides them with an opportunity to.... Because they've taken such a big stand, the state assumes a very expensive.... If I remember correctly, the average dollar figure per year is around $60,000 per witness—some more, some less.
I wonder if you could talk about the trust element, and then the responsibility element of the witness and how the state takes on this responsibility. And since we're dealing with Bill, does Bill C-51 strike the right balance? So far we have heard that generally it does.
:
Thank you for the question.
There is no doubt that the decision to testify or cooperate with the authorities is an important and difficult decision to make for many witnesses and informants, particularly because we're talking very often talking about crimes that involve very dangerous organizations. Therefore, it's a very difficult decision. It involves not only the witness himself or herself, but also the family, friends, and others. Clearly, when people have the courage to do that, for whatever reason, we have an obligation to protect them. The program does that, to a large extent.
We don't know how well it protects them, because there hasn't really been a whole lot of evaluation of what happens once people are in the program. That's part of the difficulty with this particular program. Out of necessity, it has to protect information, it has to hide what it's done, it has to hide its methods. But as a result, there is so little information available on what's really happening that sometimes it's like writing a blank cheque to the organizations responsible.
From time to time we hear complaints. There were some in 2008, and I'm sure there have been others since. But we don't know about the complaints that do not come forward. You have to imagine that it must be a very difficult thing for witnesses to lodge formal complaints when they perceive that their own security is dependent on their cooperation with the authorities.
I'm not suggesting for one moment that the RCMP or any police force is blackmailing witnesses, or anything of that nature, but psychologically, when you are really dependent on the protection extended to you by one of these programs, it's a very difficult decision to go forward and complain.
:
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.
:
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.
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?
:
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.
[English]
I'm a radical centre: we need a balance everywhere.
[Translation]
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,
[English]
less and less firewall.
[Translation]
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?
:
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.
:
Thank you very much. Our time is up for this first hour here.
We want to thank both of you for appearing and for your comments today.
We are going to suspend. The video conferences from Calgary and British Columbia are ready, I believe. So we will suspend long enough to allow our guests to leave, and we'll come back here in about 30 seconds.
I'll call this meeting back to order. This is the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. We're continuing our study of Bill and its amendments to the Canadian witness protection program.
I want to let the committee know that we are going to take a few moments at the end of the hour to go to committee business. We'll go in camera very briefly, for just a couple of minutes, to deal with a budget.
We are pleased today to have appearing as an individual by video conference from Calgary, Alberta, Mr. John Charles Major, a retired judge of the Supreme Court of Canada.
Also appearing by video conference from Victoria, British Columbia, on behalf of the Government of British Columbia, we have Clayton Pecknold, assistant deputy minister and director of the Ministry of Justice, police services, policing and security programs branch.
I would invite both our guests to make brief opening statements before we proceed to questions from the members of Parliament on our committee. It is my understanding that our time with Justice Major is limited, and he will have to leave us around 10:20. So we'll begin with his comments.
Please begin, sir.
:
Thank you. It's a little earlier out here than it is down there, so you'll have to pardon me if I'm a little sleepy.
I don't have a great deal to say on the new legislation, because I was unaware until Friday of last week that I had been asked to appear.
I would say that when I conducted the Air India inquiry, we spent considerable time on witness protection. If you refer to volume 3 of that report, chapter 8, you'll see that we dealt with witness protection from pages 178 to 255, and we raised a number of questions. The circumstances there dealt with terrorists. There were conflicts between CSIS and the RCMP, and witness protection showed certain flaws. We had problems with ethnic identification. We had problems with one police force overseeing or undercutting the other—all in good faith but all counterproductive in that each thought it knew best how to solve the bombing.
I'm rushing a little because I know about the time, but I would suggest that the public perception of witness protection is that it protects the witnesses. They seem to forget that the essential ingredient to witness protection is protecting the public: to get vital witnesses to testify is a safeguard that the community deserves.
I would say that something you might consider is that in certain circumstances there are alternatives to witness protection, such as having witnesses testify behind screens for instance, having them testify in private, or, in certain circumstances, excluding the public from the testifying.
You will hear from Professor Dandurand, who has a number of suggestions with respect to witnesses not testifying in public. The only caution I would raise with respect to that is that some of the suggestions, while effective, might run into charter challenges and would not be sustainable.
One of the recommendations we made in the Air India report was that the RCMP should not be in charge of witness protection but rather that a senior official in the justice department should determine the eligibility of witnesses. We thought the RCMP was in a good position to administer the witness protection act, but it should not be the group that decided who would go into protection and who would not.
The one other matter I would raise in passing is that one size, with respect to the witness protection act, does not fit all. The circumstances of our society are such that we have to tailor our witness protection to the witness we are trying to protect. For instance, in the case of a juvenile, who makes a decision with respect to his going into witness protection? Is it the parents or is it the people in charge of witness protection?
There are exceptions, also, to getting witnesses to testify. As you know, ministers have a certain veto over proceedings. Crown prosecutors play a role in who is going to be called. The Supreme Court confirm their role and that of police-informer privilege.
I think you'll be interested in what Professor Dandurand has to say about hearing witnesses in private.
Finally, I would say there should be some mechanism to resolve disputes between witnesses and those in charge of the program. It's a difficult thing for some witnesses to be taken out of a society in which they're comfortable and placed in a witness protection system. For a number of reasons they sometimes don't fit into that particular environment. The RCMP in charge will sometimes be arbitrary in removing people. It would be useful if there were some resolution method whereby the witness and the people in charge of witness protection could resolve disputes rather than terminating the protection. Again, I refer you to what is said in our report on Air India.
I'm open for questions.
:
Good morning, and thank you, committee, for the opportunity to speak.
I will be brief. I'm sure you have some questions.
I'll restrict my remarks mostly to policing, which is my sphere of responsibility.
Just for the interest of the committee and to provide background, I hold two roles. I'm Assistant Deputy Minister of policing and security in British Columbia, but I'm also the director of police services for British Columbia. Within those responsibilities under the statute, it's my responsibility to superintend policing in British Columbia and ensure adequate and effective policing across the province, and I do this on behalf of the minister.
As you know, we are policed under contract in British Columbia. Our provincial police force is the RCMP under contract. We are the largest contract division in the country. As a result, approximately one-third of the RCMP are stationed in British Columbia. So we are, by definition, fully integrated with federal policing through the RCMP.
British Columbia does support a robust witness protection program. We see this as an effective tool for the protection of witnesses, and it's paramount for us in the fight against organized crime. You need only refer to events in British Columbia over recent years and some of the challenges we've had with on-street gang violence to see how important that is to British Columbians.
Based on our analysis, the amendments in Bill appear responsive to the specific needs of law enforcement in British Columbia and to the issues raised by our partners and stakeholders, including the broadening of the disclosure prohibition to include information on the program's methods for providing protection, extension of the emergency period beyond 90 days, and a process for voluntary termination.
We also support the adjustments to administrative processes under the federal program that will broaden the scope for who may be considered for protection. The proposed processes will better reflect the changing clientele of witnesses we have, including those associated with the increased prevalence of youth gang violence that now poses somewhat of a significant challenge for all of us across the country, I'm sure, but in British Columbia in particular in those agencies under municipal responsibility.
As the committee may know, British Columbia does not have provincial witness protection legislation. However, under an agreement reached in 2003, all police agencies in B.C. have operated under an integrated RCMP witness protection program. It's referred to as the Integrated Witness Protection Unit. This model has been successful in British Columbia. It integrates municipal witness protection programs into the present RCMP witness protection program. It increases the resources available to the program through secondments of municipal officers into the unit managed by the provincial force under the federal legislation and by the RCMP policy.
Like other jurisdictions, British Columbia has seen witnesses threatened, especially when organized crime is involved. Consequently, our view is that it's an effective and necessary tool that needs to be improved in British Columbia and modernized to ensure that it meets the needs of our very dynamic policing environment.
Within B.C. our anti-organized gang strategies are the responsibility of the Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit of B.C. British Columbia funds that unit exclusively, but it's also integrated with federal policing resources. CFSEU-BC is specifically mandated to target, investigate, prosecute, disrupt, and dismantle gangs and individuals who pose a high risk to public safety. CFSEU-BC has informed us that the proposed changes to the act, especially the protections afforded in emergency situations, will be beneficial to their investigations.
Many CFSEU-BC witnesses are extremely difficult to handle, by nature of their violent and criminal behaviour. Providing the commissioner with an additional 90 days in cases of an emergency provides more appropriate timeframes that will tend to improve the management of these key witnesses, often in very dynamic investigations. Often, as you may know, witnesses involved in organized crime, after cooperating with investigators, will go underground as it were and become difficult to locate for further interviews and for the purposes of supporting the prosecution. CFSEU informs us that they believe the proposed amendments will support improvements to the re-engagement of such witnesses.
From the perspective of the Province of British Columbia, providing modern protective measures, while challenging, is especially challenging with gang-affiliated youth, and that will require some different handling with respect to the program. We also think that the changes the RCMP will be implementing around procedures with respect to psychologists and other professional services will support a more integrated program in British Columbia and take into account the needs of the protectee.
We also will be interested to watch the organizational changes that will take place within the RCMP, once, and assuming, the bill is passed. I would add parenthetically that under the new provincial police service agreements that we have with the federal government to provide RCMP contract services, the provinces that contract have a much more involved oversight with respect to RCMP programs. We'll be looking very carefully to make sure not only that the program meets provincial policing priorities but also that it is integrated well with national priorities. We'll be working closely with the RCMP to make sure that works.
Finally, I'd add that we're pleased to see there's a certain amount of flexibility so we can design our program to meet the needs of British Columbians but still leverage the national efficiencies and effectiveness of the national program.
Those are my comments. Thank you.
You're correct in your assessment of the somewhat complex policing structure that we have in British Columbia, in particular in the Lower Mainland. It's certainly been commented on from a number of perspectives. The rationale for moving the former program into an integrated fashion with the RCMP within the province was to somewhat break down any potential silos and create some synergies between the independent or municipal police forces and the RCMP jurisdictions.
We've had some success with that. Under the prior program, it was administered more or less through this office on a somewhat ad hoc basis, depending on the situations and upon request of the municipal agencies. By moving it into an integrated model with the RCMP under the present legislation, we created what we saw as a more consistent approach to witness protection across the jurisdictions.
I think this legislation allows us to take that model somewhat further. It allows us the potential to standardize somewhat both witness management and witness protection in these files throughout British Columbia.
I'd add that the recent report by Mr. Oppal from the missing women inquiry has added a certain amount of impetus for us to standardize and harmonize our response to major crimes and serious crime. Indeed, the legislature of British Columbia amended the police act to allow the director of police services to create binding standards with respect to complex and major crime to ensure that level of consistency both across municipal police agencies and the provincial police force.
We see this act as complementary to the creation of those standards and a standardized approach to our response to organized crime and complex and major crime.
We've just completed a nine-month consultation and public engagement process where we went to British Columbians and asked them about policing generally. We've also, as I've mentioned, recently had the report of Mr. Oppal from the missing women's inquiry. I can tell you that the question of the sustainability and the cost of policing is foremost on many municipalities' minds.
We've heard very clearly from both the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Union of B.C. Municipalities that the cost of policing is a very significant burden on their communities. So I'd have to tell you that the cost of policing more globally is very much on everyone's mind and a challenge, both for municipalities and, indeed, for the Province of British Columbia.
I will say that I will be watching carefully to make sure from our perspective that the program is appropriately funded and that we have a voice as to the level of that funding as best we can. It's important from my perspective that the program be adequately funded and effectively and efficiently administered.
The cost of major investigations is a concern to municipalities. As a consequence, whether it's the cost of actually conducting the extraordinary investigative measures that are necessary or managing the file from a witness protection or witness management perspective, it will indeed be a concern for municipalities. As we look to adjust our program to the new bill, we'll be looking carefully as to how that might impact municipalities.
Justice Major, I do have a question for you, so I hope you can stay a little bit longer, if possible.
I just want to start with Mr. Pecknold, though, regarding the discussion he just had with Mr. Garrison. I think you would agree with me, Mr. Pecknold, that you are talking about two separate issues.
First of all, the cost of policing is something that is front of mind for all of us. In fact, it was our who initiated a conference and brought together leaders in January to discuss the cost of policing. As well, we realize that more investments are needed. That's why we just passed Bill , with an additional $15 million to help support the RCMP and bring greater accountability. Unfortunately, it wasn't supported by everyone in the House.
I think what we want to talk about right now and what I think is important is Bill , and the three major changes we are making to the witness protection program. First, it will actually help the provinces because it will create a more streamlined system whereby identity changes can be made. Second, it will expand the criteria, as recommended by Justice Major. Third, there will be greater protection for those who are under the program and those administering it.
I would think you would agree that there are no actual additional costs. The RCMP has testified to it. There will be no additional costs to municipalities from these changes in Bill .
:
Thank you again, Mr. Pecknold.
I have a comment on some of the last questions. I know you weren't able to comment on the level of training, but we did hear from divisional representatives from the RCMP who were certainly proud to comment that both the witness protection program training and the operators in Canada are world renowned in their opinion. That probably dovetails with provincial and municipal agents and operators in witness protection programs, so I think Canada is in a good position with our protection program when compared to other nations'.
You mentioned the combined forces special enforcement unit and you talked a bit about the complexity of investigations that go on among municipal, provincial, and federal bodies. Sometimes one incident can involve all three. This does tie in to Mr. Rafferty's question about first nation policing programs, their funding and ability to access the witness protection program. You may not be able to comment specifically on an individual case. I'll try to characterize this and see if you feel fit to comment on my characterization of investigations.
When investigations become complex on a municipal, provincial, and federal level, a witness entering a witness protection program by and large is not going to be entering that program because of testimony provided on a break and enter. It's going to be a rather complex case where there is a serious threat to personal and community safety. From that position, it's usually going to be a complex investigation that extends well beyond municipal boundaries.
From that point of view, there could or should at least be an angle of application for witness protection program access via the federal protection program under the jurisdiction and authority of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or at least a larger municipal centre or provincial body that has the funds available to do that, to allow a witness to enter the witness protection program. We can think of the smallest municipal jurisdiction in British Columbia. If they had a witness who required protection, they might not be able to afford access to the program, given their small municipal budget. But I would hazard a guess that if the smallest municipality providing its own municipal policing services in British Columbia finds itself with a case in which a witness is testifying and requires the services of the witness protection program, it's not likely that it would be solely a municipal issue. It's not likely that it would involve any less than an integrated unit, the RCMP, or even a federal investigation into the matter on which the witness is testifying.
Would that be an accurate characterization?