:
Good morning, everyone, and welcome to our Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. This is meeting number 74. Today is Tuesday, March 5, 2013.
This morning we are continuing our study of Bill to amend Canada's Witness Protection Program Act.
Appearing before us today, from the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, we have a number of returning guests. First, we have Trevor Bhupsingh. He is the director general of the law enforcement and border strategies directorate. As well, we welcome back Julie Mugford, director of research and national coordination in the organized crime division.
Also, from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we have Assistant Commissioner Todd Shean, of federal and international operations; and Inspector Greg Bowen, the officer in charge of witness protection operations.
I invite the Department of Public Safety to open this morning and to make some brief remarks.
As well, the RCMP has a statement. I haven't been given one yet, but if you do have one, I invite you to give me one now. Then we'll move into the first round of questions.
Thank you.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and committee members, for the invitation and the opportunity to speak again about the proposed legislation that's before us today. The legislation speaks to the modernization of Canada's federal witness protection program.
[Translation]
It is well recognized that an effective and reliable witness protection program is valuable in the fight against crime, especially against organized crime and terrorism.
In Canada, witness protection programs exist at both the federal and provincial levels. Federally, the Witness Protection Program is legislated by the Witness Protection Program Act and is administered by the RCMP. In recent years, the provinces have also started to establish their own witness protection programs.
[English]
While some provincial programs tend to focus on witness management, the federal program handles more serious cases that can require relocation and often a secure change of identity. Provincial programs often provide time-limited protection, usually leading up to, or during, a trial, whereas the federal program considers its protectees to be in the program for life. Only the federal program is legislatively mandated to provide national protection services to all law enforcement agencies in Canada, as well as to international courts and tribunals.
Public Safety Canada wants to ensure that our police continue to have the appropriate tools in place to build safe neighbourhoods across Canada by keeping up with the changing nature of crime, as well as with criminal or terrorist organizations.
Through Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act, we are looking to amend the Witness Protection Program Act to improve the effectiveness and security of the federal witness protection program, and to make it more responsive to the needs of law enforcement across Canada.
As you may be aware, the current Witness Protection Program Act was first legislated in 1996, but it has not been substantially modified since it came into force. That's over 25 years. The amendments proposed in Bill are intended to address the recommendations brought forward by this committee in 2008, as well as the Air India commission of inquiry in 2010.
In follow-up to the SECU report, in 2008 Public Safety Canada and the RCMP undertook countrywide consultations with federal, provincial, and territorial partners to hear their views on how to improve the federal witness protection program, as well as their perspectives on the SECU recommendations.
These provided amendments will also respond to what we heard regarding how to improve the witness protection program in Canada. The proposed legislative mechanisms and amendments in Bill are intended to improve interaction between the federal and provincial witness protection programs. Specifically, they will improve the process to obtain a secure identity change for witnesses from the provinces and territories through a designation process. Once designated, a provincial program can request that the RCMP assist in the provision of secure identity changes to designated provincial programs, without transferring their protectees into the federal program, which is currently the practice.
Bill will also broaden prohibitions against the disclosure of information, beyond the name and the location of a federal protectee, to now include designated provincial protectee information about both the federal and provincial programs and those who administer these programs. This is consistent with provincial requests to strength the disclosure prohibitions, so that information about their witnesses is protected throughout Canada.
In response to Air India, the bill will also expand the agencies that can refer individuals to the program to now include any federal agency with a mandate related to national security, national defence, or public safety sources. Referrals can now be made by such agencies as CSIS or the Department of National Defence.
Bill will also improve the federal program administration by permitting voluntary termination from the program and extending emergency protection from the current 90 days to a maximum of 180 days. These amendments will address operational issues regarding the administration of the federal program.
In addition to the legislative amendments, the RCMP is also undertaking a number of administrative and programmatic improvements to address concerns raised in the past. One important improvement is a change in the RCMP reporting structure to separate admission decisions from investigations, thereby ensuring objectivity in the decision-making process. The RCMP is also taking additional measures to enhance the federal program by incorporating psychological assessments of candidates and counselling for protectees and their families, offering the services of legal counsel to all candidates being considered for admission into the federal program, enhancing training for witness handlers and administrators of the program, and also creating a database that would better inform program design.
[Translation]
To summarize, Canada's federal witness protection program is an invaluable tool that helps our police infiltrate the world of organized crime and gather vital information to reduce and disrupt the illegal drug trade.
The Safer Witnesses Act will encourage a more streamlined approach to witness protection between the federal and provincial or territorial governments, as well as between the RCMP and other federal institutions with a mandate related to national security or national defence.
It will ensure that the federal witness protection program is more effective and secure, for both the witnesses and for those who provide protection to these witnesses.
[English]
The proposed changes outlined in Bill will go a long way toward improving the federal program and to make it an effective tool for law enforcement in the global fight against organized crime and terrorism.
Thank you.
:
Good morning, Mr. Chair.
I wish to thank the committee for providing me with this opportunity to participate in your discussions on Bill , the safer witnesses act.
The RCMP recognizes the important step forward that this bill represents in promoting a more complete and effective federal witness protection program.
Significant elements of the bill include the recognition of provincial witness protection programs and the provision to those programs of the same protections the federal program enjoys relative to protectees, former protectees, and sensitive information relative to how the program operates.
Further, the legislation acknowledges the potential risks that may be directed toward those responsible for providing protection, be they personnel assigned to the witness protection function or perhaps public servants who assist in the identity change process.
[Translation]
Another key element is that provincial programs will no longer be required to enter their protectees into the federal program to obtain federal identity documents. This promotes the independence of the provincial programs to more effectively administer their programs, and equally as important, diminishes risk to the federal program by no longer having to admit persons into the federal program solely to facilitate the name change process. This process left the federal program vulnerable as the program had limited, if any, input relative to the protective measures offered a provincial protectee while awaiting the referred documentation.
[English]
As a result of the designation regime, the RCMP will deal directly with the designated official for the provincial witness protection program. As a result, the RCMP will no longer be addressing protection issues with a number of law enforcement agencies within a province, but will deal exclusively with the offices of the designated provincial official or officials as designated by the province. This will promote efficiencies in services provided to the provinces and will further enhance the security of both the federal and the provincial programs.
This legislation, in concert with sweeping operational changes being introduced to the federal program, responds to the recommendations emanating from both this committee's report in 2008, relative to the federal witness protection program, and the Air India commission report of 2010. In fact, program changes currently being introduced eclipse the referred recommendations in a number of areas and ensure that the federal program remains well positioned to provide continued elevated levels of service.
[Translation]
Much has been said in the past about the importance of ensuring that the decision-making processes relative to program entry are made independently of investigative decision-making interests. The new entry process for the federal program responds to this criticism and ensures that those responsible for witness protection decision-making operate independently from investigative interests. This has required a significant shift in structure within national headquarters and divisions and the new admission protocols will be in place nationally by May 2013.
[English]
The RCMP has introduced a series of specialized and secure protocols developed specifically for the witness protection function, which is unique to witness protection in this country. We have also developed standard operating procedures relative to the enhanced program orientation processes, and we have begun to initiate a more robust outreach process designed to better respond to the needs of protectees who may be struggling with program adaptation.
RCMP witness protection officers are now the benefactors of the most progressive and comprehensive witness protection training in Canada, and by the end of the next fiscal year, we anticipate having five full-time psychologists working exclusively for the federal program. Further, we anticipate the rollout of an enhanced data bank system designed specifically for the federal program. This new system will allow better tracking of individual witness protection cases, it will allow us to better monitor the services we provide to partners and stakeholders, and it will promote program accountability and transparency through the immediate access to program data and statistics.
[Translation]
We have initiated research projects into the witness protection function and are developing workshops to better study the impact of witness protection from a variety of cultural perspectives, and particularly the challenges of witness protection for First Nations persons who may be considered for program entry.
[English]
The RCMP has also held meetings with representatives of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP in an effort to ensure that the CPC has full insight into the functioning of the program, the challenges associated with the program administration, and the complaint process. It is anticipated that this interaction will continue in an effort to ensure that the services provided by the CPC to Canadians relative to witness protection will be addressed in a timely, appropriate, and transparent manner. With the implementation of all of the aforementioned, the federal witness protection program will be well positioned to continue to be one of the most professional and effective witness protection programs in the world.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I look forward to answering any questions you may have.
Merci.
:
I think you've addressed the biggest one, because to obtain that secure identity change.... I think there are two. There are probably more, but I'll touch on two.
To obtain that secure identity change, you were entering the federal witness protection program, so there was whatever was involved with that.
As well, we were dealing with a number of different police agencies. Now we will deal with a designated person within that particular province. We will work with them and train them. Our experience has been that the bulk of the delay occurred when we went to the paperwork that was required to obtain the assistance of the federal partners for the identity change. There would be something missing within that documentation, so we would have to go back. Our sense is that with a properly trained designated person we should cut all that out, so that when the paperwork arrives at the other federal partners it will be in due form. That will accelerate the process, and we will not have entered anybody into the federal witness protection program, so there will be none of the paperwork associated with that either. It's streamlined.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses for being with us again. I know it takes significant time out of your workdays to be here, and I hope there's value added by our getting the legislation correct down the road, to make up for the time you give to us.
I want to start with some questions to the Public Safety officials.
In your presentation this morning you talked about the legislative mandate, saying, “Only the federal program is legislatively mandated to provide national protection services....” But you also talk about the federal program handling the “more serious cases”. Can you talk about how this has come about where the federal program will only handle serious cases if it's the only one with the legislative mandate?
:
We went out in two rounds of consultations. After the SECU report of 2008, we went out to the provinces. We went to all provinces regardless of whether or not they had a provincial program in place, and we spoke to them about the recommendations made by the committee.
Also, for those who had programs, we talked a lot about how we might be able to integrate the programs more efficiently to address some of the concerns, I guess, that were happening with respect to securing federal documents. With the proposal in Bill around the designated process for provincial programs, we're hoping to address that.
To answer your question, we also visited law enforcement agencies through the process and got their comments and feedback in terms of improving the federal program itself.
We did a second round coming out of Air India just after 2010, and again we went out to the provinces, and we also engaged law enforcement agencies.
:
There were three important recommendations coming out of Air India, and obviously the first one was the independence. Certainly I think the Air India commission of inquiry recommended an independent body to manage terrorist protectees. We just felt that the program was best managed with the RCMP.
But picking up on the theme of independence, as was mentioned by the assistant commissioner, the process of investigations and the program itself in terms of management have been clearly separated.
There was also a recommendation coming out of Air India that was equally important, which was that terrorist protectees should be included in the witness protection program. There wasn't, under an existing act, an ability to do that, so one of the things proposed in Bill is to expand the mandate of those organizations that can make recommendations and referrals to the RCMP. Those will now include organizations with a national security, national defence, and public safety mandate. That's something else that's been picked up on.
Then I think there were some recommendations coming out of the Air India inquiry around culturally sensitive training. I know the RCMP has picked up on that training and has been doing that for many years.
Thank you all for being here to enlighten us on Bill . We are very glad to have you.
I have found the discussions on witness protection extremely interesting. My conservative colleague Mr. Hawn commented on witness protection within penitentiaries. That reminds me of something. In my riding, the Leclerc Institution is currently being closed. It had a specialized wing for witness protection. I hope the government will take that into account and replace it elsewhere. Witnesses were protected by being isolated from the rest of the prison population. I wanted to clarify things.
One comment surprised me. The City of Montreal has its own witness protection program. How does that work? Some provinces have witness protection programs, but does the City of Montreal really have its own witness protection program? I don't know if you have a bit more information or if you know how it works. Do the three levels of government in Quebec have a witness protection program?
When it comes to acceptance of the new program under Bill —and this question would be to the officials—I'm given to believe that the Minister of Justice for Saskatchewan and the Minister of Justice for British Columbia have made positive statements. I understand Gordon Wyant, the justice minister, said they'll help strengthen the system by providing greater protection for witnesses. This is the new regime. Shirley Bond, the Minister of Justice for British Columbia, says she's looking forward to working with us because she thinks it's a positive step in the right direction. Tom Stamatakis, president of the Canadian Police Association, says the association strongly believes that this proposed legislation will enhance safety and security for front-line officers and personnel engaged in protection duties. Chief Blair of Toronto said some positive things.
Would you say, sir, that this is as a result of the two rounds of consultations you've made?
:
Thank you very much, Chair.
Thank you for being here.
I have a question for each of you. I only have five minutes, but I'll try my best here.
Ms. Mugford and Inspector Bowen are first.
I'll ask you, Ms. Mugford, and perhaps you could fill in the blanks or add something to the question. How does one typically find out about the program, make a request, and get into the program, if there is a typical case? I'm interested, and as this is a public session, I'm sure the public is probably interested in that. How does it happen that someone gets into a program, typically?
:
I think, just to build on what Assistant Commissioner Shean said, part of the process going forward, and also responding to the recommendations that came out of SECU in 2008 and Air India in 2010, has resulted in the federal program taking a much closer look at the cultural impact of coming into witness protection programs.
To some extent, that's addressed in training. We've changed training quite a bit. We're constantly evaluating and assessing the people we currently have in the program. Some of those people come from different cultural backgrounds, and we learn stuff as a result of doing that.
Going forward, we plan to continue to build on the program. The program is a very robust program right now. I think it's a much better program today than it was a year ago, and it will be a much better program a year from now. And when I say “much better”, I mean it will also be much better at responding to cultural challenges.
I have a general question for each of you. Do you believe that this bill contains measures that increase the efficiency of the witness protection system, in terms of quick response time? When events occur and they are investigated, it's extremely important to ensure that people are protected as quickly as possible.
I am thinking namely of the Hells Angels' investigation, or that of Air India, which lasted nearly 25 years. We know that memories fade. Investigations take time. The Hells Angels' investigation has been going on for four or five years, and the alleged criminals are in prison. We are still waiting for the trials.
I am particularly concerned about the efficiency and speed with which witnesses of events can be protected, in order to collect the most solid testimony to convict the guilty and sentence them.
I would like you to discuss the efficiency and speed with which one must act in order to protect people, to obtain solid testimony that could be used in court.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Gill.
I would just like to ask a question that came out of that, and then we'll go quickly right back to Mr. Garrison.
To play out this scenario, you have a witness who you know is going to provide testimony against someone in a case. There's been the charge and the RCMP believe, based on evidence they have, perhaps how big the trial is and who the individual is, that his life might be at risk, or certainly the testimony might be at risk. You would approach that witness then and say, “Listen, we believe you should consider going into this”, or “We would like to place you in this”. Is that how that plays out?
And thanks to our guests.
As the chair alluded to, I'm filling in today.
I'm very interested in whenever we can provide additional tools and resources for our protective services to keep our communities and streets safe, and also to provide a more efficient and safer Witness Protection Program Act. I think this is a very common-sense, streamlined, integrated approach, so I commend the committee and all the witnesses who have brought this recommendation forward today.
I was just reflecting on some of the back information and my own experience. I had an opportunity to go to a chiefs of police conference that was held in my riding. I have a friend who's a senior member of the municipal police and other police officers. One person I met was Toronto Chief Bill Blair, and he indicated that there is a lot of “fear caused by intimidation and the threat of retaliation in gang investigations”. Of course, it's a statistic that continues to grow. Organized crime in my community, in Kelowna, British Columbia, is a serious issue, and across the nation.
This is reinforced by Mr. Blair's comments. He said:
In Toronto, we have seen the fear caused by intimidation and the threat of retaliation in gang investigations. Witnesses with valuable information are deterred from coming forward. We support the government’s initiative as a valuable step in protecting public safety.
I just want to know if you could—whoever, all of you might have some comments—describe how you feel these changes to the witness protection program will encourage witnesses with information to come forward.
Thank you.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Once again, thank you. I was looking at access to the program. My attention was drawn to something that I found rather interesting about youth and street gangs. I believe that an access to information request was made about this last December, and the press mentioned it. With this reform of the witness protection program, young street gang members would now be included in the process.
I am wondering whether that is the case. I am attempting to determine the benchmark to establish whether someone is a young street gang member. Is it under 18? Can it be over 18? How does that work?
If most of the articles I have read are correct, it means that these people were not previously eligible for the witness protection program, but that they would be now, with the broader eligibility criteria.
Could you enlighten me a bit about this? I would like to know how that works.
:
So the jurisdictional aspect certainly makes sense.
Assistant Commissioner Shean, you spoke a bit about technology, about the complexity of crime, about witness needs now, and about how you think this bill is going to be responsive in protecting witnesses and dealing with the administration of this program as the complexity of crime grows, whether it's through technology or whether it's just through networks, and the needs of meeting court case requirements, investigations getting more and more complex.
In terms of a provincial-federal split, do you think that keeping some provincial programs, the ones that are operating...? I think you made it clear that there's a pretty clear delineation now between federal and provincial responsibilities. Do you think having that provincial-federal split is also beneficial, to allow those provinces the flexibility they may need to deal with the changing nature of the interaction between witnesses and investigations and the investigators and the criminal element?
:
Thank you for clarifying that.
You've all been very clear, in fact all the witnesses have been very clear, about the ability of the RCMP to absorb costs in this program, and to actually absorb costs on a continuing basis.
I'm just thinking about the 800 to 1,000 people in the program now. Of course over time, over the next five years or ten years, that number will increase. I see that the hope is that they will become self-sufficient.
Would you have any idea of the percentage of that 800 or 1,000 who are not self-sufficient or would never become self-sufficient? Do you have any sense of what that percentage might be?