Skip to main content
EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, November 7, 1995

.0932

[English]

The Chairman: Order. We'll commence today's meeting on Bill C-78.

Today we have officials from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I believe the presentation will be very brief so that most of the time can be spent on questions.

Assistant Commissioner J.T.G. Ryan (Director, Federal Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police): Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here this morning.

I did not prepare a text because I'm aware of the fact that a number of issues have surfaced during your hearings and you would like to pose some questions. I'm most certainly prepared to answer or try to answer the questions you would like answered.

I've been responsible for the source witness protection program at the assistant commissioner level since 1993, as director of drug enforcement. In January 1995 drug enforcement was absorbed into the federal services directorate due to reorganization. I assumed the responsibility of director of federal services and continued with the responsibility of source witness protection.

I am very much in favour of Bill C-78. I feel it is a very important piece of legislation to bring into the public view exactly what is taking place within source witness protection and make the procedures and processes very transparent.

In relation to clause 19, I understand there has been a lot of discussion in that area about police officers' protection from liability if they do not act in good faith. I am a strong supporter of that clause within the bill. We feel it is very important to have that necessary protection to allow police officers to carry out the acts that will be allowed to be carried out within the legislation, without fear of being sued for the necessary activity.

We feel it's very important that we can make decisions in good faith to put somebody into the program, remove somebody from the program, relocate somebody from one location to another, change somebody's name, or not change somebody's name. These are very difficult decisions that sometimes have to be made on a very short-term basis, but they are decisions that must be made. In the enforcement of this legislation, police officers must not have any fear of continually being subject to civil suits before the courts.

.0935

In the same vein, if a police officer acts with gross negligence, or acts outside the scope of these duties and does things that are beyond the scope of these duties in relation to a protectee or a protectee and his family, it is my understanding the protection afforded under clause 19 will not protect that member. If we act outside our duties or if we act in gross negligence or what have you, we will still be liable, as we should be.

Having said that and made those comments, I know there is a considerable number of other issues you would like to address as well. We are open for questions.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr.Langlois, avez-vous des questions?

Mr. Langlois (Bellechasse): For the first ten-minute round?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Langlois: Would you please recognize Mr. Ramsay first, and we'll go after?

The Chairman: Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Ramsay (Crowfoot): Thank you for both your presence here and your presentation.

You indicated that you support the bill, and in particular clause 19. Of course, as members of our caucus, we support the direction of this bill. Some witnesses who appeared before the committee raised some fairly substantial concerns about the bill, and I just want to quickly run over some of those.

Scott Newark, executive officer with the Canadian Police Association, stated in a letter to us:

Those are pretty strong terms.

Mr. Swadron, who represents witnesses who have run into difficulty in police programs, spoke to us. He talked about the RCMP program as well as the 15 other witness protection programs across the country. He termed the bill as a police protection bill rather than a witness protection bill.

Do you have any comments about those concerns that have been raised before the committee?

A/Commr Ryan: It's natural to raise those concerns. I feel the legislation is definitely not a police protection bill. It's a bill that makes the legislation extremely transparent. It builds into it the expectations of the police in relation to the protectees and the protectees' families. It has built into it procedures by way of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Public Complaints Commission. As well, as I already mentioned, it's very clear that in the decision-making process within clause 19 we have to act in good faith. If we do not act in good faith, naturally, we will be subject to the litigation process, as we should be.

So I feel there is considerable protection in there for law enforcement, provided they act in good faith. But it also has the other side, where it brings the whole process into the forefront and subject to scrutiny. As well, the force is answerable to the solicitor general, who is answerable to Parliament, and there is an annual report. So that element, which is not there at the present time, is there as well.

Mr. Ramsay: Both the Canadian Police Association representatives, as well as Mr. Swadron, were concerned that there was no external control or review of the decisions by the commissioner with regard to either authorizing entrance into the program of a witness or the cancellation of the witness program for a witness. Do you have any comment regarding those concerns?

A/Commr Ryan: As to entrance and exit from the program, a process is set out now where there will have to be notification to the protectee in writing, if we decide either to not enter somebody into the program or to remove somebody from the program. So that puts our decision-making process into writing, which in the past was not necessarily the case, depending on the situation. That brings into it an element that wasn't there before.

.0940

In relation to review, again, with the Public Complaints Commission, there is an avenue where a person has the right to complain, if they decide to complain. But if the decision is made in good faith, based on all the evidence that's before the member, and he makes a decision as to whether a person should or should not go into the program, then I think....

Everybody makes decisions on a day-to-day basis, whether it's in relation to source witness protection or in relation to other duties.

There's a process there where a person can complain. I think there are adequate processes available.

Mr. Ramsay: So you have no concern about the need, as expressed by other witnesses, for third-party involvement in reviewing the commissioner's decisions or having that authority placed in the hands of a third party?

A/Commr Ryan: I have no problem with the process that is laid out within the legislation.

The decision-making process within the legislation is set out at a certain level, either at the assistant commissioner level or at the chief superintendent level for the bulk of the decisions. Those decisions can be reviewed through the process within the force, which allows a very independent review, both at the deputy commissioner level and then through to the commissioner level, of our decision-making process.

The day-to-day decisions will be made at either the chief superintendent or the assistant commissioner level, which allows other levels within the force to review those decisions. Plus, as I already indicated, there are other avenues available to the protectee or to somebody who would like to get into the program to complain about the program or how we have treated those individuals.

Mr. Ramsay: I'd like to turn to another issue that was brought up by the witnesses who appeared here on behalf of Victims of Violence. They raised some very serious concerns about the existing RCMP witness protection program. In their submission - and you may have a copy of it - on page 4 they say:

I don't want to get too deeply into the existing witness program, but we have to have an idea of what that program does and the weaknesses in it, if there are any - and we have been told there are some - to determine whether or not this bill does the job in terms of alleviating these concerns.

So my question to you is, are there situations or have there been situations where the RCMP has intervened to have a person released on parole, or have they had an informant on the program who has committed criminal offences and has continued to remain on the program?

A/Commr Ryan: I won't speak of specific cases, but I'll speak in generalities.

As to whether we intervene in relation to parole or other activities when somebody is an informant, each case depends on the particular fact situation and on what your definition would be of ``intervene''.

.0945

If, for example, somebody was aiding us considerably in a criminal investigation and was on parole, we may discuss with the parole authorities the activities of that individual, but the final decision rests with the parole authority as to what does or does not take place. You have to sit down and look at the facts, look at the type of offence you are investigating, and make the decisions as to how you're going to proceed in that investigation.

In relation to somebody committing criminal offences while within the program, naturally we would like it if nobody would do that. But the prime purpose of the program is to protect life, and if somebody is on the program and we become aware of the fact that this individual has committed criminal offences, then we have some hard decisions to make. Do we allow him to continue in the program? Do we remove him from the program and allow his life to become endangered? How exactly do we proceed? It's a balancing act.

Now, just because an individual is in the program and commits criminal offences does not mean he is immune from criminal prosecution. The philosophy we operate on under the program is that when a person enters a program, he has legal obligations, and we try to bring his moral obligations with him as well so that he does not escape his legal or moral obligations.

If he receives a change in name and he commits criminal offences, then he will be taken before the courts for those criminal offences. But it may mean that we will have to do it under an air of protection, or we will have to evaluate the situation at the time. If we take somebody before the courts for a theft and his life is still in danger, we're not going to allow somebody to take that life. It's an extremely difficult situation and an extremely difficult balancing act.

If the person commits a serious criminal offence, rest assured that he will not be protected by the program. In the same vein, though, even if it was a murder or a rape, the necessary steps would be taken to protect his life. If he has offered valuable evidence through a process where he has been targeted by the criminal element, then we have a responsibility to do what is necessary to protect his life.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: Mr. Ryan, the second reading debate on Bill C-78 and C-206, as well as Mr. Wappel's accompanying notes, showed that at the time there were various administrative-type programs at the OPP, the Montreal Urban Community Police Force, the Quebec Police Force and the RCMP. At the moment, are these initiatives taken in isolation by the various police forces or is there a liaison committee which systematically informs the RCMP about witness protection programs that may be offered throughout the country?

[English]

A/Commr Ryan: The answer depends on the level of protection being afforded and on when we're asked to intervene. In relation to assistance to other police forces, if there is a change in name where there is a requirement to change through the federal process, with numerous procedures and documentations and what have you, then we are asked to assist, and we assist in that process.

We do not take requests such as this lightly. We consider changing a name a serious step within the process. There are various levels of protection, and when it comes to the level of changing a name, we want to make sure the case justifies such a requirement. We have to make sure the proper threat is there and all the proper documentation is in place to make that change. If it involves a change in name at the federal level, then we will become involved in that process.

.0950

If it's a change in name only at the provincial level and not into the federal system, or if somebody has decided to relocate somebody from one city to another without a change in name and within their own jurisdiction, we may never become involved in the process.

It depends on the type of relocation and the type of case within the program.

We have a working relationship with police forces across Canada, and there's no doubt that from time to time conflict does arise between us and other police forces in relation to the steps we take when it comes to federal involvement. We have had cases where it has taken an extremely long time to process an individual, but usually because there's lack of documentation and a lack of justification for doing the change in name.

I can even recall a case we had within the last year where it had drawn on for an extended period, and we went back to that police force and insisted that senior management from our force and that force meet to discuss whether in fact a change in name really was justified. When they evaluated the case, it was decided a change in name was not justified.

We treat this very seriously, and at times other police forces naturally do not like our involvement in their cases, depending on what level the cases are at.

As it is right now, we have an ongoing working relationship, but it surfaces on a case-by-case basis and we have to address it. The legislation in itself sets up a mechanism whereby we can address this through a legislative base.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: When you take more significant steps, such as name changes or relocations, do you sometimes have to relocate Canadian citizens to other countries, or, conversely, do you sometimes have to deal with foreign nationals and assume responsibility for their name change or relocation, without their home government knowing about it?

[English]

A/Commr Ryan: The cases of us assisting foreign countries are extremely rare; I am informed that there were probably two in the past. I am personally aware of one request that I dealt with where it was refused.

They're very rare, but they're dealt with in the open. We deal with the necessary federal government departments to discuss them, naturally through our Solicitor General and through Immigration, because as you're well aware, there is an immigration component to it. This process will be allowed under the new legislation.

I personally am not aware of any situations where a Canadian has been relocated to a foreign country. That process will also be allowed under the new legislation. But it is my feeling, in looking at criminal activity today, with transnational crime and organized crime, that this is becoming more and more of a possibility within the confines of the legislation.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: I would like to know what you think about the matter I raised during my comments at second reading of the bill. At that time, I said that the Sub-committee on National Security, which is a committee of Parliament, should be able to meet in camera to examine the decisions made by the Commissioner under Bill C-78. Do you think a parliamentary review of this type, which would ensure confidentiality, would be acceptable to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?

[English]

A/Commr Ryan: You're saying what you would like is a parliamentary review in camera, where the decision-making process of the RCMP would be subject to review?

Mr. Langlois: Of course.

A/Commr Ryan: I have no problem with the processes we use being subject to a review of that nature. That's a decision that will have to be made by the legislators in the House, but if that's the process that's decided on....

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: I have no further questions. Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Knutson (Elgin - Norfolk): Mr. Ryan, I'm one of the sceptics in regard to removing the right to sue. It seems to me that when organizations mess up, it's generally the case that everyone means well; everyone intended to do the right thing. Often it's difficult to assess an individual as being negligent or grossly negligent or whatever, and yet awful mistakes get made.

.0955

I don't think anyone is after a particular officer for making a particular judgment, but what we're saying is, when the system fails, what's so special about the RCMP that they shouldn't face civil liability decisions? Lots of them have to make judgments. Why is there occasion for saying, well, if we're a little bit negligent or if we're just generally negligent you still can't sue us because we have to -

A/Commr Ryan: We're not saying there shouldn't be the right to sue the RCMP program. When we look at what we have to do in the program to make the program work, we look at the type of decisions our members will have to make in relation to working with the criminal element. We want to have an environment that allows and encourages members to act within that framework. We don't want members to be concerned every day about the decisions they make and the fact that they're facing civil suits. We want to be able to carry out this legislation, to make the decisions as to whether we do or do not put somebody in the program. These are difficult decisions. They're judgment calls.

If somebody is happily living in Vancouver and we find there's a threat against his life in Vancouver and we say, ``You now have to move to Halifax'' - we do our proper threat assessment and what have you and we make a judgment call - he moves to Halifax and his life ends up in total turmoil, then we have to make those decisions without somebody coming forward and suing us at every turn.

I'll reverse the coin. If we found out there was a threat against somebody living in Vancouver and the member decided to not even acknowledge the threat and put it in his desk drawer and didn't respond, to me that would be gross negligence. If something happened we would be answerable for it.

In my understanding, this is not unique in legislation. It is found in numerous other pieces of legislation and in other similar programs of other countries.

Mr. Knutson: Let me make two points. First, you used the expression ``when you're dealing with a criminal element''. In my own riding a case was brought to my attention where the informant, the person under witness protection, was a totally innocent person. He got involved because he basically spied on his brother, who was a biker involved in drug trade. The story, as it was recounted to me, was that a number of promises were made to this gentleman and his family and by and large the RCMP didn't deliver.

At no point did I get the sense that anybody acted in bad faith. I think the people who were dealing with him at the first instance genuinely believed the organization could deliver on the promises they were making. Everyone was caught up in the enthusiasm of solving the crime or getting the guy, so to speak. I think you'd be hard pressed to find that there was gross negligence, and yet it seemed to me that a serious wrong had been committed and it hadn't been addressed through the normal complaint proceedings.

My own view is that the lawsuit at the end of the road provides some protection; it's kind of a hammer on the organization that says if you mess up, even though you might not have intended to, you're going to have to account for it. I'm not sure a parliamentary review where information has to be left out to protect the secrecy of the case and a number of other reviews are going to satisfy that same criterion.

A/Commr Ryan: First of all, I want to comment on your very valid comment that all persons in the program do not belong to the criminal element. That is exactly true. A considerable number of people in the program are not part of the criminal element; they simply witnessed criminal activity and have had no part in it whatsoever. I totally agree with you.

.1000

In relation to the scenario you mentioned, during the development of a case there are considerable dealings between a source - an informant or an agent, depending on what it is - and what work he's going to provide and what we're going to provide for him. But at the end of the day it ends up in an agreement between the agent and the police. So there are verbal discussions, but it's committed into an actual agreement.

If the protectee, the proposed protectee or the agent doesn't agree with what's being put in that agreement, then there's no requirement on him to continue acting as he does. At that stage, he is not in the source witness protection program or may not be in the source witness protection program. This is merely a step in the process. Lots of people enter into agreements with us, in relation to supplying evidence and intelligence or doing things for us, who never enter into the program, depending again on the level of threat and the type of case they are involved in.

It's an extremely difficult area. It's an area we work with all the time in educating our handlers of sources. They have to know what they can and cannot promise. Sometimes people promise things that can't be kept, but when the negotiations come to the actual written agreement, then it should be kept within that agreement.

Mr. Knutson: Did the bill we're looking at today result from the lawsuits that have occurred to date?

A/Commr Ryan: I would say it's due to a number of reasons, but the lawsuits that have come forward have raised public perception and awareness of the program. There is no doubt about it. These civil suits have been one of the reasons for this legislation to be presented. There are no two ways about it. Although not large in number, there have been very high-profile civil suits. Plus, once they do reach the courts, they draw considerable media attention.

There's another element that is very concerning to us. When we're before the courts, we are in a very difficult situation in relation to defending ourselves in court and defending ourselves publicly, because to openly discuss the procedures we utilize within the program could jeopardize other people within the program.

Mr. Knutson: So it's fair to say that up until today, the fact that people can sue has forced you to improve the process.

A/Commr Ryan: No, that would only be one of the reasons. This issue has been discussed for a long period of time. We realized it was a difficult program to work with. We looked at legislation in Australia, in the U.S. and in other places, and we came to the conclusion that the processes we use should be put in legislation. As well, we should have a legislative base for dealing with the numerous agencies we deal with.

That's only one of the many factors we took into consideration. It's not the primary factor.

Mr. Knutson: That's all I have.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: I would like to start with a question for Mr. Ryan. Have other, non-police agencies, more specifically the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Department of National Defence or Immigration Canada requested witness protection programs? If so, how did you deal with these requests?

[English]

A/Commr Ryan: I'll check with my colleague, but I do not recall, in my two-and-a-half-year period with the program, any cases where I received requests originating from outside agencies such as you have mentioned or from outside the program.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: Would it be logical to deduce from your answer that these agencies themselves can protect individuals with whom they are involved?

.1005

[English]

A/Commr Ryan: That is one possible deduction, yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: Don't you find it disturbing that it is possible, within a system that respects human rights, to hide information of this type from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, which is the legally constituted police force at the federal level intrusted with this type of activity?

[English]

A/Commr Ryan: I'm not saying other agencies do or do not protect witnesses, because I'm not aware of their program.

I'll use the example of CSIS. We're a law enforcement body, and my understanding is that CSIS is not a law enforcement body. They have a separate and distinct mandate. I have no knowledge whatsoever of how they operate in relation to protection of witnesses.

I believe you mentioned Immigration and the Department of National Defence. Again, the Department of National Defence is not a law enforcement body, so I have no idea where that requirement might come from or in what vein it might come from. I have no knowledge whatsoever if they carry out such a program.

We work with Immigration on the law enforcement perspective. If we were involved in a case involving Immigration authorities or involving investigations under the Immigration Act or the Criminal Code to further the Immigration Act, and there were a requirement for someone to be protected under the act, then because of our involvement in that investigation, we would naturally play a role in that protection.

If there were some other administrative process under the Immigration Act or if the Immigration authorities had a requirement to carry out such activity, then they would have to address it themselves or else come forward to us and make the request, and we would evaluate it.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: Is it your understanding or your wish - it doesn't matter which - that once Bill C-78 is passed, the Commissioner of the RCMP will have to be informed about witness protection measures taken by non-police agencies such as CSIS, National Defence or Immigration Canada, so that a single source can report to the Solicitor General, who, in turn, reports to Parliament?

[English]

A/Commr Ryan: My understanding is that is not part of the legislation. There is no requirement in the legislation for other non-law enforcement agencies to report witness protection to the RCMP. This legislation here only deals with law enforcement and the federal program related to law enforcement.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: Since you have expertise in this, I would like to know if you think it would be desirable to have a single authority - and I'm thinking here of the RCMP Commissioner, to centralize all the information about witness protection in Canada?

[English]

A/Commr Ryan: My response would be no. The mandate of organizations such as CSIS is totally different from ours. My personal view would be that they should, if they have a program, manage their own program and answer to government for their own program through the normal process. Ours is a law enforcement program, and to me, they're two separate and distinct mandates.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: In your view, were the RCMP and its Commissioner, or people who report to the Commissioner, involved in the relocation and name change of a certain Grant Bristow?

[English]

A/Commr Ryan: I have no knowledge whatsoever.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: Thank you.

[English]

Ms Phinney (Hamilton Mountain): You mentioned earlier that if someone were under your program, you'd protect them if they committed a crime, except if it were a serious crime. Then you said even if it were a serious offence, you would still be under the obligation to protect that person's life. I'm presuming it's a rape or a violent offence - murder or whatever.

Do you mean you'd have to protect their life because they're a witness and because of the trouble they're in under the witness program? Or do you mean you'd have to protect their life because, though they haven't been charged with anything yet, they've done something, and as a law enforcement officer you'd still have to protect their life?

.1010

Say they have committed a violent serious offence, and you still need them under your program. Presumably, they're not convicted of this new offence. You wouldn't be able to put them in jail to make sure they don't get away until they're tried. How would you make sure they didn't get away before they're tried on this second crime? Maybe they didn't commit a first crime, but how would you keep them from getting away under your witness protection program?

A/Commr Ryan: Maybe I haven't explained very well what are our obligations.

First, if somebody commits a serious offence while they're in the program, we will do nothing to protect that individual in relation to the investigation and furtherance of the investigation. If the person is suspected of committing a murder, we will disclose his location to the police, to whomever it is necessary to carry out that investigation. We'll ensure that this individual answers before the court. That's one aspect of it.

I might say that we have had instances in which we have picked a protectee in one part of Canada and flown him under forced protection to another part of Canada to make sure that he appeared in court to answer to his obligations. Just because they're in the program it does not mean they are protected from their obligations before the courts and before the people.

Ms Phinney: Can I interrupt here? So they may still be under the program, but would be charged under their new name?

A/Commr Ryan: They would charged under their new name, yes.

Ms Phinney: But they may stay under your program.

A/Commr Ryan: They'll be charged and will have to answer before the courts.

Ms Phinney: I'm asking this because you did say that even if they did commit a criminal offence, you are ``obliged to protect their life''.

A/Commr Ryan: Yes, that's the thing. We would ensure that this individual.... Let's say the person was suspected of murder. An investigation was done, and charges of murder laid against that individual. He may be in the program, but we will ensure that this individual is processed before the courts. And the courts may decide that he goes straight from the court to jail.

Then, further on, we will -

Ms Phinney: Would he then have his name in CPIC under the name he uses in the witness program? And when he gets out of the witness program, if he goes back to his old name, is there no record that he has murdered or raped somebody, or would this then be transferred to his old name?

A/Commr Ryan: It is our objective that the criminal record, the background that this individual has as John Smith, remains with him as John Doe. We want to make sure that a change in name is not a method to escape from your background. The background you have remains with you.

Ms Phinney: Is that in this or is it just in the internal RCMP rules for the way you proceed?

A/Commr Ryan: Those are the internal rules in the RCMP. The obligations remain.

Ms Phinney: As for putting his name under CPIC and making sure that it's on there for future reference, is that only if they've committed a serious crime, as under the witness protection program, or with any crime that they may commit and be charged with under that program? Would their criminal offence be transferred to their original name?

A/Commr Ryan: His criminal record, criminal offences, and background stays with him under his new name.

Ms Phinney: Okay.

A/Commr Ryan: The system would be queried and the record provided under the new name would be provided.

Ms Phinney: So in either case, it remains with him. When he becomes John Doe, his old CPIC record changes to John Doe. Then, when he gets out of the program and he's back to John Smith, his record is with him.

A/Commr Ryan: If he goes back to John Smith.

Ms Phinney: Yes. But either way it's continued. The full record is with him under each condition.

A/Commr Ryan: If they're under our control, we are the ones who are involved in the process, and we are the ones who changed his name, then that process stays with him.

There's always a possibility - anybody can do this - that today I'm Terry Ryan, but I can go out tomorrow to a provincial government and change my name to John Smith. Then we have a problem, because there would be no cross-reference into the new system as John Smith. That is a problem in society.

Ms Phinney: What about the need for coordination between the levels of government?

A/Commr Ryan: But that's another -

.1015

Ms Phinney: It's making a farce of the whole thing.

The Chair: Mr. Hanger, five minutes.

Mr. Hanger (Calgary Northeast): Of the witnesses who fall under this program, would the greatest number be involved in organized crime?

A/Commr Ryan: Yes, I would say the highest percentage would be from organized crime, at the present time. That can fluctuate, but at the present time, I would say yes.

Mr. Hanger: In the RCMP's view, what kind of impact is organized crime having on the whole crime picture in society today? Is it on the increase?

A/Commr Ryan: There's no doubt in my mind that organized crime is a very serious consideration across Canada and internationally.

Is it on the increase? It's an extremely difficult thing to read. But when you look at serious criminal activity, such as the drug trade, money laundering, prostitution, and the number of other high-profile activities the criminal element is involved in, I would say that organized crime is on the increase.

Mr. Hanger: So a program like this witness protection program is very essential for dealing with organized crime.

A/Commr Ryan: To me, it is a valuable tool in the process. If we can work with informants or witnesses and ask them to testify before the courts, yet we can't assure them a level of protection for the activity they undertake, then it will jeopardize our ability to investigate organized crime.

Mr. Hanger: I see one area in which, in spite of all these programs and everything that the police departments offer for protection to witnesses, there are those within organized crime who will not participate. That's because they don't feel the RCMP, any police agency, or any government agency could ever protect them.

One of the big areas, of course, is Asian crime as it continues to manifest itself in the communities. Here you have a program that certainly offers some protection, but if there's only limited protection, you're still not going to be able to combat that element very easily.

A/Commr Ryan: It's one of the tools we use. I don't think, from my experience, there are those in any element of society who, in the proper set of circumstances, would not accept the use of the program.

It depends on whether we're targeting the Hell's Angels or Asian organized crime or other areas, such as the Italians. It is a technique we use. With the proper efforts, you can penetrate those organizations, but when you penetrate them you have to have the systems in place to protect the people we utilize.

Mr. Hanger: Given the fact that the organized crime picture is expanding, which it is - there's no question about it - your budget for allowing a number of witnesses to enter this program is constrained to the point at which it's not really offering that kind of expansion within the program itself to take care of the need out there. I think $3.4 million is about what it was in the prior year, was it not?

A/Commr Ryan: Yes, $3.4 million is not a large budget.

Mr. Hanger: No.

A/Commr Ryan: If we end up in a situation in which we have to protect a witness and that protection is justified, then there are no two ways about it: we'll have to find the funds to do it from within or from somewhere. We will not remove ourselves from our obligations in relation to protection simply because we do not have the funds.

Mr. Hanger: There are some agencies, such as other police agencies, that have sought to have witnesses enter the program. The commissioner, in this case, will make the decision as to whether or not it will be so. What recourse does that police agency or police officer have if the commissioner says no? Does he have to go to the Public Complaints Commission?

A/Commr Ryan: The process I see would not change or be any different than what we have at the present time. The individual himself who is trying to get into the program will have the right to go to the Public Complaints Commission.

.1020

Let's say, for example, that X wants to get into the program or a police force wants to sponsor X into the program. We decide no; this is not the type of case that justifies this level of protection. Or for some other reason, we say that this individual should not become part of the program.

The police officer himself has his normal line of authority within senior management within that organization with whom he can approach to cause discussions between his police organization and our police organization to determine if the individual should be accepted or not. This takes place.

Mr. Hanger: I am aware of that, yes.

A/Commr Ryan: Then the individual himself, if he feels he has different views, can go to the Public Complaints Commission.

Mr. Hanger: The police officer has no opportunity to step forward and complain apart from through the chain of command within his own department and the RCMP contact.

A/Commr Ryan: It would depend on the internal processes within that police officer's organization. He would have open to him the normal processes in the organization, depending on what organization it was, to deal with his internal problems.

Mr. Hanger: I would like to get into it a little bit later on, but go ahead, Mr. Chairman. You want to move over to the other side.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Ms Torsney, five minutes.

Ms Torsney (Burlington): First, sometimes defence lawyers need to have one of your protectees subpoenaed to a courtroom. What measures do you take, or how do you that?

A/Commr Ryan: If a document must be served on a protected witness, we have in place a process whereby we ourselves can serve that document. As I have already indicated, depending on the level of protection required, we will serve the document and supply the transportation of that individual to testify.

Ms Torsney: When this piece of legislation is passed, it means there will be some modifications of your current procedures, I suppose. How long will it take to have the new system up and running?

A/Commr Ryan: I would say it wouldn't take very long. We would need an awareness program for our own persons within the force. It is extremely close to what we're presently doing. I would say it would take probably a month or so. It wouldn't take very long.

Ms Torsney: Have you been following all of the testimony so far?

A/Commr Ryan: I was out of the country for part of it, but I was supplied with -

Ms Torsney: The transcripts.

A/Commr Ryan: - some briefs.

Ms Torsney: It seems to me that one of the key problems that exists is between people's expectations and their understanding at the time they agree to be in the program and give testimony or whatever else. Six months down the road, when reality sets in, you can't remember exactly what the details are.

They do this on television in the United States. They do this, that and the other thing.

How does that match with what I in fact got out of the RCMP? There are a lot of communication problems and expectations, perhaps on both sides.

We talked, at various times during the meetings, about whether or not there should be some kind of pamphlet or a brochure, written from the perspective of: ``If you were going to agree to be part of this program, you might want to ask these questions: Are you getting plastic surgery? Are you getting moved to a new city? Are you getting this?'' This is so people can actually follow it and anticipate the questions they should be asking of the officers before they make the agreement.

Are you supportive of that kind of an idea?

A/Commr Ryan: I would have absolutely no objections to that if, as the process starts, the person would have that available to him, he would ask that of the individual, and he could review it so the proper considerations would surface.

We would have some concern as to how much detail might be in there, depending on what exactly you want to bring to the attention of the possible protectee, but, yes, I would have no objections whatsoever to a good check-off sheet for him to consider before he signs any documents, with the proper security and consideration.

Ms Torsney: Yes, that's right. It doesn't have to be in mass circulation.

A/Commr Ryan: No.

Ms Torsney: What about the process of people getting a lawyer in the room with them or to review the documents before they sign off on terms of expectations?

.1025

A/Commr Ryan: I have no objections to that whatsoever. There is a flag that has to be raised when you consider that. I am not being disrespectful to lawyers, but as with all other elements of society there is a certain element that belongs to organized crime, supports organized crimes, supports the criminal element, and sometimes we may ask, or probably do ask, who are they going to consult with?

If they are going to consult with somebody who we are very concerned about, we would definitely suggest that they consult elsewhere. That level of concern is there.

Ms Torsney: Okay. Any lawyer, even if you recommended one, I have no problem with it; they still are governed by the rules and should keep their clients' interests at heart.

Lastly, in terms of the current training of RCMP officers, I know something about the program comes up at training school, but is there going to be more of an emphasis on lowballing expectations for people and focusing them - not just when you talk to them about suicide prevention and all that kind of stuff - that here is one of the key areas where people get themselves into trouble, and on how to get people involved into the program appropriately, and inappropriately, so that they know the difference and don't promise too much?

A/Commr Ryan: Yes. I have been involved in this for over two years. There has not been a criminal operations conference in relation to investigators I have not attended that I have not promoted that direction. In fact, we had all the criminal operations officers from across Canada in Ottawa last week, and exactly that same message was carried again.

It doesn't only deal with those going into the source witness protection program. It is dealing with informants, agents and sources, and how to handle them. It is an extremely delicate area. It is an area that takes a lot of attention, and an area that is fraught with danger if you don't pay that attention.

So, yes, it is very high profile on the training program.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms Torsney.

Sir, you had mentioned earlier - and I will get to you right away, Mr. Hanger - clause 19 and how you were in favour of it. You had mentioned as well that there should be action against police officers who are grossly negligent, but according to this clause, which says that there is no action if it was done in good faith, gross negligence means that people cannot proceed against police officers for gross negligence. It is only if it is in bad faith.

I am wondering if this clause serves any useful purpose, especially since police officers outside of this program are subject to negligent performance of their duties.

So if a police officer is negligent in the operation of his motor vehicle while carrying out his duties, or negligent in any way in the handling of firearms, negligent in any manner, that police officer is liable. Why should the police officer now not be liable while simply carrying out a different duty, being the witness protection program? Why exclude it?

A/Commr Ryan: It is difficult to make the distinction between one and the other. This is the type of a program a member can choose to be involved in or not. For a member who is out doing a different type of police work, and uses his firearm, pursues a vehicle, there is less opportunity to make that decision as to whether or not you will be there and take part.

As you develop an investigation, you look at what you can do, or what you cannot do, or what you may do. You can easily make the decision that because of the pitfalls you can encounter in this, you will take no activity and stay on another path.

It is an area in which almost every decision you make is a judgment call - and hindsight has 20/20 vision - but no matter what you do you have to evaluate everything in front of you, and in a short period of time.

The Chairman: You had indicated as well that this was not a police protection bill, but then you went on and indicated later that this bill is the result of a number of lawsuits. That's at least one reason why this bill was brought forward, which in effect contradicts your previous statement that this is not a police protection bill. Is this bill in effect accomplishing more in protecting the police than it is in protecting witnesses?

.1030

A/Commr Ryan: In my estimation, no, and as I clearly indicated to the question, the civil litigation aspect is simply one consideration in a number of considerations as to the importance of this legislation, and it's no more important than any other aspect. As I've already mentioned, we consider the need for a tool enabling us to attack organized crime as an extremely important aspect as to why we need legislation.

The transparency, the allowing us to interact with other federal government departments to set up a process where we can formally act with other police agencies, have cost-recovery with other police agencies.... It's a process for which there are numerous considerations. But the civil litigation aspect of it is not the prime concern that has brought this to the surface.

Mr. Hanger: Do you feel - this was brought up by other witnesses - there should be a national witness program that would include not just the RCMP, since this is actually focused on the RCMP and their activities, but be much broader in scope to include other agencies? What are the advantages and disadvantages?

A/Commr Ryan: I'm not exactly sure of what you mean by ``national program'', but I presume what you mean is a national program where the RCMP would manage all aspects of source witness protection across Canada, regardless of the agency. It would be a mammoth undertaking, a very resource-intensive undertaking. There are many areas in Canada where jurisdictions for law enforcement rest outside the RCMP and are not our responsibility.

Under the present program, it allows for a considerable number of jurisdictions to act within their own authority and to do witness protection at a certain level where the threat is not such that it requires a change of name and intervention of the federal program.

To make one national program, to bind it all together under one organization, to me would be an extremely mammoth undertaking, and I think what would probably happen is you would have a program that's extremely restrictive, where we would like to see a program that is not overly restrictive, that allows flexibility for each agency to act at their own level.

Mr. Hanger: The matter was brought forward by one other witness. I was curious about what your viewpoint was. I actually agree with all that.

Getting back to the commissioner's decision, the commissioner can make a decision as to admission of a witness. He can terminate the protection, disclose the person's identity, and he can make agreements with other agencies.

We were talking about making agreements with other agencies, what recourse the agency or the individual would have if he did not agree with the commissioner's decision. You say it's an internal matter; however, the witness himself can go to the Public Complaints Commission. That's the only recourse to settle this difference.

A/Commr Ryan: Yes, unless my interpretation of the act is -

Mr. Hanger: Would you object to seeing an amendment to make it possible for someone to review the commissioner's decision?

A/Commr Ryan: Again, I can't see what would be accomplished in that, because the police organizations themselves would have looked at their own internal processes and would have made a decision to bring it forward to us. We then would review it and make our decision.

Mr. Hanger: There have been police agencies very frustrated with that, though.

A/Commr Ryan: In my understanding, and in my two-and-a-half-years' experience, it would be a rare occasion at the end of the day where there would be disagreement or the two police forces were not in a situation of reaching a conclusion satisfactory to both.

.1035

In the example I gave, it was a situation where after a considerable length of time it was decided that this person did not belong in the program. That was an agreement reached by both agencies.

So a lot of negotiations and discussions will lead to the final decision, and it will take place at various levels through both organizations. Only rarely will the end result be total disagreement between the two agencies.

Mr. Hanger: Could there be more dispute on the level of a single police officer who may have a closer working relationship with the situation rather than the contact person within the RCMP and the administrator or discussion-maker, if you will, from the specific agency?

A/Commr Ryan: In the handling - and that's not only with the other police force but in our police force, too - we must be careful about the relationship that develops between a member and an informant, a member and an agent, or a member and a protectee. That's why we have training courses and supervision.

Yes, the feeling sometimes becomes very strong. That's why we all have bosses, I guess, to overrule us, or to point us in other directions. Because lots of times that relationship is the cause of problems.

Mr. Hanger: I'm still pondering this whole thought of recourse, even just on one individual's decision or final decision.

The other point I want to bring up is the annual report. Under clause 16 it states:

A/Commr Ryan: If Parliament decides that is the process they want to follow, I would have no objections to that process.

Mr. Hanger: Do you know what the content is going to be in that report?

A/Commr Ryan: I'm not certain of the exact details, but it will give a picture of the year's activities, the number of cases and the dollars spent. It will not identify particular individuals or cases. I believe the actual content is yet to be determined.

Mr. Hanger: But would it definitely include those three items you just mentioned - maybe the crimes committed by the protectees and the response by the commissioner?

A/Commr Ryan: Crimes committed by protectees? We would have to sit down with the government and decide what exactly will go into it.

Mr. Hanger: Might I suggest a few things?

A/Commr Ryan: We have to be careful about what goes into it and what could lead to the identity or whereabouts of a protectee.

Mr. Hanger: Fair enough. Crimes committed by a protectee certainly wouldn't be pinpointing the protectee -

A/Commr Ryan: A number of crimes?

Mr. Hanger: Instances of crimes committed by protectees and the response by the commissioner. The total budget, for instance, cooperative measures taken by law enforcement agencies with respect to witness informant protection.

A/Commr Ryan: These are all considerations that could be undertaken in relation to the development of the report.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Hanger.

I don't have anyone else on the government side.

Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Ramsay: I guess the programs are an absolute necessity. The concerns that have been raised about the bill are concerns raised about the program.

The problem I see, and the situation I'm wrestling with, with regard to clause 19 is that here we're creating a situation where people who are very vulnerable such that they may be under threat of physical harm...and we have a street operative, someone who is going to be handling, say, an informant or a witness. What we're saying to them under clause 19 is that they'll lose some of their rights to seek redress if those rights are violated. That's what clause 19 says to me.

.1040

To my mind, that does two things. First, it makes the handler of the witness or informant less concerned about the rights of the witness, because he or she has no recourse beyond what is provided for in clause 19. When we do that, are we not inviting the street handlers to disregard of the rights of witness? Often what happens at that level doesn't go much beyond that level. Many things happen at that level in the relationship that develops between the handler and the informant or witness. So there is no real review of anything if the witness complains that his rights have been violated, unless that witness has the means to take it further, and clause 19 diminishes the ability of a witness to do that.

A/Commr Ryan: It depends totally on what type of conduct you're talking about. I'll let the Department of Justice and this committee define how far clause 19 goes, but if a member carries out conduct that is outside of the scope of his duties, he is open to the litigation process, regardless of clause 19. If he carries out activity within the scope of his duties that is not proper conduct, the process is there for the protectee to complain, either to the superiors of that member, as any person has the right to do, or to the public complaints commission, and that member will be subject to disciplinary action. A lot of conduct might not lead to a civil suit but could result in internal discipline or a correction of the processes.

On numerous occasions protectees have complained internally in order to get rid of a handler if he is not getting what he wants from him, or force a procedure within the force to respond to the request. It depends on the situation. But the rules of conduct for a member will not be thrown aside simply because of clause 19. All those rules of conduct will apply, exactly as they do today.

Mr. Ramsay: I'd like to see a balance struck here, and I don't see that in clause 19. The witnesses who have appeared before this committee are concerned about it as well. In Mr. Swadron's view it is a police protection program, not a witness protection program.

My concern is about the rights and the vulnerability of that individual. If something goes amiss he must take on a national institution with great resources, and he compares that with his own resources. When we further hamper his ability to seek redress by throwing up a shield that can only be defeated if it can be proven that the individual or individuals did not act in good faith, then I'm looking for a somewhat greater balance than what we have here.

.1045

I would not want to see police officers stuck with a situation where they say, look, this guy will just set up a situation or if we make a mistake, he will sue and make a problem, and then not use the program to further enforce the law in that particular case. We don't want to see that happen either, but we have to be conscious of the concerns raised before the committee that deal with the rights of the witnesses who come into the program in a very vulnerable situation. Often the well-being of their families or themselves is under threat.

Do you see where we could strike a greater balance than what clause 19 strikes?

A/Commr Ryan: I agree with what you're saying, that it is very difficult to balance the rights of each side. As I said, it is my interpretation, and there is a good balance in what I've been advised to be the interpretation of that legislation.

I realize the issue of good faith and bad faith is extremely difficult at times to define, but I'm being advised that if somebody - and I'll let the Department of Justice deal with it - acts in gross negligence or outside the scope of his duties to carry out certain contact, then the civil suit is open and can be undertaken.

But there is an element that I mentioned before. In the balance in these types of cases is the right of the Government of Canada to defend itself in those types of suits. As it stands now, it is extremely difficult to defend against the suits, because to defend ourselves we have to pretty well disclose the processes within our program. It's a balance as well, and we have to protect the program. If protecting the program leads to settling a civil suit, we will settle the suit to protect the program. It's an extremely difficult balance.

Mr. Ramsay: So you're satisfied with the contents of it, then?

A/Commr Ryan: I'm satisfied with the contents of that clause.

The Chairman: I take it, then, the solution to your problem of disclosing your program is closed court and sealing the records, and that solves the whole problem of clause 19.

A/Commr Ryan: Our experience with the cases before the court is that it's been extremely difficult to seal documentation in today's environment. It's a court discretion as to whether it is or is not sealed.

The Chairman: But if it's in the legislation to seal documents, that solves the whole problem, then, with clause 19.

The problem is, I don't believe the interpretation you have given us of clause 19 is the only interpretation. I realize you may be advised of that, but I don't believe a police officer who is acting outside his duties is necessarily not protected by clause 19. I believe he may be because he may be acting in good faith even though he's outside his duties.

You also referred to disciplinary rules in your police force. If your disciplinary rules are as stringent as you indicated they are, then why do we really need a clause 19 to continue to protect the police? If your rules are that strong, there is no need for clause 19.

A/Commr Ryan: A member can be acting totally within his code of conduct and make a decision to relocate somebody from Halifax to Montreal, for example, and maybe in hindsight the relocation wasn't necessary. Because of the threat and the situation facing the member at that time, he made a decision based on good faith to carry out a certain activity. So he would not be acting outside his code of conduct. He would be making a discretionary decision based on the evidence before him at the time to carry out a certain activity.

.1050

The Chairman: How may lawsuits are there pending against the RCMP right now for matters related to witness protection in Canada?

A/Commr Ryan: I believe in the vicinity of six to eight, at various levels.

The Chairman: If there are so few cases against the RCMP, removal of clause 19 should not be all that onerous. There will not be a floodgate of litigation if clause 19 is removed, will there?

A/Commr Ryan: Once the legislation becomes law, it will bring a process into the open. It's extremely difficult to predict what will happen with it, whether it will bring an onslaught of requests for protection. I have no idea what the reaction will be once it comes into the forefront.

The Chairman: Thank you very much for appearing here today.

I would ask that the committee members not leave, because we still have to deal with the steering committee report.

A/Commr Ryan: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: For the rest of the committee, we have the eighteenth report of the steering committee. I believe you've had the opportunity to review it.

Ms Phinney: Why does it only go up to yesterday? I'm not clear yet about what we're doing the last week of November. Was that not decided at the steering committee meeting?

The Chairman: It was decided at another meeting. The last week is the week we will be in Halifax, and the second last week is the week we're dealing with Young Offenders witnesses here in Ottawa.

Ms Phinney: Have we voted on all of that?

The Chairman: Yes.

Ms Phinney: I still don't quite understand. If we voted on this before, why are we doing it again? It just seems we're doing it for this reason.

The Chairman: The eighteenth report is new.

Ms Torsney: I have just a couple of questions on process. Is there a possibility that we can have this schedule on some centrally located bank or have it on computer so that we can access the information for planning purposes? Particularly when we're travelling, could we not have information on where we need to be, for instance, on Monday morning? If we're going to be in Halifax on Monday, November 27, tell us where we need to be and we'll figure out how to get there.

For some people such as you, Morris, there's no point necessarily in your going Saskatoon-Ottawa-Halifax. It may be more efficient for you to go directly there.

The Chairman: Toronto-Halifax.

Ms Torsney: For some of us it makes a heck of a lot better connection to leave from our home rather than from here. So if we could have that information on the computer, then we can make our own plans and inform you.

The Chairman: That'll be determined as soon as the steering committee approves the budget, and it should be this week.

Ms Torsney: Even if the schedule says tentative, that's okay, too.

The Chairman: I think that's a good idea.

Are there any other questions?

Ms Torsney: I move that we accept the eighteenth report, Mr. Chairman.

Motion agreed to

.1055

The Chairman: The witnesses who were requested with respect to the Parole Board, the S.O. 110 and S.O. 111 Order in Council appointments of Knox, Heinrichs, and Lewis, will be Thursday at 9:30 a.m.

The meeting is adjourned until 3:30 p.m.

;