[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, October 24, 1995
.1043 
[English]
The Chairman: Order.
We will continue with Bill C-78.
Our witness at this time is Detective Gary Bishop. I have to say it carefully, because you feel like saying Barry Bishop. He's from the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police.
Detective Bishop, you might commence by making a presentation or a brief statement, and then we can go to questions and answers.
Detective Gary Bishop (Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have been with the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police for 22 years. I have a wide, varied background with the police department, and currently I'm the coordinator of the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police witness relocation program.
Many provincial police departments in fact have their own witness relocation programs. It's not just the RCMP.
Our witness relocation program is operated independently under the guidance of the Attorney General of Ontario, who provides funding and the guidelines we follow.
There's no legislation currently, but we have a crown policy. I had that crown policy photocopied, and I believe you have copies of it. Within that crown policy you will find that there are criteria for acceptance to the program, as well as some of the other guidelines that we follow in dealing with these cases.
The program does not provide any rewards or benefits in return for testimony. What it does provide are funding and assistance in relocation and re-establishment in a new location of a witness who is required in a crown case.
When we use the term ``witness protection'', that is sometimes a misnomer, because the protection is from the relocation aspect of it. A person is relocated to another location and it's the ``needle in the haystack'' theory, where if you can't find the person, they will be protected.
A lot of problems arise with this. Some of the main problems that arise involve the witness himself having difficulty coping with this turmoil in his life, because it's a very traumatic event to happen to him. There are a lot of problems that arise because of that.
.1050
Unlike the program proposed in the federal legislation, the Attorney General's program applies only to witnesses and does not provide assistance to agents or informants. Also, unlike the proposed federal program, Ontario's program requires independent analysis by crown counsel not associated with the prosecution and approved by the Deputy Attorney General or someone delegated specifically by him. Ontario's program relies upon a network of independent witness protection officers who are not directly involved in the investigation but who, in a neutral way, collect required information, analyze the circumstances and deal with the witnesses. In short, in Ontario, witness protection decisions are made by neutral parties not involved in the investigation or prosecution of the case.
Another hallmark of Ontario's program is the use of standardized applications and agreements. The agreements clearly set out both the crown's and the witnesses' obligations.
The proposed federal Witness Protection Program Act is not intended to replace or encroach on existing provincial witness protection programs. The bill quite properly recognizes the responsibility and independence of the provincial crown in the prosecution of Criminal Code offences. The proposed act does, however, allow Ontario to opt into the federal witness protection program on a cost-recovery basis. Given the existence of our own program, the legislation will not have a major impact in Ontario.
The federal initiative, which defines a basis for admission and termination, develops a model for the implementation of consistent treatment, responsibilities and obligations and provides for an accountability process and complaints procedure. This should result in a more open, accountable and effective federal program.
The Attorney General's program does rely on the provision of some identity documents from federal departments necessary for establishing a new identity for protected witnesses. Currently, we utilize the RCMP to get these documents. These documents are often needed on a quick and timely basis. For example, if you change someone's identification and relocate them, they're not able to get a job, and often it's difficult to get an apartment unless they have a social insurance number. These documents are required quickly and we rely on the RCMP for that service. That's one of the biggest problems we've encountered, that these documents are not quick in coming.
It's not the fault of the RCMP, because they do their best to get these documents through their channels. It may very well be that this process would be more efficient if it were streamlined and federal document providers had a specific authority and obligation to provide relevant documents to the provincial attorneys general. Also, while subparagraph 8(b)(ii) of the proposed act deals with financial and other responsibilities of a protected witness, it does not specifically mention or deal with family court orders.
Witness relocation is recognized as a very important law enforcement tool, and this act should enhance public confidence in the federal program and increase public cooperation in dealing with serious crime.
I'd simply like to say that we've had our program since 1988 and we've operated since that time. I've been associated with them since 1989 and I have moved about 30 witnesses with varying degrees of success. There are all sorts of problems we do encounter and a lot of issues arise that we've never had to deal with before. It's like learning a new job every time we do this because each case is individual, the problems are new each and every time, and it creates quite an interesting job, let me tell you that. I've never had a job with the police department that has required me to be as innovative or as creative or as deceptive sometimes as this one. But I enjoy it. It's a great job. It can be alot of fun.
We utilize the RCMP services currently on a cost-recovery basis, as I said, and for documentation. In cases involving federal drug prosecution cases, where it's a joint forces operation, the RCMP will often deal with those witnesses on their own.
.1055
As I say, we encounter some problems that this bill does not specifically deal with. It's a problem that we have in obtaining federal documents. It does not help us with family court orders if we have to move a family. One spouse could be the threat and there are family court orders and family issues that are involved. This creates quite a nightmare for everyone involved. These are problems that we have to deal with as they arise, and often very quickly.
We consider the witness relocation program a very important tool in fighting crime. It is also a very serious last ditch attempt to protect the witness. We'll try to find alternative measures, if we can, in dealing with these people and relocating them and providing for their safety. It's something that we don't take lightly. We welcome any legislation that's going to help us do this job, but, as I said, this particular act does not specifically address the provincial programs. It does assist us in that it provides assistance to the RCMP so they can do their job better and, hopefully, assist us in those ways.
Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Before we get to the questions and answers, it's my understanding that presently in Ontario there is a lawsuit against, probably, the government on dealing with that particular program. Is that correct or not, or do you know?
Det. Bishop: I think there's a couple.
The Chairman: Would that cause the elimination of that program in light of this legislation that's being proposed?
Det. Bishop: Are you referring to the fact that there's a lawsuit?
The Chairman: Yes.
Det. Bishop: No.
The Chairman: Okay. Ten minutes, Madam Venne.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne (Saint-Hubert): Let met go back to the lawsuits. I would like to know which are directed against you presently? Are you being sued because you have not fulfilled your obligations toward a protectee? Is that what happened? Why are you being sued?
[English]
Det. Bishop: I suppose that would be the interpretation of that person. If there are lawsuits in Ontario, I'm not the subject of all those lawsuits. I just point that out.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: I see.
I have one more question and then, unfortunately, I do have to leave. Do you sometimes send witnesses that are in the program to the RCMP?
[English]
Det. Bishop: Only if the case involves a joint forces operation involving the RCMP and ourselves and it's dealing with a federal drug prosecution, perhaps an importing charge or something like that. If there are protected witnesses who need to go into the program, the RCMP will look after them.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: That is all for now. Thank you.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you, Madam Venne. Mr. Ramsay.
Mr. Ramsay (Crowfoot): I would like to thank Mr. Bishop for his presentation and, of course, his experience in this kind of thing from the viewpoint of a peace officer. I imagine it is usually through the peace officer that witnesses enter these programs; that's their initial contact.
Det. Bishop: Yes, it is.
Mr. Ramsay: It would be the peace officer who would alert the witness to the potential of protection.
Det. Bishop: Sometimes. Sometimes they know about it and they'll come to us with the expectation. That's what they want.
Mr. Ramsay: Okay. I see in the material you gave us that police officers are not to indicate very much information to a potential witness about the program.
Det. Bishop: A potential witness - no, we don't. We don't tell them very much about the program because of the secrecy aspect of it. The chances are they may not even be accepted into the program, and if that's the case we don't want to -
Mr. Ramsay: But is this not designed to protect the witness and the state against the possible use of the witness program to elicit testimony that might not otherwise be forthcoming?
.1100
Is it not designed to minimize what the peace officer can offer the witness or simply to advise the witness that there is a benefit, which of course would be the protection, perhaps a new identity, assistance to get a new job, educational training, as your information indicates your program offers? Is that not to remove from the scope of the police officer the form of inducement that the program might be used for?
Det. Bishop: Let me explain. The investigating officer in a case, if he has a person who he feels is a candidate as a protected witness, is authorized not to reveal any information about the case other than the fact that there is a witness relocation program, at which time he'll request that I attend and interview this person. Based on that interview and the information I obtain, I prepare a brief with all the information, including our operational plan and the threat assessment, which is crucial to this application, and send it to the Auditor General. Whether or not the applicant will be successful is his decision.
Mr. Ramsay: Yes, I understand that.
This new legislation, Bill C-78, would apply, of course, to your province as well. It provides the means whereby witnesses who come under the authority of municipal police forces in Ontario would have access to the federal program, including your police force. Is it possible that you will be taking advantage of the federal program?
Det. Bishop: It is my understanding that at this time we won't be.
Mr. Ramsay: Why would that be?
Det. Bishop: It's the Attorney General's decision. He chooses to stay with his program. That's just my understanding, that our program is working and this bill does not deal with the Ontario plan.
Mr. Ramsay: Is there any legislation?
Det. Bishop: No.
Mr. Ramsay: From your personal viewpoint, is your program equal or superior to this one? Why would you not take advantage of this program?
Det. Bishop: We have a lot of personal knowledge about how to operate our program. We have been operating our program and, with the authority of the Attorney General, he's the one who requires us to continue with it.
We do cooperate with the RCMP, and we have in the past cooperated with them on a cost-recovery basis, as I indicated. As well, in specific cases the RCMP will in fact move the witnesses for us. In a case of documentation when a new identity is required, we still have to utilize the RCMP services to get that.
Mr. Ramsay: Let me ask you a question that I wanted to ask the other witnesses but I didn't have time. It has to do with the morality of creating false documents and false resumés and false whatever.
As a peace officer, how do you feel about that? How do you feel about introducing a piece of legislation whereby the authorities will be creating a...? The justice system is based upon truth, and here we see a bit of a conflict. I see a real conflict where you as a peace officer and we as parliamentarians are now saying that within the justice system we're going to introduce a program that is going to be based, at least in part, upon the exact opposite of the truth, where we're going to be falsifying things. We're going to be, in fact, lying. How do you feel about that?
Det. Bishop: When I first became involved with the program, believe me, it was difficult for me to take, because of course, as you say, we're all very truthful, or hopefully we are, and we have to create a deception and carry on like that. It was a transition for me, believe me. Of course we have to realize it's for the greater good and try to get these people safely relocated and make the transition as smoothly and as safely as possible.
.1105
Because we have difficulty obtaining documents, because we have difficulty with getting the information, we sometimes have to create stories. It's just as simple as getting someone an apartment, because they'll need a reference. If I move somebody to another province and I take them to a city or take them to another apartment, they're always asked for references. Everyone is asked for a reference at an apartment. I have to create a deception in order to give this person some sort of credibility so they can get an apartment.
Mr. Ramsay: But it goes much further than that, doesn't it? If a person is a nurse, a person is a lawyer, there has to be falsification of documents that might violate the bar association requirements of a province, might violate the professional nurses' association of a province. When we went over this and I was making my notes, I jotted down here, I see, ``the edge of a slippery slope''.
What does that do to you as a peace officer?
Let me just ask you this. Yes, you have said you had to wrestle with this when you first dealt with it, but now you've conditioned yourself to it.
Det. Bishop: No, it's something I think about each and every time. The law is never broken if we ever have to do a deception.
Mr. Ramsay: But you're doing it, and on a routine basis.
Det. Bishop: I'm creating a deception for minor things, such as obtaining apartments.
Mr. Ramsay: You're creating a falsehood.
Det. Bishop: Yes.
Mr. Ramsay: I have some concerns about that, not only as a member of Parliament but as a former police officer sworn to uphold the law and tell the truth and so on. It seems to me for a peace officer the lie and the deception are the enemy. Now it appears that with the sanction of members of Parliament and government we are going to embrace that. We're going to embrace the enemy.
I don't want to belabour that too much here today, but it is a concern to me that we would have people like yourself, who join with the highest and the noblest intent to serve the country and to serve the truth, embroiled in the kind of situation where you're doing exactly the opposite in this particular area: you're lying, you're falsifying documents, you may even be committing what might be offences under those acts I referred to earlier. I have some real concern about it. I don't know what it does. I hope it does nothing to your integrity, but I don't know how it could not affect me if I had to do that.
Det. Bishop: I suppose that's why the legislation is required, because we have been operating this way for a number of years in order to protect people. Their testimony is crucial to cases and their lives are threatened. We've had to be very creative. We've had to be very innovative.
You mentioned some professional people we'd have to falsify documents for. That's never happened to me personally. I've never had to do that.
The stories and background stories we have to create for people...yes, we do have to create a new background story. It's probably one of the most difficult things someone will have to do: be relocated from their home - and I'll use the example of Hamilton - to another town or city, in another province. To drop them into that town or province with no background, with nothing, and ask them to take over and get on with their life and carry on...I would say it would be difficult for any one of us to have to do this.
Mr. Ramsay: It's a paradox.
Det. Bishop: To give up what you have and then start anew in another province, sever your ties with all your family, carry on with a new identity, with no history, no background, and then expect to get a job, expect to get something as small as an apartment....
Mr. Ramsay: It's a real paradox. I understand.
Det. Bishop: We never do anything that's going to jeopardize the integrity of our program, the integrity of our police service or the Attorney General's office. We do things as a last resort, and we view this very seriously.
.1110
Mr. Ramsay: Thank you.
The Chairman: Before we go to the next questioner, I have a question on the falsification of documents. If it's a falsification of professional documentation or educational documentation, for example, you don't give credentials to people who don't have credentials, do you? You just change the names on them, do you not? In other words, if a person has a Bachelor of Arts degree, you will see to it that the Bachelor of Arts degree has a different name on it, not that the person has a degree that the person has never earned.
Det. Bishop: That's correct, sir.
Some of the documents we have to alter are school documents and medical records, and that's simply by the name. School documents will refer back to a city or a school or a school jurisdiction. We have to alter that, and that's done by the school boards themselves, with their cooperation.
The Chairman: Ms Torsney.
Ms Torsney (Burlington): Just completing that thought, in terms of your upholding the law, you don't counsel people who are moved into new communities on how to earn new income from breaking the law and robbing banks or anything, do you?
Det. Bishop: Absolutely not.
Ms Torsney: So it's just strictly a matter of changing names and getting new social insurance numbers and driver's licences, and you certainly don't give a driver's licence to somebody who never qualified for a driver's licence, for instance.
Det. Bishop: That's correct.
Ms Torsney: Okay.
My understanding from the minister when he was here was that there are fifteen different programs across the country and that it is not the intention of this bill or of this government to replace those programs. They are unique programs and they work and it is not necessary to cancel those out and replace them with the RCMP program.
Det. Bishop: Yes.
Ms Torsney: You mentioned, just in terms of some logistics, that you moved about 30 witnesses in the last 6 years. That's roughly 5 a year.
Det. Bishop: I've been involved in 30 cases. In some of those cases, we've managed to make alternative arrangements short of putting them directly into the program. But that may be how many applications I've dealt with.
Ms Torsney: How many people work on this team in Hamilton?
Det. Bishop: Currently it's just myself. Starting in the new year, there will be two of us. In the past, when there were people coming into the program we'd have to draw support from within our police service.
Ms Torsney: In terms of the kind of people you're moving at the Hamilton level, is it mostly related to organized crime, or is it the whole gamut?
Det. Bishop: It's the whole gamut.
Ms Torsney: You mentioned that you have very standard forms and things, and it sounded like you thought that was a good thing on the one hand, but on the other hand, every case was unique and so you get into specific problems. I'm not sure why you want standard forms on the one hand and then -
Det. Bishop: Contractual agreements are fairly standard, where the criteria are set out for them to follow or not to follow. It's a voluntary program. They don't have to come into our program. We don't force anyone to come in who doesn't want to, because that's an invitation for disaster. We simply let them know the ground rules and they can agree or not agree.
The other problems I was mentioning sometimes have to do with problems that come with the witness we have to deal with: family court orders, debts, criminal records, criminal pasts, outstanding charges. There's a list.
Ms Torsney: We've talked a lot about switching degrees and switching professional designations from province to province, and you mentioned at the end of your responses to Mr. Ramsay that there haven't been a lot of those in your experience.
When we were talking to the RCMP, they seemed to indicate that a lot of the cases involved people who had general skills or would not be looking for professional designation in different provinces. I wondered if you could give us a rundown of the 30. It doesn't have to be specific, but of the 30, what's the kind of split between professional versus general workers who would be seeking jobs perhaps as labourers or something?
Det. Bishop: Most would be general.
Ms Torsney: In terms of the family court orders for support, how do you see that we best handle that? Should the government take over those payments or should we just make sure that there's a third party that pays them? How does it work?
Det. Bishop: It's not just that; it's child custody orders. If one spouse is a threat, it's not much good having access to the children. If the children are threatened or the purpose of accessing the children is simply to obtain the location and identity of the other spouse, that's a constant problem. Of course we deal with each court issue as it comes up, and we have to provide the service for these people to see their children and everything else, whether or not they're a threat. I don't know how we're going to deal with this.
.1115
Ms Torsney: As in our legislation if you commit another crime, if you're threatening to harm your former spouse and/or the children, surely that would supersede any family court order in the country.
Det. Bishop: No, it doesn't. The threat can exist, but if there's an existing court order, then it has to be amended to agree with the threat.
Ms Torsney: So we need either to introduce a mechanism in our program or to allow you guys to introduce something when you're moving people who are under access orders.
Det. Bishop: That's right.
Ms Torsney: In terms of the federal documents, you mentioned that you have trouble getting SIN numbers and other documents at the federal level. What kind of timeframe are we talking about? Are we talking about six months, a week, three weeks?
Det. Bishop: It is six to eight months in some cases.
Ms Torsney: Do you think that most of your problems arise from the fact that there should be some security within the system so that we're not reissuing social insurance numbers to people all over the place? Or do you think that it's strictly an administration glitch that we need to fix?
Det. Bishop: I believe it's an administration problem and that these things can be streamlined.
Ms Torsney: Even when you're getting help from the RCMP, it's still taking six to eight months?
Det. Bishop: Yes, although it depends. Sometimes it will take eight months, sometimes six months, and sometimes six weeks.
Ms Torsney: On the 30 cases, what is the average or the split? Is it that 15 take a long time and 15 are fast?
Det. Bishop: Yes, something like that. What we try to do is avoid the name changes altogether.
Ms Torsney: Oh, really?
Det. Bishop: Yes. We have to analyse the threat. If the threat is a sophisticated one and it requires a name change, then we'll do it. If we can avoid doing a name change, then we will, because it creates a lot of turmoil for the witness. That's where the problems arise, when the witnesses have a problem in coping with everything new that's in their life.
Ms Torsney: I notice that in the document you gave to us you have some provisions for counselling and psychological and psychiatric counselling for individuals. I imagine that this is a very key component, especially if someone has been under some trauma or some threat of being harmed for a while and adjusting to a new life, especially if they bring children with them. That would be very difficult for them, if they are cut off from grandparents and from families and friends.
Det. Bishop: Yes.
Mr. Ramsay: Do you think that this new federal legislation will expedite the acquisition of documents, particularly from the federal government, such as the social insurance numbers? What do you identify as the problems or the hurdles that police officers have to deal with in obtaining these kinds of documents from the federal departments? Is it because previously there has not been a basis in law to support the requirement? What has been the problem? Might the new legislation expedite that process?
Det. Bishop: I don't see anything in the bill that would facilitate the obtaining of documents.
Mr. Ramsay: Why does it take six months to get a new SIN number?
Det. Bishop: I don't know.
Mr. Ramsay: So you don't know what is causing the delay?
Det. Bishop: No. We make the request to the RCMP, and then they have their mechanism that they put in place.
Mr. Ramsay: So you don't know why it takes that long?
Det. Bishop: No, I don't.
Mr. Ramsay: What kind of a problem does the delay create?
Det. Bishop: If a relocation is involved, then, first, we don't want to place somebody who doesn't have a new identity in a new location. If we place them there with their old identity and then change them into a new identity, both names are known in the new location. That creates a security breach.
If you send them there without the documentation so they don't have the new name down yet, they can't get a job. So if they're sitting in limbo for six or eight months, awaiting documentation, awaiting their new name, unable to work, unable to get involved in their new community, it creates a lot of problems and a lot of turmoil for the witness. That's when the problems develop.
Mr. Ramsay: Has your police department expressed concern to the RCMP about the delay?
Det. Bishop: Oh yes.
Mr. Ramsay: What has been the response from the RCMP regarding the delay?
Det. Bishop: They understand it, and I think they're working toward solving it.
.1120
Mr. Ramsay: But do they explain why? Perhaps we can have witnesses to tell us why there is a six-month delay in getting something as simple as a new security number.
Det. Bishop: I can't be specific as to what -
Mr. Ramsay: So you don't know what the obstacles are in terms of the delay.
Det. Bishop: No, I don't.
Mr. Ramsay: But it is a hindrance in your program.
Det. Bishop: If we change someone's name, it is a hindrance.
Mr. Ramsay: Your program has been in operation for approximately seven years.
Det. Bishop: Since 1988 on an informal basis. It's become more formalized in the last few years.
Mr. Ramsay: What kinds of problems have you seen within the program since you've been connected with it?
Det. Bishop: One of the major problems we have is the witness's inability to cope with the change.
I heard someone ask a question earlier about what types of people are introduced to the witness program. Quite often these people are criminals. Quite often they're co-accuseds who have important testimony in a case. At the same time, their lives are at risk and they need to be protected. They have a criminal background. Perhaps they just came to the police before their partners came to the police, trying to avoid prosecution.
You're dealing with people from all walks of life. If you have someone who has a criminal background, by simply relocating him and giving him a new name, you're not changing that person. That person will continue to be as he was in the old location. We do what we can to help them get along with their lives, but there's a lot of problems with the witnesses themselves not being able to cope and breaching conditions of the contracts.
Our philosophy is the witnesses are responsible for their own safety in that they know what the rules are. We do what we can to help them and they're expected to abide by that. If they were to breach any of those conditions, if they were to recommit a criminal offence, then we're not going to have anything more to do with them. You cannot protect someone who is not willing to be protected.
Mr. Ramsay: Can you tell us how many witnesses you've seen go through the program and what the percentage of success is? I guess I'm asking what the percentage of problems is. Is the program doing what it's designed to do? If it has failures, what's the percentage?
Is it by and large a successful program, not just from the point of view of law enforcement, but from the point of view of providing the necessary protection to the witnesses?
Det. Bishop: Yes, it is. If there are any failures, I would have to say they come from the witnesses themselves.
Mr. Ramsay: If there are failures, how many are there?
Det. Bishop: It's perhaps as high as 30% or 40%.
Mr. Ramsay: That's pretty high.
Det. Bishop: Yes.
Mr. Ramsay: Could you tell us how many witnesses there are in your program?
Det. Bishop: We have 42 cases that we've been dealing with.
Mr. Ramsay: Under the new bill there is a termination period. What is your average termination period, or longevity of the witness program per witness?
Det. Bishop: That varies from case to case. We try to keep it to under a year, but depending on how long the criminal case before the courts goes, it could be much longer.
Mr. Ramsay: Are most of your cases under a year?
Det. Bishop: I would say most of the cases are around a year.
I spoke of the failure rate. Generally while they are on the program for that year, there is no failure. It's usually afterwards that some problems do develop.
Mr. Ramsay: Once your program is terminated, does that create a problem for the witnesses?
Det. Bishop: Yes, quite often it does.
Mr. Ramsay: In what way?
Det. Bishop: Often they have contact with and the support of the police. If they lose that at any time, they become disgruntled, as they do when the payments stop.
Mr. Ramsay: Thank you very much.
.1125
Mr. Regan (Halifax West): Are you familiar with clause 18 of the bill? I'll read it to you. It says:
- 18. Subject to confidentiality requirements imposed by any other Act, departments and
agencies of the Government of Canada shall, to the extent possible, cooperate with the
Commissioner and persons acting on behalf of the Commissioner in the administration of the
Program under this Act.
Det. Bishop: Yes, I do. I think it's an important part.
Mr. Regan: Secondly, how long are witnesses in your program, generally?
Det. Bishop: As I indicated to Mr. Ramsay, usually about a year. It depends on how long the case is before the courts.
Mr. Regan: What kinds of complaints do you get about the program from witnesses?
Det. Bishop: When they're relocated, the difficulty in coping is sometimes overwhelming. They have no friends. They have limited contact with family. The funding that's provided is limited. The expectation is that these people will become self-sufficient within a prescribed period. Of course sometimes the risk is overwhelming and these people just have difficulty coping.
Mr. Regan: You say the failures come generally from the witnesses. In light of what you just said, does that surprise you?
Det. Bishop: No, it doesn't. Knowing some of the people we deal with, it doesn't surprise me.
Mr. Regan: One of the concerns we've heard about this whole issue, one of the reasons for having this legislation, is that there needs to be a clear understanding between witnesses and the police department involved over what exactly the terms are in the agreement.
Det. Bishop: That's right.
Mr. Regan: You do already use agreements, and you have clearly set-out rules in that agreement determining the obligations of each party: is that correct?
Det. Bishop: That's correct.
Mr. Regan: Do you see that this bill, which requires that kind of agreement for the RCMP, should be helpful in that regard?
Det. Bishop: It should be helpful.
Mr. Regan: Anything else to add on this issue?
Det. Bishop: Witness relocation or the contract?
Mr. Regan: For a person who is suddenly coping with the problems of a new identity, losing all the support of their home community, their friends, their family, the difficulties they must face in trying to cope with that, trying to establish themselves, create a job, get settled down, personally, psychologically, and financially, do you think one year is long enough to be involved in supporting them?
Det. Bishop: Yes, it is, sometimes. Sometimes it is.
Mr. Regan: Sometimes.
Det. Bishop: The contracts we enter into are entered into before; generally before there's a relocation. They're generally told it's a six-month term or whatever, a year term, of financial assistance.
Mr. Regan: So the term of it is decided ahead of time. Or are there times when it's extended?
Det. Bishop: It can be extended. We have to make a re-application to the Attorney General.
Mr. Ramsay: I would like to follow up on what Mr. Regan was touching on. The witness program is only for a year. It's a dramatic change in the life of an individual. It doesn't seem to me - and I ask you this - that the witness program really does a lot for an individual's life. When they're done with it, are they in a better position or a worse situation? What happens to these people? You keep them on that program for a year or so, then they're off it. What happens to them afterwards? Or do you know?
Det. Bishop: We always attempt to maintain contact with these people, and the door's always open for them to communicate with us. The expectation from us is that these people are ultimately responsible for their own safe keeping and ultimately responsible for getting on with their lives. The police department and the Attorney General provide some funding. We'll help them relocate and assist them in setting up in a new location. It's for a set time. It's not cash for life.
.1130
Mr. Ramsay: I mean after they've finished the program.
Det. Bishop: After this is over?
Mr. Ramsay: Yes. What have we got in terms of this individual?
Det. Bishop: Generally, the people are happy when that happens. If they make a successful transition, then they can carry on with their life and can have a useful life.
Mr. Ramsay: So there are no horror stories after they leave the program.
Det. Bishop: What do you mean by horror stories? We've had to terminate some people and they've left the program. Some people have been re-arrested for different things.
Generally, if they're a successful candidate, they live out the term of the agreement and carry on afterward. If they've made a successful transition, they can carry on.
Mr. Ramsay: And they're always advised that the contract will last for a certain period of time and then they'll be on their own?
Det. Bishop: That's correct.
Mr. Ramsay: They're always advised of that before they enter into the contract?
Det. Bishop: Yes.
Mr. Regan: When you are transferring someone or moving someone to another province, do you automatically go through the RCMP program? In what kinds of cases would you use the RCMP program?
Det. Bishop: For example, we'd use them, as I explained, in joint forces operations within our jurisdiction. When the RCMP are involved in an investigation and it involves drug trafficking, we'll use them.
Mr. Regan: Sure. It's federal.
Det. Bishop: Or if we need to obtain documentation, we'll utilize the RCMP.
We have the option of using the RCMP if we were to move them to another province.
What we do often is use a municipal force if they are going to be living within that jurisdiction, because they are given a contact officer in that area. So if any immediate problems crop up, they can contact that officer. We have a reciprocal agreement, so that if another outstanding or outside jurisdiction wants to come to Hamilton, we will provide that service for them.
Mr. Regan: Are there any particular advantages to a force like yours in accessing the RCMP's program, in terms of differences between the two programs? Is it more complete in some ways? Does it offer different kinds of things?
Det. Bishop: Our program simply provides a service to witnesses in important cases only. The RCMP provide their services to agents and informants, in addition to witnesses. In fact, that's one of the rules. We don't want them involved in any investigations. We don't want them getting back into the criminal element if they're going to be coming onto our program, because that's going to cause another potential threat to them in their new location, which might require another move. So one of our stipulations is that it's witnesses only.
The Chairman: Thank you very much for appearing here today. I'm sure that everyone appreciates the practical experience that you have brought to the committee on a program that has worked for a period of time.
We stand adjourned until 3:30 p.m.