Skip to main content
EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, October 24, 1995

.1531

[English]

The Chairman: This afternoon we continue with Bill C-78. We have as witnesses Scott Newark, the executive director of the Canadian Police Association, and Neal Jessop, the president.

You have a presentation, I believe, Mr. Newark. You're quite familiar with this committee. Please proceed.

Mr. Scott Newark (Executive Director, Canadian Police Association): Mr. Chairman, I'll make some introductory remarks. They will be followed by Mr. Jessop, addressing some of the practical implications of witness protection and informant protection dealing with informants. Then I will close, with your permission, with some observations on some of what we think are the public interest issues at stake in witness and informant protection, in particular this bill.

Initially we wanted to raise, as I did in a letter to the clerk and to the chairman, some observations about the process involved. This will potentially have some rather large ramifications in law enforcement. Although the bill has been in Parliament, at least from the context of our association's being involved in it...we had approximately one week in total from when we were notified the bill was going to be heard in committee to a request to be present, to prepare a brief, and to make a presentation.

A lot of what is at stake in this bill, given the nature of the assignment of responsibility exclusively to the RCMP, is how that may affect other municipal or provincial law enforcement agencies. We thought it might have been appropriate to be able to canvass them, as well as some of the provinces with whom we deal, on what their views are about how this would work, cost recovery, how it might affect what they're doing, and what their overall view is, even by comparison with the kinds of programs they run individually. Unfortunately, because of the timeframe, that is denied us.

I understand this is a subject area that has been in operation for a while without codification, I would think for ten or fifteen years at the very minimum. I must confess to not being certain what the need is that it proceed at this pace.

I think it would only be appropriate to put on the record too our observation that while this government has, frankly, an enviable record of consultation with groups involved in criminal justice - and we can speak only to criminal justice - from the Department of Justice perspective, and in relation to the Solicitor General's department on other bills, such as Bill C-45, insofar as issues were involved with the RCMP management, it appears consultation is simply not being effected. I'm speaking specifically of Bill C-58, which went before a government operations subcommittee, and this bill, which I would suggest to you is proceeding at a pace faster than required. It limits the ability of individuals to put forward something by way of a thought-out response, including analysis of the bill.

I'm sure you will have asked your own questions - I hope you will have asked your own questions - about overall consultation with other people. Suffice it to say that with other issues, although we normally consult on virtually all subjects and all subject areas in relation to government, on this one there was absolutely none.

Perhaps I should have beaten down the doors, or attempted to beat down the doors, of the Solicitor General's department. I must admit I may have been lulled into thinking the normal practice of consultation would occur. That obviously has been an error. I sincerely hope this committee is going to take the time to pause and reflect at least on some of the issues we're going to try to raise and hopefully it will ask some of the questions we would have asked had we been included in any kind of consultation whatsoever.

I mention this - I don't think I've ever had to do this before this committee before - precisely because the practice is so out of the ordinary...other than what is the normal practice with the Department of Justice and the Solicitor General's department in dealing with criminal justice bills. It's extraordinary. It just seems to us to be something that requires comment before we proceed with the substantive portion of our remarks.

Mr. Neal Jessop (President, Canadian Police Association): Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, most of you know me and know what I do in my other life. Perhaps I can explain to you what happens when we get into witness protection, so you can see how really off the mark this bill is.

.1535

The need for witness protection often comes to light in major investigations. Major investigations mean murder, serious drug offences, serious sex offences, anything in which the consequences for the accused and for the witness are very serious.

The reason witnesses come to us for protection, as you know quite well, is that they often have the truth. The disclosure of the truth can result in their death or serious injury, or death or serious injury to their families.

They come to us and they have the truth. We have to get the truth and in return for the truth they get protection.

About 45,000 of the 60,000 cops in this Canadian police world are not members of the RCMP. Among those 45,000 you find the most qualified homicide investigators in the Dominion of Canada and perhaps in North America. They're probably members of, for example, the Metropolitan Toronto Police homicide squad that investigates anywhere from 60 to 80 murders a year.

Municipal budgets and municipal police budgets are very seriously squeezed. As most of you would know from talking to us previously, the protection of witnesses is a very expensive business.

In most cases, it requires some movement from one location to another, protection of families, protection of children at schools, protection of people in hotels and motels and wherever they might need to go, new identities and all of the rest of it.

The possible benefits of this sort of situation were partially addressed in Bill C-206, where there is actually some direct reference to some emergency assistance for a period of 30 days. Bill C- 206 was a good bill, as I remember it.

We as investigators have to go to someone who is qualified to judge the nature and quality of the evidence the witness is likely to give. It must be someone who can assess that evidence and basically put a value on it. That person should also be able to confirm that the witness has clear evidence that can assist the prosecution and there is a need to protect this person. Therefore that person, who should be federal or provincial crown counsel, should be able to order immediately the expenses required for witness protection.

This bill is basically garbage from our point of view, as far as investigators go. The reason it's garbage is not that it was intended to be garbage. It started out good and came out as garbage. The reason it's that way is that we can't get access to what we need right away from people who are competent to judge the witness and the quality of his or her potential evidence. I haven't talked about informants yet, but I will later.

This bill requires the 75% of the cops in this country who are qualified to conduct these investigations to start at the bottom of the RCMP hierarchy and over a long period of time, through numerous layers of the RCMP, get authorization for witness protection from the commissioner of the RCMP, who, unfortunately for us, has his own budget and his own witnesses to protect and will protect them first long before he gets to ours.

.1540

You've heard me say before that I've often thought Ottawa is really not 500 miles away from most of the other activity in Canada but actually 5,000 to 10,000 miles away. It might actually be on the moon when it comes to this kind of legislation.

When Scott called and told me we had a witness protection bill, I said ``Good, finally.'' When he finally sent it to me I said, ``What is this? What good does this do for police officers who are doing serious investigations across this Dominion of Canada?'' It's great for RCMP officers. I'm sure the RCMP administration will pay a lot of attention when it needs witness protection. Albeit, it does its policing in areas where there are very few serious violent crimes, except in British Columbia, and ignores the rest of us in all the major urban and semi-urban or suburban areas of this country.

This bill is of no good to me. I don't have time for it and I don't have time to use it. There should be an avenue for me to get federal funds, which are part of the taxes donated to this government across this country, without having to go through this particularly offensive hierarchy of another police service.

You must remember that across this country serious crime is investigated by people outside the RCMP - not totally, but a serious part of it. They are not part of the RCMP, but they are very qualified and consult with provincial crown attorneys and federal crown attorneys, who are extremely qualified and can bring serious investigations to conclusions.

Unfortunately for me, and all the rest of the cops across this country who deal with this sort of thing, we will have to do what we've always done. This avenue is not open to us. We will have to go by hook or by crook or other different and devious - for want of a better word - means to get money to support witnesses and informants.

If you do anything today, walk away from here realizing you haven't done much for the police officers of this country today. On a scale of one to ten in relation to usefulness for law enforcement, this bill is a one.

I don't have time to consult with RCMP administration, some of whom haven't investigated anything more serious than a dog bite, about protecting a witness in a serious criminal case. Those are my comments for now.

Mr. Newark: The final area deals with some of the public issues involved. I again apologize for not having given you our brief earlier, but the timeframe made it impossible.

Our brief details some of things that I think are public consequences you may want to look at in this bill, regardless of the fact that this is obviously a witness informant protection program for the national police force, the RCMP, that other forces can presumably buy into with full cost recovery, although that's not even in the bill.

Even given that system itself, I'd like to address some comments to you and hope you will ask some questions or at least think about them in your consideration of whether or not this bill, as it is currently before you, should be passed or modified.

The first thing I think you may want to look at very carefully is the characteristic that is unique to the police force this bill will place in control of the program. Unlike any other police service in Canada, there is no third party review of the administration or management of that police force. The administration of that police force, alone among police services in Canada, is able to do what it thinks appropriate, particularly in relation to its individual employee-officers.

You may have an opinion about whether that is good, bad or indifferent, but what on earth does it have to do with witness or informant protection? I want to give you the examples of a couple of cases that were brought to my attention when I was a prosecutor - when I say ``brought to my attention'', I mean in which I got involved - that I hope will offer some insight into what road we may be going down with the bill and the legislative scheme you are being asked to sanction.

.1545

As you know, essentially there is no collective agreement and there are no enforceable review procedures for officers within the RCMP who may think they're not being treated fairly. The only appeal to any grievance procedure from a commissioner's decision is to the commissioner himself.

I certainly, for the record, would invite you to call the Commissioner of the RCMP. If you do, ask him to bring along informant file number K21445, because it was a case I was directly involved in. It deals with somebody who was dealt with as an informant by the RCMP, over the objections, originally, of the specialized services that had recommended against this person being recruited, precisely for all of the reasons that I think my friends here and anybody who's been involved with police will know as well.

Very often in circumstances of informants, if things go wrong, it ends up being a question of who's running who. The informants very often end up engaging in continued criminal activity and you get into a mess that way.

The original decision was to refuse this individual that numbered informant status precisely because of that. As is the case, I'm sure, in any kind of bureaucracy, an end run of sorts was done, and this individual was approved and thereafter launched onto a career of crime, all the while, supposedly, just around the corner, just next week, there was going to be the big score on the drug information.

While this person was doing this, he was of course out committing crimes. The local RCMP detachments found that every single time they went to do their job to enforce the law, they ran into a brick wall, which said: ``Leave him alone'' or ``Don't lay those charges'' or ``Don't proceed to charges'' or in some instances, even involving my office in prosecution, ``Let's get those charges withdrawn, because you have to look at the big picture of what's going on here.''

This ultimately reached the point at which some officers who thought it was their duty to actually proceed with enforcing the law started having personal consequences inflicted on them. They had absolutely no outlet. There was nothing they could say or do to anyone that would have brought this to anybody's attention. There was no accountability.

That is so, I would suggest to you, within this particular police force. Again, I might have a view about whether that's a good idea or not, but the point is it's relevant today because this is the police force that the bill has chosen to administer the national program.

What actually happened in that case was these officers, out of some sense of frustration, got in touch with me, because I was a prosecutor and in theory they were immune from any kind of internal direction against them by me. Suffice it to say that in the prosecution of the case it allowed me the ability, if necessary, to call witnesses to find out what exactly was going on.

What was actually going on was that crime was being manufactured. We put an end to it.

I should tell you that before it was over I was followed and investigated by the RCMP drug section. They were doing it not because they thought I was doing drugs, I presume, but because I was asking questions in relation to this particular numbered informant they had as to whether or not this individual was committing crimes that were being allowed to go uninvestigated and undetected.

Actually it ended up with a report being done about me, which was handed to my superiors within the Attorney General's department. It was quite a shock to me. I had some friends, who were defence counsel, phone me up. Perhaps because of the occupation I had, and perhaps even because of the way I did it, they must have assumed all the defence counsellors would basically not like me very much. Fortunately that wasn't the case. I remember that one friend who was defence counsel phoned me up and said: ``Some guy just walked into my office and said he was there to try to get some dirt on Newark.''

I had the report dropped on the desk in front of me. I must admit in some sense it was like being investigated by Inspector Clouseau. It was extremely easy to point out how ridiculous and absurd this kind of allegation was. The essence of the complaint was I was not acting in the force's best interest. I believe even the assistant commissioner himself noted on the file: ``Actually, Mr. Newark doesn't act for the force.'' I acted for the Crown.

.1550

I relay that story because I think it's important that you understand what happens when you start closing off the doors of third party review and get into potentially murky areas like this. There is nothing in this bill that prohibits police involvement in anything in terms of suppression of information about ongoing criminal activity after the fact when somebody has become a numbered informant.

Even what was contained in Bill C-206, Mr. Wappel's bill, has been significantly watered down. I don't know if any of you other gentlemen are counsellors, but Mr. MacLellan is a lawyer. You know as well as I do that with the significance of the change in the wording - to say it is something that must have materiality so as to be able to be something by which the commissioner would terminate the contract - if you're going to go down this road with those people, you might want to put in there that the police shall not allow any criminal activity or that the contracts must be terminated on that basis. It's not there with the words that are being used.

Had we been given the chance to consult, our recommendation actually would have been that rather than having it go to an individual police force - that is, as Mr. Jessop pointed out, one of the competing investigating agencies involved here - it should be run through an arm's length organization. Mr. Wappel's original bill had it as the Solicitor General's department. Our suggestion would have been the Department of Justice. The point was that it should be through somebody other than the investigating police agency, and through somebody who would at least be capable of making those kinds of assessments, as well as the relative assessments that are also involved. That's not in this bill either. The decision that is made in terms of admission into the program, the nature of the protection that's provided, and the termination of any kind of program, are all left to the unfettered discretion of the Commissioner of the RCMP.

Mr. Wappel and I spoke about this yesterday. He told me not to forget that the commissioner has to provide reasons to somebody in case they don't include him in one of their programs. With respect, that's not really an answer.

Assuming that this bill is going to go ahead, I would also suggest to you that you may want to consider expanding at least the provisions that deal with reporting back to Parliament. It's a very generic phrase -

Ms Torsney (Burlington): It's in the bill.

Mr. Newark: I know it's in the bill, ma'am, but what I'm trying to get at is that it should be a little bit better defined. It doesn't say anything about what must be contained in the report. It also doesn't say anything at all, for example, about inclusion of such things as the number of cases turned down; the number of people who were informants who committed crimes; the number of cases terminated. None of that is in there.

Let's just stay on this for a second because it is extremely relevant. Again, Mr. Wappel and I talked about this yesterday, and he said that you would have the opportunity when the Commissioner of the RCMP or the Solicitor General comes before you to give evidence. I agreed with him, given that the committee has had such wonderful success in getting unedited information from Correctional Service Canada. Alone amongst those of you on this committee, Mr. MacLellan remembers that back in the days of the previous government, battles were literally fought with that executive branch of government to get the truth before members of Parliament.

I remember seeing the new Solicitor General when he came here for the very first time. You were considering parole reports on Valmond Lebouthillier that were heavily, heavily edited. I think Mr. Langlois from the Bloc asked why he was not able to read those reports...because they were edited. The response was that they would look into it and that they would perhaps give them to you, but perhaps not. This was after a year and a half of battles to make sure the legislative branch was actually able to see the truth. This is not contained in this bill, and there's no reason I could suggest as to why the kinds of things that must be contained in the report should not be articulated.

This bill also, of course, allows for the importation, presumably on a reciprocal basis, of foreign criminals into Canada so that they can be protected. In our brief I mentioned that this presumably will be in addition to the $65 million we currently spend in this country to house foreign nationals in our federal penitentiaries because our immigration enforcement system is not sufficiently efficient. Presumably, this will be dollars on top of that.

I think the other thing that is severely missing from this bill, which I noticed as I was reading through, is in Mr. Wappel's bill. There was a reference to what I would in effect call ``balanced interest''. This means that if the interest of public safety in moving somebody, in taking somebody into the program, does not outweigh the interest in the protection, the deal doesn't go ahead. As you'll see in this bill, this has been changed to being simply one of the factors that must be considered. And I would suggest it's a pretty significant point.

.1555

I don't want to go on too much longer because I hope there are some questions, but the last point I'd like to make with you relates to cost recovery. I presume that's what is intended by this.

If anybody else wants to use this service, they are presumably going to be obliged to pay dollars to match it. If I recall, I think it's in here that this is something that's going to be set by regulation, or be the process by which this occurs. Perhaps how that is going to occur should be something that's fleshed out a bit more in the bill. For example, I now live in an area where I don't have RCMP service, but I still pay taxes. I'm not sure why those tax dollars should be going exclusively to the running of an RCMP-administered program as opposed to a program that would deal with a police agency in my jurisdiction. They say there is only one taxpayer, but I'm not sure what the rationale is for that.

Our comments are not about the particular police agencies. What they are instead about is the unique system of management that exists within that police force, and the consequences that may result when you put onto it a process for witness and informer protection like the one contained in Bill C-78. It's the combination of these two forces, or these two realties, that I suggest should cause you some very real concern, because you're being asked to codify them and to put them into law.

Those are all of my remarks. Unless Mr. Jessop has anything else, I think we're probably free for questions.

Mr. Jessop: If I may, Mr. Chairman, I just want to follow up with one comment that is in conjunction with what Scott has said.

The Supreme Court, and other courts, has hung all kinds of law around paid witnesses and the use of informants. When they need that sort of protection for witnesses and informants, qualified, experienced investigators do not go to the RCMP, nor do they go to any other police officer. The first person they walk over to see is a prosecutor.

I don't like to charge people unless I'm reasonably certain that I can convict them. It's bad for the public perception of the police. It's really bad for my reputation, and that of any other competent investigator. I don't need to go to the RCMP for money. I need to go to a qualified, competent prosecutor who can judge the nature and quality of the evidence or the information that the informant is likely to provide, and who can say on the spot, yes or no, the federal government will provide funds for that type of an operation because it has those funds. But we simply do not, and if we can't access them, other than by this rather more-than-cumbersome means, without the proper judgments being made as to what the evidence should be or will be or can be, then we will not use it. It's as simple as that. We will do other things that we have to do, things that are lawful and can get us a conviction, or we will have to walk away from serious crimes.

For those of you who weren't here a few minutes ago, that's why this act is garbage. It does not help us. It is not good for us. I called Mr. Gray's people today and told them I was going to say that. I didn't want to say that, but that's what it is.

The Chairman: Madame Venne.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne (Saint-Hubert): Whether you like it or not, this bill will go into clause by clause next Thursday. So we should discuss how to improve rather than totally discredit it.

Mr. Newark, in your letter you say:

.1600

That's actually what you mentioned before.

Clause 8 says:

It was far more clearer in Mr. Wappel's bill. It said: «to not commit any criminal act». Don't you think we'd be better off with Mr. Wappel's wording «to not commit any criminal act»? «To refrain from activities» isn't as strong, in my opinion. Would that kind of change be interesting, in your opinion?

[English]

Mr. Newark: Yes, Madam; and even further, what I meant was in Mr. Wappel's bill, in my opinion, it makes it clear, first of all, that not committing a crime is a provision of the memorandum of understanding, or the agreement. It says the minister may terminate the agreement where somebody has violated it; in other words, by committing a crime. In Bill C-78, as you say, it uses different words, and I agree, words that are not as strong.

Even more, clause 9 governs termination of the agreement, and it says:

What I meant by focusing on that in particular was that it is imparting, I would think, some subjectivity into the process. In other words, the crime committed would depend on the commissioner's opinion that it was sufficiently material to the agreement reached. In other words, it's even one step farther.

It's a long way of saying yes, I think it would be better if we used Mr. Wappel's wording to make it crystal clear that it should result in termination of the agreement.

Secondly, I would suggest there should be something even more strongly worded, indicating it is inappropriate for officers to be involved, or anything in relation to this agreement to be done by police officers, with people who have committed crimes. The example I'm thinking of is going and getting somebody out on bail. An informant is there, they've committed a crime, you go in and speak to the JP and say, listen, we'll take care of this; just let him out on bail with us.

Those are the kinds of things I would suggest, although I must say to you, I would have preferred to have had the opportunity to speak to more people directly involved in informant protection and witness protection to get the specifics of it. But that's my general sense of what should be done.

Mr. Jessop: That is most certainly one of the problems with this bill. It did not apparently have any consultation with people who do these things and handle these kinds of people. It's quite simply this.

Mr. Newark refers to bail. We have to be very careful in the wording of this bill. Sometimes we have to get people out on bail to keep them alive. That's why when you design these sorts of bills you have to consult with people who have actually been there and who have done the job. One day we might not want bail. One day we might need bail because we can't keep the person alive if we send him to jail.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: You said in your letter that the people responsible for the program should be subject to rigorous external controls. Anyway, that's how I interpret the following sentence:

.1605

As far as I'm concerned, I've seen no outside independent control mechanism. I don't see what you're speaking about. Do you mean the yearly reports?

[English]

Mr. Newark: I meant that there is no outside, third party review of the commissioner's actions. I suggest it's not a very good combination with things like witness and informer protection.

Instead you could make it even easier by having the administration process run by the Department of Justice as opposed to the Commissioner of the RCMP. Neal may be able to help me with the exact name, but I believe there is an organization in which the RCMP participates, which is essentially made up of members of senior police management who exchange intelligence information. I'm suggesting that you would allow an appeal of the decision of the commissioner on the administration, admission, refusal, termination or anything like that to go to this other body somewhere else.

I'm particularly concerned with and have a hard time forgetting the guys I knew who were friends of mine who, as RCMP officers, were so frustrated. There was nothing they could do. There's nothing internal those people will ever be able to do if these kinds of decisions I'm talking about are being made. I don't see anything in the bill - nothing - that sets up that kind of a review short of, in theory, a yearly report to Parliament at the end of the day. It's described in the most generic terms possible in the bill.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: I have the translation here. I'm looking at the French and the English. I looked at the translation of your letter. As you say, it doesn't go with what you're saying now. Next time, I'll look at the English.

You mentioned the specific case of Clifford Olson. Do you think that in the case of the co-accused, one of them should be a beneficiary of the program? That is not indicated anywhere in the legislation. I also put the question to Mr. Wappel this morning because it is not indicated anywhere. What happens when a co-accused all of a sudden decides to sing? What do you think should happen?

[English]

Mr. Newark: I think you should continue asking that question of people who are directly involved in it until you get a satisfactory answer. I don't think you should pass the bill until you get that answer.

I know your introductory remarks have clause-by-clause consideration for Thursday, but that's a very good point. I've heard that somebody asked that question this morning, but I don't have an immediate answer for you.

It's a very good question. I think it highlights the fact of why it's not a good idea to rush through criminal justice legislation because, exactly as Neal mentioned in relation to bail, there's a myriad of circumstances involved here. I don't have an answer for you, Madam, and I think that's the reason this bill should not be rushed through this committee.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

Mr. Hanger (Calgary Northeast): I certainly agree about the speed with which some of these bills come through. Haste does make waste. We've lately had two bills already go through and all kinds of questions about their influence on law enforcement and other agencies have now arisen. The DNA bill is one that definitely went through too swiftly. There wasn't even any consultation with the provinces on this particular bill, and it's going to cost them a lot of money. The drunkenness defence bill is the second of the two most recent.

I'm certainly in favour of watching this particular bill and extending the time if at all possible. It's interesting that this whole conversation so far is kind of centring around the continued crime of some of the protected informants. I've seen that happen in my own career where informants were literally protected by the police department - and this is on a local level - because they were still producing to some degree, but they were still committing crime to even a larger degree. The powers that be felt that this was acceptable.

.1610

I don't see how one can actually regulate that, apart from having a rather stringent policy within an individual police department to deal with it. To put it into an act here, I could see all kinds of ways around it. All you would do is end up with a long period of legal wrangling, if you will, trying to sort through what is the knowledge of the police department or the handler as opposed to what he doesn't know.

Mr. Newark: I don't necessarily disagree with you about that. The point, though, that was different in the Calgary police service or in the Windsor police service or the Ontario Provincial Police is that there were individual police officers who faced that kind of dilemma and there was that kind of difference of opinion. There are certain things they can do to express their opinion. They are reasonably immune from, shall we say, management action against them that is not the case in the RCMP.

The examples that I gave, and there's more than one.... That's why I'm trying to focus my remarks not on the RCMP itself but on the uniqueness of the administration of that force without that third party review. It's that reality that, for me, causes a real problem because there is absolutely no recourse.

You may well be correct that this is not something that can be specifically codified in one sense or another. Instead, you literally have to rely on the best people that you have making the right judgments. But as long as you have a process internally that if that isn't going on, somebody has the ability to at least try to do something about it, that may be the best we can accomplish. All I'm trying to point out is that this is not present in the RCMP administration.

Mr. Jessop: If I may, Mr. Hanger, perhaps I can help you. It's precisely one of the reasons that I don't want our prosecution witnesses or informants turned over to another police service for handling, or for finance. If I have a witness, as you well know, and that witness has testimony or evidence and the presentation of that testimony may go on for some time, I want to be personally responsible for that witness. It's a fact that I will be called to testify as to how I handled that witness, as to what promises I made to that witness, what I said to that witness, what that witness did between witness time and trial time. If I'm going to be responsible, I want to be in control, so to speak, because I will be the one to testify as to what was done for or to that witness or to that informant. This is precisely why people like me and people who do the things that I do, want those decisions to be made between three people: a qualified prosecutor; myself, perhaps as the officer in charge; and the witness or the informant himself with whom the agreement is drawn up.

Mr. Hanger: I don't necessarily disagree with the fact that there could be a third party review. However, I can give you another scenario by which what you just explained to me, as far as wanting to be in control, would not apply. My understanding of this particular act and the very meagre amount of money that is applied to the bill itself will only look after, in a way, a handful of very serious cases involving informants that need protection.

A lot of these operations are put together under a joint forces operation. If you're looking at the most serious, whether they be conspiracies, organized crime or whatever the case may be, it may very well be out of your hands anyway. You would have to rely - and the bill points this out - on the provincial or local type of witness protection program they have. I don't see this legislation as necessarily applying directly to them. In fact, they sort of say they're out there and you can utilize them, but this is independent of all that, unless you're looking for an act or a provision in the Criminal Code that will cover all witness protection.

Mr. Jessop: Exactly!

Mr. Hanger: Is that what you're looking for?

.1615

Mr. Newark: I would think witness protection is a real issue in law enforcement. This bill probably could be renamed ``the RCMP witness protection program act''.

Mr. Hanger: That's what I said.

Mr. Newark: Given the nature of our multi-jurisdictional...and the necessity of sometimes having to move people around, and the fact that there's only one taxpayer, I wondered at the scope of this and why it is the way it is.

The other thing is, unless I missed something in the bill...how do you know what the budget would be?

Mr. Hanger: The budget, we were already informed through the Solicitor General when he approached this committee, is about $3.4 million.

Mr. Newark: That's nice to know.

Mr. Hanger: No new money.

Mr. Newark: In other words, it's a chunk out of their existing budget.

Mr. Hanger: It's allotted specifically for witness protection.

Mr. Newark: That's what I'm getting at. There's no magic in there being an amount that's there out of one budget or another. But that's the whole point. It's going to come from existing RCMP budgets.

Mr. Hanger: It's already allotted, yes. But that does not apply to any moneys that are allotted elsewhere.

I was curious about this whole aspect of protection of identity. Does the protection of the identity of an informant who takes part in another witness protection program fall under the same protection, if you will, as outlined in this bill? Will the commissioner be the one who decides whether or not the former protectee's name could be disclosed?

Mr. Newark: No.

Mr. Hanger: So anyone we're not protecting, who's not participating under this particular act or part of this particular RCMP program, will not be subject to this legislation: is that what you're saying?

Mr. Jessop: I don't know, but I know the commission's very powerful. I doubt very much if he could refuse to disclose the name if a judge ordered him to, without being found in contempt of court.

Mr. Hanger: That comes to my next question -

Mr. Newark: There's another question in there. What happens if, for example, somebody who is in the RCMP program is out committing crimes in a municipal jurisdiction and the municpal jurisdiction is asking some questions about that individual? Is the RCMP commissioner obliged not to reveal information, or entitled not to reveal information, in other ongoing investigations? I think the answer to that question is yes, he is entitled to do as he feels.

Mr. Hanger: I have to keep coming back to the commissioner's authority here. I've known court decisions that have actually allowed disclosure of protected witnesses, or at least witnesses who are under this system, because of warrant applications being now so openly displayed through a defence action. The commissioner may say no, I will not allow that name to be disclosed. Does that mean a defence lawyer can run over to the nearest court and say, look, I want that information, and be given it? I've seen it happen.

Mr. Newark: Potentially...Mr. Bodnar, I would guess, would probably suggest that what you might also find is an application being made that as a result of that decision the accused was not afforded the opportunity to make a full and fair defence and his charter rights were violated...and ask for a stay on the charge. I would think that would be an inevitable result, should that be the case.

Mr. Hanger: No disclosure would take place?

Mr. Newark: If a decision were made that there was no disclosure, the consequence would likely be an application for a stay on the charge. The defence would ask to have the charge stayed as a violation of the accused's rights under the charter. Almost guaranteed, I would think.

Mr. Hanger: But I'm saying if the defence -

Mr. Newark: I see the chairman is nodding.

Mr. Hanger: I'm saying it's the defence's action, seeking the information and getting it.

Mr. Ramsay (Crowfoot): Yes, but it was denied.

Mr. Newark: The question is whether or not it's.... These are all things that are unknowns, all of which -

Mr. Hanger: I think it is an unknown.

Mr. Newark: - indicate this bill needs a little more work.

Mr. Hanger: In clause 22:

Does that apply to an individual who is participating in another witness protection program on a local level?

Mr. Newark: It is one of the questions I had written down here about disclosure and what the consequences were for disclosure of that as it pertains to law enforcement agencies...or whether or not it dealt with somebody who got the information and then made part of it public; what the scope of it is. I don't know the answer to that question. I think it's a very good question.

.1620

Ms Torsney: First of all, let me say that knowing that you guys are following these issues all the time, I'm really shocked and surprised by your comments about lack of consultation and lack of opportunity for input.

I believe Bill C-206 was tabled February 1, 1994, which is almost two years ago. This bill was tabled in March 1995. Have you been sending in all kinds of information about how to improve Bill C-206? Can we have copies of those letters? Were you unaware that the minister was going to take this up? I think he made several statements in the House to that effect. Can we have copies of your documents on that?

Mr. Newark: Actually, we supported Mr. Wappel's bill because we thought it was a pretty good bill. Unfortunately, I suppose what really occurred, Ms Torsney, is that we took the government at its word when it said that it was incorporating Mr. Wappel's bill. This is no more an incorporation of Mr. Wappel's bill than the man in the moon.

Ms Torsney: Well that's funny, because Mr. Wappel thinks it's a very good incorporation of his bill.

Mr. Newark: I'm aware of the discussion. I had a discussion with Mr. Wappel yesterday. Out of respect for him I won't go into some of the other comments he made in relation to the bill of the government.

Suffice it to say that I guess I may have also made the mistake of thinking that this committee had some interest in improving the bill or, if it wasn't any good, not passing the bill. Your question leads me to believe that may have been a mistaken assumption.

You're quite correct, though, that this is unlike anything in relation to our dealings with the Department of Justice or our previous dealings with the Solicitor General's department. Certainly it's my responsibility. Actually, what they pay me for is to make sure that when the government says something, it's true. Certainly in relation to other bills and in relation to the RCMP I'll be far more diligent.

Ms Torsney: Then are you suggesting that when Mr. Wappel spoke on October 5 to express his support for Bill C-78, he was somehow misguided or unaware of what was in Bill C-78? Are you suggesting -

Mr. Newark: Do you want an answer to that question?

Ms Torsney: No, because there are a couple of parts to it.

Mr. Myron Thompson of the Reform Party said:

Mr. Hanger: I have a point of order. Would the member stick to the topic at hand here? All she's attempting to do is to criticize something - I don't know what - in the past. I think the issue here is the bill and I wish she would stick with the conversation.

The Chairman: I don't believe that's a point of order.

Proceed, Ms Torsney.

Ms Torsney: Thank you.

For the member opposite, I'm reading from the discussion on Bill C-78 that took place in the House. Perhaps you need to familiarize yourself with your party's support for this bill already.

As I was saying, Mr. White says ``I'm surprised that Bill C-78 is something I can agree with.'' We have several references from across party lines. Mr. Langlois from the Bloc Québécois also supports this bill. Are you saying that those people have somehow gotten the wrong idea here or that something has changed between October 5 and today?

Mr. Newark: Well, it may be remarkable, but from time to time we do occasionally take a position that is different from that of any one of the existing parties. If you are asking me if I have ever disagreed with Mr. Thompson or Mr. Wappel on something before, absolutely. I've even disagreed from time to time with positions that you or the Bloc put forward.

We thought our function was essentially to try to give you our perspective, and simply because it doesn't happen to agree, robot-like, with whatever it is that has been put forward, I don't think that's particularly germane. I think what's of greater importance is actually the content of the bill itself.

Ms Torsney: I think you have raised the very issue of the agreement.

Mr. Newark: For example, you mentioned even some of the previous individual support of different bills. I think the question had been put back and forth about the way the bills moved through.

The DNA bill is a very good example of the absence of consultation. The bill is tremendously flawed, as the Minister of Justice acknowledges, in relation to the absence of a data bank.

Ms Torsney: We're not talking about DNA here.

Mr. Newark: We thought it was our obligation to point out those flaws, whether or not it happened to agree with a comment that you or somebody else had made. We're not really interested in agreeing with everybody. It might be more pleasant sometimes, but it's not effective.

.1625

Ms Torsney: Well, thank you for that comment on courtesy. The funny thing is, your arguments are wholly based on the fact that you support C-206 and you don't support C-78 because it varies from Mr. Wappel's bill. It is important who agrees with this bill and who does not.

Mr. Newark: Actually, no, that is not the basis of our disagreement. We simply thought it might be helpful to show that there was something else in Bill C-206. The whole basis of our position is contained in what we've been saying and also in the brief, which we were only just able to complete because of the timeframe involved.

Frankly, madam, I would suggest that your dwelling on who agrees with who about what when is really of pretty marginal importance in comparison with the content of the bill. That's what we've been trying to talk about.

Ms Torsney: It's funny that you should say that Mr. Newark, because it's your paragraph number two that calls this bill into question on the basis of its being radically different from Mr. Wappel's bill. So I think it is kind of important. My next question is -

Mr. Newark: It may well be important, ma'am, but the point is, the brief contains more than paragraph two. If you would read the brief and listen to the comments you might get the sense of what we're saying.

Ms Torsney: Thank you, Mr. Newark. I have read the bill. Now to some other questions about both your letter to the committee and the submission you have made. My colleague opposite me has already addressed the issue of people who commit crimes while they are in the protection program. We can certainly make that more explicit if paragraph 8(b)(iii) is not explicit enough.

You draw into question whether or not reporting to Parliament can be enough. Is it not possible that through regulations and other means we could specify some of the things that should be in that report to Parliament?

Mr. Newark: Sure. It would be helpful if it were contained in the bill. My comment about that and why I made reference to Mr. MacLellan was because he is the sole member of this committee to be present during the rather difficult times for the legislative branch of government, represented by this committee, to get information out of the executive branch of government, which is what you would be required to do. Having generic phrases such as are contained in this bill is not going to be of any assistance to you whatsoever.

Mr. Jessop: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the member's comments, I can tell you this. I've been dealing with provincial and federal governments in relation to police and criminal legislation since 1985. I never, ever accepted a provincial bill without great reservation, without first seeing the regulations, because the regulations can literally destroy the bill. I do not trust the regulation process.

In relation to your other comments, this association has a history in the last four years of coming forward when the government produces a bill and making very productive suggestions. A consultation with the ministers in question might reveal that our suggestions have kept the government out of very serious hot water in relation to criminal legislation long before other bills were passed.

In this case Bill C-78 bears little or no resemblance to Bill C-206.

Ms Torsney: In your opinion.

Mr. Jessop: In my opinion. I happen to have a great deal of experience with this type of legislation and that type of law enforcement. The fact remains that we don't have to run up to the Hill and offer our consultations. That is not the process that good government follows. The process, in my view, that good government follows is to consult with the people who are affected. The government goes to them. That, in this case, did not take place.

Ms Torsney: Perhaps because, Mr. Jessop, we are codifying a number of the principles that are currently existing. Since you do offer comment on a number of existing operations of the government, perhaps knowing that Mr. Wappel's bill was going to be accepted by the minister, you may have offered your comments to improve it.

Mr. Jessop: This is not Mr. Wappel's bill.

Ms Torsney: Secondly, regarding the specific comment that there was not time enough to draw up your report, the bill has been on the table since March 1995 and it is now October.

Mr. Newark: If I might, we're not talking about procedure in relation to committees. This one bears striking resemblance to Bill C-58, which was coincidentally also a bill in relation to the RCMP. When we were originally notified about it, and again we had not received.... Actually in fairness, on that one, we had received no advance notification whatsoever. On this one, you're quite correct, we had. We were originally told that our appearance before the government operations subcommittee was to be four days after we were first notified that the committee was about to start hearings. You're quite right, this is much different. This one, instead of being four days, I think was six days.

.1630

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: Let's get back to the similarities between Mr. Wappel's bill and Bill C-78. I'd like to point out that in the case of immunity, clause 19 of C-78 and clause 11 of Mr. Wappel's bill are very close. You said before that you agreed, in general, with the principles in C-206. Do you agree with this clause on immunity?

[English]

Mr. Newark: It's very difficult. At least, I find it very difficult to pull one clause out from a scheme that is quite different, in my opinion, between the two bills. One has somebody other than the investigative police agency conducting the decision-making process and then it has that clause in terms of civil liability. In my opinion, the other has a completely closed-door process in relation to that and then it has civil liability.

The questions about civil liability are the same. How they might arise and how they might come into effect may well be very different. I find it very difficult to comment as to whether or not what's contained in here makes as much sense as it does if it's contained in the scheme that Mr. Wappel had set up, because I find the two ideas very different.

Mr. Regan (Halifax West): Mr. Jessop, you mentioned that if you're investigating a case - and I believe it was Mr. Jessop who said this - you need to go to a competent, qualified prosecutor who can decide on the spot how to deal with it. In fact, they can use witness protection and authorize the dollars, I think you said. Also, Mr. Newark said - and maybe this is out of context and you'll tell me if it is and how it is - that there needs to be an appeal to another body beyond the commissioner, because of the bureaucracy problem you see within the RCMP.

Those two statements are quite far apart. The problem I have is with the idea of saying that a prosecutor is going to be the person deciding this. I can see the advantages of having the quick answer, the fast solution to the problem and the need to make it go quickly from the bottom level to the top level, obviously. But how would a prosecutor, who works for the province and is paid by the province, be accountable to Parliament? Maybe you have an answer.

What I'm really interested in is, what do you see as the alternative process here?

Mr. Jessop: I don't think it's too difficult. I think we confused you. We're talking about apples and oranges.

I was talking to you about a situation where we would not go to the RCMP and where, if this were going to be federal money available to us, we would go to a federal prosecutor, of course having consulted our provincial prosecutor. In other words, the minds get together, if they're available, and they go and do this thing.

What I am saying is that this legislation is improper, that we should not go to the RCMP, we should not go to a police officer from another police force and seek this. What Mr. Newark is talking about is, if you intend to proceed with this legislation then you should have an independent third party review of the commissioner's action.

.1635

Mr. Regan: If the minister is able to allocate within his budget funds sufficient to provide for the kind of program you've talked about, beyond the RCMP, and to provide for a program across the country available to all forces, and if that was provided for within his budget and within this bill, what other problems would you have with the bill?

Mr. Jessop: Let me put it this way. Thanks to Mr. Hanger, we're told that it's $3.4 million. Quite frankly, that kind of money writes other police services out of the bill.

The RCMP will use that money themselves. To be very frank with you, there will be no money available for other police services. In this day and age, $3.4 million for witness protection for a 16,000-member police service is a very small amount of money.

Mr. Regan: How much would you need across the country?

Mr. Jessop: I don't know.

But why write this sham?

Mr. Regan: If you have a situation in which you have a program in the RCMP already....

We know that under the federally regulated RCMP the federal force has a witness protection program right now.

One of the problems has been that there's no legislative basis for that. This bill provides it. I recognize it doesn't go as far as you want it to go in terms of providing a program that's available to all forces, but within the available dollars, in terms of doing what it intended to do....

At least as I understand it, the intention here is to bring this into this kind of a legislative basis so that there are some provisions that are legislative, some provision for reporting to Parliament, and some accountability for what already exists. It isn't intended at this point to go way beyond that to say okay, here's a national program that all police forces can take part in and we're going to spend a whole lot more money. I know you would rather see that.

Mr. Jessop: Yes. And I can't put a number on it.

I suppose, to use a very bad example, you can only imagine how much money the Americans spent for witness protection and foreign protection in the New York Trade Center bombing. You watched that case go on for months and months. I think nine people were convicted. Enormous amounts of money were spent there on one project and they still managed to blow up the trade centre. I can't put a number on it.

I'm saying that it's important. Give us an avenue - with the proper controls - to get the money and to do something that municipal, local, and even provincial police services in some cases can't do.

We're talking about a federal criminal code. We may be talking about a Clifford Olsen. It's quite simply that. He could exist in metropolitan Toronto. Do you have any idea - I presume you do - what it would cost to do what we had to do to stop something like that in a big city?

Mr. Newark: It's a very good point, Mr. Regan. What do you do? This one appears to apply likely almost exclusively to the RCMP.

Why don't we go and ask? Has anybody asked the other provinces what they spend? Has anybody asked the OPP or the Sûreté what they spend on witness protection?

Has anybody asked whether or not it might be worthwhile to do something cooperatively for once, instead of setting up something which I guess - knowing a little bit at least about some administration - some people are going to poke at to see first whether or not they can piggy-back onto an existing program? Why wasn't that done?

I want to expand a little bit on what Neal was saying about what I was trying to get at, and the idea of the program. If this is retained as it is, the thing that strikes me that was so bothersome about this was only as it applied to the program within the four corners of the page in relation to the RCMP. I was just trying to give you some insight - or some opinion as well, I suppose - about the unique administration of that police force in terms of third party review and some of the dangers I think that poses.

Still operating on that structure, if you even had some sort of an appeal body, a police agency that would say, look, you're not going to accept our witness in this, you're going to refuse to disclose this information, whatever it turns out to be.... It would have positive results if somebody else were able to review the decision of the internal agency.

Let me give you a personal opinion. I suggest that if you put that into the bill the RCMP management will want no part of it.

.1640

Mr. Ramsay: With bills like this, when they come into the House for debate, we as parliamentarians take it for granted that the justice department or those who created the bill have done their homework.

This bill does move in the right direction. It does. As Ms Torsney says, it does codify something that is already in existence. But at the same time, I don't think we should be attacking you as witnesses. We should be examining your critique of the bill and weighing the validity of your criticisms of the bill, because if what you're saying is true....

You use very strong language to describe this bill. You say it is garbage and it is no good to you or to Mr. Jessop, as a police officer. If it's no good to you and it's garbage in your estimation, then we should know as a committee what a witness protection program ought to do. We should know where this bill fails in reaching those goals and objectives, and whether or not this bill can be amended to meet those concerns.

I agree with Mr. Jessop when he says he doesn't trust regulations. He indicated that regulations can destroy a bill or at least change a bill.

There must have been a great deal of consternation, Mr. Jessop, when you dealt with Bill-68, because there are 75 areas in that bill where regulations can be prescribed.

The point I want to make is we'd better be careful about this bill. If there hasn't been a consultation with provincial attorneys general and with the people who have to work with this bill so that it's been proofread, if I can use that term, to the satisfaction of the people who are going to use it, then what are we doing? We're creating a federal system run by the RCMP that's just going to scratch the surface of the need of the police community.

There are fifteen programs in the country. Are they all good? Are some better than others? Where is the most suitable program and where does this bill fall short of reaching that standard?

Mr. Newark: And all of this by Thursday, as Madame Venne points out, when you go through clause-by-clause. That's exactly the point.

Mr. Ramsay: If what you're saying is true, then I can't support this bill until we have the consultative process that is required. How can we support it if you're raising these kinds of questions? I've only been here for two years, but I've never had any witness come before this committee and call a bill of the government garbage.

A voice: I have.

Mr. Ramsay: I've called it that sometimes, but I've never heard witnesses call it that.

Mr. Jessop: Maybe we could look at it from this point of view. This bill is inadequate - is garbage, as I said - because it did not receive the consultation process.

Perhaps we could avoid personal attacks on the quality of Mr. Newark's research and on when and where it was timely by some members of this panel. Perhaps we could simply say to the police officers and the citizens of this country, ``Wait a minute. This bill needs a little more discovery.''

What's the word the Americans use? ``Bipartisan'', I think it is. Maybe we could get together and examine the bill and say, ``For the good of the citizens, the police and the prosecutors of this country, maybe we need a good bill here. Maybe there are the makings of a good bill here and we should fix it.''

I will not back away from the fact that this bill is of no use to common, ordinary street cops.

Mr. Ramsay: My question then is what should a good witness protection program provide, where does this bill fail, and can we amend it to meet those standards?

.1645

Mr. Jessop: A good bill would get its authority in the way Mr. Newark described it in the first place, not from the RCMP.

Mr. Ramsay: Through the crown prosecutors?

Mr. Jessop: Right; federal crown prosecutors.

The second thing you have to do with the bill is fund it. If I had known - and thanks to Mr. Hanger I do now know - this is a $3.4 million per year bill, I would have said, that bill has no application to us; that's an RCMP bill. What did they put us in there for?

Mr. Ramsay: It is.

Mr. Jessop: It's an RCMP bill. What good is it? It's no good to us. I could have told you that by telephone.

This creates the illusion that there's a witness protection bill for police officers across Canada. It's not. It can't be. It doesn't have the funding. If I go to some RCMP administrator who has his witness there and my witness there and he's out of money, or he has money only for one witness, who's going to get the protection? His witness. It's his budget. It's his money.

I don't know why I got all excited. There's no money to do anything anyway. Why didn't I just stay at home and not get my blood pressure to the point where I feel my ears are going to fall off?

What you should do with this bill is go back and say there's something wrong here. I can tell you right now that this is a day when crime is organized, well funded, has infinitely more equipment than we do, operates from outside the country. You need a witness protection bill. You need to put money forward for people who know the truth so they don't die. It's as simple as that.

But this bill is an RCMP bill. That's all it is. Why put me in there?

The budget for the Windsor police service, Mr. Chairman, is $38 million. This isn't even 10% of a local police budget. What good is that?

Mr. Knutson (Elgin - Norfolk): To follow up on your last point, the money issue.... Part of our job is to look at the government as a whole. We work in an age of $600 billion deficits, with the general downsizing of the federal government by 20% or 25%, with massive lay-offs, the cutting of expenditures on hospitals, education, police. There is in place, as a general operating principle of the federal government, a principle called the ``expenditure management system''. If you're going to spend money on a new program, you have to find it somewhere within your own budget. You can't just go to the finance department and say you want an extra $25 million or $50 million or whatever it would take to run a national witness protection program, even though it would accomplish many good things.

I have talked to...I'm not sure if it was your organization, but we need more money to investigate biker gangs. We need to invest more money in equipment so we can spy on these people and solve those kinds of crimes too. I'm sure the list is extremely lengthy.

If we just acknowledge that as a starting point, that there is no new money, there's not a lot of money generally.... There is no new money. As frustrating as I'm sure that is for police people - and I would expect it to be frustrating - that's just the reality of the day. I understand that. But telling us to ask the government to find the money or fund a better bill I just don't think is on.

Is your point that the RCMP shouldn't be the ones to control it? I got a little lost.... Is that because fundamentally they're not competent; because they spend too much time investigating...they're dog-catchers? I think you used the words ``dog bites''. They don't do enough murder investigations because they investigate murder only in British Columbia. I thought I sensed you were attacking their competence. That's not the case?

Mr. Jessop: No.

I have to answer both these questions, because you're talking to police officers. Mr. Knutson, your own budget, the last one, took money from everything but Justice and Indian Affairs. It's my view, it must be the government's view, that one of the number one priorities of government should be the protection of the Canadian public.

.1650

Mr. Knutson: I'd agree with that.

Mr. Jessop: I know I've said a lot about the government today. I think what I should say is what I said before. I think the government had its priorities right in that area. You're not talking.... I mean, I don't know what the RCMP budget is. I guess about half a million, maybe it's more -

Mr. Knutson: I have no idea.

Mr. Jessop: I don't know. You're not talking, in my view, about a great deal of money, comparatively, to fix this problem. The basic problem is to put something there to start with, then draw some guidelines as to what kinds of cases before we can even apply for the money. I mean, limit it in the first place and then put the money there and then put it in the hands of a federal prosecutor in conjunction with the prosecutor who will handle the case, as to whether or not we have access to it, or whether it's all gone or whatever, all the things we live with in our own local budgets.

In relation to the second matter, I very distinctly talked to you about the RCMP administration and the layers of administration and who might get to judge my request. I've been working with RCMP officers since 1979, front-line, grunt RCMP officers who want the same things that I want and who want to be members of our association. I can very frankly tell you that as a result of my experience here in Ottawa and as a result of my experience as a police officer, I sometimes find the RCMP administration somewhat removed from the realities of the street, and that's no different, quite frankly, from some of our own administrations.

Mr. Knutson: Can I just interject politely? Why would it be any different with a justice official? Why would they be any closer to the reality of crime and crime solution?

Mr. Jessop: That's why I said to you to bring the money, bring the signing authority to some hard-nosed prosecutor who gets up in a courtroom every day and prosecutes criminal offences. Bring it to them. Give them that authority. They're good people. They're competent people. They're obviously all members of the bar, they're prosecutors. Make the money available to the people who do the job.

Mr. Newark: Mr. Knutson, very quickly in relation to money, I think it was Mr. Ramsay who pointed out that there are 15 different witness or informant protection programs in the country, each with its own administration costs. I agree with you, there is no new money. But it sounds to me as if we're going to create a system that's going to act in duplication of existing programs and what's called for in these days, not only in criminal justice but everywhere else, is some creativity in how we actually spend the existing dollars that are there.

For example, we have come up with something we've given to other people directly involved. Seventeen different areas of dollar expenditures, both on the revenue side and on the expenditure side, in relation to the criminal justice system. The trick, I suspect, is when you actually save the money, keeping the money within the criminal justice system.

For example, directed revenue legislation, proceeds of crime: We came and testified here about the regulations for that legislation. Yet that is the one thing that's missing out of the regulations, essentially who gets the dough. Our suggestion was that you tag it specifically, by legislation, that the money must go to the operation of a certain program such as, for example, the witness protection program.

There are all sorts of different ways, in my opinion, and I say this having worked both as a prosecutor and here in this environment of making far better use of the dollars we have, as opposed to simply creating another level and saying this one's going to operate in competition or it's going to operate in duplication.

Secondly, I worked almost exclusively with the RCMP and I don't have any hesitation in telling you that it's a superb police force. The emphasis of the remarks I was trying to make concerned some of the difficulties individual police officers within the RCMP have, given the nature of the administration of that police force that is unique in Canada. It is simply that when you add on to that this kind of structure, I suggest it will potentially cause some very real problems for those individuals who are the police officers.

.1655

Sometimes in criminal justice when those kinds of problems are caused, one of the consequences is something that is not particularly in the public interest. All I was trying to point out in relation to that was the unique feature of RCMP management.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Jessop and Mr. Newark, for being before the committee today and, shall we say, putting a different light on the legislation from other witnesses.

We still have the 17th report of the steering committee to discuss. That shouldn't take too long if we can just deal with it quickly. It was distributed to you yesterday and a copy has been given to you again today.

There are two other possible witnesses on Bill C-106. There's the Canadian Institute for the Administration of Justice, represented by Christine Huglo Robertson, who's the executive director in Montreal. The Council of Canadian Law Deans will be represented by Ms Mistrale Goudreau from the University of Ottawa. They will speak on these two matters if you're agreeable to their being added for that bill.

Also, the minister can give his submission to the committee on the review of the Young Offenders Act on Monday, November 20 at 10:30 a.m., if you're agreeable. He is not available on Tuesday.

Those are the only changes to the 17th report. Do we need to have someone move adoption?

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: The Canadian Institute for the Administration of Justice, the Council of Canadian Law Deans, the Canada Bar Association and the Barreau du Québec are going to come before us to address C-106. Do you know if all four have the same points of view?

[English]

Develop input, yes, but the same point of view?

The Chairman: I don't know what their submission to the committee would be. The clerk advises he will check it tomorrow morning.

Mrs. Venne: Okay.

Mr. MacLellan (Cape Breton - The Sydneys): We assume they're going to be different points of view because of the framework of the law commission as it's structured now, to network with the universities and other organizations. We want to hear from somebody in the academic area as well as a group on the administration of law; not just the practising barristers themselves.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: But those four groups are still in favour of the bill.

[English]

Are they in favour? Do we know?

The Chairman: Again we won't know until tomorrow when the clerk checks this. I don't know. The clerk will call Madam Venne.

We need a motion to adopt.

Ms Torsney.

Motion agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]

.1700

The Chairman: This meeting is adjourned until tomorrow at 3:30 p.m.

;