Pubdate: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 Source: Ottawa Citizen (CN ON) Copyright: 2007 The Ottawa Citizen Contact: http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/326 Author: Gary Dimmock, staff writer Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?216 (CN Police) COMMONS PANEL VOTES FOR PROBE OF WITNESS PROGRAM In what will be the latest examination of how the country's police force takes care of business, the Commons public safety and national security committee yesterday voted unanimously to investigate the Mounties' secretive witness protection program. The probe, supported by all political parties, was prompted after a Citizen investigation revealed last week how one of the RCMP's agents was paid handsomely for bogus information on fictitious crimes, only to go on to kill someone under a new identity. The agent's new identity is still afforded secrecy under the Witness Protection Program Act, which has been publicly defended by top Mounties since the Citizen chronicled how Richard Young, a.k.a Agent E8060, duped the national police force in exchange for hundreds of thousands of dollars. The investigative report showed that Mr. Young was accepted into the program even though an RCMP polygraph specialist raised concerns about the veracity of the informant's stories before he became an paid agent. Federal politicians found out about the case only after the press report, and now want to find out how the witness protection program broke down in this case. A British Columbia judge later ruled that, in fact, the informant's evidence was nothing more than a charade. The details in this case come at a time when the RCMP is already being investigated for corruption at the highest levels over the alleged misappropriation of cash from its pension fund. Rick Norlock, a Conservative member of the committee, yesterday stressed that an investigation is needed at a time when recent events, including the report on the witness protection program, are "shaking the public's confidence of the most senior police force in our Dominion." It will be the first time the program comes under real scrutiny. The NDP's Joe Comartin and Liberal's Sue Barnes made the motion yesterday and quickly won the committee's unanimous vote to investigate the RCMP's witness protection program. Mr. Comartin, commenting on the Citizen's report, said that the agent "grossly misled" the Mounties. The agent's new identity is protected under the Witness Protection Program Act, the same legislation that limited the Citizen from fully detailing the whole story. It is that legislation that may ultimately strangle the committee's probe. On April 19, the committee will call witnesses from the Department of Justice and Public Safety and the RCMP for a general briefing about the witness protection program. The committee will then call on witnesses who can give specific details on this case that went so wrong. However, the Witness Protection Program Act may force any identifying details about the case to be heard only in secret. Yesterday, outside of the public safety committee hearing, Mr. Comartin compared the case to the Arar inquiry, where only limited information was made public. "Justice O'Connor had the same problem in the Arar case. (Will we) be able to get enough information out to satisfy the public?" Mr. Comartin asked. The NDP MP is determined to get to the bottom of what went wrong in the RCMP's Witness Protection Program Act but he also realizes the probe's limits -- that a lot of the details will remain secret, as the legislation prohibits any public discussion about informants. The MP said the case "really does call into question how the program is being used," and demanded why the paid agent was granted protection in the first place, and "subsequently why (the protection) hasn't been revoked." Under the legislation, the RCMP commissioner has the right to revoke the paid agent's status. The act, introduced in 1996, affords paid informants protection during and after their stints as agents with the national police force. Stockwell Day, the minister of public safety, has asked his staff for a full briefing on the case. The Conservatives want a full airing of what went wrong, but they made it clear yesterday that they want to examine the "global picture" of the program rather than this specific case. Because the committee is restricted by the legislation, they are expected to call academics and hope to call a disgruntled informant to testify about the program. Under the legislation, it is perfectly legal for RCMP informants to break their own cover. - --- MAP posted-by: Larry Seguin