RCMP Watch

Carly Weeks, CanWest News Service

Opposition parties are calling on the Conservative government to answer “disturbing questions” raised this week over allegations of potential abuse of the Witness Protection Program by an RCMP agent, as well as concerns over its secrecy and lack of accountability.

“We don’t know if there’s systemic issues here, or if it’s isolated,” Liberal public safety critic Sue Barnes said Friday. “I think it raises some disturbing questions about the operations of the Witness Protection Program.”

NDP public safety critic Joe Comartin wants the federal government to launch an independent inquiry into the case of an informant-turned-agent who allegedly supplied false information and later committed murder as a protected witness.

The concerns come in the wake of a CanWest News Service article that details the story of Richard Young, a man who allegedly provided false information about a major Victoria drug dealer while acting as an informant. The man was later promoted to a paid agent, despite doubts that had been raised about his credibility by a police polygraph specialist.

After participating in an RCMP-initiated drug “buy and bust” in 2001, Young was put in the Witness Protection Program. He was later convicted of murder, but because he’s a protected witness, no details of the case can be published or released.

Now, opposition parties are speaking out about what they say are indications the Witness Protection Program is too secretive and may be rife with abuses the public is never told about. It may be time to change the way the program is run to increase the level of accountability and ensure any potential problems or abuses aren’t ignored.

“I think a number of us for a long time have felt uncomfortable with the fact it’s just a the police services that makes the decision on whether somebody’s going to be allowed in this program and feel that we need an oversight,” Comartin said.

He said the protection program, which costs between $2 and $3 million a year, is not accountable and must be altered to include the participation of judges, so police forces aren’t solely responsible for choosing who is allowed in the protection program or promoted from RCMP informant to agent.

“Oversight in itself is not sufficient. We need actual intervention by judicial authorities as the process is ongoing - not after the fact,” Comartin said Friday. “I want to prevent the abuse and the only way you can do that is to have the intervention before the process starts.

Both Comartin and Barnes said they plan to raise the issue at the House of Commons public safety committee in order to determine whether there are widespread problems within the Witness Protection Program. Barnes said she wants officials from the program to appear before the committee to get the full answers surrounding this case and whether there are problems with the program’s operations.

“At this point, we don’t have sufficient information,” she said.

Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day was not in Ottawa Friday, but a spokeswoman said he is aware of the issue.

“Minister Day is looking into these reports and has asked for a full briefing. Tackling crime in all its forms is a priority of this government,” spokeswoman Melisa Leclerc said in an e-mail.

But Comartin said the federal government needs to hold an independent inquiry to address the disturbing issues raised by Young’s story, and the fact potential abuse of the Witness Protection Program may not have been properly addressed.

“There definitely should be an independent one,” he said. “We’re not sure that we’re being given accurate information.”

Although there is a clear need to keep details of the protection program from the public, such as any information that could identify witnesses, Canadians deserve to have some information about the program, said Edward Prutschi, a Toronto criminal lawyer.

“There’s a very clear reason why Canadians want accountability from the program,” he said. “Should things like overall cost of the program, number of persons in the program, identifying issues like that don’t actually give you an indication of who the person is or how the program functions. Should Canadians be able to access that kind of information? I think the answer is yes.”