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.