Protection program to change
The RCMP appears poised to make changes to the way it manages its secretive witness protection program, the federal program that offers informants new identities, money and a ticket out of the country in exchange for information.
Critics have complained there is an inherent conflict with allowing the RCMP to make decisions about how and which witnesses are chosen for the program when the same agency has an interest in getting the co-operation of those witnesses to further their investigations.
An October 2011 RCMP report released under access to information states that there are “clear expectations” now within government that the RCMP must move toward greater separation between investigations and witness protection.
“Given the criticism levied against the program’s decision making process, especially as it pertains to admission decisions, and the government commitment to introduce more independence into this process, there is no option for the force but to develop and implement the necessary changes,” the report states.
The report goes on to say, “Failing to respond to these notices puts the organization in position of heightened liability and risk.”
However, details of what changes are being considered by the force were redacted from the report.
Sgt. Greg Cox, an RCMP spokesman in Ottawa, would only say Friday that a “range of enhancements” to the program are being considered in response to recommendations from a 2008 House of Commons public safety committee report and the 2010 report from the inquiry into the bombing of Air India Flight 182.
The 2008 report concluded that it was “essential to separate the organization responsible for the witness protection program from the police, in order to create a clear distinction between prosecution and investigation on the one hand and a witness’s participation in the program on the other. Such independence also strikes us as crucial for making it plain that protection is not a reward for co-operating with the authorities.”
The 2010 Air India report similarly said:“it is not appropriate that a police agency with an interest in ensuring that sources agree to become witnesses make decisions about admission into a witness protection program. This is conflict of interest.”
Yvon Dandurand, a criminologist at the University of the Fraser Valley in British Columbia, testified as a witness-protection expert before both inquiries. He said Friday in an interview that management of the federal program needs to include decision makers who are not just police but individuals who have an “arm’s-length” relationship to police, such as retired judges, prosecutors or justice officials.