Thank you.
I don't think the identity of the person is the issue. For instance, I care not who this man is. Now, they may have changed his name again. Certainly he's in no need of the witness protection program now, and never will be, so I don't care about who he is. I don't care where he is. I think what he did is information that you should know. It's information that the alive victims should know.
The RCMP are at least telling me—they flew from Ottawa to Victoria to tell me—that this person was in the witness protection program; thereby they broke the law telling me that, but they did so to warn me that I faced potential charges if I gave away too much information. Well, I don't believe that's the case either, and I agree with my friend in Toronto. That's not my reading of the act either. But who wants to flirt with an overzealous police force with blinders on? And who wants to bring attention to the unnecessary harm and grief caused to the victims?
I think the program, as it is in some of the jurisdictions, should be overseen by a board. Even that board doesn't need to know the names and locations of people, but they need to know who they are, what they've done, how they're doing in the community, what protections there are in the community. When something goes sideways, the public has a right to know. I agree, the program specifically states that if somebody acts in the community in a way that brings attention to themselves, the commissioner can disclose who that person is. If they contravene an act of Parliament—and murder certainly is one of them—then the commissioner can tell you who it is.
So they're really not looking at what power they already have in not answering your questions, because it exists. In my submission, from what happened, he shouldn't have been allowed in the program in the first place, because the criteria are things like the value of his evidence. Well, his evidence was all made up. He had committed obstruction of justice in the severest way before he went into the program. He was found to be unreliable by the Supreme Court, so he shouldn't have even got in. I think they're not reading their own statute. It should be reviewed.
I was asking today whether the reports in the press were true. The minister responsible asked to be briefed on my case, and I read in the press that the RCMP said he couldn't know the details of the case. Well, that's nonsense. It's absolute nonsense that he mustn't be able to be told at least the facts of the case. Where this person is, who cares? Call him Number One, but he's got to know.
I think the board should be the minister or his designate, perhaps somebody from the bench, perhaps somebody from the bar, and a couple of lay people. Again, they don't have to know all the details, but they need to know that things are being properly done.
In Australia the program has to report to the minister. The minister must table an annual report. In Canada the commissioner makes an annual report and the minister tables it. Well, the tail's wagging the dog.