I'd say it's better. I'm very familiar with the comments of my predecessor. I think it's different.
What I've endeavoured—and this is not to make a contrast, because I just prefer to speak for myself—is to professionalize the relationship with them and to find out, if someone is not giving me information, whether it is just because they're being obstreperous or because there is a reason for it.
I think, actually, the Federal Court of Appeal ruling was effective, in the sense of saying that they have a legal right to do it. What I prefer to say, rather than saying the RCMP is being difficult, is that I have a legislative mandate that causes a problem for both of us in terms of, do I have a right or not? If I say I have a statutory right to that information, the same information that I might ask for, the Information Commissioner, or Privacy Commissioner, or the Auditor General can ask for and get it because they've got a statutory power. You either give it to me, or I'll issue a summons to you to appear and testify under oath, or I'll issue a subpoena to you to produce the documents. I can only use those powers if—if—I call a public hearing, and those are extremely expensive things to do. So I need to have the power, as these other federal review bodies do, short of that.
So I'd say the relationship is productive, but it's hindered by the current legislative mandate, where if they have something they don't want to share because it's a confidence and they're concerned about disclosure, it's problematic.
To show how we do have cooperation, one of the serious issues in the public domain is clearly the police investigating the police, the issue of whether it is, and can be, impartial. I've had serious cases in British Columbia, currently in the paper, where I have outstanding complaints. In response to that, the police and RCMP in British Columbia—and there are some 7,200 RCMP officers providing 70% of the policing in B.C.—have worked with me on an ad hoc basis to create what we call an observer program, where we will go at first instance with them, if there is a police shooting or homicide, to look at it and make sure that the criteria and everything put in place are such that they are impartial. We're not to be there when witnesses are being investigated, but to make sure, though, that the team has no connection with the individual who did the shooting, that it is at the right level of experience, that the response is appropriate, and things of that nature. That is something new—the commissioner's directive to afford, to the extent that you can, full and liberal cooperation with us, subject to the statutory problems.
We've had issues in terms of policy. We have a concern about the use of tasers. We have a concern about the use of police dogs, in terms of the lack of clarity for the police about when you use these things in terms of the use of force. I've found cases where the taser is being used in stun mode, I think, as a come-along tool—and it is quite painful. So in those areas, they have sat down with us and are now giving us access to some of the operational policies and are getting some advice from us.
I do have a serious problem, though, with one issue that I think would be important to you. I do two things: I can make factual findings, and I make recommendations. Currently our factual findings are increasingly being challenged by the commissioner. If I find a credible complainant over an officer, I make certain findings based upon that. I have encountered in that one area a significant push-back in terms of their saying, we disagree with you. And there's a re-weighing of credibility, and things of that nature.
Again, the commissioner has taken the view, from her legal advice in terms of the interpretation of statute, that she can do that. To me, that is highly problematic in terms of the credibility of civilian review in this country, because under our model, if you complain as a member of the public, the complaint in the first instance goes to the RCMP. The RCMP conducts the investigation. The RCMP generally makes the first ruling, and then only if the person is dissatisfied do they come to us. We do a review and we can have further information. It then goes to the commissioner, and if the commissioner substitutes or reassesses the findings, you're undermining the credibility of the organization, as you don't then have to follow our recommendations because you have disagreed with our findings.