Public Safety Committee on Feb. 6th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

I'd like to bring this meeting to order. This is the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. This is meeting number 15, and today we are going to get a report from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police on their management and operation.

I would like to welcome to the committee, from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Commissioner, Mr. William Elliott.

Welcome, sir. We are honoured to have you here this afternoon.

The usual practice of this committee is to allow you an opening statement of approximately 10 minutes, and then we'll have questions and comments for you for the remainder of our time here.

Welcome, sir, and when you're ready, you may begin.

[Commr William Elliott, Commissioner, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am ready.

I welcome the opportunity to appear before this committee for the first time in my role as a Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, and the other members of the committee, as I continue to become more familiar with the important work carried out by the women and men of the force, across the country and around the world.

I still have much to learn about the many roles and responsibilities of the RCMP, about policing more broadly, and the law enforcement challenges in communities served by the RCMP and by other Canadian police services.

It has been a little over six months since I took office as the twenty-second commissioner of the RCMP. In fact, it was seven months ago today that the Minister of Public Safety announced that I was being appointed commissioner.

On taking office, I indicated to the employees of the RCMP that my first priority was to support them. That continues to be the case. I also indicated that my first order of business was to meet with employees in order to gain a better understanding of them and the important work they do. I committed to visiting detachments, offices, and workplaces across the country as often as possible. Although I may never get to every one of our 750 or so detachments, and many, many other workplaces, including training facilities, forensic laboratories, and divisional headquarters, hardly a week has gone by that I have not been out meeting with employees.

I have also met with provincial, territorial and municipal partners in contract policing and with both domestic and international partner police services and public safety agencies.

In the past two weeks, for example, I met with employees in our regional headquarters in Charlottetown and in detachments in both the East Prince region and Queens County in Prince Edward Island; in detachments in Sherwood Park and Leduc, Alberta; with the mayors of communities in the lower mainland of British Columbia; with members of the integrated homicide investigations team in British Columbia; with members serving in our detachment in Surrey, British Columbia, and at the Vancouver International Airport, and with those preparing to provide security for the 2010 Olympic Winter Games.

I also visited our detachment in Thunder Bay, Ontario, and met in Ottawa with employees who provide security for the Governor General, the Prime Minister, visiting heads of state, and foreign diplomats, and with members of our national capital region emergency response team.

My travels so far as commissioner have taken me to every province and territory, with the exception of New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Yukon. I have visited many of the divisions a number of times, and I intend to get to those divisions I have not yet visited within the next couple of months.

Next week I travel to Haiti to meet with Canadian police officers serving with the United Nations mission there. This includes not only members of the RCMP but police officers from other Canadian police services, including

the Service de police de la ville de Montréal, the Sûreté du Québec,

the Ontario Provincial Police, and officers from Durham, Ontario, Saguenay, Saint-Jérôme, and Rivière-du-Loup.

Without exception, what I find is that I meet with employees of the RCMP from coast to coast to coast who are dedicated men and women doing tremendously important jobs, promoting the safety and security of Canadians and the communities we serve, often under very difficult and challenging circumstances. The diversity of our employees, their roles, their experience, their training, education, and skill sets are nothing short of extraordinary.

I am very proud to be associated with them and to lead a national institution that has such a long and distinguished record of service, dating back almost to Confederation.

These are challenging and difficult times for the RCMP. As proud as I am to be commissioner and as proud as all of the women and men of the RCMP are, and as good a police force as we are, we are also fully aware that there is an urgent need for us to change in order to address a variety of problems and to adapt to the increasingly complex and difficult environments in which we operate.

Many of the challenges we face are highlighted in the report of the Task Force on Governance and Cultural Change in the RCMP, released just before Christmas. The report calls for action to address a range of issues, including management accountability at all levels, internal discipline, workplace disclosure, ethics, and independent oversight and review.

I note that the task force entitled their report, Rebuilding the Trust. Like the members of the task force, I recognize that we must strengthen public trust in the RCMP, for we cannot provide effective policing services without the support of the people we serve.

As I have said, the RCMP has significant weaknesses, as the report highlights. We must address them, and we will address them.

The important work to do is already underway.

As the report recommends, we are establishing a full-time change management team. Assistant Commissioner Keith Clark, who has taken on the important role as the head of that team, is working with our senior executive committee and commanding officers to identify members of a core team to be drawn from across the force and across the country.

Their first deliverable will be a detailed action plan. The team will support our efforts to build a more modern, more efficient, more effective, and more accountable RCMP to better serve Canada and Canadians, and to be more responsive to the needs of our employees.

An important element of what I have just described is independent oversight and review. We are committed to working collaboratively to support the current mechanisms providing such oversight and review. Parliament and parliamentary committees, including this committee, obviously play an important role. We are also committed to supporting whatever new or enhanced review mechanisms are put in place, and we look forward to the government's decisions in this regard.

In many ways, the past six months have been incredibly short. Yet, looking back, much has happened. There have been many highs, including a number of notable operational successes. Unfortunately, there have also been far too many lows.

My brief tenure as commissioner has witnessed the tragic killing of two fine young members of the RCMP: Constable Christopher Worden and Constable Douglas Scott. The pain inflicted by their deaths on their families and on their communities, and on the RCMP, cannot be overstated. We have also experienced the most unfortunate and disturbing death of Robert Dziekanski at the airport in Vancouver, a death we deeply regret.

The past six months have brought significant changes for me personally. They have also witnessed the beginning of real and significant changes in the RCMP, including in the senior leadership of the force. We will continue to push forward to develop and implement a change management agenda.

As I said last August at the official ceremony marking the change of command of the RCMP from Commissioner Busson to me, “We must build on our strengths, recognize and address our weaknesses, and live up to the highest standards that we set for ourselves and that Canadians rightly expect of us.”

I am confident that we can live up to this challenge and this commitment.

Thank you again for inviting me. I would be happy to respond to your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you very much, sir, for that opening statement.

As per the usual practice of this committee, we will turn to the official opposition first.

Mr. Dosanjh, please.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Commissioner, for coming to visit us.

I'm going to ask you three questions. Let me preface my remarks by saying that I had the opportunity to be the attorney general in British Columbia for four and half years, and my responsibilities included policing at that time, among other things. I held the force in the highest regard, particularly the RCMP but all of the police forces in British Columbia—as is the case across the country. But that is not to say that there haven't been disappointments, and that's what I'm going to talk to you about.

You say there is now a mandate and responsibility to change the management practices. I'm using different language from what you have used. Let me take you back to an event that happened not in your time but before your time. We can't hold you responsible for it, but here's the question.

You remember the situation around the income trust debacle. I understand that the police officers and the police on the ground are independent operationally. Who, what, how, when, where, and whether or not they investigate, either something or someone, is a decision that they absolutely have the right to make, and I respect that.

But for some people, what happened during the income trust affair appeared to be a gross interference in an election, and right in the middle of an election. If you believe that was inappropriate—and I'd like to know whether you believe it was inappropriate—what steps have you taken to ensure that this kind of thing doesn't happen again? What protocols have been put in place to deal with politically sensitive issues, particularly in the middle of an election?

[Commr William Elliott]

Thank you.

From my review of some of the circumstance around that, it is my view that the RCMP does not have adequate policies, guidelines, or direction with respect to communications relating to criminal investigations. I am not aware that there were any policies or guidelines that were broken or not followed in the case you raise, but I think it in fact is an indication that the policies are inadequate and the practices are uneven. We are in the process of taking steps to clarify our policies and therefore to improve our practices.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Would you tell me, if you can, what steps have been taken so far?

[Commr William Elliott]

Other than to direct that we should review our policies and practices and that we should establish new ones to cover communications in the broadest context with respect to criminal investigations, we have not put in place any new policies. We have thoroughly reviewed the current policies and practices, and I've concluded as I've just indicated.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Thank you.

Let me move to the next question, and that is with respect to the tasers. Our public safety minister, Mr. Day, ordered a review by Paul Kennedy of the Public Complaints Commission, and he made certain recommendations. Under your guidance, obviously the operational guidelines have been changed, but in the case of a change that he highly recommended, which was to reclassify tasers as an impact weapon, his particular recommendation has not been followed.

I would like to know what went on, in your deliberations on this issue, that led, when the first recommendation was made by Public Complaints Commissioner Kennedy, to that particular recommendation not being followed.

[Commr William Elliott]

Thank you.

You asked, I think, about both process and result. With respect to process, we have reviewed all of our policies, and we have certainly carefully considered the recommendations that came from the CPC. I note that those are interim recommendations, and that the work of the CPC continues. We have committed to both the minister and Mr. Kennedy that we will work closely in support of their ongoing efforts.

We agreed that some changes were necessary, but I guess there is a difference in views with respect to when it is appropriate to deploy a conducted energy device. In addition to reviewing our own policies, we had a number of discussions with other jurisdictions, other levels of government, and other police forces. As I understand it, the recommendation that Mr. Kennedy made specifically with respect to the classification of the device is inconsistent not only with the way we currently treat those devices but also with the practices across the country.

Now, I don't suggest that because his recommendation is different from current practice it's not worth considering. We have undertaken to continue to work with not only Mr. Kennedy but also with other...and I note that a number of jurisdictions have been looking at this. In fact, I understand that the Province of New Brunswick has made some amendments to their policies that apply to provincially regulated police services. I think that happened today, in fact. I will carefully look at that as well.

But we continue to believe that the device, used appropriately, is one that promotes both officer safety and public safety. We continue to dialogue with Mr. Kennedy and his team. I would hope that by the time he makes his final report, we will build consensus with respect to what the appropriate policies and practices are.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

If you have more questions, Mr. Dosanjh, we'll have to come back to you in the next round.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you very much.

Monsieur Ménard, are you ready?

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, I want to thank you for appearing before us, Mr. Elliott, so soon after beginning to work in your new position. I really admire you for accepting such a big challenge, not only for the reasons that you mentioned, but also because, in my opinion, the evolution of modern criminality is creating exceptional challenges for police forces. I believe that in these circumstances, it is crucial to have the cooperation of your men. First, let me raise a sensitive issue.

You have had legal training. No doubt, you are aware of the decision handed down by Canada's Supreme Court in the Delisle case. Justice Bastarache, who was speaking for the majority, said the following:

I have had the benefit of reading the joint reasons of Cory and Iacobucci JJ. I accept their description of the facts and account of the judicial history. Like them, I believe that s. 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects RCMP members against any interference by management in the establishment of an employee association. However, this right exists independently of any legislative framework.

It was not because Delisle lost this case that the right to association was not recognized, quite the contrary. However, given the legislative framework in which he wanted to do this, namely an association with other public servants, the RCMP was able to prevent him from doing that.

The Supreme Court referred to the same principle again in 2007 in the case of Health Services and Support – Facilities Subsector Bargaining Association versus British Columbia. Once again, the principle developed in the Delisle case was quoted. And I quote:

The principle affirmed was clear: government measures that substantially interfere with the ability of individuals to associate with a view to promoting work-related interests violate the guarantee of freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Charter.

In the Delisle decision, Justice L'Heureux-Dubé, who agreed with the majority but who wanted to give her own reasons, did, nonetheless, clearly state the following in paragraph 4:

[...] actions to discourage or prevent employee associations within the RCMP have a long history. The passage of the Charter with its guarantee of freedom of association, however, means that such actions are no longer lawful.

Mr. Elliott, do you recognize the fact that the RCMP is obliged by the Constitution to respect the rights of its members to form an independent association?

[Commr William Elliott]

I certainly recognize that we have an obligation to respect the charter rights of our employees and of citizens more broadly, and my understanding is that many believe the current provisions of the RCMP Act with respect to unionization are constitutional.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Can you reassure us, Mr. Elliott, that people who try to set up such an association will be certain that no reprisals, no measures meant to make their tasks more difficult and no disciplinary measures will be taken against them because they are pursuing such an objective, and that this will not negatively impact on their evaluation?

[Commr William Elliott]

I have several comments with respect to that. First of all, the RCMP does have a unique arrangement with respect to staff representation; that is the program referred to as the SRR program, the staff relations representative program. It's unique in many aspects, but regular and civilian members of the RCMP elect their representatives, and we deal extensively with those representatives.

Employees of the RCMP are also free to form, and in some instances have formed, associations. They have the right to do that. There are current provisions in the RCMP Act. I'm not in a position to debate the various legal arguments with respect to the interpretation or constitutionality of those provisions, but the provisions on their face indicate that regular and civilian members are not at liberty to form a union.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Regarding another matter, we noticed that the RCMP takes a great deal of time to carry out its investigations. I could cite the example of the Air India inquiry which went on for 15 years. In the Airbus investigation, the events took place in 1993, and already in 1995, the RCMP seemed to be giving very clear signals to the Swiss authorities regarding the objective of their searches. It was only in 2003 that the investigation was declared closed.

The Gomery Commission report was finished, I believe, in November 1995, but it was only on July 4, 2007, that a search warrant was issued within the framework of an investigation of one of the persons targeted by the Gomery investigation. These are the most striking cases. However, as you know, I practised criminal law for quite a few years in Montreal, both on the side of the Crown and on the side of the defence, and let me tell you that we used to say that the RCMP still rides on horseback whereas the other police forces drive around in cars. We had already noticed how extremely slow they are.

Are you aware of this problem? Have you any plan in sight to attack this most unfortunate problem?

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Time has expired, but you may give a brief response to that.

[Commr William Elliott]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would indicate that investigations are often long and complex, and I don't think it's fair to judge the conduct of an investigation on the passage of time alone. I note that another parliamentary committee is looking into matters that took place some years ago, and I don't think anybody would take it kindly if it were suggested to them that that's in the past and it shouldn't be investigated. Some investigations are fast; some investigations are slow. Some investigations are complex; some are more straightforward.

I would say the RCMP has some of the finest investigators not only in Canada but in the world, and we're recognized by other police services internationally and domestically for that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you very much, sir.

Ms. Priddy, you are next.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And thank you, Commissioner, for being here today.

I represent a constituency that will house Division E in British Columbia. We will have 2,500 staff relocated to Surrey and to my constituency, and I am very pleased to see that. We are well served by the RCMP in Surrey. I think it is the largest city still being served by the RCMP.

I'm glad you mentioned the issue of public confidence in your remarks; you would naturally, as a result of the report. In the province in which I reside, and from the letters coming in, I know there is a significant concern about a number of the incidents that have taken place in responses by the RCMP. I'm very disturbed to see people's faith in the RCMP dropping, because that is not healthy for anybody, the RCMP or our communities.

I would like to ask you about the Maher Arar case. I would like to first ask whether you have discovered who provided or leaked the information about Mr. Arar to the United States.

[Commr William Elliott]

I have no additional information on that. I think Mr. Justice O'Connor canvassed thoroughly the matters surrounding Mr. Arar. The commission he led certainly found that our policies were not adequate and that in fact the policies that were in place at the time were not followed. Steps have been taken to address that.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Let me continue down that line a little bit. Could you tell us the status of those Justice O'Connor recommendations? I don't mean the action on each one, but their status in terms of how quickly you have moved forward. Have some of them been already implemented? If so, could you give us an example, please?

[Commr William Elliott]

I would say with respect to the recommendations directed to the RCMP—because of course there were recommendations directed to others—that all of Justice O'Connor's recommendations have been actioned by the RCMP. I would say the bulk of them we have actually completed, although maybe it's a misnomer to say that they are completed, because he suggested we should put into place mechanisms to better manage investigations in relation to national security; that we should have more centralized systems; that we should review material for accuracy, for example, before decisions are taken with respect to sharing information with foreign governments. All of those practices we have put into place, and in a sense, our carrying out of those recommendations and obligations is ongoing.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Let me go back, if I may, to the first question and to your answer, which was that Justice O'Connor recognized there were a number, and you acknowledged that there were a number, of “communication problems”, if you will—and I'm sorry I can't remember the exact phrasing you used—that were not in place or not used at the time Mr. Arar was sent back to Syria.

I'm asking about whether there will be any accountability for those individuals, or whether you are looking for the individuals who leaked that and whether there would be any accountability.