Public Safety Committee on Feb. 8th, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Good morning, everyone.

Welcome to meeting number 52 of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, Tuesday, February 8, 2011.

Before we introduce our guests this morning, I would like to remind our committee that we have a couple of reports we are going to be tabling in the House. They have yet to be written. So if you have recommendations or any text that you believe our analysts should be aware of, please get them in by February 14. That is with regard to the G-8 and G-20 summits and also the CSIS report.

February 28, Madame Mourani, we have the other report we were working on as well.

Also, with our two bills, Bill C-23B, we want to get the names of witnesses submitted. If you have people you would like to see appear before our committee, please try to get their names in as soon as possible. Those meetings are scheduled for March.

We have a prison study as well, so we will be looking for witnesses for that.

Today we have a briefing on the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Appearing before us we have, as an individual, Mike McDonell, former Royal Canadian Mounted Police Assistant Commissioner, now the commander of the Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Ontario Provincial Police Detachment. And from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we have Raf Souccar, Deputy Commissioner.

Our committee thanks both of you for responding to our call to appear. I understand that both of you have opening statements. Before we proceed, we would like to hear those opening statements, if you have some, and then we would go into the first and subsequent rounds of questioning after that.

Mr. McDonell.

[Inspector Mike McDonell, Former Royal Canadian Mounted Police Assistant Commissioner, Commander of the Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Ontario Provincial Police Detachment, As an Individual]

I do not have an opening statement.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

All right.

Mr. Souccar.

[Deputy Commissioner Raf Souccar, Deputy Commissioner, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

Good morning, Mr. Chair, honourable members of the committee.

It is a pleasure to be here this morning.

I'd like to thank you very much for inviting us here today to answer your questions and to set the record straight to the extent possible.

Let me start by saying that I'm hopeful, Mr. Chair, with the announcement this past Friday that Bill Elliott will be stepping down this summer, that the committee will be looking forward instead of backward.

That said, I recognize that the committee is interested in last summer's events, and therefore I am prepared to say a few words on this matter, after which Mike and I will be prepared to answer all your questions to the best of our knowledge and recollection.

I have been very concerned over the media attention the RCMP received this past summer on the internal issues inside the force. With respect to this matter, and specifically to Bill Elliott's behaviour, I wish to say that the behaviour issues were long-standing. I am aware of many members of the then senior executive committee who had tried to deal with Bill Elliott's behaviour by speaking with him individually. I know that I have spoken to him face to face on several occasions, as well as by e-mail, to try to get him to be more respectful in his dealings with the RCMP membership.

Unfortunately, although he acknowledged openly during senior executive committee meetings, as well as via force-wide broadcast to some 30,000 employees, that his behaviour and actions did have a negative impact on RCMP employees, he either refused to change or could not change.

I have to tell you that I had so many people complain to me about Bill Elliott's disrespectful behaviour that my very position required me to act. As a member of the senior executive committee in the RCMP, I could no longer point the finger at upper management and criticize them for their inaction. I was one of them, a member of the senior executive committee.

Mr. Chair, I looked at and I took my position very seriously and was not willing to stand by and watch two of our very core values—respect and compassion—be nothing more than words hanging on the walls in our buildings across Canada. When I and others got no results from speaking to Bill Elliott face to face, I was left with one option, and that was to speak to the very folks who put him in the position, to let them know that morale in the RCMP was sinking to an all-time low and that something had to be done. Someone had to stand up, and I chose to do so, along with others. I believed then, as I do now, that this was the right thing to do, the honourable thing to do, and in fact my duty to do.

RCMP employees deserve to be treated with respect. I want to make it very clear, Mr. Chair, and I want to be on record as saying this: I did not leak this matter to the media, and I did not directly or indirectly influence anyone to leak this matter to the media, and I was not responsible for the groundswell or media hype. In fact I have received numerous media inquiries, and to this date continue to receive them. I have not once returned any of these calls, as I was hopeful that this matter would be resolved swiftly, without bringing undue attention to the RCMP.

This is important for me to go on record as saying, Mr. Chair, for the following reasons. There were some who felt that this complaint against Bill Elliott was made for self-serving reasons and leaked to the media for that very purpose. On October 7, 2010, at 1500 hours, I met with Bill Elliott in his office. This was the first time that he informed me he would be removing me from my position as deputy commissioner of federal policing. At that time Bill Elliott said to me, and I quote, “You are widely seen as the person who brought this matter to the press”. I responded to that accusation by saying that I had no part in getting this out to the media and was prepared to take a polygraph test if there was any doubt in anyone's mind as to my truthfulness. And that offer still stands, Mr. Chair. In fact, I would invite any media person—and there are many here today—who has obtained any such information from me to step up and say so.

Mr. Chair, I have always spoken the truth without fear or favour, as I swore to do when I was engaged in the RCMP a little over 32 years ago, and I will continue to do so.

I should also tell you that the complaints lodged against Bill Elliott had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he came to the RCMP as a civilian.

During his first three years as commissioner, we did not see one complaint against him from inside the RCMP. Although his behaviour was the same from day one as it is now, we chose to work with him and support him, instead of complaining about him. Three years later, with nothing changed and his behaviour getting worse by the day, it boiled over and resulted in the situation that we found ourselves in this past summer.

I can tell you that there were many more employees, police officers, civilian members, and public servants who wanted to stand up and speak. Many did. However, once they saw what happened to me, many backed off, fearing that they would be removed from their positions the way I was.

I felt it important to provide this background, as I felt that my integrity and motives, as well as those of others, were being questioned. In any event, with the announcement this past Friday, I'm hoping that this is now behind us and we can focus on the future, rather than looking back.

If the RCMP is to progress, governance and management of the force will have to be key issues for the government. The RCMP needs to become better, stronger, more transparent, and able to adjust more quickly to the unpredictable nature of police work. One example is the creation of a board of management that can assist and even challenge the commissioner on non-operational matters.

This was a recommendation made in 2007 by the task force on governance and cultural change in the RCMP. It was later supported by the reform implementation council. I dare say that if a board of management had been in place, this whole affair of last summer would not have happened.

The other important requirement for the RCMP to be successful is for it to gain autonomy from government in financial and human resources. In order to do that, a separate employer status is undoubtedly the preferred option.

The RCMP Act will also need to be amended to allow for a swifter discipline process. In other words, we need the ability to get rid of the bad apples in a shorter timeframe.

In respect of civilian oversight, although we have made some progress in the investigation of serious incidents involving RCMP members, the introduction of Bill C-38 and the creation of an independent civilian review and complaints body with more power would be an improvement and go a long way towards accountability and transparency.

The RCMP's next commissioner will have to be a strong leader who can rally the troops, someone everybody can believe in and support.

As to whether this person should be a civilian or a police officer, there no longer appears to be a debate on this question. The next commissioner should be a police officer. That person does not necessarily have to be a member of the RCMP. However, knowledge of the RCMP, given its size and diverse mandate, would be a huge asset.

I'm hopeful that the RCMP can put forward at least a half-dozen strong candidates. Failure to do that would reflect poorly on our officer development efforts over the last three years.

The position of RCMP commissioner is by no means an easy one. In fact, it is likely one of the most difficult positions to hold, because of the size and diverse mandate of the organization. In addition, modern policing is very complex, and problems often arise.

The sign of a strong leader will be how this person deals with problems as they arise, along with the level of accountability, transparency, and willingness to admit to errors when they occur. Corrective measures would then have to be implemented and communicated to the public.

The next commissioner will also have to be secure enough in his or her position to be able to listen to what others have to say, and not be afraid of being challenged. In the end, strong leadership will win the day.

That concludes my presentation, Mr. Chair.

Mr. McDonell and I would be happy to answer the committee's questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Souccar.

We'll proceed to the first round of questioning. Mr. Holland.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses. And thank you particularly to Mr. Souccar. I'm sure that was not an easy presentation to make.

Let me start with the question of whether you think anything would have changed if we hadn't found out how dysfunctional things were within the commissioner's office.

[D/Commr Raf Souccar]

I'm not sure I follow your question. If things would have changed--what things?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

In the sense that.... Maybe it's a bit of a hypothetical. Let me go to another question.

One of the things I'm concerned about in searching for a new commissioner is that what you're describing is almost a culture of fear. People were afraid to come forward and speak their mind and give objective criticism.

You said that things got worse and worse, and yet there was no change; there was no intervention. I'm wondering if you can describe to us what that environment was. Because on a go-forward basis certainly we want to make sure it doesn't take something going public before we get change if things are not going well.

Can you give us a bit of a sense...? When you said things were getting worse and worse and action wasn't being taken, how were you trying to make those changes? How were others trying to make those changes known? What process could we have in place that would ensure that when things are that dysfunctional there's action taken?

[D/Commr Raf Souccar]

The difficulty in this instance was that the person being complained against was the Commissioner of the RCMP--the number one in the organization. Ideally you work things out inside the organization. You lock the doors, you sit down, you look each other in the eye and you deal with matters face to face.

That was tried. I know it was tried by me. I know it was tried by many other senior managers in the organization, to the point that it left no option but to go outside the organization, to the very people who put him in.

Whether things would have changed or not.... Again, it's hypothetical, because it took the course that it did. Other efforts had been tried and failed.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

You characterize the situation as getting worse and worse day by day. Can you give us a sense of what you mean by that?

Secondly, if things were getting that bad, and the only person above.... Obviously it's a political decision; it's the minister's office. Were there attempts to make the minister aware of how dysfunctional things were within the force?

[D/Commr Raf Souccar]

Things got worse by the number of individuals, including senior managers, who would walk into my office to complain, some in tears. I've heard comments made about intimidation. Bill Elliott did not intimidate--at least the police officers in the RCMP--but the abuse was there, the humiliation, the public humiliation. And I say public.... I come from a school where you chastise in private and you praise in public. So if there is any chastising to take place, do it behind closed doors; don't embarrass people publicly.

The number of complaints that were coming to me increased. The attempts to bring this to the open were made. The first one was made by retired Senior Deputy Commissioner Sweeney during an exit interview. This is what in fact got the ball rolling. The statements were made during an exit interview. A phone call was then made to me, and I answered truthfully.

Mike may also have a comment to make with respect to his attempt to obtain an exit interview.

[Insp Mike McDonell]

I did in fact request an exit interview when I announced my retirement from the RCMP, and I was denied that privilege. I felt from my experience on the senior management team and what I had viewed as perhaps the neutering of the senior management team that I needed to speak up. Being responsible for RCMP operations in Ontario, I felt that I needed to speak up with respect to some operational matters.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

And you would agree with Mr. Souccar's assessment that things were getting worse day by day, that the environment was abusive and not conducive to getting business done?

[Insp Mike McDonell]

I felt that senior management members were not respected for their opinion and that there was no debate, especially if someone put forward a contrarian opinion.

As a member of the senior management team, if a point was raised that we wished to discuss, things like advancing the change agenda within the RCMP.... It actually happened, and I did speak to the commissioner about it. Members raised the issue that it wasn't moving fast enough, and the commissioner quickly took over the lectern and very passionately admonished everybody in the room, described what the change was, and said “That's it. So from here on in the company line is change is moving fast enough”, to which the rolled shoulders went. I described it as the battered wife syndrome, writ large.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

The reason I ask this next question is that about three years ago, when Mr. Elliott came into that position, the RCMP was in a difficult place. There were series of recommendations, including Brown's report, with very specific recommendations. We obviously had Justice O'Connor's recommendations, supported by Iacobucci. We had Paul Kennedy's comments and recommendations. Some of them happened either then or during his tenure and yet they didn't go anywhere.

So I guess the question is, what was the next process? When you're feeling that frustration, do you have comments and exit interviews?

Mr. Souccar, you were interviewed. Did you go somewhere next to try to address this? How did you deal with it after these things continued to escalate and change was not happening within the force?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Holland.

[D/Commr Raf Souccar]

Well, I wouldn't say that change was not taking place in the RCMP. Change was taking place in the RCMP, and in fact many of Mr. Brown's 49 recommendations have been dealt with. The issue was the speed at which change was taking place.

There was a bit of resistance to taking risks--a little bit of a risk-averse nature of Mr. Elliott--and to move forward with changes, but change was taking place and has been taking place over the last three years. But it was not moving as fast as we wanted it to move.

Regionalization was an issue that was on the table from day one. I know that Bill Sweeney, prior to retirement, along with a consultant from outside the organization—an ex-member, in fact—had worked out a model of regionalization and how to deal with it. It would have been great to have Bill Sweeney around, given that he was the one who was spearheading this, to meet with and discuss the future in terms of our regions. Unfortunately, the meetings never took place. I met with Bill Sweeney, saying that “it would be great for us to be discussing this while you're still in the force”. It never took place and he ended up retiring.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Souccar.

We'll now move to Madame Mourani. Madame Mourani, vous avez sept minutes.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, Mr. Souccar and Mr. McDonell. I very much appreciate your being here. I also appreciate your honesty. I want to make that clear.

I would like to begin with a point of clarification. As soon as news of all this broke, I made a number of requests to bring both of you before the committee, and I can tell you it took a long time.

According to the information I received, Mr. McDonell, you did not want to appear. In your case, Mr. Souccar, it was not very clear where things stood. I had to issue a summons in order for you to appear. And here you are today, being very open and honest with us. I am trying to understand what happened. Were you threatened? Did Commissioner Elliot threaten you or ask you not to appear before the committee?

[D/Commr Raf Souccar]

Thank you very much for your question.

No, no one threatened me with respect to my appearing before the committee. However, when the RCMP receives an invitation to appear, the commissioner decides who will go before the committee. The commissioner decided, as he clearly stated during his most recent appearance—on November 30, I believe—to appear before the committee with the members of the executive committee. I believe there was Al Nause, Tim Killam and Alain Séguin. It was his decision to appear along with his team.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

We asked that Mr. Elliot appear, and we also asked that you appear. But I fully understand that Mr. Elliott made the decision to appear himself, without taking into account that we had specifically requested your presence.

As for you, Mr. McDonell, we were told that you did not wish to appear before the committee.

[Insp Mike McDonell]

I belong to another police organization, and it is not for me to comment on what happens within a different organization. That was the reason.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

I understand that. I just wanted to make sure that no one had put any undue pressure on you.

In addition, when you said earlier—and I think Mr. McDonell mentioned it, as well—that there was a lack of respect for senior management, that when you made suggestions on how to make the RCMP more effective and efficient, a directive came down from Mr. Elliott essentially prohibiting any dialogue. And, needless to say, the attitude was quite negative.

In your view, was Mr. Elliott there to implement the government's orders? Was he put in that position to carry out the Conservative government's agenda?

[D/Commr Raf Souccar]

He was selected as the RCMP commissioner, and the decisions made within the organization are ultimately his. You are asking me whether the commissioner's decisions were partisan. That is for him to say; I cannot speak for him.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

The best example I can give to show you what I mean is the gun registry. The RCMP—not you—clearly stated it was in favour of keeping the registry. We did not hear much from Mr. Elliott on that.

Was the gun registry a source of friction—one of many, for that matter—within the organization under this commissioner, who may have been in favour of scrapping it?