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.
[English]
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.
[Translation]
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.
[English]
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
[Translation]
the Service de police de la ville de Montréal, the Sûreté du Québec,
[English]
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.
[Translation]
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.
[English]
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.
[Translation]
The important work to do is already underway.
[English]
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.
[Translation]
Thank you again for inviting me. I would be happy to respond to your questions.
:
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?
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.
:
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?
Thank you, Commissioner, for being here. I think I'd like to start off by saying that I want to thank you for taking on this task. It's never an easy one, and as you already know, it's like being the president of General Motors; you're now responsible every time a tire goes flat, along with running the large organization that it is.
In terms of the position, the biggest question seemed to be about political interference, and I think it's an issue that you already knew before you got there, but it's one that's of most import, and I would trust that the lack of political interference is what you need to do your job. I'm wondering if you can tell us if that's the case, or if I'm dead wrong, then say so.
And perhaps partly mentioning what my colleague from the NDP said, I would suggest to you, sir, that if all of your people do a good job, the public's confidence will go up, along with seeing that there is a change. Part of this relates to what we've read and heard, that there is a problem in recruiting. I'm wondering if that is improving, the ability to recruit. It always seems to me it's easier to recruit when there's good news out there, and if that in fact is happening, could you tell us about it?
With respect to the independence of the police, certainly I feel very strongly that this is a fundamental principle of a democratic society, and I said that seven months ago today, when it was announced I was being appointed commissioner. Certainly there have been no incidents over the last seven months, or six months and a bit, since I actually took office, in both cases, where I have been concerned with anyone attempting to unduly influence me or the RCMP.
With respect to your indication that when we all do a good job, trust in the RCMP will go up, I believe that's certainly true and a very important element. Unfortunately, the reality is we're an organization of some 28,000 employees. Some of them will make mistakes. No doubt many mistakes have been made over the time that I have been commissioner. I think when we make mistakes, we have to be honest about it and we have to address them. Some of that has to do with how we communicate, and it also has to do with how we deal with things like workplace disclosure and discipline, which are certainly areas that need improvement.
With respect to recruiting, I guess there's good news and bad news. We are actually having people apply to the RCMP in record numbers. We are accepting people into the RCMP, sending them to training in Regina and having them graduate in record numbers. That is in large part because we are investing a lot of time and effort in recruiting. During this past year, 2007, I think we sent just over 1,500 cadets to Depot, and not that long ago, half that number would have been a good year.
But we are in fact not keeping pace with our requirements. We have lots of people retiring, and we have been asked by provinces and territories and municipalities to increase our numbers. We have also been given additional responsibilities, particularly in the post-9/11 environment. We would actually like to have several hundred more a year, and that is a real priority for us, to bring those numbers up even further.
:
Thank you very much, Commissioner, for coming this afternoon. I'm going to start by making a couple of statements and then soliciting a response to a few questions that I'll be posing to you.
First I want you to know that I was a proud member of the Ontario Provincial Police for over 30 years, and I'm even more fiercely proud of the men and women who go to work every day for the RCMP and do their job free of any political influence, probably not knowing a lot about what goes on in this place, except that they know they have a job to do and they're going to go out and do the best job they can each and every day.
That's one of the challenges I've put on myself as a member of this government and as a member of this committee. Thank goodness we have the Brown report, which addresses many of the problems that I think are challenges to you and the RCMP every day.
My experience in a deployed police force is quite frankly that when changes occur at the top that are good, they rather quickly filter down to the bottom.
I also want to address one of the other issues that was brought up with regard to your not being a regular member of the RCMP and now being commissioner. I can recall again in my previous employ a commissioner who was not a member of the OPP and who did become commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police and who faced some of the same questions you are faced with. Quite frankly, he is looked upon as one of the best commissioners ever in the Ontario Provincial Police. So whether or not you look at that as a compliment, I can assure you that it was meant as that. He did bring about a lot of changes because he had a slightly different perspective, but he also realized that he had a duty to respect the fact that he needed the help of those who were members.
I have one other comment, and I apologize if I'm on my soapbox, but quite frankly I think it needs to be said. I only hope that never would an RCMP officer, no matter what the rank is, be influenced by a politician or by a person's standing in the community when it comes down to the exercise of his or her duty. That would be the death knell to all police officers and all police organizations in this country.
So it doesn't matter when you are assigned an investigation, if the evidence leads you into an investigation, you do it at that time and you do it irrespective of what's going on around you and you do it in the best and the most professional manner.
I'd like to go back to the Brown report. I know that you and the are looking at that report. I am wondering if you could expand on any of the issues that are solely the responsibility of the RCMP, changes that you envisage taking or that you may be commencing that might be of assistance to the committee.
I just want to tell you how thankful I am that you've taken on this task, Commissioner Elliott. It's going to be a tough one, and I'm sure you're up to it.
Just to give you a little history, first of all, I'm an MP from British Columbia, and the RCMP takes care of the policing in British Columbia and has contracts with the municipalities. I was a mayor for nine years of a small community of 16,000 people, and we went through that 15,000 threshold on those contracts. The way it works is that if the population in the community is under 5,000, you don't pay anything; if it's between 5,000 and 15,000, the municipality pays 70% and the federal government pays 30%; and then if it goes over the 15,000 threshold, it's a 90-10 split.
In our community the policing contract took 24% of our tax revenue, and even at that we were still understaffed in the local detachment. The morale was down in the detachment and there was fatigue, and this is just asking for problems, not only for your staff but also with how they respond if they're in a fatigue situation. I know these contracts are coming due in 2012, and I really believe something that needs to be addressed by the federal government and the RCMP is how we are paying for those RCMP costs. If municipalities cannot afford to pay for the full complement that they need to adequately police the community, then it's just going to cause problems.
Is there anything that you can see in the future, in what you're looking at as far as addressing some of these issues, where you'd be looking at the cost of paying for policing?
:
Though many others have already asked you questions on this, I will also ask you a question on Taser guns.
There are two things that concern me. I was Minister of Public Safety when we began thinking about using Taser guns. At the time, we were told that this was a weapon which would save lives, since the police could use it before using firearms when there was a good reason for using those. Other people testified before the committee but told us that this was no longer how it was being used. The Taser gun can replace the nightstick very well and make arrests easier.
What is the policy on Taser guns? Does the RCMP consider the Taser gun a last-resort weapon, to be used just before a firearm would be?
Moreover, in the literature we read and the testimony we heard, it seems that most people who have died as a result of Taser gun use were suffering from excited delirium. Even though psychiatry books make no mention of excited delirium, it remains that Taser gun advocates prefer to cite excited delirium as the cause of death.
What are the symptoms of excited delirium? How can one recognize those symptoms before deciding what weapon to use, since one cannot order a medical examination before the person in question is arrested? One of the symptoms of excited delirium is extreme agitation, making the people suffering from it very difficult to subdue. If someone is suffering from delirium, then using a Taser gun would not be appropriate. I would like you to explain the RCMP's policy in those two cases.
Is the Taser gun genuinely a weapon of last resort, or rather of next-to-last resort, just before a firearm? According to RCMP Taser gun use protocol, or directives, should someone who is highly agitated not be subjected to a Taser gun jolt?