:
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 , 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.
:
Good morning, Mr. Chair, honourable members of the committee.
[Translation]
It is a pleasure to be here this morning.
[English]
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 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.
[Translation]
That concludes my presentation, Mr. Chair.
Mr. McDonell and I would be happy to answer the committee's questions.
[English]
Thank you.
:
Once again, thank you to the witnesses for appearing.
Let me say right from the start that I understand, having served in a police force that Inspector McDonell now serves with and for, the tremendous personal toll this takes when a police officer must appear before a political body such as this and take a public stand.
I respect and take wholeheartedly what you said. You're a very strong individual, Deputy Commissioner, for having done that. Whether or not we agree with the process is, in my view, totally irrelevant. You are a man of honour and should be respected, and every single Canadian who's watching this should feel that our RCMP, that institution, is in good hands.
I guess my fear was that your appearance here today would somehow descend into some acrimonious, accusatorial abyss where everything is the government's fault. I think every single Canadian, everybody in this room, wants only the best for our police force, because if we don't have and maintain the respect for our police forces then the whole system of justice.... We sit on the justice committee; the police force is where the rubber meets the road.
When Commissioner Elliott was first appointed to his position as commissioner I can recall his appearing before this committee. I made the statement then, and I still stand by it, that in the OPP one of the commissioners we had was appointed from the civil service. His name was Eric Silk, Commissioner Eric Silk, and quite frankly, even young officers like myself knew, even though he was on his way out, that he was looked on as modernizing the OPP, bringing in new concepts, new ideas, new ways of doing things.
I guess as my first question to you, Mr. Souccar, I know you were asked this question and you said the next commissioner should come from within the ranks, as happened in the OPP. And I could make some comments on that, but I shall not. Do you see, at any juncture in the RCMP—not necessarily the next commissioner—where the commissioner could come from a civilian background because of his or her abilities as a leader, his or her ability as a good administrator, and as a person who might bring in some new concepts and think outside of the box? Can you give your comments there?
First of all, you described the RCMP very well. We are a large and complex organization with a diverse mandate, different from any police agency that I know of in the world.
I can also tell you that we are the envy of the world. If you compare the RCMP with some of our U.S. partners—the Drug Enforcement Administration; Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms; Customs and Border Protection; the U.S. Coast Guard; the Federal Bureau of Investigations—all of them have common mandates, and they're continually stepping over each other. I know most of the number ones and number twos in these organizations personally, and I've been told by them that they envy us because of our mandate and our ability to move things around to accomplish our operational goals.
Having that wide mandate includes having contract policing, our uniform policing, which is an excellent training ground for police officers coming into the RCMP, learning how to do front-line police work, and eventually going to specialized areas such as drugs or national security.
Also, we have the ability to link, to connect the dots. You could have a highway patrol officer in uniform who pulls a car over on the highway near Saskatchewan and finds 50 kilos of cocaine in the trunk of the car, driven by somebody who's driving the cocaine for a major criminal organization. Very quickly, being one organization, that uniformed police officer can make one phone call, and the drug squad can be involved. Where was the cocaine going? If that person is willing to cooperate and identify the final destination of the cocaine, we can be the recipient of it and continue the investigation.
Having that wide mandate is the envy of the world.
Part of your question was about separation from government. When I talk about having a little longer arm's length and more autonomy, more nimbleness and flexibility in the RCMP, it's simply to allow us to meet our operational objectives quicker.
One example I can give you is the expenditures. This is an area I've been responsible for in federal policing, covert expenditures and expenditures for the purchase of evidence, for the payment to human sources. If you exceed a certain level, you need approval from Treasury Board. This has to go through several levels--the Minister of Public Safety, the President of the Treasury Board, and so on--for approval to be given. The amounts are low. They're old-level amounts. I've been pushing to change them for three or four years now, and still nothing has happened. With today's expenditures at 20-year-old levels, we find ourselves needing to get that authority all the time. Police work can't wait for that. The urgency of investigations sometimes requires us to make those expenditures quickly. Having ministers approve an operational expenditure, a purchase of evidence, or the payment of a human source, as I have told ministers before, could potentially require them to come to the stand and testify.
The last case I testified on was only a couple of years ago. It was a Hells Angels case. The point of the defence was whether the minster knew. Was the minister involved in giving the authorizations? My answer was no, because the minister was not involved. But this was one example where a minister could have been involved by saying yes or no to the approval. If it's a rubber stamp, then why are we going there?