Reforming The RCMP: An Onion Of A Plan
The RCMP decision to publicly release even less information around the use of tasers should come as no surprise. Just ask the simple question, to whom is the RCMP accountable?
Citing privacy concerns and on-going investigations, the RCMP has chosen to begin omitting the following information in public releases on the use of tasers:
- Whether the target was armed;
- The reason for firing the taser;
- What other tactics were employed before firing;
- The dates of firings;
- Related injuries as a result of the firing, including head traumas; and
- The duration of the shock sustained.
Although none of the above appears to be a real breach of privacy, should there be pending law suits there is an argument for the repression of some of the details as they relate to ongoing investigations only.
Such selective releasing of information will do little to help the beleaguered reputation of the RCMP. At a time when the public seems to be demanding ever more accountability from the boys in red, one would think that now, while the organization is being politically pinned up for reforms, that the RCMP would be disclosing more information, not less. Of course, such thinking relies upon the premise that the RCMP is a highly accountable organization with simple processes by which members of the public can ask questions, be answered and see changes to the system as a result. Naturally, not all public demands or requests can be reasonably accommodated given security, judicial or ‘greater good’ situations. However, in such cases a genuine attempt must be made to consider all matters and a viable explanation provided. Unfortunately, despite the very public announcements surrounding moves to reform the RCMP, the measures introduced so far smack of bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo and, as it has been the case across the board in governmental reforms, will do nothing in the end.
Just try to understand the measures enacted to reform the RCMP and your head will start spinning: A new reform council created as a result of a separate task force, applauded by a new commissioner (who to outsiders appears not to be part of the law enforcement establishment) all announced by, quite likely, an unsuspecting minister. It’s like a Canadian episode of “Yes, Minster!” but without the humour.
Let’s begin with the force’s reporting structure. The RCMP, as per the official website ”is headed by the Commissioner, who, under the direction of the Minister of Public Safety Canada, has the control and management of the Force and all matters connected therewith.” You might recall, that in July of 2007, a new commissioner was appointed; a man hailed as being the first person to take on the role with a background from outside of the RCMP. While that might be true, the image promoted of the career bureaucrat, William Elliott, is slightly misleading to those who don’t understand how Canada’s permanent bureaucracy works.
Mr. Elliott first began working in the government at the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Joining the Department of Justice in 1992, he worked there until being appointed as Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security, at Transport Canada in 2000. In 2003, Mr. Elliott was made Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, Security and Intelligence, in which role he supported the National Security Advisor (NSA) to the Prime Minister, until he was himself appointed as the NSA from 2005-2006.
The NSA, interestingly, is guided by the Advisory Council on National Security (ACNS), which in turn is comprised of a series of experts. For example, the current Council, which is chaired by Norman Inkster a former RCMP commissioner and president of Interpol, includes four former high-ranking police officers, four academics, two career bureaucrats and a few private sector representatives.
Thus, the current RCMP commissioner, who was once closely advised by former top-level law enforcement officers, is responsible for the “control and management of the Force and all matters connected therewith.” Mr. Elliott does report publicly to the Minister of Public Safety, Stockwell Day, who as a result is politically held accountable for the RCMP.
Mr. Day, like most of our representatives, is a career politician. As such, he relies on advice and guidance to make decisions on security measures. First among those advisers is a small group of political staff, which works for the minister. Unlike the ministerial offices of the Liberals, the Conservatives employee considerably fewer staff. Often, such advisors might not have experience in the subject matter they are covering and, as the adjective “political” implies, are focused on communications and public affairs. As a result, these advisors rely upon information put forward by interested parties (read: interest groups), a smattering of concerned citizens and the permanent bureaucracy.
The only other source of information stems from the analysis put forward by non-profit organizations, such as think tanks, associations and universities, all of which receive considerable funding from the various departments and agencies asking for submissions. Furthermore, the new measures that were implemented to make the government more accountable limit those experts, which can be commissioned to conduct analysis and other studies, eliminating any private-sector individuals or organizations from partaking.
There is a propensity within bureaucracy to simply follow the status-quo. Thus, a culture of doing things in certain ways develops which continues unchallenged as all employed by the system are swept along with the bureaucratic tide. It would also be interesting to see how many bureaucrats employed by the department of Public Safety are former law enforcement, intelligence or military personnel. Having had dealings with the department there appears to be a high rate of turn over between the security establishment and the bureaucracy, which could account for the often law enforcement-oriented security bills that are pushed forward by the permanent bureaucracy.
The dominance by the law enforcement and intelligence establishment in all matters relating to security is evident in the appointments for the myriad of reform-focused bodies announced by Mr. Day following a series of RCMP scandals.
The Task Force (so called because a costly group of experts is assigned a task with a somewhat predetermined outcome, and thus host consultations to hear what concerns select, invited members of the public have on issues only to ignore what isn’t complementary to their goals in the final report of recommendations) on Governance and Cultural Change in the RCMP was created in July of 2007. Consisting of several former bureaucrats including Norman Inkster (who also advises the NSA, see above), the “Task Force” recommended the creation of yet another body, the RCMP Reform Implementation Council.
Trusting the recommendations put forward by the “Task Force,” Mr. Day recently announced the creation of the new reform council, which members include two private sector representatives, a career bureaucrat, and two former police officers, one being Beverley Busson, former RCMP commissioner and a member of the Advisory Council to the NSA (again see above).
It could be argued that in order to truly understand the issues at hand, these various bodies, boards and departments should have representatives from the law enforcement, intelligence and military communities. Such close ties between those communities and the people responsible for oversight should raise concerns as to how accountable organizations, such as the RCMP, actually are. Is it reasonable to assume that former law enforcement officers are the best source for creating, driving and overseeing security measures?
Of course, many on the inside will point to the oversight bodies that exist to ensure accountability of law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Indeed, as Insp. Troy Lightfoot, who helps oversee RCMP Taser use, said to the press recently “I can tell you that there are many accountability systems in place with regards to police actions. You have the courts, you have coroners’ inquests, you have a multitude of oversight bodies. There is a complaints process that can be followed.”
This oversight process, however, isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. A 2006 report entitled “Civilian Oversight of the RCMP’s National Security Functions” notes that most complaints must first be filed through the RCMP before reaching the Commission. Furthermore, the commission does not have the power to review the RCMP’s duties and functions or put forward binding recommendations that the RCMP would have to follow. In fact, none of the bodies, which provide oversight to our intelligence agencies, the RCMP, CSIS and CSE, have the power to present binding recommendations.
As with the appointed councils and advisors, there is also the question of who is tasked with the responsibility of oversight and review; what sort of background do they have? The current head of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP is Paul E. Kennedy. His 25-year bureaucratic career includes “roles as General Counsel for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service” or CSIS, after which he provided “expert advice and support to the Minister in relation to law enforcement and national security matters…In May of 2004, following the creation of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada, Mr. Kennedy was appointed as Senior Assistant Deputy Minister with responsibility for national security and emergency preparedness.” Undoubtedly, Mr. Kennedy has enjoyed the same sources of advice and insight as other high-ranking officials. That being said, Mr. Kennedy is considered to be somewhat a “thorn in the side” of the RCMP as he has been quite vocal on speaking up against the approaches of the organization.
Mr. Kennedy’s predecessor, Shirley Heafey, hasn’t had much nice to say about her days as head of the Commission. As the Ottawa Citizen reported
“She had a “dreadful” time due to what she called “direct interference” by the Martin government with her independent role.
In allegations denied by former government officials, Ms. Heafey said she and her office were audited “to death” and there was an effort to forestall a public hearing by her commission into allegations that the Mounties covered up sexual abuse by an RCMP staff sergeant at the now-defunct Kingsclear youth training centre in New Brunswick.”
The political climate, and the high-level executives in the public service, really made my life extremely difficult,” she says in an exclusive interview with The Lawyers Weekly.”
The deputy prime minister’s office and the people in the Privy Council Office were quite concerned about the fact that I had to say what I had to say.”
Ms. Heafey contended “they made a lot of requests to me about the work I was doing (and) you know you don’t challenge the RCMP without accepting that you may have to pay a price. They are a national icon … and the government, in the last two years under Mr. (then-prime minister Paul) Martin, was very touchy about some of the things I did. They were trying to remind me to shut up.”
The Executive Director of the Security and Intelligence Review committee or SIRC leads all review of CSIS activities. The current Executive Director,Susan Pollak, began her career with another intelligence agency, CSE, moving to the Privy Council in 1984 and becoming the Principal advisor to the Deputy Clerk on Security and Intelligence in 1987.
The only current Commissioner responsible for any oversight of our intelligence and security agencies who doesn’t appear to have any direct background with the law enforcement or intelligence communities is Charles D. Gonthier. The current CSE Commissioner is an 80-year old lawyer from Quebec.
I suppose that at least some review is better than none. The Canada Border Services Agency, which will be increasingly collecting information on Canadian citizens as we move towards hi-tech identity documents, has no review mechanism according to the report.
And so there it is. The RCMP decides to release less information at the very time they are supposedly being pressed to be more transparent. Only, the people appointed to the unending layers of bureaucracy that are the commissions, task forces, councils, boards, departments and offices responsible for such reforms are often experts with a distinguished career inside law enforcement or intelligence agencies or are informed and advised by such people. Thus, instead of acting the part and appearing to be a changing organization coping with its issues, the RCMP behaves as it increasingly has – we are the law, if you’re not with us, you’re against us.
This isn’t a RCMP-specific problem, either. It’s more an endemic problem we are facing with a growing bureaucracy in this country. Until we begin to look at issues in security from a systemic perspective, which must include an assessment of the role of bureaucracy in developing, implementing and overseeing security measures, we will continue to have serious issues.
As I mentioned in an article last week, the tradition of keeping the security profession a closed-in, insular looking field will negatively impact our state of security long-term. A stale bureaucratic outlook will only further complicate the matter. Furthermore, the reform of any single security organization cannot occur without a simultaneous revision of how both government and average Canadians approach the issue of Canada’s national security. It’s time to stop blinding ourselves with individual security issues and tools (such as wiretapping and tasers) and move onto a wider assessment of the state of security in Canada.
Considering the RCMP reforms, and indeed any reforms around security in this country, is a bit like peeling back the layers of an onion. On the surface, especially to an uninformed observer, the reforms and the bodies created to oversee them appear solid, devoid of any funny smell. Ask a few questions, peel back the layers and soon enough your eyes are watering from a slight burning sensation and something starts to stink…
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.