Dr. Mike Webster (Globe and Mail)
Dear Zofia,
This is probably as close as you will come to a genuine apology from the RCMP. Unfortunately, the long history and rich tradition of the Force manifests itself today as arrogance and defensiveness. As you may know, I am the psychologist who was associated with the RCMP for over 30 years and testified at the Braidwood Commission. I have tried several times over the last few months to put what I want to say to you, about Robert’s death, in the form of a letter. I want to strike the right balance and have my remarks reflect my displeasure with the RCMP executive and not the generally well meaning and hard working members. I think I have it right this time.
The way your son was treated on October 14, 2007 was in my opinion, the absolute worst of Canadian policing. Then to compound this, the British Columbia Criminal Justice Branch rendered its charge assessment (December 12, 2008) of the 4 RCM policemen who were involved in Robert’s death. The Branch stated that it would not be “approving any charges” and that the force the policemen used was “reasonable and necessary in all the circumstances”. This statement reflects a profound misunderstanding and lack of respect for the application of force to vulnerable groups and those in crisis. How could this happen in Canada?
I want to assure you that it shouldn’t be happening in a country like Canada and that there are mechanisms in place to prevent such travesties. Please be patient with me as I first provide some context to our search for answers.
As in all democratic societies, the police in Canada are given the authority to use force to ensure that the laws of the country are upheld and public safety and security are maintained. This, of course, carries the expectation that police persons and their organizations will be accountable to the public for any use of force. However, even though the community provides the police with the ability to employ legitimate force, several questions arise:
i. What is a reasonable use of force?
ii. Why and under what circumstances is one type of force chosen over another?; and,
iii. What standards are in place to ensure that there is consistency in addressing use of force situations?
The police, in Canada, have attempted to address these questions by developing use of force models. No matter whether it is the RCMP’s Incident Management Intervention Model (IMIM) or the more widely used National Use of Force Framework (NUFF), these are attempts to integrate force options (e.g. presence, communication…etc.) with a generic decision making model (e.g. assess-plan-act). There are some key principles underlying these models:
i. The primary responsibility of a police person is to preserve and protect life;
ii. The primary objective of any use of force is to ensure public safety;
iii. The safety of the police person is essential to public safety; and,
iv. The use of force model does not replace the law
So far, so good. It sounds like the RCMP has ethical (and legal) guidelines that it must follow. So how could such a tragedy happen? The short answer is, an inept, insular, and archaic group of RCMP executives has let the Force fall out of step with 21st Century policing. Let me try to explain, using what many of us may only have been minimally aware of.
You may have noticed that all four of the RCMP members who confronted Robert were wearing black leather gloves. These are not part of the regulation RCMP working uniform. Why were they wearing them? They are called “slash” gloves and are designed to protect the wearer from sharp objects. In my considerable interactions with general duty (patrol) personnel I have come to understand there are two answers to the question. Yes, they are worn for protection but they are also worn for psychological effect. They are worn, by some, to intimidate (without giving much thought to how they could be perceived by the general public). Unfortunately the idea of intimidating people is entirely consistent with the RCMP management’s way of managing conflict not only with the public but also with its own membership. The idea of protection is reflective of the RCMP executive’s view of the public they police. We have become the “enemy” and they go to “war” with us each day, rather than collaborating with us to form a cohesive and consistent approach to policing our communities. The gloves are a symbol of the RCMP executive’s relationship with the public. So in a perverse way we can understand the climate in which the Taser was so warmly embraced by the RCMP decision makers and is so enthusiastically deployed by its loyal members. What better way to terrify or stay at arm’s length from the “great unwashed” than at the end of two 35 foot electrical wires?
Let me be clear, I hold the RCMP executive responsible for this attitude and indirectly responsible for Robert’s death. Tragically, the four policemen were doing what they had been trained to do. They actually believed the incredible testimony they gave at the Inquiry. (Some law enforcement training materials actually suggest the use of a conducted energy weapon for people in an agitated state!). The RCMP executive is out of touch with their constituency and their own membership, content to pad around in their various national and regional headquarters. They have forgotten what Sir Robert Peel told us 180 years ago as he began the first professional police service (i.e. London’s “Bobbies”). Among a list of principles fundamental to democratic policing he noted that the relationship of the police to the community must always reflect the historic tradition that “we are them and they are us”. To be specific, the RCMP must accept that they are not an elite group above and separate from the community. They are quite simply paid to do a job full-time that we should all be doing in our various neighbourhoods. They are only in uniform so that we can identify them when we need them. Unfortunately, the RCMP executive has forgotten this and become more interested in positive impression management than in maintaining public approval. (And if they knew their Peel they would realize that it is that approval that allows them to function at all). They view themselves as somehow apart from the rest of us, an elite group whose safety is more important than that of the most unfortunate among us, whose decisions are the preserve of only themselves and so called public safety “experts” (e.g. Taser International), and who devalue force options like “presence” and “communication” as naive and ineffective in today’s world.
The RCMP decision makers made a fundamental and far reaching error when they based their decision to bring the Taser into Canada upon anecdotal reports from their own members and information from Taser International. They refused then and continue to refuse to recognize that this issue and issues like this are public policy. They live too close to the forest to see the trees and would benefit from public input. They don’t have all the requisite expertise to make these kinds of decisions. A public advisory board comprised of policy analysts, those trained in research, scientific specialists, retired lawyers, judges, and police persons could add much to the decision making process regarding such important issues.
Finally, I would like to attempt to shed some light on the disappointing British Columbia Criminal Justice Department’s recommendation regarding charges in Robert’s case. In our system the Justice Department relies on the police to provide it with evidence upon which it offers a legal opinion. To be more specific, in this case the Justice Department was dependent upon the RCMP’s IHIT to provide it with comprehensive evidence so that it could make the best decision.
It is a psychologically unsophisticated idea to believe that the RCMP can investigate itself. When I say this I am not questioning anyone’s integrity. I am stating a fundamental principle of human behaviour. Human beings are highly subjective organisms; we see (hear, smell etc.) what we want to see, and we don’t like to see things that make us look bad. (Recall the RCMP’s original explanation of the incident, for which not a shred of evidence was found, or the meticulous unraveling of the IHIT’s case). This is why medical doctors shouldn’t be diagnosing themselves, researchers should be at arm’s length from their own research, and I make a lousy psychologist for my own family. Didn’t you find it interesting that one of the (supposed) finest police forces in the world reported that “no information was available to investigators regarding Mr. Dziekanski’s emotional state during his flight to Vancouver from Frankfurt”? Then those intrepid sleuths from the Braidwood Commission (lawyers Art Vertlieb and Pat McGowan) without ever flying off to Poland, invited some of Robert’s co-passengers and flight attendants to the hearing and found out that he was just fine. This is sometimes called selective perception; we look for and find only those things that would confirm our own perspective. I believe it was this faulty notion that the RCMP is the best judge of its own behaviour that resulted in the incredible ruling of the Criminal Justice Branch.
As someone who worked inside the organization for several decades I am deeply sorry for the RCMP’s behaviour that contributed to Robert’s death. I wish I could tell you that the issues I raised here, and many others, that are rotting the RCMP from the top down, will soon be changing. I won’t do that as the RCMP is in need of significant transformational change in order to genuinely re-connect with the public and its own membership. Changing bits and pieces of its infrastructure, as outlined by its “change management team” will not suffice. The changes required need to go much deeper and challenge the Force’s archaic self image and corporate culture. These kinds of changes focus on the outdated core values and culture that are most resistant to change; and most of the resistance comes from the top…the very people who make up the “change management team”. Massive organizational changes like this usually involve sweeping changes in senior management. Very few at the executive level who have had anything to do with shaping the recent history of the RCMP should be allowed anywhere near the room where genuine, and painful, transformation is being undertaken. I have little faith that anything of significance will change until the cabal in charge is gone; however, I want to assure you that I will continue to do everything in my power to shine a critical light on the role played by RCMP decision makers in Robert’s death.
In closing, you may be aware that my testimony at the Braidwood Commission was challenged as “biased” by the RCMP members’ lawyers. (And I’m sure they will try again in their final submissions). I am not biased, in a negative direction toward the RCMP. I have the deepest respect for the institution of the RCMP but very little respect for most members of the RCMP responsible for its present position and course. The executive level of the RCMP from one end of the country to the other is out of touch with both the public and its’ own membership. It’s time for someone to say “the emperor wears no clothes”.
Sincerely,
Dr. Mike Webster
Police Psychologist
A ZERO out of TEN
- that’s no hope at all… is it that bad?
- who’s responsible?
- is this fixable?
- can anyone in the RCMP be trusted?
- if we call 9-11 how can we be sure no one will die?
- can the innocent be caught up in the cross fire?
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
3 
0
Chief Superintendent Dick Bent acknowledged there were problems but said they would take Kennedy’s recommendations “to heart.”
“Certainly we’re aware the public is concerned about police investigating police . . . there were some errors made in the investigative process and we’ve learned from those and have taken some action already.”
Anyone reassured by those words? Or, do they sound familiar? If I were rating police on sincere commitment to change, I’d score 0 out of 10. Had they learned from St. Arnaud death, or Bush’s death, or Paul’s, or any of the 50 or so B.C. in-custody deaths of recent years, the things learned would be in place.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
3 
0
And just today we have this, fresh from the CPC investigation of the Vanderhoof shooting:
“Main findings regarding the RCMP investigation of shooting:
* Failed to secure shooting scene.
* Failed to remove RCMP partner/eyewitness at earliest opportunity.
* Failed to secure break-in scene at pharmacy.
* Failed to seize blood samples from the snow.
* Failed to find non-detachment members to take statements.
* Asked leading questions in interview with officer who fired and RCMP eyewitness.
* Failed to apprehend the importance of contradictory evidence about whether Const. Sheremetta was standing or lying down when he fired.
* Failed to re-interview witnesses about that discrepancy.”
Small wonder the public has low faith in the impartiality of the RCMP when it comes to self investigation. Here it is in black in white. Yes, they did use a biased form of self investigation with the transparent and improper goal of “fading the heat” …don’t take my word for it. Just read Kennedy’s conclusions. And yes, they did it in Dziekanski’s case too.
Why do it? Well, because when you want a predetermined conclusion to come out rather than an honest impartial one there is a recipe you follow. Once again, Kennedy summarizes nicely how to bias an investigation run by friends and colleagues:
-don’t secure the shooting scene
-don’t remove the partner/eyewitness at the earliest opportunity
-don’t secure the break-in scene
-don’t secure blood samples
-don’t find non-detachment members to take statements
-ask leading questions in the interview with the RCMP shooter and his partner
-fail to apprehend the importance of contradictory evidence about the position of the RCMP shooter
-fail to re-interview witnesses about that discrepancy.
So either they knowingly botched the investigation for their own gain and hoped they could smoke it past any review, or they were so inept they could not find their ass with both hands and a flashlight.
Oh, and as for it being only my opinion that this is a deeply rooted problem in the minds of many Canadians, uh, well, actually no it isn’t. there are two recurring themes which appear in reports and discussions of the Dziekanski death. The first is obviously that 4 cops killed the man. And the second, to name just a few specifics, is how they investigated the mess they created: amateur hour attempts to suppress video evidence for up to two years; official stories of the incident so bereft of truth the public is goggle eyed at the death grip the YVR 4 retain on them; investigations of the deceased in an attempt to what…”proxy justify?” his death by a general assertion that through his character and youthful inadequate past he somehow brought his death down upon himself? And all the while completely unmatched by any similar investigation into the character and early history of the 4 who killed Dziekanski.
So no, that is not just my opinion. Lots of Canadians share it. Les grand fromages in the RCMP apparently get it too. They admit the case has damaged the reputation of the force significantly.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
5 
0
“Unless we examine the totality of the facts surrounding that specific issue, we will not know.” – DT
Corollory 1:
And since we can never have ALL the facts, we should never make judgments. Leave those to the people involved. They will tell us, if we need to know, in the fullness of time. Trust them always because they are always right, so they tell us.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
1 
3
Roberts mother is probably crying 24/7 at the way Robert died while the RCMP are trying to blame Robert for his own down fall.
His innocent blood is now crying from the ground for justice because his life was snuffed out before it’s time.
And all we can do at this point is throw out red herings to cloud the issue.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
3 
1
Glad that you approve of Ian Mulgrew and don’t suspect him of being one of the “off with their heads, the whole system is diseased, bathwater advocates who think the sky is falling.”
By the way, on Nov 14/07, he wrote in the Vancouver Sun:
“The image of the RCMP officers seconds later clambering atop the fallen Dziekanski, one forcing his knee into the convulsing man’s head and neck, will haunt.
I dare say these images will shock our nation’s conscience.
The digital recording of Dziekanski’s death in the early morning of Oct. 14 at Vancouver International Airport is destined to become Canada’s Rodney-King shame.
Our national police force looks like a gang of thugs.”
But, as you tell us, there is no shame. It is only the opinions of critics that are a deeply rooted problem. Maybe Mulgrew suffered faulty opinions in 2007 and he’s over it now.
I’m glad you participated in this dialogue because your attitude is illustrative of the resistance those who want transparent and accountable police services must overcome.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
5 
0
“For the law society to use the ban as an excuse to avoid the questions raised by last week’s conviction reeks of institutional arrogance. It is the kind of decision that feeds the cynical view that the law society protects its own rather than the public — the perspective that the professional watchdog truly is a lapdog.”
Vancouver sun columnist Ian Mulgrew May 23, 2009.
Only recently have the misdeeds of lawyers and the society come under some scrutiny by the newspapers. Off with their heads??
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
1 
1
You will be happy to note SC that the Charter does not apply to the officers in the RCMP when it comes to searching their offices, desks, lockers, computers, etc. A right you have.
It is only your opinion that it is a deeply rooted problem. Police departments have been utilizing internal investigations for many decades. The hue and cry results as always from a few serious incidents.
Your analogy of the college of physicians and surgeons is plausible but suffers from an outdated notion that we don’t understand. Any oversight board can call expert witnesses to outline issues. Juries and judges sit on malpractice suits all the time and seem to be able to function.
You cannot fold the Law Society in with it unless you think they are above laymen oversight as well? Have you heard the patronizing drivel from them about how the great unwashed are not familiar with legal concepts to sufficiently understand their decisions? The hubris is staggering. Read the Vancouver Sun this morning about David Marten and his dealings with the Law Society? The first one I come across searching Canada.com
The police departments all have internal investigations,and like I said before, you can replace them all if you wish, but you will have to replace them all, not just the RCMP.
Do not forget that for the most part, internal kangaroo courts aside, the law applies to the police as well as to us. With civil law as it is, sometimes you cannot just “fire” someone without due process, or reasonable assistance and guidance first. The RCMP in days past could be fired by the Officer in Charge at various levels, or transferred to Baffin Island on a whim. Because of labor law, you cannot do that anymore. Mechanisms for dealing with “problem children” are for the most part onerous and bent in favor of the “accused” (like that term better?) thanks to case law civilly and criminally. I do no think your need for instant gratification will ever be satisfied.
I agree with MS that the CPC is probably overworked, and probably in need of an exercise in efficiency and staffing review. They have some very interesting statistics though. Worth a read. Some I have quoted before.
Really NRF, accounting principles? British MPs? Only relevant in the broadest overall context.
Real easy to armchair. How about that video in Houston? What was it that kept it from being turned on? Unless we examine the totality of the facts surrounding that specific issue, we will not know. Should it be turned on first thing upon commencement of the shift? Sounds good, unless the start of shift began with the officer responding to a 911 before shift from home. Sorry, gotta go in and turn the recorder on, be there shortly. Perhaps we should have automated systems so that there is no need for turning it on or off. Maybe a civilian from an oversight committee to change tapes or discs? Good idea. How much does the Houston taxpayer fork out for it? Do they want to? Should you, and are you able to legally video officers as they do police reports, have lunch, or discuss the hockey game? Who has authority to turn it off, and under what circumstances?
My point there, in case you missed it, is that there are numerous angles to every issue, be they financial, political, practical, mechanical or legal. Each issue has to be dealt with rationally and systematically, and not by vague or wholesale pronouncement.
Sorry NRF, the Sky Shop and Dredging scandals do not reinforce your point about self investigation. It supports MS in political interference, and mine on preventing criminal investigation by that interference. You should have referenced the tripartite committee set up which is a self investigative organ. Up until then, the RCMP did the investigation of criminal activity in the govt unfettered.
One should always try and improve in all facets of life and vocation. I think, as I have stated before, that you wait for the systems in place to discharge their respective responsibilities, provide facts, submit recommendations, then act upon the recommendations with deliberation and systematic evaluation. If you do not like the systems in place then advocate for rational, reasonable and measured change. I think that would satisfy most Canadians. And more personally I think you should avoid the off with their heads, the whole system is diseased, bathwater advocates who think the sky is falling. Do not be afraid to examine, in excruciating detail, every minutiae, before coming to a personal conclusion. One last thought there NRF, you cannot conduct life by exceptions. You just deal with anomalies as they arise with the systems at hand. There will always be exceptions.
In fact NRF and SC, I am told that you can receive a copy of the operations policies of the RCMP from a freedom of information act request. Then you could examine their procedures and policies and see if you agree with them or not, or whether or not they have enough, in any specific area of your concern.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
2 
1
“Look up the Sky Shops investigation by the Commercial Crime unit of the RCMP and who was caught in the web of conspiracy. The Dredging Scandal, same thing. Because of these, the government took steps to ensure the RCMP was bridled because too many govt hacks and cronies were caught with their hand in the cookie jar.”
—————————–
DT, thank you for reinforcing the point that affinity groups should not conduct investigation of themselves. In each of the cases you cite – we could point to more – people with influence protected associates from exposure.
However, the disciplinary process of professions is not directly comparable to that of the RCMP. Practitioners do not have large common employers and the professions are managed by elected representatives from diverse segments of the trade, nearly all people with significant public profile. In the case of lawyers, lay benchers serve on their Boards of Directors. Besides, criticism of other processes hardly answer critics of police self-investigation. One inadequacy does not justify another.
Lack of transparency is behind the current British MP expense scandal. Parliamentarians resisted reform at every opportunity, allowed only mock oversight and fought to limit public examination. Understandable because self protection is a basic human instinct.
You claim that we already have, for the most part, “…policing that is conducted transparently, always in the public interest.” You allow that there is room for improvement. We agree up to this point but would obviously differ about the exceptions.
Good accountants create financial systems redundant with checks and balances. You design internal controls that minimizes risk of misconduct and maximizes likelihood that deception will be quickly disclosed when it occurs.
For example, good internal controls would have ensured that the CCTV was routinely recording in Houston when Ian Bush died. Having failed to turn on the recorder, the constable has no definitive proof of his account. There should have been no option about video recording.
Since you agree that some improvement to accountability is desirable, what sort of changes do you think would satisfy most Canadians.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
0 
1
NRF I do believe that Saskatchwan has formed an agency like Ontario’s SIU and alberta may have done likewise. Generally, if the province says such a unit has to investigate officer-involved shooting the Mounties will likely co-operate. For some reason, B.C. really doesn’t want to go this root.
Wally Oppal did reccomend in his report on policing that the provincial RCMP be brought under the umbrella of the province’s police act and that RCMP officers be subject to the same complaints process as municipal police officers. This was back in 1994 and both the then-NDP governments and current-Liberal government have acted on this reccomendation. The report was well-received, Gordon Campbell liked it so much he asked Wally Oppal to run as a B.C. Grit and made him the province’s AG.
Recently, the head of the association representing the RCMP rank and file officers in B.C. said that his members would have no problem with the idea of being governed by the province’s Police act. Even senior Mounties (in B.C. at least) expressed a desire to work with the province to ensure greater accountability at the provincial level. But the province is not pushing this notion.
Are they afraid that the Feds are going to throw a tantrum. pick up all their Mounties, and go straight home?
Hopefully, calmer heads prevail on this issue.
DT, I think the problem a lot of people have with the RCMP CPC is that it is a very overworked office with a huge mandate that doesn’t seem to work the further you get from Ottawa. When you have former CPC commissioners (who may have an axe to grind) badmouthing their former post, it tends to leave folks (who are already cynical) disenchanted. Probably the majority of the work the CPC does is very effecient, thorough, and utterly boring from an “Action News at Six” standpoint.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
1 
0
And DT would that also include Police Offices…?
The deeply rooted problem which disturbs so many Canadians in this case is the apparent self dealing of the Mounties in the aftermath of the death. A concerted effort went into withholding the truth from Canadians by the brass, concocting knowingly inaccurate stories the media relations officers put out to the press in direct contravention of the video facts available to police, and working to achieve a conclusion no charges should be laid based on the the distorted picture the Mounties kept under wraps. If that does not amount to a need for better oversight what does?
The important point in the Aldoboni case (www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2009/05/13/ottawa-police-officer-assault-investigation) is an independent body – the SIU – was called in immediately to determine responsibility. And Aldoboni is alive, unlike Dziekanski. Does no one find it odd that broken bones are treated with such immediate and transparent independent investigation while a whole 2 years after Dziekanski’s death, the RCMP gets around to saying sorry for knowingly withholding the facts from Canadians?
As for the oversight offered by the College of Physicians and the Law Society it is effective because of the professional standards employed by these organizations and their commitment to root out incompetence or malpractice as the safest and most reliable way to maintain public trust. They understand the insidious danger of ineffective attempts at covering up and whitewashing in the information age while some police organizations (apparently not the Ottawa Police Service) sadly do not.
And at least as it regards medical pharmacology, diagnostic decision making and surgical procedures to name a few, I cannot see the wisdom of replacing the medical expertise on the disciplinary boards of the Colleges with a sturdy and well-meaning collection of farmers, convenience store clerks and house painters to review charges against physicians. So in some cases we rely on expertise.
As for the question: “Who would be more likely to want corrupt officers, or incompetent officers out of the department? Does it not occur to you that the very department itself would want to rid itself of problem children to make its primary function better and easier?”
Well, the answer is that sometimes departments do take action on officers who abuse their role, commit crimes and bring opprobrium on the force and sometimes these offenders are given second, third, fourth chances as they are shuffled around and their misdeeds are covered up in a mistaken belief that lying about them protects an image apparently so fragile (in the minds of the engineers of the cover up) that tolerating incompetence or worse is preferable to cutting out the rot. And I think “sometimes” isn’t a good enough standard for cutting out rot, given the extraordinary powers afforded the police.
But it was a nice touch to refer to them as “problem children”…makes it sound as if their worst offense is smearing peanut butter on the fridge door handle. Cute.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
0 
1
SC, the CPC is oversight on the RCMP. Read their website. Expand if you will, add mandate if you will, branch out to provincial entity if you will. Add more teeth if you will. CSIS has civilian oversight as well.
The fact remains you cannot have the person in charge of the RCMP be in the pocket of any government department. MS gives you salient points in respect of interference. Look up the Sky Shops investigation by the Commercial Crime unit of the RCMP and who was caught in the web of conspiracy. The Dredging Scandal, same thing. Because of these, the government took steps to ensure the RCMP was bridled because too many govt hacks and cronies were caught with their hand in the cookie jar. Nobody will take issue with your request for more civilian oversight and if you read that into my post you are sadly mistaken.
You mix your thoughts on the self investigation: “A physician charged with malpractice cannot review his own notes and decide the merits of the case. A lawyer accused of incompetent representation cannot review her case notes and decide if she faithfully and effectively executed her responsibilities.” The noted occupations have professional associations made up of their own members that investigate. Even the police officers involved in an incident do not investigate themselves. Are you that unfamiliar with the systems at hand?
You say the professional standards unit are investigating conduct. You appear to use that example in support of no self investigation but it is just that. Their own investigating their own. SIU is supposedly a third party entity, not the PSU of the police department.
Who would be more likely to want corrupt officers, or incompetent officers out of the department? Does it not occur to you that the very department itself would want to rid itself of problem children to make its primary function better and easier?
I invited NRF to canvass the noted contacts about internal headhunters. I also referenced the “piling on” facet unique to the RCMP which was referred to in a recent judges decision. Conveniently ignored.
If you want an Ontario SIU, you are only getting major incident investigation. If you want all complaints independently investigated, you will have to change every police department in Canada. They all have internal units investigating complaints. Even judges investigate themselves. Does that bother you?
Once again SC, check the CPC website for cases it investigates, also you may wish to check the Federal Court website for adjudications against, and for police officers and the RCMP vs civilian. There are actual names!
NRF, you were and still are bothered by what you state. “Raising specific concerns with the detachment and E Division HQ completed my citizen’s obligation” I beg to differ. Your obligation is not limited to “raising the issue.” If that is where you wish to end it then that is your right.
Once again you jump to conclusions, I did not “discount” the Brown report, I asked why the other issues were not fully addressed. More work needed to be done by that. How you draft “broad dismissal” from my post is mystifying.
I hardly insult Webster. I bring some information to the table that may cast some light on motivations and that bothers you? I ask for deeper inquiry. Do not take a lot of things at face value NRF just because it may buttress your point of view. One should always be critical (meaning “in depth” here) before assessments or analysis. That is not vilification, neither is pointing out simple procedures or information that should be asked or known before conclusions are preached.
You will get no argument from me with respect to accountability and conduct of any organization. What you will get is presentation of issues and facts ignored, premature suppositions proffered, facets of an issue unaddressed and little sympathy for bathwater, sky is falling solutions.
For the most part you already have: “…and receive in return, policing that is conducted transparently, always in the public interest.” by our police departments. There is always room for improvement, but there is never a need for broad brush disrespect, distrust, and to use your term, vilification.
Thanks for the history reference, however, in 2009 I want the police to be able to discharge their responsibilities no matter where it takes them. MP’s offices, judges chambers, doctors offices, lawyers offices, wherever corruption/ lawbreaking may be.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
0 
1
Good discussion people.
The Ombudsman and Auditor-General positions present models for oversight. An all-party committee presents a (presumably) well regarded candidate to the House for appointment as Commissioner of Police. The officer reports to Parliament, not Government. I believe further that respected citizens – specialists in civil rights, law enforcement, criminology, etc. – should join an advisory board. The public Commissioner would not be part of operational management but would investigate and report on broad issues.
I also believe that RCMP when contracted as community police services, should be subject to provincial disciplinary review. We must also recognize that investigations of alleged misconduct by an “independent police force” is mostly sham. Recently, Vancouver Police asked Abbotsford to investigate VPD actions in a case. At the same time, VPD was investigating Abbotsford Police actions in another complaint. Conflicts of interest are immediately apparent even without knowing the past association of both chiefs when they were senior officers together in the VPD.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
0 
1
Social Critic you are correct that civilian oversight and governance of police forces is necessary. In the case of the RCMP, you actually have no oversight and what is effectively political control of the Mounties by the PMO. By making the RCMP commissioner a deputy minister in the federal cabinet, it made the commissioner beholden to the PM and politicized the office of the commissioner.
In the late 1980s then-PM Brian Mulroney had then-commissioner Norman Inkster dismantle a highly effective RCMP unit investigating white-collar corporate crimes. Some of the people being investigated by this unit (operating in Ontario and Quebec) had close ties to Mulroney’s government and the PC party. That is not an example of oversight but of interference. That is just one example. Ted Hughes’ APEC Inquiry hinted that interference by Chretien’s staffers in the security proceedings had a lot to do with the debacle that occured in that case.
The Mounties do need a more effective form of civilian oversight but that would best be handled by an all-parlimentary RCMP board. If the RCMP are to continue in provincial contract policing, perhaps those officers assigned to provincial and/or municipal contracts should be sworn in as provincial constables and be governed by the same laws that govern municipal police in the provinces. There are all sorts of things we could be doing differently.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
2 
0
“…You dodged my question on that issue. Why?…”
————–
Regarding my family’s unhappy experience, I never said anything about results; I talked of process, mentioning “… defensiveness, evasion, dishonesty and disinterest.” Regardless of outcome, the process itself hardly met standards called for in the RCMP’s own Values Improvement Program. Raising specific concerns with the detachment and E Division HQ completed my citizen’s obligation. But that incident has nothing to do with more current and significant problems.
You discount the Brown report yet it makes arguments – political independence, commitment capability, resource provisioning, SRR roles, cadet remuneration, etc. – that seem to parallel aims you support. Have you read the report or is your broad dismissal of it a knee jerk reaction?
By their nature, organizations resist change even when, to others, it is obviously necessary. Internal resistance is even more powerful if individuals have little influence in designing change. It may seem scary and negativity is very likely. I suggest the RCMP has experienced that condition. As you point out, political interference is standard. Additionally, ordinary operational members are generally excluded from policy making and SRR’s seem not universally respected. I agree that a union or at least a strong, widely accepted staff association, would be helpful in creating improvements, perhaps even designing the very changes that might solve problems that some would prefer to ignore. Shouldn’t we share a goal of mutual respect between police and citizenry? That means the public should provide appropriate resources and effective laws and receive in return, policing that is conducted transparently, always in the public interest.
I note your contributions often focus on vilification of those with different points of view. Instead of insulting Mike Webster and ascribing motives of revenge to him, why not provide a detailed refutation of his opinions?
By the way, consider history before dismissing rules governing access to parliament. In 1642, King Charles sent soldiers to arrest MPs. From then, sanctity of parliament has not been a meaningless tradition.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
2 
0
In democratic society civilian control over the organs of the state is basic and non-negotiable. If it were otherwise as concerns policing, we would be left with a collection of Warlords commanding armed bands of followers to do the Warlord’s will. The RCMP like municipal and provincial police forces (not to mention the army, navy, air force, and coast guard) are and must be answerable to the people’s elected representatives. Some say that amounts to an excess of political interference.
In any hierarchical system the control inputs from above such as policy directives and operational dicta are often resented. Political interference is frequently cited as shorthand code for disapproval of these executive and supervisory decisions.
So what is the remedy for organizational malaise? Do we suggest the organization be effectively liberated from all elected civilian control? How would that work? Would the Air Force submit a bill of spending estimates for its equipment and just go on its merry way? Fly wherever it wants and drop bombs or strafe targets it selected through some invisible and secret process? Likewise would police forces decide through secret and internal processes what money they feel they need and demand the meddlesome politicians just hand over the cash, no questions asked, and decide how to spend it?
No? Well what is the answer to the dilemma? How does one have effective civilian control of state sanctioned military and para military forces. And by “effective” I mean control which achieves a meaningful balance between ensuring accountability and empowering timely and constructive responses to the service expectations of the organization.
One place to start the renewal might be to forbid self-investigation of police practices by the same police force doing the investigation. In every area of professional practice there exists a concept called “conflict of interest”. Some mistakenly think that for conflict of interest to exist there must have been some impropriety, favourtism or illegal cover up occur. Not so.
Conflict of interest is rooted in the concept of divided loyalty. One does not ask a person to serve two masters whose interests are divergent. If one does, one has put the person in a conflict of interest and dare I say it, a no win situation.
Police from the self same force cannot investigate themselves. A physician charged with malpractice cannot review his own notes and decide the merits of the case. A lawyer accused of incompetent representation cannot review her case notes and decide if she faithfully and effectively executed her responsibilities. Police are no different.
That is why the investigation of the injuries to Sami Aldoboni by an off-duty Ottawa police officer is being investigated by the SIU. It is also why the apparent preferential treatment of the officer by the responding officers is being investigated by the professional standards unit.
There is one other feature I am aware of regarding discipline for conduct judged unprofessional. Some governing bodies like the College of Physicians list every accredited physician on their web site. They list degrees, specialties, years of practice, and for the few, following due process, convictions and penalties under the rules of the college.
I wonder if some type of public registry of officers found guilty of serious breaches of professional conduct (say for example the kind resulting in a significant suspension without pay, loss of rank, etc.) would serve a useful purpose? If our system is sufficiently robust to withstand all the many commendations and positive publicity given to police, could it not also withstand the oxygen and sunshine radiated on the very occasional malfeasance? If not, why? What are we trying to protect with covering up? Are we that weak we need to resort to deceit and subterfuge to survive?
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
1 
0
I agree, the RCMP commissioner should no longer be considered a Deputy Minister and should no longer be apointed solely by the PMO. You are likely to get an all-party commission choosing the commissioner but as long as the PMO doesn’t have its thumb on the commissioner thats OK. And choose the commissioner from the ranks of respected senior officers, not civilian political hacks. Trudeau was pretty angry at the RCMP when his government made the commissioner a deputy minister. It was the era of the MacDonald Commission into the RCMP’s now-defunct security and intelligence services (thats another story).
I also agree with DT that the RCMP rank and file officers do need a union to protect themselves from shoddy management, political interference, and the “do more and more with less and less” approach to policing in the contract policing provinces.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
1 
0
Websters tenure with the RCMP goes back a long ways and in some areas was groundbreaking in support of issues faced by law enforcement personnel in the execution of their duties from a psychological perspective. He has valid concerns with management, however, I am not prepared to accept his theory wholeheartedly without some supporting data.
It is opined in some quarters, that his more radical ideas and attempts to instill them in the RCMP was not met with a blank cheque and that merited his disapproval. Their psychological program moved ahead without his being the guiding light and with that, his attitude towards the RCMP grew somewhat belligerent. Observing his testimony and subsequent news interviews seem to support such supposition. He was losing work before the negative comments.
There is far too much political interference with the RCMP as I have stated before. You only have to look at who is telling them what to do to realize that. I still maintain that you have to separate the Commissioner from the government as it was in the past. Small unnoticed items such as having to appear before the speaker and a tri-tripartite committee before they can serve a search warrant on an MP is a another prime example of that.
I agree with MS on the training. It has been recognized as world class, and the RCMP is in the top 100 organizations in North America for training quality. You cannot let the actions of the YVR 4 be a benchmark for conclusions. I agree that they will possibly looking for a job after the smoke clears and we find the facts and hear the recommendations.
Because someone misuses the training, policies, and directives of an organization incorrectly in a situation, does not immediately preclude those policies and procedures as faulty. After all, in the final instance, the decision to act and the actions taken are the responsibility of the individual.
I still maintain the officers should have a union to buffer them from the whims of politics driven management by crisis, or even the “old boy network”. It may even prevent the do everything with nothing mentality forced on the working man/woman.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
0 
1
There is a lot of wild “off with there heads” talk out there, and a lot of it is pretty ridiculous. Goggle “Disband the RCMP” and you will find thousands of hits. Deepthroat and I had a bit of a debate several months back about the merits of returning to provincial policing in B.C. His main point in the debate was that I was assuming that everything was falling apart and broken; his point was that it isn’t. That Mounties throughout B.C. are investigating crimes, carrying out patrols, and doing their jobs. He was right on that point and I concede to him on that point. I do not (and never did) believe that the RCMP Training Depot in Regina is turning out thugs; nor is the B.C. Justice Institute Police Academy in New Westminster.
There is a siege mentality in the RCMP that I do find a bit disconcerting but perhaps understandable. The four officers at the airport will likely lose their jobs and their colleagues have to accept that these four guys will have to find something else to do with their lives (one of them may actually go to jail for his DUI charge, but that is another story).
I do have to point out that I can find no motive that Webster might have for wanting to “get” the RCMP. He apparantly lost work with them after he made his statements about the RCMP’s “sick culture.” But he has a bit of a point. RCMP officers have a mandate some have called unweildy, suffer from staffing and equipment shortages, have to deal with an “old boy’s network” running the organization, and ultimately get smacked around by politicians. Thats a recipe for a disasterous working environment if I ever saw one.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
1 
0
Nice deflection NRF. Nowhere will you find my absolution for any existing issues. What I find problematic is the wholesale, off with their heads, throw it all out attitudes displayed.
The findings of the Brown report can be attached to about any large government body or national business. Your key word is “governed”. Why did the report not delve deep into the government participation or should I say interference with the RCMP which has been ongoing for decades? Why was the Commissioner made part of the government? Why does some clone in Public Works dictate equipment and procedures for the working stiff in the RCMP? My sources tell me these representations were made. So to me the report is fundamentally flawed. Where else is it lacking? These are the form of questions I ask.
There are processes and systems that need to be addressed. I raise another side of the coin to point out that not all is in need of repair. Careful examination is what is needed, not the hysterical, sky is falling mentality. It is typical of some facets of society that at the raising of issues begets the misinformed to chant for bathwater responses. They ignore issues, facts, and procedures that are germane to their fears and speculation.
For example your supposition that “You may be perfectly happy with the existing processes but wrong to assume that satisfaction is widespread.” You assume I am happy with the existing processes. Because I question your elementary analysis bereft of empirical data, does not mean I am happy. You also assume that satisfaction is not widespread. In what context?
You will find that people tend to adhere themselves onto points which support their hypothesis, such as assuming that Webster is completely right because he may have some salient points for debate you agree with. I for one do not take his posits at face value. You have to examine his motivations for one.
You give me a negative experience you had and which I could opine, were not satisfied with the results of the “informal complaints process.” To which I rebut: as you did not go far enough in your quest, regret it, and now harbor ill will to all, with a smattering of support for some to retain credibility in your assertions. Is that not a possibility? You dodged my question on that issue. Why?
Forest and trees eh? I would remind you that in order to change the forest for a meadow you have to cut trees one at a time. And if you find some old growth in amongst the lot, you may wish to examine the possibility that the new meadow should have some old growth stands in it.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
0 
1
Just old school thinking… baffel the mind, swing the ones that don’t know as the end always justifies the means…. it’s time for a new system and it’s long over due too.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
1 
0
“All the policy, training, assessments, reviews, do no good if one individual decides not to champion his cause,so to speak, or stand up and be counted if you will.”
Or, if operational considerations are secondary to achieving politically motivated goals.
But why so defensive? Task Force on Governance and Cultural Change in the RCMP – in a sympathetic report – says:
“During our consultation and analysis, serious problems affecting the RCMP were brought to the attention of the Task Force. …We also heard with remarkable consistency about major problems with the discipline system, recruitment, performance evaluations, promotion and personal development. …All of this led us to conclude that there is a need to radically overhaul the way in which the RCMP is governed. We have also seen that there is a need to improve significantly the accountability of the RCMP…”
You may be perfectly happy with the existing processes but wrong to assume that satisfaction is widespread. Perhaps you are missing the forest because you are not looking past the trees.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
1 
0
I am always amazed that every talking head is considered an expert. Every expat is and was an expert and always right. That they may have legitimate concerns is not an issue. Their wholesale condemnation and inaction is. There is no agenda seeking when they appear to be on your side is there?
So your formal complaint was never filed or ever investigated? Or did you file a formal complaint? Did the CPC investigate or did you resolve informally? Did you speak with a lawyer? Did you speak with the CCG in your area? What did YOU settle for?
“Many of us have relatives, friends or acquaintances in policing.”
Did you ask your RCMP fiends, relatives, or acquaintances for assistance or advice or perhaps even an explanation from their perspective? Are you parroting “management culture”. Just how far did you go to address your issue?
As for the Milewski talking head, who purported to not be be in favor of a promotion for Robinson, to what ends did he make his recommendations known other than a small tick box on a performance appraisal document?
All the policy, training, assessments, reviews, do no good if one individual decides not to champion his cause,so to speak, or stand up and be counted if you will.
Its far to easy to quack with the rest of the ducks and expect perfection in other human beings without being part of the solution or at least offering cogent suggestions. Its far too easy to let others do your talking or let talking heads fuel the fire.
It has not been proven conclusively that the RCMP cannot investigate its own events. But if that is the perception and you would like it changed, then go for it. Check out the independant observer program that the CPC has. First you may wish to ask the friends, relatives and acquaintances their opinion on outside investigation as opposed to the head hunters now employed. Ask them about “piling on” as recently quoted by a judge on the investigative prowess of RCMP internals.
Make sure you have a quick look at the Ontario external system as well.
I am sorry you had a bad experience, but navel gazing cuts both ways. One down, 2,999,999 to be assessed.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
0 
1
Nope in their perfect world, in my opinion, no one has to answer any questions, no one in their organazation is accountable when they get to the media first and lame others and no one is ever responsible for wrong decissions made or deceiving the public to gain public support.
You are right to believe they can’t seriously investigate themselves and this is not new information or news neither.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
0 
1
Deepthroat, would you have preferred that Webster stayed quiet instead?
Many of us have relatives, friends or acquaintances in policing. We don’t regard many individuals as even slightly malicious. In my community, youth sports have many RCMP members helping run effective programs. One coached my son’s team for some years. He helped older teens become better players and better adults. Every influence was positive and he made true personal difference in many young lives.
Yet, that same son was taken down harshly in our living room one morning by gun pointing RCMP officers who burst in, supposedly responding to an alarm signal at a neighbors house. When I later asked supervisors to explain policy of firearm use with a nonthreatening subject, I was treated like a dangerous foreigner asking for state secrets. They refused to address the gun issue but one of the constables sort of apologized for getting the wrong address.
I could accept the underlying error of the responding officers, except for the weapons use, but I was really bothered by the defensiveness, evasion, dishonesty and disinterest of the informal complaints process.
Perhaps because I’ve observed the real strength of good police members, I’m bothered by a management culture that thinks itself improved by insularity. Police are granted special powers by our society and should be sensitive to issues of accountability.
Terry Milewski’s April 20 CBC National piece is devastating. Retired RCMP make statements that should bother every citizen. The policy of quietly transferring troubled actors was something our school system used to do and was also the preferred response of the RC Church when trouble appeared.
Acts of dissimulation and concealment might comfort the inner circle but result in unnecessary deaths and ruined lives. It is proven conclusively that RCMP cannot honestly investigate its own serious incidents. This is best demonstrated through a statement by a media spokesman following a questionable in-custody death, “The public doesn’t have a right to know anything.”
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
0 
1
At least he didnt slag the day to day hardworking stiffs in the organization.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
0 
1
In my opinion your comment of selective perception is right on the mark.
They operate with a MANDATE to look for and find only those things that would confirm their own perspective or suspecions while ignoring anything and anyone that opposes their views and suspecions.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
1 
0