Douglas Quan (Vancouver Sun) – Two of RCMP Commissioner William Elliott’s chief critics offered a stinging assessment of the outgoing leader Tuesday, accusing him of sinking morale to an “all-time low” because of an abrasive — and sometimes abusive — leadership style.
Deputy Commissioner Raf Souccar and former assistant commissioner Mike McDonell — two key players behind a revolt that rattled the force to its core last summer — told the Commons public-safety committee that whoever succeeds Elliott must be willing to hear contrary viewpoints and move more quickly to reform the organization.
Though the backlash against Elliott had nothing to do with his civilian background, Souccar said it was clear that the next commissioner would have to be a cop.
“There no longer appears to be a debate on this question,” Souccar said. “The next commissioner should be a police officer.”
Elliott, who announced Friday he will step down this summer, acknowledged in an interview with Postmedia News Tuesday he can be blunt at times and that bluntness can stifle discussion.
But he denied the suggestion he is not open to hearing different points of view.
“I frankly find that not only inaccurate, but insulting” he said. “Nothing could be farther from the truth.”
Though he wouldn’t go so far as to say that a civilian should never take the helm of the force, he said it probably would be best for his successor to be chosen from within RCMP ranks.
He acknowledged his lack of a policing background has been a “shortcoming I’ve had to work to compensate for.”
When responding to the Taser-related death of Robert Dziekanski at Vancouver International Airport in 2007, for instance, Elliott said he had to quickly get up to speed on how officers are trained in the use of Tasers and policies about the use of force.
Souccar and McDonell testified Tuesday they and other senior brass attempted to resolve their differences with Elliott internally.
But things “boiled over” to the point they felt they had no choice but to bring their concerns to senior members of government last summer.
Some Mounties had been brought to tears, Souccar said.
One of the last disagreements he had with Elliott was during the time of the G8 and G20 summits in Ontario last summer. Souccar said he advised Elliott to “back off” on plans to come to the command centre.
“To me, my advice for him was not to go because it would be distracting.”
But Elliott still came.
Souccar said that beginning in early July, complaints about Elliott were shared with: Patricia Hassard, the Privy Council’s deputy secretary to the cabinet; Marie-Lucie Morin, national security adviser to the prime minister; and Bill Baker, deputy minister of public safety.
McDonell wrote a scathing letter to Public Safety Minister Vic Toews that same month accusing Elliott of being tactless and treating staff in a manner that was “brutal, disrespectful, intimidating and careless.”
“I felt that senior management members were not respected for their opinion . . . especially if they put forward a contrary opinion,” he testified.
McDonell subsequently left the force to join the Ontario Provincial Police as a detachment commander. He said he was denied an exit interview.
Souccar said after news of the revolt hit the headlines that summer — he denied any involvement in leaking details of the revolt to the media — tensions only got worse and camps became further entrenched.
He was later stripped of his responsibilities overseeing federal and international policing in November, part of a massive overhaul of the force’s management structure that has taken place over the last few months.
Souccar said he remains on annual leave and that he has reached a resolution with the force over his employment, details of which are confidential.
Not all members of the senior executive agreed with the way Souccar and McDonell aired their grievances.
Deputy Commissioner Tim Killam testified before the same committee late last year that disputes should be settled behind closed doors and that going outside the force “is not useful for anyone.”
The committee heard Tuesday that key priorities for the new commissioner will have to include: the creation of a civilian management board and greater separation from the government; implementation of an independent body to handle public complaints and review cases of alleged police misconduct; and a swifter disciplinary process to deal with “bad apples.”
“The pace of change has to speed up,” Souccar said, though under further questioning, he acknowledged that some reforms require changes in law, which can take time.
An independent council tasked with guiding RCMP reform released its final report earlier this year and noted that the RCMP has made progress in terms of boosting recruitment, diversity and mentorship.
Elliott said one of his proudest achievements was implementing a policy early last year requiring all serious incidents involving officers be referred to external agencies for investigation.
The Prime Minister’s Office said in a statement last week that it would launch a “comprehensive selection process” to choose the next commissioner and consult the public-safety committee on the selection criteria for the position.
Your childish ad hominem attacks aside, you paint the entire organization based on your “research” and personal experience, neither of which are applicable to anything other than your opinion.
“Calling my experience “limited” is a judgment.” Not so. Factual, as you have presented nothing more than your personal experience and the quote below .
“From data derived from interviews with members across the country (provided with anonymity guaranteed, I know from a good number of them are unhappy with a lot of things they see around them.”
Define a “good number” Is this a good number of the membership that have had issues with the organization or a good number of a representative group? Perhaps an Ipsos Reid type polling?
You do not have to “blow my research load”, in order to give some context to your assertions. The RCMP has approximately 26,000 employees. How many you interviewed would lend some credence to your vitriol and not “blow your research load”. How many of the 15 Divisions and 750 detachments you worked in would lend an air of reality to your hyperbole. If you specify whether your research centers on the municipal, provincial or federal branches ( or all) would buttress your claims.
Just as the self sacrifice of the officer who put himself in harms way in BC recently does not mean every officer in the RCMP is so inclined, so do the actions of those you claim affected you, do not reflect every officer in the organization. If you want to give voice to the percentages in order to paint a more realistic picture of your suggested malaise, it would make the claims both more credible and examinable for root causes and discussion.
You may call it what you wish, my opinion, devils advocacy, the fact remains I have not seen any empirical data to support your broad brush assertions. You will get no argument from me that there are issues that need be dealt with in the RCMP and their political masters. What would be desirable is rational debate as to the length, breadth, and depth of issues, rather than vitriol, hyperbole and limited situational based home analysis.
“Ex-members, while more willing to talk, are usually still scared to stick their necks out.” Now there is an interesting statement. Why would someone retired, fired or just left an organization be afraid to voice an opinion?
Good luck with your “obsession” as you call it. Your book, if you so chose to publish one, would be an interesting read. In the mean time check out the following link. http://forums.blueline.ca/ There is a sub forum called The X-Files and The Broken Badge
for you.
Well-liked comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
30 
20
Justaguy: “Its apparent that you stay in the loop”
DT:” your quote of the SRR communique is highly indicative of the lack of progress by the present representation of the membership”.
I don’t stay in the loop. I am just surprised as to how confusing they make all this. Or (on reflection) maybe I am not.
If you consider who the persons is; how will this affect the force; is the person connected; what’s the rank; and then conduct a harassment investigation you get a camel.
A camel is a horse designed by a committee.
Just review the Smith case in New Brunswick and harassment case of four female members in Calgary.
Calvin Lawrence
Hot debate. What do you think?
23 
27
D says “I agree these pages are for comments on the RCMP and any posts to defect problems by comparisons to other organizations are not relevant.”
There are comments and news items from other than the RCMP in this forum in case you have not noticed. You have to open up your mind to broader implications exampled in some of the articles here. If you can grasp some context in various issues, it compels one to ask what perhaps is the root cause for some activity or issue if it is not confined to your favorite whipping post. Could there be some baseline issue such as hiring that affects the RCMP and other organizations? Is there a specter of overarching meddling by the government of the day. These larger issues need attention, examination, and addressing.
You yourself bleat on in respect of the military. Are there common issues or solutions to either that can be gleaned from an examination of more than what is your personal bugaboo? If the answer is yes, then there should be dialogue in that area to improve the RCMP and the root causes of any problems, shared or not.
To limit oneself to to ones myopic outlook is self defeating.
“If you want to compare apples to kumquats, D, cadets are not paid nor are they members.” says 47204
In fact they are paid and have been since June of 2009.
“I have a lovely case of PTSD as a parting gift, something that has left me serving the public in any arena very difficult. And this, sirrah, is cathartic for me. Better this than killing myself.” says 47204
Sad comment, I hope you have availed yourself of the DVA assistance avenue vis a vis psychological services. It is readily available to you, free and of course is administered outside of the RCMP. There is also an avenue for compensation if the psychologists deem appropriate.
Calvin, your quote of the SRR communique is highly indicative of the lack of progress by the present representation of the membership. One can only hope this and other relevant factors are debated by the organization thoroughly before accepting any new or revised system.
Hold The Torch says “As usual time has elapsed and now it’s probably felt that it’s time to move Elliot on and replace him with someone else.”
Good point, and where is the examination of his tenure going to come from? Certainly not from the govt. We have seen this movie in govt many times before.
Well-liked comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
31 
23
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
20 
30
“I don’t care if you don’t agree with me and my “limited” experience. I don’t have to agree with you. But don’t you dare judge me – you’re not smart or omnipotent enough to retain that right.”
There is no judgment if you read the post correctly. I am heartened that you have left somewhere you did not want to be. Your posts appear like you were still there in a place you did not wish to be.
Your quick jump to the conclusion I did not imply is most instructive. I merely opine on what breadth your observations could have. Try reading the post correctly and you will see the following: “I question……” That is hardly a judgment.
I expected perhaps a rehash or exploration of some surveys to establish your basis for broad brushing the organization as your limited exposure could not support such hyperbole.
Its not about you as you would interpret it, its about the claims you would like to establish.
Well-liked comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
33 
24
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
22 
30
Commissioner Elliot was hired by the government of Canada to step in during a time when the RCMP upper management were in a mess and no one at that level could be trusted to step in.
As usual time has elapsed and now it’s probably felt that it’s time to move Elliot on and replace him with someone else.
Who that will be remains to be seen and what happens as well.
Well-liked comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
21 
11
The all time low moral is a joke as is doing the right thing. I find that statement very hard to believe.
The only time their morals are up is when someone else is being targeted, kicked around and put on the defense. Then they have a good laugh at someone else’s expense toying with them while destroying their reputation and they think this is good police work when they get away with it not to mention the bad note taking and the lying they want also to baffle the brains of the masses about who they really are having them believe like DT has attempted to do here, convince us that we are all dreaming and the force is genuine.
But the aborted reports that should have been done on the force years ago paint a different picture. If the force has it’s way and someone is chosen from within to hide the workings of the force these issues will suddenly disappear and the force will appear to have made the transition but in reality their opposition to change is still apparently clear.
When someone gets the boot they are elated but when the time comes for them to be dealt with then the tears come screaming down at the thought that real justice is now banging at their pathetic doors of life and that their careers may now be at risk.
From the time Robert was shot at the BC Airport all the force did was try and suppress this act and paint a different picture of what happen which is their moral code if you can call it that way.
I just wonder how anyone could rally the ones that have been damaged by this force and have a report compiled that will show the way in which they operate within and outside the force so we can have a better picture of who’s left and why we should tolerated them in leadership roles.
It would amaze me to think that someone can do this sellection of the position of the Commissioner properly right now as we line up for an election without first caving into the demands of the cry babies at the top.
Hot debate. What do you think?
23 
27
If in fact it is so thoroughly bad throughout the organization, why are you still there 47204? After 11 years you would think that you would expend your desire to serve the public in another arena. I question your broad brush condemnation as I do not think that you speak for the entirety of the officers. In your limited experience in limited areas of the country does not entitle you to level your criticism at everyone. Specifics can be much more beneficial to your arguments than hyperbole.
If in fact the negative aspects are so dire and the entire membership so disillusioned and set upon, there should be the corresponding exodus of personnel. Interestingly enough, your comments echo some of those internally directed at Toronto Metro organization and of the Peel Regional recently by its membership.
Hot debate. What do you think?
35 
35
Its tough to give up a steady pay cheque and decent medical/dental, especially if you have a family and kids, and particularly when your pension has only just locked in at the 10-year point. And there are certainly plusses – the work can be rewarding, meaningful and occasionally exciting and you tend to make good and lasting friendships. You’re also temporarily sustained by those postings when you’re lucky enough not to be reporting to a drunk or a bully or an incompetent. When you’re not so lucky you tend to keep your head down and hang on in hopes that the next posting will be better. Next thing you know you’re just hanging on until pension. That’s why a lot of us stay. Not so different from any other job, I guess.
Well-liked comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
32 
25
Deep (can I call you Deep?), I never said I spoke for anyone other than myself. If a member of the Force has a varying opinion, they are welcome to share it, as I do mine.
I can only base my thoughts on my experience. But how much more specific does one need to get? Last time I looked, this was was RCMPWatch- and while there are some feelgood stories of members doing their job and nobly serving the public good, there seems to be more chaff than wheat.
Yet, from my survey of members, there are more that have ‘challenges’ than those who have a Pollyanna-like attitude towards the org they work for. They don’t stay for the badge or the uniform or the prestige. They stay because they have a job to do, and they prefer it be done by some Dudley-do-right type than Dudley-do-wrong. Or Dudley-do-nothing.
And for the record, Mr. Throat, I never said i was still there. A handful of my brothers and sisters in uniform made damn sure of that. I challenged and beat them on their constant and vicious personal attacks on me, so they changed the rules. The whole thing decimated me. I have a lovely case of PTSD as a parting gift, something that has left me serving the public in any arena very difficult. And this, sirrah, is cathartic for me. Better this than killing myself.
I don’t care if you don’t agree with me and my “limited” experience. I don’t have to agree with you. But don’t you dare judge me – you’re not smart or omnipotent enough to retain that right.
Hot debate. What do you think?
32 
28
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
29 
48
R47204_ I can tell you it just isn’t in Depot but is throughout the organization. I know personally and several others who went through the same processes. Mr. Souccar stated that he felt obliged to bring the actions of Mr. Elliot forward given his sr postion etc. I can tell you that there are many more and he may be included where they opted to do nothing as the conflict had no personal and or direct effect on him/them. Where were they when other breaches in the Mission, Vision, and Core Values were brought to their attention? I can tell you they were most likely protecting the organization and in turn their own career. Thats how they work regardless if its the Office of the Ethics Advisor, Workplace Management, or Mr. Clarks so called “Change Management Team” and so on. The force have never dealt well with internal conflict. They make it so difficult that members just quit or give up. A good organization would bring remedy or call the bluff and hold people accountable. Unfortunately they more often than not do nothing as either they know their officers/Sr ranks messed up or they don’t want to know the truth etc. They will only step forward when they have no choice. ie court or in this case Mr. Souccar going to the Gov’t. I may be wrong here but didn’t Mr. Souccar negociate some kind of deal for his pending departure this summer? Thought I heard that on TV during his hearing. Any member that thinks an association of sorts with DSSR etc is the way to go should really give that a second thought. That in my opinion just leaves the room for management to exhibit more control. Members will ultimately decide but please examine all the pro’s and Con’s of that vs a Union. Young members who think you are going places? Think hard as that can all change at the drop of a dime. Many of you will no doubt, some of you may even be deserving, some of you will just because a vacancy needs to be filled. Regardless, keep it clean and earn it not at the expense of another deserving member.
Hot debate. What do you think?
27 
23
“keep it clean and earn it not at the expense of another deserving member.”
JustaGuy
Great Comment. The rot you speak of has worked it’s way down from to the top all the way to the bottom of the lowly cadets. You are absolutely right on how the game works. If someone is outworking you- get a gang of friends together, make that persons life miserable, spread all kinds of lies and innuendo and then sit back and draw attention to all the symptoms of acute stress and PTSD that follow. Set them up to fail, while management sits on their hands and does nothing but cover it up. Been there, got the T-shirt.
It is easier to drag someone else down, than build yourself up. This too often has become the way of the Mountie’s.
Hot debate. What do you think?
26 
27
JohnnyG, why do I get the distinct feeling that I know you… and that we shared a similar fate in our career paths?
Hot debate. What do you think?
25 
28
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
29 
49
The cadet program has only been in since 1995. I doubt that anyone “at the top” came in at that time or any time since. I have heard of “crybabies” in the field with 20 years experience that shed a tear when you don’t say good morning.
If you want to compare apples to kumquats, D, cadets are not paid nor are they members. And, I can tell you from firsthand experience that when shIt goes south, they don’t have a leg to stand on. Members prior to 95 were sworn in prior to Depot and were regular members with full rights and privileges under the system, including the right to appeal. I know of many cases where guys spent months (and one even years) at Depot because they were able to re-troop due to this or that problem or issue.
Not so for cadets. If an instructor is gunning for you, reason or no reason, your a$$ is grass and they are the monster mulcher signing your walking papers. Not to say that all cadets punted don’t deserve the heave-ho. Some do. But a lot of them get the mental snot kicked out of them by troopmates, TFs and the senior staff.
You don’t need someone to yell at you to make your life hell. Mindgames and mobbing tactics are far worse than any abuse (pre human-rights) I took when I was doing mil basic.
The real world you now speak of requires you to wear two sets of armour. One for the bad guys and one for the guys who are supposed to have your back.
Hot debate. What do you think?
27 
29
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
22 
40
“During Thursday’s (February 3rd, 2011) SRR National Caucus, the Harassment Policy, or lack of, was discussed. Harassment has been, is presently, and will continue to be in the RCMP. A draft policy is presently being worked on by the responsible policy center with input from the Internal Affairs Committee (IAC) of the SRR Program. The Policy requires definitive wording, that will not be open to subjective interpretations. Policy must state, when harassment occurs the organization needs to act, and in a timely manner. There has to be responsibility, accountability and a consequence. Investigations have to be done by trained personnel in the area of harassment. The decisions and lack of priority, to date, by management in not addressing this topic is unacceptable.
Two members of the SRR IAC have been assigned this item and will continue to push forward with the responsible policy center”.
———————————————————————-
Read into this what you wish.
Calvin Lawrence
Well-liked comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
23 
11
The problem with any Anti-Harassment policy is that it has to recognize the subtile game of Mobbing and workplace bullying.
There needs to be advisers who have been targets and experts in the field who need to give input. Unless you have been a target yourself or have studied this process in depth, the average policy wonk has no idea what to look for or the forensic pattern this entails. Until this is properly understood, the target will continued to be blamed and their allegations will be dismissed as paranoia.
Hot debate. What do you think?
25 
28
What I read is the one at the top of the pyramid now feel what those below have suffered and don’t like it. So, rules are being changed to benefit those on the top. Those on the bottom may benefit but they are not the ones for whom this policy was designed.
Curious to note that two of the core values appear in this summary. That would tell me they are as empty here as they are there.
Hot debate. What do you think?
26 
28
Hey Calvin,
Its apparent that you stay in the loop. My questions would be such that When did the organization realize that their policies -grievance vs harassment contridicted each other in the sese that you couldn’t lay a grievance and a harassment complaint at the same time. I believe this has been amended perhaps within a year or so. More so, in particular when did they realize that the harassment policy as drafted was very poor and subjective? When did they decide to draft a new policy? While its nice to see this take place, where were the DSSR reps when countless members were going through the old Har. processes? The force new mane years ago that there grievance and harassment policies/processes were not working but yet allowed many and continue to do so, to go through these less than adequate processes. The force continue to move only when forced to and for many they did too little too late and in my opinion only, the DSSR program is a farce and involves a few looking after their own well being alone. Yes the black and white conflicts are easy to deal with and those types are dealt with. The DSSR were and will continue to be powerless. If they had any standing and or interest the RCMP would not have evolved to where it is today period. Set asside all the wonderful, honest and hard working members who keep it on the up and up. Hats off to you. I am referring to those who play the system alone for their own serving interest. And why not? The top brass did, continue to do so, and will in the future regardless of who the screw below them….
Well-liked comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
20 
13
“Some Mounties had been brought to tears, Souccar said”
- maybe it is just my negative experience with mobbing and harassment within Force ranks, but why were these members not sent for a thorough psychological (eg suitability) assessment ?? (and, oh God, I would soooo love Keith C to be one of the crybabies). Should not the ones at the top be tougher than those at the bottom???
As one of my (late) troop facilitators once told me as I was defending myself against innuendo and falsehoods of my troopmates, “you have to have a thicker skin. In the field, you will be investigated everytime someone makes a complaint against you. You have to toughen up.”
I cried when I watched people sabotage my career and saw no one do anything to stop it but boot me down further. Somehow, I feel no sorrow nor kinship for those at the top of the pile whose “cushy NCR job” is a little more charged than they would like. Or they seem to be able to stand. Perhaps some of these folk are the same ones who denied me the right to appeal, too. Or besmirched my name and rep.
I’d trade places with those creampuffs in a heartbeat.
Me? Bitter? Perish the thought!
Hot debate. What do you think?
31 
36
Mobbing and Harassment is a real problem in the outfit and the damage it causes is underrated. The “thicker skin” argument is an an excuse not to do your job…
Hot debate. What do you think?
28 
26
Morale was at an all-time low after Zaccardelli and it certainly didn’t rise any under Elliott. We’ve just had 3 years of “change management” that didn’t actually change a damn thing. Having experienced at least a half-dozen all talk / no action “changing for the better” initiatives over the past couple of decades I don’t expect any different from the new guy – whether he’s a member or not.
Well-liked comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
29 
17
Perhaps Mr. Souccar and others should place themselves at the lower ranks and determine the best route to deal with such conflict in the workplace. Seems to me that a person can be fired for criticizing an officer. Isn’t there a policy that says something very close to that. I think it was drafted in the early 1900’s. Also are there not established processes to deal with such matters? Harassment and grievance processes? If that is supposedly good enough for the majority of members why then wasn’t this route followed. Perhaps because it is a useless, outdated and non efficient and exceptionally long process. Who really heard of a harassment policy/process whereby the alleged victim doesn’t get to cross examine the respondent’s alleged witnesses. Or a process that allows the respondent in a grievance to walk away because the RCMP exceeded their own statute of limitations. I seriously can’t help but wonder if William has coffee with Zac and they discuss each of their so called achievements. I don’t think they get it and not sure if the next Commr will either. If you can’t effectively deal with the organization itself in terms of morale, internal complaints and so on, how can you ever provide the appropriate level of service to the public. I think the mounties need to get with the times and get current as opposed to trying to make outdated policy work, cover stuff up and walk over others for personal gain etc. If your not a team player perhaps you really don’t belong. Think I’ll stop with the entries and reading. The more I read the more ill I feel. Good luck everyone….
Well-liked comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
28 
20
“Who really heard of a harassment policy/process whereby the alleged victim doesn’t get to cross examine the respondent’s alleged witnesses.” – Justaguy
@justaguy, I have. And I know a place where it happens all too frequently: it’s called Depot.
Hot debate. What do you think?
27 
31
Absolute HOGWASH. Morale was already at an all time LOW, with that management. These RCMP clowns are going to find any way now to elect one their own to lead the force, so they can go back to their old wicked ways.
Hot debate. What do you think?
34 
34