Daniel Leblanc, Ottawa (Globe and Mail) – The RCMP has rejected a watchdog report that argues that Mounties have to stop investigating their own colleagues in every serious incident involving a killing.
Commissioner William Elliott said there can be further changes to the RCMP’s internal investigations policy, but he insisted the situation is “not as bleak” as was laid out by the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP.
In a report released Tuesday morning, CPC chair Paul Kennedy said he found cases in which Mounties investigated colleagues whom they personally knew, or who were their superiors.
The situations created a “perceived risk of bias or intimidation,” Mr. Kennedy found.
While he said an independent body such as Ontario’s Special Investigations Unit would be too expensive, Mr. Kennedy argued outside police forces should investigate all cases involving death, and said national guidelines are needed for all types of cases.
“We are not saying that the RCMP should never investigate itself. But we are saying that in certain circumstances, they should not,” Mr. Kennedy said.
His report built on the outrage in some communities over RCMP internal investigations into controversies such as the 2005 in-custody death of Ian Bush, who was arrested for drinking beer in public.
The officer who killed Mr. Bush was investigated by the RCMP and cleared.
In an interview, Mr. Bush’s mother, Linda, said she would prefer to see civilians investigating police officers, but added she is disappointed that the RCMP will not even call for outside police help in some cases.
“It’s neither appropriate nor what we wanted to hear,” Ms. Bush said.
Mr. Elliott said it is simply impossible for his officers to stay away from an investigation in every situation. He said that in a perfect world, RCMP officers would never investigate their colleagues, but he argued it is impractical.
The RCMP Commissioner said that in a case involving a police shooting in one of Canada’s remote communities, for example, there are no other police forces in place to handle the investigation.
“By the time another forensic expert or police officer arrives, there might not be any forensic evidence to gather,” Mr. Elliott said.
In its report, the CPC said the national police force should always call on other bodies to investigate Mounties in cases involving death.
Mr. Kennedy said he disagrees with the RCMP policy that states that investigations into its members have to be handled like any other. “Police are held to a higher standard,” he said.
The CPC reviewed 28 cases in which RCMP officers investigated incidents involving their colleagues, and found: – in 25 per cent of the cases, the primary investigator personally knew the subject of the investigation; – in 32 per cent of the cases, the primary investigator was of the same or a lower rank than the subject of the investigation; – in 60 per cent of the cases, only one investigator was on the case and was alone to interview the subject of the investigation.
Mr. Kennedy said the good news was that the RCMP investigators acted “professionally and free from bias in 100 per cent of the cases.” Still, he added that the structural problems could have hindered the investigations.
In a statement, Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan said the report “will provide important input to our review concerning oversight of the RCMP.”
Elliot does seem to have a problem getting his point across; in this case I do not think that the media got it “wrong” so much as Elliot did not clearly state his response to Kennedy the first time. Hense, the need for him to write a letter to the editor of the Globe & Mail the next day saying “that’s not what I meant.”
It seems obvious that he and Kennedy do not like one another. Two political hacks fighting in public; find them something less vitally important to fight over, please.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
1 
0
RCMP Press Release
Letter to the Globe and Mail regarding inaccuracies in their report on the subject of Police Investigating Police
The following is the original version submitted to the the Globe and Mail by the Commissioner of the RCMP on August 13, 2009.
I am writing to correct inaccuracies in your coverage of this week’s report of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP (CPC) on the subject of Police Investigating Police.
Despite the fact that the RCMP welcomed the report, agrees with a number of its findings and I have been on record saying that the RCMP would prefer if we never had to investigate our own members, your headline on August 12 stated that the RCMP “rejects” the report. The following day, the Globe ran another story based on reaction to your first erroneous headline.
In fact, the RCMP finds a great deal positive in the report. We are proud that it concludes that RCMP members’ conduct was appropriate, professional and free of bias in 100% of the investigations reviewed. (Though prominent in the report itself and in other media coverage, this one statistic was completely absent in your paper’s graphs). It says our officers complied with applicable policies and completed investigations in a timely manner.
Our concerns centre on the methodology that led to some of the conclusions, and in the practicality of some of the recommendations. The report reviews cases between two and more than seven years old, using the lens of new criteria developed for the report. Then, based on those criteria, it calls RCMP conduct “inappropriate” in some cases. Considering the CPC’s own findings that our officers’ conduct was free of bias in 100% of those cases, that is strong language indeed. I stand by my comment that it creates an inaccurate picture.
We have always supported and participated in having others investigate the RCMP where there is a regime in place to do so. For example, in Alberta, incidents involving the RCMP are investigated by the Alberta Serious Incident Investigation Team (ASIRT), and in Manitoba we have volunteered to participate in a similar regime.
In other jurisdictions, and in some circumstances, the RCMP is obligated to carry out investigations. We all know that time can be critical. Witnesses must be interviewed while their memory is fresh. The site must be secured and forensic evidence preserved. While the ideal is to find another police department willing and able to spare officers to conduct an investigation for the RCMP, that is not always possible. In some of the remote parts of Canada, it can take a day-even days-to fly in officers from elsewhere, let alone identify an available team from another police force.
The CPC report pointed to a lack of national standards. Its concerns and recommendations will be addressed in new RCMP policy. The report also makes recommendations for legislative changes. The CPC is very aware that those changes are for government, not the RCMP, although we are anxious for legislative reform.
As I have often publically stated, the RCMP is very supportive of enhanced independent oversight and review. We believe that the more credible independent oversight and review is, the more credible the Force can be. We are also very seriously committed and very seriously engaged in bringing about positive change in the RCMP. This is not being defensive as has been suggested. It is proactively striving to improve the RCMP and live up to the highest standards Canadians rightly expect of us.
William J.S. Elliott
Kennedy has made it perfectly clear he wishes to be the final word on the RCMP and that his recommendations should be followed to letter all the time. I do not think he should be such a megalomaniac in his thinking. He even disregards his own staff.
Non government, civilian, non partisan committee should be the final word. Enough. Government hacks like Kennedy and the Commissioner (Deputy Minister) have shown their incompetence in dealing with issues.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
0 
1
Am I the only one that finds the 100% bias free figure a little incredulous? I guess it all depends on how you choose to code for bias…
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
1 
0
Everyone is so focused on the fact that the RCMP is letting it’s members get away with stuff that nobody is looking at is the fact that the RCMP at times likes to eat it’s own such as constructive dismissal and workplace bullying/ mobbing.
Look at the Hudak case where the only evidence that existed against him was an obvious forgery. The force still put him through the ringer and ruined his career- despite the fact he was aquitted. Possibly a seperate review would have never had this issue pushed as far as it did.
Also look at the Ken Smith case where work place bullying/harassment exists. What if the bully superintendent had an investigority role? What if there was pressure for an investigator to push for charges because it is what the boss dictated, not what the evidence did? Would the investigation be any more objective? Not at all!
I believe seperate review is necessary for both the good and the bad.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
0 
1