Most of us at some point in our lives have wondered aloud, “Is everyone crazy or is it just me?” The actions of the current Harper government have increasingly made this the “must ask question” of the day?
Following my appointment as Chair of the Commission of Public Complaints Against the RCMP (CPC) in 2005 I spent the following four years awaiting first recommendations and then government action to create a modern civilian review regime for the activities of the RCMP.
Bill C-42, legislation recently introduced by the Harper government, purports to provide the much-anticipated model of enhanced transparence and accountability. Having read the Bill closely, I have reluctantly concluded that we are in for some more Conservative make-believe. The RCMP, an iconic institution, whose public reputation is increasingly being carried by the musical ride and accomplishments from the 19th century, is in serious need of government attention and deserves more than Bill C-42 has to offer.
The Government, at the cost of many millions of dollars, established a major initiative in the form of the O’Connor Inquiry to specifically provide policy recommendations upon which a new legislative regime of civilian review would be based. Bill C-42 presumably is a response to those recommendations. Having appeared as a witness before that Inquiry I am familiar with its key recommendations and can attest to the fact that Bill C-42 falls well short of the standard of review set by Justice O’Connor. It will serve neither the needs of Canadians nor the RCMP.
By way of simple illustration, Justice O’Connor dedicated a chapter of his report to the issue of the need for extensive powers of access to information held by the RCMP. The existing review body (the CPC) has historically encountered an array of impediments to its access of information held by the RCMP. The classes of information include any information that the RCMP considers confidential, privileged or subject to a statutory non-disclosure provision. Many such provisions exist and were created in ignorance of the fact that they would bar the review body from accessing this vital information. These failings prevented the CPC from undertaking a review of the potential role played by the RCMP in the inappropriate rendering of Mr. Arar from the U.S. to Syria. This was an important factor in the need to call the public inquiry headed by Justice O’Connor.
Any new RCMP review body, to perform its functions, would have to conduct investigative inquiries. Justice O’Connor pointed to the correlation between the independence and thoroughness of such inquiries and the public’s confidence in the process. Absent these features the review body would not be able to restore and maintain the public’s confidence in the RCMP. He specifically called for access to all information but for Cabinet confidences and a restricted class of solicitor–client privilege. He specified that issues of relevance and necessity of the information sought were to be determined by the review body and not the RCMP. He cautioned against creating a model that would permit the raising of legal obstacles to access, which would only stymie and delay the work of the review body.
Bill C-42, by contrast, creates numerous hidey-holes into which the RCMP Commissioner may secrete information. It allows him to bar the Review body from looking into these hidey-holes and gives rise to the prospect of legal disputes with their attendant delays. All of these issues were identified and cautioned against by Justice O’Connor in light of their real harm to meaningful civilian review of the RCMP.
In a perfect world, one in which the RCMP Commissioner and his colleagues would raise no objections and would provide total access to the review body; these concerns could be viewed as excessive. However, we must in this important matter be guided by real life event.
In that regard, I would refer to the recent experience of Commissioner Major, a former Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, who headed the Public Inquiry into the Air India bombing. He found the conduct of the RCMP on disclosure issues to be especially troubling. At page 37 of Chapter 1 of his report he referenced an especially troubling case of Mr. G. a person with potential knowledge of matters relating to the bombing of Flight 182. Mr. G., during the course of the hearing, approached the RCMP and said that he wished to speak to the Commission and to testify. The RCMP did not advise the Commission about the witness but used the fact of the person’s contact with the RCMP as grounds to demand further redactions of previously cleared documents on the basis that they needed to protect an on-going investigation.
By chance, the Commission found out about the witness’ attempt to make contact. “The RCMP did not confirm this fact until after the close of the hearing, months after being asked directly by the Commission. The RCMP then continued to assert the need to protect the integrity of its ongoing investigation, hoping to discourage the Commission from pursuing the matter, even after it had interviewed Mr. G. and dismissed the utility of his information for police purposes.”
It is fair to ask whether the event as described by Justice Major is isolated or whether a review model should be sufficiently robust that it reduces or eliminates the possibility of such behaviour in the future. In that regard I note the observations by Justice Major with reference to the government’s actions during the Inquiry. At page 39 of chapter 1 he states in part “…the Government was indiscriminate in its denials, doggedly denying all potentially unflattering facts, even some that had been uncontrovertibly shown to be true. As well, the Government’s constant over-claiming of privilege and its continued withholding of information had a painfully negative impact on …”.
Real life experience tells us that any weakness or vagueness in the proposed legislation will be exploited by the RCMP and the Government to their advantage. If the public interest in transparency and accountability, as fulfilled on our behalf by the CPC or a new civilian review body, is to ride herd on the RCMP it cannot be on a saddle selected by and designed for the comfort of the horsemen.
A magical cloak of invisibility, behind which one may hide, may be appropriate for Harry Potter but is totally unacceptable in the real world for an institution as important to Canada as the RCMP. The ongoing difficulties experienced by the RCMP are on a daily basis fodder for all our media outlets. We suffer under no illusions as to the true state of affairs within our iconic national police force. It is time for the government to stop dreaming. We need the government to wake up, face realities and advance real world solutions to address real world problems. Those solutions would:
reduce the role played by the Minister of Public Safety in the oversight legislation to that of a person who receives reports and who may request that special reviews be undertaken;
grant broad information access powers to the review body in respect of information held by the RCMP similar to that given to the SIRC in respect of CSIS some 28 years ago; and
insert into the legislation specific language that would require the RCMP to co-operate with the Review body in a timely fashion. Ideally, specific time limits should be stated.
Any “new” regime for oversight of the RCMP that lacks these essential features will not constitute transparency and accountability, as those concepts are generally understood. Canadians should guard against the forthcoming illusion that Bill C-42 constitutes meaningful accountability by the RCMP to the Canadian public.
Original Article
Source: ipolitics
Author: Paul Kennedy
Following my appointment as Chair of the Commission of Public Complaints Against the RCMP (CPC) in 2005 I spent the following four years awaiting first recommendations and then government action to create a modern civilian review regime for the activities of the RCMP.
Bill C-42, legislation recently introduced by the Harper government, purports to provide the much-anticipated model of enhanced transparence and accountability. Having read the Bill closely, I have reluctantly concluded that we are in for some more Conservative make-believe. The RCMP, an iconic institution, whose public reputation is increasingly being carried by the musical ride and accomplishments from the 19th century, is in serious need of government attention and deserves more than Bill C-42 has to offer.
The Government, at the cost of many millions of dollars, established a major initiative in the form of the O’Connor Inquiry to specifically provide policy recommendations upon which a new legislative regime of civilian review would be based. Bill C-42 presumably is a response to those recommendations. Having appeared as a witness before that Inquiry I am familiar with its key recommendations and can attest to the fact that Bill C-42 falls well short of the standard of review set by Justice O’Connor. It will serve neither the needs of Canadians nor the RCMP.
By way of simple illustration, Justice O’Connor dedicated a chapter of his report to the issue of the need for extensive powers of access to information held by the RCMP. The existing review body (the CPC) has historically encountered an array of impediments to its access of information held by the RCMP. The classes of information include any information that the RCMP considers confidential, privileged or subject to a statutory non-disclosure provision. Many such provisions exist and were created in ignorance of the fact that they would bar the review body from accessing this vital information. These failings prevented the CPC from undertaking a review of the potential role played by the RCMP in the inappropriate rendering of Mr. Arar from the U.S. to Syria. This was an important factor in the need to call the public inquiry headed by Justice O’Connor.
Any new RCMP review body, to perform its functions, would have to conduct investigative inquiries. Justice O’Connor pointed to the correlation between the independence and thoroughness of such inquiries and the public’s confidence in the process. Absent these features the review body would not be able to restore and maintain the public’s confidence in the RCMP. He specifically called for access to all information but for Cabinet confidences and a restricted class of solicitor–client privilege. He specified that issues of relevance and necessity of the information sought were to be determined by the review body and not the RCMP. He cautioned against creating a model that would permit the raising of legal obstacles to access, which would only stymie and delay the work of the review body.
Bill C-42, by contrast, creates numerous hidey-holes into which the RCMP Commissioner may secrete information. It allows him to bar the Review body from looking into these hidey-holes and gives rise to the prospect of legal disputes with their attendant delays. All of these issues were identified and cautioned against by Justice O’Connor in light of their real harm to meaningful civilian review of the RCMP.
In a perfect world, one in which the RCMP Commissioner and his colleagues would raise no objections and would provide total access to the review body; these concerns could be viewed as excessive. However, we must in this important matter be guided by real life event.
In that regard, I would refer to the recent experience of Commissioner Major, a former Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, who headed the Public Inquiry into the Air India bombing. He found the conduct of the RCMP on disclosure issues to be especially troubling. At page 37 of Chapter 1 of his report he referenced an especially troubling case of Mr. G. a person with potential knowledge of matters relating to the bombing of Flight 182. Mr. G., during the course of the hearing, approached the RCMP and said that he wished to speak to the Commission and to testify. The RCMP did not advise the Commission about the witness but used the fact of the person’s contact with the RCMP as grounds to demand further redactions of previously cleared documents on the basis that they needed to protect an on-going investigation.
By chance, the Commission found out about the witness’ attempt to make contact. “The RCMP did not confirm this fact until after the close of the hearing, months after being asked directly by the Commission. The RCMP then continued to assert the need to protect the integrity of its ongoing investigation, hoping to discourage the Commission from pursuing the matter, even after it had interviewed Mr. G. and dismissed the utility of his information for police purposes.”
It is fair to ask whether the event as described by Justice Major is isolated or whether a review model should be sufficiently robust that it reduces or eliminates the possibility of such behaviour in the future. In that regard I note the observations by Justice Major with reference to the government’s actions during the Inquiry. At page 39 of chapter 1 he states in part “…the Government was indiscriminate in its denials, doggedly denying all potentially unflattering facts, even some that had been uncontrovertibly shown to be true. As well, the Government’s constant over-claiming of privilege and its continued withholding of information had a painfully negative impact on …”.
Real life experience tells us that any weakness or vagueness in the proposed legislation will be exploited by the RCMP and the Government to their advantage. If the public interest in transparency and accountability, as fulfilled on our behalf by the CPC or a new civilian review body, is to ride herd on the RCMP it cannot be on a saddle selected by and designed for the comfort of the horsemen.
A magical cloak of invisibility, behind which one may hide, may be appropriate for Harry Potter but is totally unacceptable in the real world for an institution as important to Canada as the RCMP. The ongoing difficulties experienced by the RCMP are on a daily basis fodder for all our media outlets. We suffer under no illusions as to the true state of affairs within our iconic national police force. It is time for the government to stop dreaming. We need the government to wake up, face realities and advance real world solutions to address real world problems. Those solutions would:
reduce the role played by the Minister of Public Safety in the oversight legislation to that of a person who receives reports and who may request that special reviews be undertaken;
grant broad information access powers to the review body in respect of information held by the RCMP similar to that given to the SIRC in respect of CSIS some 28 years ago; and
insert into the legislation specific language that would require the RCMP to co-operate with the Review body in a timely fashion. Ideally, specific time limits should be stated.
Any “new” regime for oversight of the RCMP that lacks these essential features will not constitute transparency and accountability, as those concepts are generally understood. Canadians should guard against the forthcoming illusion that Bill C-42 constitutes meaningful accountability by the RCMP to the Canadian public.
Original Article
Source: ipolitics
Author: Paul Kennedy
No comments:
Post a Comment