Re. Fadden - So Zaccardelli was wrong too?

Organised Crime Influence on Politics

Ottawa Citizen
Friday 8 September 2000
(4) Mobsters target Parliament, RCMP commissioner says
Aim is to 'corrupt, destabilize' system

Tim Naumetz
The Ottawa Citizen

Organized crime mobs are targeting Parliament and other Canadian institutions in an attempt to spread corruption and political instability, says the new head of the RCMP.

During a remarkably candid news conference, Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli said yesterday that criminal groups are focusing on Parliament, the courts and other institutions with the aim of "destabilizing" the political system.

"For the first time in this country, we are seeing signs of criminal organizations that are so sophisticated that they actually are focusing on destabilizing certain aspects of our society," said Commissioner Zaccardelli. The commissioner is a 30-year veteran of the RCMP who was previously the force's deputy commissioner in charge of the fight against organized crime.

"That's a real threat to us. There are criminal organizations that target this destabilization of our parliamentary system."

Commissioner Zaccardelli's comments shocked MPs, who said the commissioner should inform the House of Commons, through Speaker Gilbert Parent, if the RCMP has evidence of political corruption or attempts to corrupt politicians.

Asked if he could cite cases where criminals have targeted politicians or whether he was "fearmongering," Commissioner Zaccardelli replied: "It's not fearmongering in the least. I can't give you, obviously, specific details, but we clearly have information that indicates that a sophisticated criminal organization, as part of their strategy, is not only to maximize their profits through illegal activity, but in doing that, in maximizing their profits, where they can attempt to try and corrupt and to try to destabilize (the) situation, that's where they flourish."

Asked what he meant about the threat to Parliament, the commissioner responded:
"The question of corruption. Corruption is always a potential problem around the world, corruption in a lot of places, unfortunately, exists. So the potential to corrupt by these criminal organizations is there. We have to be vigilant against that."

In further explaining his remarks, Commissioner Zaccardelli noted two prison guards have been targeted and killed in recent years in Quebec.

"That is something that's a new phenomenon for us," he said. "You have criminal organizations that clearly are targeting some people, the court systems and so on; we have situations where Crowns (prosecuting lawyers) are being threatened by criminals and so on.

"Our fundamental institutions and the people that work in it are actually being targeted by theses sophisticated criminal organizations. That never happened before."

Asked yet again whether the RCMP has evidence of cabinet ministers or MPs being targeted by organized crime, Commissioner Zaccardelli said: "I'm saying there are criminal organizations that we are aware of that ... part of their strategy is to target and to infiltrate Canadian institutions. If they have opportunities, they will not hesitate to try and attempt that type of behaviour."

Commissioner Zaccardelli's startling comments were reminiscent of controversial statements made by former RCMP commissioner Norman Inkster in the 1980s.

Mr. Inkster told a Commons committee more than two dozen MPs were under criminal investigation. He refused to name the MPs, and only a handful were charged in subsequent years. It was later learned some of the investigations were routine inquiries following complaints.

Government and Opposition MPs said they have heard nothing about criminal attempts to infiltrate Parliament or corrupt MPs.

"I certainly don't have any information that would suggest that sort of thing," said Mississauga West Liberal Steve Mahoney.

Mr. Mahoney said Commissioner Zaccardelli may have been warning about the kind of corruption that takes place in some countries but added: "If he's inferring something about Canada's Parliament, dealing directly with MPs, I would think he would have an obligation to report that to the Speaker.

"If he's got anything on anybody, he should come clean, it's pretty clear."

Winnipeg NDP MP Pat Martin also expressed surprise. "There's never been even a hint of that kind of thing taking place, not so much as a whisper," said Mr. Martin. "I think it's kind of irresponsible to make a statement like that and get the Canadian public looking under its bed."

Strauss CSU to Schreiber to Mulroney to Harper to Johnston...#GG: It's not exactly a secret folks

A Secret Trial: "In Canada, Joe Clark, a Red Tory, had to go"

Schreiber Testimony

Fifth Estate: "Mr. Franz Josef Strauss was a patron of Conservative movements in various countries"

http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/2010/01/22/01003-20100122ARTFIG00515-les-revelations-d-un-marchand-d-armes-secouent-la-csu-.php

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,5151239,00.html

Johnston #GG #FAIL: Only The Naive Or Idiots Are Unwilling To Admit What’s Happening

Juneau-Katsuya's reply to Fadden critics is a perfect description of those who defend the indefensible outrage of Johnston's appointment, given how Schreiber was a tool of the post-Nazi Bavarian CSU of Strauss, a foreign power which directly interfered in Canadian politics to all of our everlasting subversion and sorrow by bankrolling the Mulroney coup of Clark, and much of the subsequent campaigns (no rules or limits in 1988, remember?). And Johnston, who moderated the 1979 and 1984 debates was there, and everyone in the know in Canada knew what was going on. But we couldn't prove it then. Stevie Cameron took her career in her hands fighting to expose this filth, and then the CBC and others followed up. And a couple of years ago, Johnston reappeared, deus ex machina, to write the most extraordinarily limited terms of reference for an inquiry into these matters, a cunning little ploy by Harper to seemingly disassociate himself from the thing (contrary to precedent - all PMs are responsible for inquiry terms and naming heads of them, that way their own prestige is in play if they are clearly too limited or biased, and that can have a dissuasive effect) while ensuring he got the result he wanted, and was able to hide in Johnston's skirts, since Johnston being a well-liked member of the Canadian elite, bridging academia, politics, media and business, and Canada being a small country, few were willing to point out what a fraud the whole thing was, as "David's a good guy, eh? And it was all so long ago, eh?", and who knows, critics might suffer for their impertinence - "look what happened to Stevie, eh?". The Cons and their allies have friends high and low, in all sorts of places, (as does the opposing clan) and might take a number and deliver a blindside hit when one wasn't expecting it, so best to play along, eh chaps?

But as Spector, Thanks to Dr. Johnston, Airbus became Airbust, and Salutin, The new G-G: Hire him and thank the others, remind y'all, this was and is THE dirtiest scandal on every level, from the late 1970s till today. Think of it, in effect, David Johnston is the final beneficiary (as far as we know) of the Airbus Affair and CSU interference in Canadian politics: 'Whatever we paid him for this it wasn't enough' so Harper made Johnston #GG. I would especially recommend the following passages from Spector and Salutin, respectively. Just before, allow me to give props to the Globe which the innocent may think I berated yesterday. However, Globe, as you know, I know how to read, and I enjoyed the placing of the crucial quote on the front and the "conspiratorial musings about Mr. Johnston's role in advising the Prime Minister on the fairly narrow terms of reference...although these seem petty in the context... (of)...the absence of a shred of evidence that his advice was given in anything but good faith." Dear Globe, I got the point and the joke, but since so many Canadians seem genuinely clueless about these things, I played along, so as to help educate them. Well-played by you, Globe, and I tried to do likewise. As arch as l'Arc de triomphe ;)
Spector:

I don’t know whether Dr. Johnston was asked by members of the committee established by Mr. Harper to advise on the appointment of a new Governor-General why he excluded the Airbus transaction. And, yesterday, he did not take questions from reporters after his brief televised statement.
I do know, however, that Dr. Johnston — who appears supremely qualified for the position in every other respect — has refused to discuss the matter with journalists who’ve requested interviews about his strange decision. And that, ironically, he will now be handing out the most coveted award in journalism — the Michener Award — which was given to the CBC and the Globe and Mail for their work on Airbus.

Salutin:

David Johnston’s selection as Governor-General may be the first time the post went to someone after what can be seen as an audition. I mean his role in setting the terms of a public inquiry into the Mulroney-Schreiber affair.
(...)
This wouldn’t matter much if the G-G’s role was largely ceremonial, as it has usually been. But we live in minority government times, which may turn permanent. When G-G Michaëlle Jean delayed a response to Stephen Harper’s prorogation request, he seemed displeased and she wasn’t reappointed.

All I’m saying is, if you view the inquiry gig as a test of what the guy might do in a situation where Harper interests are at stake, you’d be reassured. Alternately, if he’d set terms that worked against what were seen as Harper interests, do you think he’d have become G-G? I’m not politicizing this; the appointment itself does so. Especially for a leader who, as his mentor Tom Flanagan says, “thinks about these things all the time.”

'Whatever we paid him for this it wasn't enough' so Harper made Johnston #GG

According to someone who knows, after Mr. Johnston gave his report to Mr. Harper and left the room, the Prime Minister told then clerk of the Privy Council Kevin Lynch: “Whatever we paid him for this, it wasn't enough.” That was early in 2008, and from that day, the president of the University of Waterloo was on the shortest of lists to become the next governor-general.

Globe cut its headlines (and stories) short. They should read: Legal scholar, creative administrator – and he’s good in the corners AND A KNAVE WILLING TO PARTICIPATE IN A CHARADE TO BURY TRUTH ABOUT CORRUPTION and FOREIGN INFLUENCE (OF EX-NAZIS) AT HIGHEST LEVELS OF CANADIAN POLITICS

David Johnston: a worthy viceroy IF YOU WANT SOMEONE WHO WILL ROLL OVER TO PROTECT PM, CPC AND POLITICAL CLASS

The Globe does make me laugh though: "There have been conspiratorial musings about Mr. Johnston's role in advising the Prime Minister on the fairly narrow terms of reference for the Oliphant Commission's inquiry into the Mulroney-Schreiber affair, although these seem petty in the context of his remarkable career and the absence of a shred of evidence that his advice was given in anything but good faith."

"Fairly" narrow terms?!

"Petty"? IT'S PETTY TO BE ANGRY ABOUT A CON JOB TO HIDE TRUTH ABOUT CORRUPTION AND FOREIGN INFLUENCE AT HIGHEST LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT???!!!

"the absence of a shred of evidence that his advice was given in anything but good faith"?! So either he's a fool then, you're saying, GIVEN YOUR OWN PREVIOUS EDITORIALS AND COLUMNS ABOUT THE AFFAIR, and just had the incredible fortune to subsequently be picked as GG, or, ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN STORY, the moment he gave his o-so-amenable BS terms of reference report, he became the top candidate to be GG, THOUGH WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE THIS WAS ALL A COINCIDENCE AND A SURPRISE?

Look, Iggy's been out of Canada for over 30 years, so he has an excuse for his ignorance and folly, but Globe and the rest of you, what's yours? Do you really not understand this country at all?

The Johnston Appointment Summarised: Fool or Knave, No Decent GG

There are 2 possibilities re. Johnston's "judgment" in setting terms of reference re. Mulroney corruption:
either Johnston is sentient, in which case, given CV, he knowingly played the knave's part, setting terms of reference that saved most of our great and good from embarrassment, and got away with it because he was clothed in fine robes, or;

he is a simple fool, despite his CV, and genuinely thought that there was no need to actually figure out what it was all about.

If he's the first, he's too much of a knave to be GG, and if he's the 2nd, he's too much of a fool. Either way, too associated with vital dirty political services to govt of day. You can wrap crap in roses, it's still crap.

I do Johnston the compliment of thinking him sentient, and thus his courtiership in Mulroney-Schreiber utter knavery. You are free to believe him a simple well-meaning fool. More fool you. But either way, given his recent association to this govt, NO DECENT GG!

Johnston's Appointment Is Sick and Its Quiescent Reception Signals A Grave Democratic Sickness Within Canada : Gros Colons, Tous!

Johnston as GG is far sicker than Jaffer-Guergis or any of the rest, and if you don't get that, you are a gros colon, lost in complacency, without ethics, or principle, while your parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy drain away, quietly, politely, but meaningfully, leaving nothing but empty chatterers, all talk, no thought. Appointing a "sound Tory" who one year ago allowed the Cons to escape the greatest scandal in Canadian political history through some cunning political prestidigitation is a scandal, politicising the office of GG for services rendered as never before, and there should even be the slightest appearance of bias in such an appointment. A shower. And one in which frivolous numbskulls are complicit: "what nice grandkids" (the old Caroline Mulroney defence). And no amount of groupthink "he's a nice chap" BS can change that. He might have been an excellent choice if he had never served this govt so politically, in the most explosive matter imaginable. But he did, JUST A YEAR AGO, and now he's GG?

BS. And y'all know it.

For monarchists, a terrible choice. For republicans, a coup. Whatever he does, whether he's right or wrong, will always be seen through prism of his BS Terms of Reference. Rightly. And that whole thing, as with Manley Afghan thing was BS, and only shocking lack of self-respect and weakness of LPC, with perhaps a soupcon of elite accomodation, permitted what were scandalous perversions of public debate and democratic practices.

Y'all should be ashamed of yourselves for tugging your forelocks. The instinctive submission to monarchy and authority is alive and well, I see.

It's odd, it's always the most ardent monarchists, like EFL, who are such for rational reasons, who are the most immune to and skeptical of these instincts of self-abasements, being inured to them through their own grounded monarchical beliefs. It's the wannabe cool kids who always lose their heads, and forget first principles: it's about institutions, not individuals.

Anyway, lost cause, I see. Vive la République? Non!

Whatever he does, which one could otherwise consider good or bad on the merits, it is all tainted by his role as useful puppet coming up with the most bad faith stupid terms of reference for an inquiry, as part of a whole carefully contrived bad faith coverup, to avoid finding out the answers to the real questions about CSU-Schreiber and corruption of Cdn politics at the highest levels. Johnston was a willing, nay enthusiastic, tool of the govt's escape strategy, which actually pleased a lot of our elite because everyone's scared of that stuff, on all sides. And this is not ancient history: he did Harper's bidding scant months ago!

If he'd never done it, he might be OK. But he did, so he isn't. One can't look beyond that reality to assume he'll be great because of x,y,and z, down the line, hypothetically. You must judge on the here and now, and how that taints the whole thing. And it does, unless one is deaf, dumb and blind.

This is when Canada most exasperates me, this voluntary collective suspension of critical faculties. This is why the fix is in everywhere. This is why I would tell people for years about Clarke's intentional attack on Kharlamov and refer folk to books where Sinden and Clarke etc. talked about it, praising themselves, and people would absolutely refuse to believe it, refuse to read the books. It's only recently, with the CBC series really, that people have faced up to a reality they knew, at some level, but didn't want to acknowledge. It's this "I'm all right, you're all right Jack", attitude that leads to corruption, and "Tim Horton's Govt" and the cancellation of any meaningful census - the census!

No you're right, just have another Blue and hotdog. Play some G'nR. Give 'er. Ferget it.

The leadership of one of our two major parties, and hence subsequent govt, was bought and paid for by Bavarian "Christian Democrats" (check their histories 1933-1945 - they were enthusiastic members of another party, and maintain(ed) those attitudes) and sleazy businessmen, large and small. And Johnston played a, nay, probably THE, crucial role in killing off our last chance of a decent inquiry...and all were happy, 'cause it's all dirty and so long ago, and anyways, those fellers were basically good guys, eh? BS. BS. BS.

If Johnston was such a great choice for such positions, what of his (cough) "judgment" in Mulroney-Schreiber? But he's a law professor? He's this, he's that - well then he should have known better, all the more, no?

God, I wish Richler was around, he'd rip y'all to shreds. Reread how Barney gets his son off charges in QC by donating to Judge's sister's church fund. That's Canada, top to bottom, for those with the wit to see, hear and understand.

There are 2 possibilities:
either Johnston is sentient, in which case, given CV, he knowingly played the knave's part, setting terms of reference that saved most of our great and good from embarrassment, and ghot away with it because he was clothed in fine robes, or;

he is a simple fool, despite his CV, and genuinely thought that there was no need to actually figure out what it was all about.

If he's the first, he's too much of a knave to be GG, and if he's the 2nd, he's too much of a fool. Either way, too associated with vital dirty political services to govt of day. You can wrap crap in roses, it's still crap.

I do Johnston the compliment of thinking him sentient, and thus his courtiership in Mulroney-Schreiber utter knavery. You are free to believe him a simple well-meaning fool. More fool you. But either way, given his recent association to this govt, NO DECENT GG!

But of course, I forget myself, Clarke never slashed Kharlamov, our soldiers were never infamous for shooting their POWs in Boer War, WWI, WW2, Korea, and there was nothing untoward about overthrow of Joe Clark, nor subsequent profit his political assassins made. This is Canada. Just have another Blue, play some Hip. Maaaaan.

Why does Andrew Coyne hate our constitutional monarchy?

Andrew Coyne, closet republican or now full-on out-of-the-closet republican?

Andrew Coyne, republican 5th columnist?

With all due respect, many are either missing or deliberately ignoring the point: what odds Johnston would be GG if not for Mulroney Terms of Reference? If we're VERY generous, and assume he would still have had a chance, then all the worse, as his involvement and apparent recompense, diminishes the office of GG, which is supposed to be the Crown's apolitical rep!!!

People focus on personalities and forget about institutional implications. If you're a republican or anti-parliamentary democracy within a constitutional monarchy, then I agree, a fine choice to subvert the institution from within.

But if you think we have a basically good system, dependent like all on good faith and good will, AND THE APPEARANCE OF SUCH, then a complete and utter shower. What next, some judge makes a judgment favourable to the govt and becomes next GG? The currently quiescent ethics commissioner becomes the GG after that? Etc..

Think people, for gods' sake. Johnston may be a fine chap etc., but having served/helped the govt as he did, so recently, absolutely the wrong choice for a position that is supposed to be above suspicion.

Of course one expected a "sound" Tory to be appointed. But there must be others, even other law professors, who could have been appointed without any clear appearance of pre-established bias. A quietly sound Tory was needed, not the guy who just a year ago helped the cons escape from a most dangerous swamp.

But no, on further thought, I revise my initial reaction. This was an excellent choice and I only hope Tom Flanagan, Barry Cooper, etc. are the next fine academics appointed as GG by Harper. Or as judges. Because heaven forbid anyone point out how this absolutely undermines the very crucial independence of the position.

All obviously partisan appointments to GG are bad, but the others at least hadn't rendered essential political services, uh, like, LAST YEAR!

Anyway, one happy result is Andrew Coyne is more francophile, French even, today than he was yesterday. Vive Robespierre! Vive la République!

NDP Duncan Voted For Killing Probe! WTF?! 'MPs destroy drafts of pollution review'

I understand this less and less. I wrote 'MPs cancel oilsands pollution probe, tear up draft reports'-But How? Opposition Had Majority On Committee! But a revised version MPs destroy drafts of pollution review has this: "An 18-month review of Alberta's oilsands has come up empty after federal politicians from all parties -- including Edmonton-Strathcona NDP MP Linda Duncan -- decided to scrap its lengthy investigation and destroy drafts of any final report." and then this obscene panglossianism, as if Duncan's or Scarpaleggia's own views would ever have the weight of a committee report. Again, I ask, given the Opposition had voting majority, WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED OR IS GOING ON??!! THIS IS OBSCENE! Since when do committees destroy all their work and cancel reports on existential issues of national and international importance? Is Duncan on drugs?

Duncan called the opportunity to write her own report the "silver lining" of the committee's failure.
"My report will be more about the need for the federal government to be asserting its jurisdiction," Duncan said. (ed. comment: Yes, all of Canada is waiting for your precious report, Duncan. For frack's sake, little miss fauntleroy.)

"They have serious responsibilities in the tarsands area, from the environmental assessment right through to monitoring and enforcement.

"And they could be playing a very important role in diminishing the impacts of the tarsands, in some cases perhaps turning down or delaying projects."

Liberal MP Francis Scarpaleggia, who spearheaded the parliamentary investigation on water pollution, will also write his own report.

"The Conservative government has a lot of answering to do for its persistent lack of leadership on water in general and on oilsands and water in particular," he said.

David Johnston Would Be All-Time Worst Choice as GG

There have been many political appointees. But his one reeks of repayment of a debt for someone who proved himself a sound chap over terms of reference. Justice must not just be done, it must be seen to be done, right? Does this look very good, for a Crown's rep supposed to be above the fray? Question: if Johnston had not done "frame of reference" job, and proved himself "sound", would he have been made GG? That is to say, would we today be learning of some prof from Waterloo most had never heard of was about to become GG? Poser la question, c'est y répondre. And that being so, what does that imply about why Johnston was chosen? And what does that do to GG as impartial representative of Crown? And when there's hung parliament, and GG has to decide whether to allow coalition to form govt or listen to Harper, what then? One way, he's acting as puppet, as his form anticipates, the other he's overcompensating to demonstrate independence. Neither may be true, but they will both appear so. Terrible decision, if true.

PS. Just how much of a joke, of a banana democracy, is Canada? How much do we suck? Did the implications of this decision re. GG's and monarchy's role in Canada not occur to anyone? Is Harper, behind all that pro-monarchism facade, a republican, is he trying to do to monarchy what Graves had Claudius attempting to do to emperors in I, Claudius? When the BS detainee docs deal appeared, a clever commenter at Macleans made a good point, which I complimented and added "Johnston for GG jibe". I worry that commenter and I understand this country too well. It gets dispiriting. From comments at Towards an understanding of the understanding (II) (by the way, what's up with that panel, eh?):

"pdpd":
Isn't this whole "broad credibility and trust" thing really dodgy? It sounds to me that it's begging for a John Roberts or Pamela Wallin situation - moderate and thus political gold until it turns out they are hitting the partisanship even harder than their publicly partisan peers.

In the Canadian context, where people are much less known and scrutinized than perhaps a US supreme court judge might be, it will be pretty much impossible to get a gauge on how a supposedly moderate public figure would react on an extremely narrow set of issues (for which legal training actually provides very little help). There will be really tough asymmetries of information leading up to negotiations, and picking candidates will be an absolute mess for the three parties.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the whole thing seems destined for arbitrariness masked as principled procedure. Maybe the Liberals score two closet anti-government types. Maybe Harper pulls off another Manley report. Either way it's really bad for Canadian democracy, where this unbelievably flawed and fragile compromise is going to be held up as the way to resolve differences, when in fact it has pushed those differences as far as possible, and then resolved them by effectively saying: "hey: John Manley and Hugh Segal, both great guys, think these documents are in and those are out".

EFL:
Well noted. I propose David Johnston, we know he's a sound chap (unless he's about to be GG, dual duties might be a bit much, even for our tiresome peons.)

'MPs cancel oilsands pollution probe, tear up draft reports'-But How? Opposition Had Majority On Committee!

Politicians cancel oilsands pollution probe, tear up draft reports Shocking story - But I don't understand how it can be, as Opposition had majority on committee (Bezan of CPC in chair, so Opposition had 6-5 voting majority). I know they are bound by in camera strictures, by WTF?! Can someone explain? LPC Scarpaleggia (pro-Dion in 2006) and NDP Duncan both claim they'll keep on it and issue own reports. Did Bloc do the deed, for some completely incomprehensible reason, given Bigras' etc. stated views? Did McGuinty or Tonks, for Iggy - is that why JTrudeau had Tonks replace him, to avoid casting that vote? Is this what Spector is getting at (along with comment on Iggy's queasy China suck-up, ignoring even criticism from brave Chinese student that he didn't address human rights)?

If the idea of summoning business leaders to parliamentary committees takes off, perhaps we will learn one day why Stephen Harper no longer believes that human rights in China are much of a problem — a position that former human rights professor Michael Ignatieff extended yesterday in China. And speaking of the Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, wouldn’t you love to know who in the business community helped Mr. Ignatieff better understand the importance of Alberta’s tar-, oops, oil-sands?

PS. Inspiring (sic):

Another student, 22-year-old computer science undergrad Xiong Chao said he came to the lecture to, see how “top politicians in the world,” conduct themselves on a podium. (ed. comment: "top"?)
“I think he enjoyed his lecture,” Xiong said, “but as a politician he avoided some crucial questions.” (ed. comment: shurely not)
Xiong said Ignatieff properly praised China for pulling so many people out of poverty with the success of its economic engine, but he had avoided saying anything substantial about human rights challenges, “the fact, for example, that there are many activists currently imprisoned for no apparent reason. He just avoided that.”
In an interview, Ignatieff said he didn’t believe in “megaphone” diplomacy — a reference to Prime Minister Harper’s early, high-profile, public criticisms of China on human rights.
But he would raise such issues in private discussions, he said.
“I will raise lots of cases,” he stressed. (ed. comment: that's OK then chaps. Don't fret Xiong, while you're in prison and being tortured, Iggy will mention it over tea, between meetings w/ Chinese Leadership and Desmarais)

If Hughes #APEC Inquiry in 1998 Why Not Same 4 #G20 in 2010?

Something Pratte made me think of. Read and reflect, if they did it in 1998, why not in 2010? APEC Commission Final Report:

I. Introduction
1. Procedure for Public Hearings Pursuant to the RCMP Act

The Chair of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP has the authority, pursuant to subsection 45.43(1) of the RCMP Act, to institute a hearing into a complaint concerning the conduct of a member of the RCMP, should she consider it advisable in the public interest. Such a hearing is to be conducted in public. At the conclusion of the public hearing, a written interim report is sent to the Solicitor General of Canada, the RCMP Commissioner and to all parties setting out the findings and recommendations.

Upon receipt of the interim report, the RCMP Commissioner reviews the complaint in light of the findings and recommendations in the report, then notifies the Commission Chair and the Solicitor General, in writing, of any further action that has been or will be taken regarding the complaint. Where the Commissioner decides not to act on any findings or recommendations, reasons must be given for not so acting.

It is then the Commission Chair's duty to consider the response by the RCMP Commissioner and to send to the Solicitor General, the RCMP Commissioner and the parties, a final written report setting out such findings and recommendations as she sees fit.
2. The APEC Hearing

Following the November 1997 APEC Conference in Vancouver, British Columbia, some 52 complaints were made about RCMP conduct at events that took place at the UBC campus and the Richmond RCMP Detachment. On December 9, 1997, I initiated an investigation into the complaints. I subsequently determined that it was in the public interest to institute a hearing into the complaints and did so on February 20, 1998. I assigned a three-member panel to conduct the hearing. That panel resigned in December of 1998 and I then assigned the Honourable Ted Hughes, Q.C. to conduct the hearing.

The hearing ran from March 1999 to June 2000 and the panel's interim report was completed by Mr. Hughes on July 31, 2001. The RCMP Commissioner provided the required written notice on September 6, 2001 (Appendix B). The following constitutes my final report with respect to this matter.
Return to Top of Page
Top of Page
II. Summary of the Interim Report

The interim report prepared by Mr. Hughes provides a comprehensive review of the complaints and the events that gave rise to theM. For convenience sake, I have summarized the basic findings and recommendations made by Mr. Hughes regarding each of the categories of complaints as described in his report (Appendix A). The evidence and reasoning in support of these findings and recommendations are fully set out within the interim report and I have not repeated them.

In accordance with the terms of reference I provided, Mr. Hughes has specifically addressed the issue of whether or not the conduct of members of the RCMP involved in the events was appropriate to the circumstances and/or consistent with the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I commend Mr. Hughes and I am deeply grateful for his extraordinary professionalism both in conducting this very challenging hearing and preparing such a thorough report.
Return to Top of Page
Top of Page
III. Summary of the Notice From the Commissioner

In his notice of September 9, 2001, the RCMP Commissioner accepted the majority of Mr. Hughes' recommendations. He accepted that errors were made by the RCMP and that it failed to achieve a high state of readiness for the APEC Conference. Specifically, he accepted all of those findings which identified errors in the areas of command structures, role separation, policy and planning, training, legal support, record keeping, and overall preparedness. He agreed that inadequacies in the planning and command structure used at APEC contributed in large part to the subsequent difficulties.

The Commissioner stated that the RCMP has gained valuable experience and learned considerably from APEC and a number of subsequent public order events. He went on to say that the RCMP has conducted an extensive review of its readiness and response to major public order events, and has consulted with other police agencies, in order to identify the best practices in the provision of security for such events.

The Commissioner referred to Mr. Hughes' findings that the conduct of individual RCMP members, in some instances, was inappropriate to the circumstances and/or inconsistent with the Charter. The Commissioner did not disagree with any of these findings. He pointed out that this conduct had previously been reviewed by a senior RCMP officer and an independent Crown counsel and that no criminal charges or disciplinary actions had been approved. He further pointed out that Mr. Hughes had found no evidence of malice and had not recommended that any action be taken with respect to any individual RCMP members. Accordingly, the Commissioner has not taken any further action with respect to the conduct of individual members.

With respect to the recommendations made by Mr. Hughes concerning policing of public order events, the Commissioner has directed a full review of RCMP national policies to ensure that those recommendations are clearly reflected therein. Furthermore, the Commissioner has specifically agreed with the recommendations made by Mr. Hughes concerning consistency of policies from one detachment to another and the availability of private areas to conduct searches.
Return to Top of Page
Top of Page
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations

I acknowledge the response from the RCMP Commissioner, which largely accepts the findings and recommendations and indicates that they are being acted upon. However, I do reiterate the following specific recommendation, which was not addressed by the Commissioner: that the renovations to the Richmond Detachment allowing a private area for searches be completed without delay. It is not acceptable that a detachment of this size, in the immediate vicinity of an international airport, be unable to accommodate a proper and private search of detainees.

Mr. Hughes' report makes it clear that a number of members of the public were adversely affected by the inappropriate conduct of RCMP members during the events in question. In keeping with the RCMP's notable Force-wide emphasis on community policing, timely apologies to those people would certainly have been appropriate but, unfortunately, were not forthcoming. Hopefully, Mr. Hughes' findings and the acknowledgement of their accuracy by the RCMP Commissioner will provide some consolation for those who suffered the consequences of inappropriate police conduct. An apology now, would still be appropriate.

I ask the RCMP Commissioner to keep me apprised of any progress made with respect to the recommendations arising from this hearing and the initiatives proposed by him in response.

This is my final report to the RCMP Commissioner and the Solicitor General of Canada in relation to these complaints.

March 25, 2002

Shirley Heafey
Chair
Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP
P.O. Box 3423, Station "D"
Ottawa, Ontario K1P 6L4

Don't #G20 or #Fakelake Census: Keep the Long Form Census Petition & Facebook

Petition: Keep the Canada Census Long Form
Facebook: Keep the Canada Census Long Form