Final Report – Review of the Independent Observer Pilot Project
Table of Contents
- Introduction
- Methodology
- Background to the IOPP: History and Objectives
- IOPP: Operational Process
- General Conclusions
- Detailed Findings
- Recommendations
Appendices
This report documents the findings of a review of the Independent Observer Pilot Project (IOPP), jointly managed by the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP (CPC) and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in "E" Division. The CPC committed to a review of the IOPP after one year of the project's operation. The scope of the review included the following:
- The effectiveness of the project in achieving the project's objectives;
- The effectiveness of the project in relation to addressing public perception of police investigating themselves;
- The effectiveness of the CPC in providing professional, competent and timely observations about impartiality;
- The appropriateness of continuing the project in "E" Division;
- The appropriateness of expanding the project to national proportions;
- The governance and operation of the project in its current form;
- Recommendations about improvements to the objectives, governance and operations of the project;
- Recommendations about expanding the project to national proportions; and
- Other relevant observations about the project.
This report is organized according to the following assessment issues:
- Achievement of project objectives;
- Governance;
- Operations;
- CPC Independent Observers;
- CPC/RCMP internal processes and joint relations; and
- Future of the Independent Observer Project.
The topics listed above were addressed through interviews with RCMP officers, CPC officials and the two Independent Observers who have been actively engaged in the project to date. The following list indicates the number of interviewees by organization:
- "E" Division Headquarters (Vancouver and Surrey) 12
- "E" Division Southeast District Headquarters (Kelowna) 2
- Vernon Detachment (Kelowna) 1
- CPC Headquarters (Ottawa) 4
- CPC Surrey Office (Surrey) 3
In addition, a senior "E" Division officer and an official at CPC Headquarters provided input leading up to the writing of the draft and final reports; and a senior "E" Division officer made comments on a draft of the report.
The interviews were undertaken by two consultants working under the same contract. One undertook the interviews at CPC Headquarters in Ottawa and the other managed the interviews in British Columbia. The interviewing process took place in May 2008 with additional input taking place in June 2008.
Respondents are listed in Appendix A to the report.
One of the reviewers also studied IOPP case files and background files at CPC Headquarters in Ottawa, as well as media reports collected for purposes of the review. It should be noted that the review was not an evaluation according to Treasury Board standards; however, it did provide insights to the IOPP based on significant anecdotal evidence from those connected to the project, as well as documented information contained in official files. The CPC may decide at some point to undertake a public survey regarding the impacts of the IOPP on public perceptions, thereby contributing to the evidence and the findings contained in this report.
The establishment of the Independent Observer Pilot Project was announced on March 21, 2007. The IOPP was conceived in reaction to public expressions of concern regarding the police investigating the police. This concern is especially pronounced in relation to situations where the actions of RCMP members have resulted in death or serious injury, and in other investigations that are high profile and sensitive in nature. The Canadian public clearly expects transparent and responsive institutional accountability by both the CPC and the RCMP. The CPC and the RCMP recognized that institutional credibility is essential in the ability to fulfill their respective mandates. The CPC determined that while it is generally a reactive complaints driven body, it could contribute to the enhancement of public confidence in RCMP investigative processes by assessing the impartiality of RCMP investigations in a professional, objective and timely manner. It was therefore decided to establish the Independent Observer Pilot Project.
The IOPP was initiated as a pilot project in order to assess the effectiveness of the concept of Independent Observers. As such, it was set up in a limited jurisdiction – "E" Division. Adjustments and improvements would be made on the basis of a review of the pilot project. It was also the intention of the CPC to assess at the end of the pilot project (i) if the project should be established on a permanent basis in "E" Division, and (ii) if the project could be extended to other divisions. Decisions regarding those questions will be based, in part, on the findings of this review.
The stated objectives of the Independent Observer Pilot Project are as follows:
- To assess the value of the CPC providing competent, professional and timely observations in regards to the impartiality of RCMP investigations where the actions of RCMP members have resulted in serious injury or death, and for other investigations that are high profile and sensitive in nature.
- Within this context it is intended to operate independent of whether the CPC or the RCMP is in receipt of a public complaint related to such investigations.
- This pilot project is established in conjunction with the RCMP's Office of Investigative Standards and Practices (OISP) in "E" Division. 1
The objectives were designed by the CPC with the cooperation and agreement of RCMP "E" Division management prior to the initiation of the project. While the formally stated objectives do not address the point explicitly, one of the aims of the IOPP (confirmed by interview respondents) is to enhance public confidence in the RCMP, particularly with respect to internal investigations, as well as to further the credibility of the CPC as an independent review body.
At the time of writing, the following six "E" Division investigations had involved a CPC decision to invoke the IOPP:
- December 27, 2007: Shooting death while executing an arrest warrant in Vernon;
- November 19, 2007: In-custody serious injury followed by death involving the use of a conducted energy weapon in Chilliwack;
- October 22, 2007: In-custody serious injury involving the use of a conducted energy weapon in Burnaby;
- October 14, 2007: In-custody death involving the use of a conducted energy weapon at Vancouver International Airport;
- October 6, 2007: Shooting causing serious injury in Penticton; and
- July 2, 2007: Use of pepper spray on members of the Sechelt Indian Band.
In all six cases, the Independent Observers identified no significant issues relating to questions of impartiality. As indicated below, there were certain instances wherein the Independent Observer raised questions with the RCMP in real time. Those matters were taken under advisement and addressed by the RCMP.
The CPC decided not to involve its Independent Observer in over fifteen internal "E" Division investigations. The decision as to whether or not to engage an Independent Observer is part of a process set out in CPC protocol. There are five stages in the process, as outlined below.
- Incident identification and initial decision: At this stage CPC Headquarters is notified by "E" Division of an incident that will involve an internal investigation and that falls within the mandate of the CPC. Also at this stage the Chair of CPC or his designate makes the decision to engage an Independent Observer or to decline. Telephone contact is initiated by the Deputy Criminal Operations Officer (Contract) or his back-up in "E" Division. The call is generally made to the Senior Director, Operations who then consults with the Chair or his back-up (Vice-Chair or Executive Director). The Chair (or his back-up) makes the decision to participate or decline.
- Engagement: CPC Headquarters notifies "E" Division once a decision is made. The CPC Communications Manager then prepares a generic website notification of CPC involvement with consideration of any special considerations. The Independent Observer is notified, makes travel arrangements, contacts a representative of "E" Division's Office of Investigative Standards and Practices (OISP), and arranges to meet prior to arriving at the site of the investigation.
- Observer functions: The Independent Observer meets with the OISP representative and proceeds to undertake his/her functions according to the instructions set out in the CPC Guide for Independent Observers. The observational process begins with an initial briefing of the Observer and the OISP representative by the Team Commander leading the investigation. The OISP representative acts as liaison between the Observer and the RCMP investigating team. The Observer communicates any immediate concerns regarding impartiality to the OISP representative. The Observer seeks direction from officials at CPC Headquarters as required.
- Reporting: The Independent Observer reports directly by e-mail to the Senior Director, Operations. The reports are also seen by the Chair, the Vice-Chair, the Executive Director and the Communications Manager. The Communications Manager updates the media as appropriate and consults with "E" Division media personnel. The Chair reports on the outcome of the CPC involvement in the investigation to the Commissioner of the RCMP. The CPC website is updated and media may be advised directly.
- Follow-up: Follow-up steps apply whether the decision was made to engage or decline involvement at the first stage of the process. The Senior Director, Operations seeks updates and monitors individual incidents, advising the Chair, Vice-Chair and Executive Director of changing circumstances that might require additional engagement by CPC (the "Hot Issues List"). Information pertaining to individual investigations is maintained by the Senior Director, Operations for internal assessment and statistical purposes. The Chair makes the determination as to whether he will initiate a Chair-Initiated Complaint in relation to a specific incident.
Each of the stages in the process outlined above is complex in its own right and can present challenges to the CPC, the Independent Observer and the RCMP. A detailed discussion follows in subsequent sections of this report.
This summary of conclusions precedes the presentation of detailed findings, found in the following section. The IOPP is generally considered by "E" Division and the CPC to operate effectively in fulfilling its mandate of assessing impartiality and is seen as worth maintaining on an ongoing basis. The majority of respondents (CPC, RCMP and Independent Observers) offered the view that the engagement of Independent Observers positively affected the way RCMP officers conducted their business. These respondents said that the existence of the CPC and the IOPP, and the presence of the Independent Observers (together with the use of the Impartiality Questionnaire) resulted in police investigators, especially Team Commanders, being more cognizant of the possibility of bias (real or perceived) and taking extra steps to ensure it did not exist in investigations. A smaller number of RCMP respondents maintained that officers conducted their investigations, including the necessity to account for potential bias, just as they always had, regardless of the CPC or the IOPP.
There was concern expressed, particularly by some RCMP respondents, that a common definition or understanding of the concept of "impartiality" has not been established for purposes of the IOPP process. RCMP officers acknowledge the importance of a high standard of impartiality, but not so high that it interferes with the practical realities of human resource availability, timeliness, and the ability to carry out an effective investigation. Discussion on this question is warranted between the CPC and the RCMP.
There are some concerns that arose in the course of the review, most of which could be remedied relatively easily. As well, there were some cautions expressed in the sense of ensuring that the CPC does not deviate from certain approaches currently employed; for example, maintaining high standards for Independent Observers in areas such as their understanding of investigative procedures. Discussions between the CPC and the RCMP are needed on a number of matters. Upon agreement, roles, responsibilities and procedures should be set out in a joint protocol, which should then be made available to all Senior Officers and Investigators.
The question of expansion to other jurisdictions was generally viewed positively, however, with some caveats. The most significant concern expressed in the course of the review was with regard to a perceived lack of success of the IOPP in enhancing public confidence in RCMP investigative processes.
Respondents generally agreed that the IOPP has been effective in assessing the impartiality of the RCMP in internal investigations. This speaks primarily to the process by which the IOPP addresses cases, the quality of the Independent Observers, and the working relations between the RCMP and the CPC. It does not, however, extend to a belief that the IOPP has been successful in enhancing public perceptions of the RCMP or the CPC. In the absence of a public survey, it is difficult to say whether the public (a) understands the mandate of the CPC or the IOPP, or (b) has been reassured on the issue of "police investigating police". Respondents also believe the media typically continue to be critical of RCMP internal investigations, regardless of efforts by the RCMP and the CPC to demonstrate impartiality. Police and CPC officials tend to view public caution and, especially, media scepticism as being entrenched over a long period. They also believe that public concerns about the competence and integrity of the RCMP have increased as the result of high profile issues in recent years.
Most respondents, RCMP and CPC, sensed that not much progress had been made in this regard, although they also noted that no work had been done to gauge the response of the public to the CPC or the IOPP. There was a common view among RCMP members that the CPC should be more proactive in explaining to the public the role of the Independent Observers, the work they are actively doing, and the results of their assessments of impartiality. It was frequently expressed that a press release and a short piece on the CPC website is not enough to inform the public as to the efforts being made and the level of impartiality being achieved in investigations. Suggestions were made by RCMP officials that the CPC Chair should consider more frequent press conferences to address the engagement of Independent Observers and the Observers' conclusions regarding impartiality in specific investigations. CPC officials, on the other hand, indicated they are continuing to work on the issue of reporting to the public. For example, the CPC is trying to ensure it makes early statements, when appropriate, aimed at enhancing the public perception that there is an independent civilian body present at the investigation and that the Independent Observer has found no risk of conflict of interest in the investigating team.
It was acknowledged by both the RCMP and the CPC that media most often choose not to publish "good news stories" such as RCMP impartiality. One media person responded when challenged informally by an RCMP media relations officer: "Why should we report when the police are doing what they are supposed to be doing? Hundreds of planes land safely at YVR every day but we don't report on that." If, in fact, this is the prevailing media view, then it is reasonable to assume that a press conference by the CPC Chair in every IOPP-engaged case would not have a significant impact on the media or the public.
A more effective approach could involve a joint RCMP-CPC "technical briefing" for the media at the outset of every high profile investigation in which the IOPP is engaged. At the inevitable press briefings that take place at the beginning of such investigations, an OISP representative and a CPC representative could explain the nature of the IOPP, how it will work in the investigation at hand, how the IOPP differs from other CPC functions, and the fact that further information (including the findings of the Independent Observer) is available on the CPC website. This relatively proactive approach to public education would link CPC/IOPP engagement directly to each investigation, thereby providing an immediate positive impact on public perceptions regarding efforts by both the RCMP and the CPC.
Both Independent Observers interviewed for this review indicated it would not be appropriate in the interest of "detachment" for an Independent Observer to brief the press. It would be more effective, both in terms of maintaining objectivity and ensuring expert messaging techniques, to have a media specialist based at the CPC office in Surrey providing the technical briefings.
While media briefings at the outset of each investigation are essential, it is equally important to ensure the media and the public are made aware of the findings of the Independent Observers in a timely manner. A commonly expressed view of interview respondents is that posting the findings on the CPC website is inadequate to convey the message. An additional strategy would involve the presence of a CPC media spokesperson at the concluding press conference when the RCMP is reporting on the results of its investigation. This would provide the opportunity for a further explanation of the IOPP and, in relation to the specific investigation at hand, the Independent Observer's findings regarding RCMP impartiality.
In addition, it will be important for the CPC to continue its relatively low-level but persistent steps in reporting to the public. As well, the more the CPC continues to enhance its own credibility through its other initiatives, the greater will be the impact of CPC statements confirming impartiality in RCMP investigations.
The view was expressed by the CPC media relations officer and CPC senior management that while the issue of "police investigating police" is still a concern for the public, the fact that the CPC and the RCMP can point to the involvement of an Independent Observer is a small step that could result in attitudinal change among the public. These respondents believe there are recent positive signs that the media is beginning to understand the role of the CPC and the IOPP, and to report on the success of the IOPP and the impartiality of RCMP investigators. A detailed media analysis, together with a public survey, is warranted in order to provide evidence for this view and to suggest further directions for CPC and RCMP media relations staff when addressing the challenge.
There are four categories assessed by the Independent Observers once they become engaged in an investigation. It must be stressed that Independent Observers do not take part in the actual investigation in any way, nor are they mandated to assess or comment on investigative procedures and techniques. Their mandate relates simply to the question of impartiality.
- Line management: Independent Observers assess potential, real or perceived conflicts of interest in management structure or reporting relationships. RCMP members and Independent Observers indicated that this is an important aspect of assessing impartiality. In only one instance, however, has an Independent Observer raised a concern. In this case the RCMP Team Commander had assigned a Corporal to interview an Inspector who had been actively involved in the incident under investigation. From the Independent Observer's perspective, there was a potential for the Corporal to be, or to be concerned about being, intimidated by the senior officer. In this situation, the Independent Observer simply raised the matter at the time with the OISP officer who, in turn, raised it with the Team Commander. The Team Commander himself said, when interviewed for this review, that he appreciated the Independent Observer raising the question in real time and that he believes this is the type of input that gives the IOPP added value.
- Level of response: Independent Observers assess whether the response is appropriate and proportionate to the gravity of the incident. Independent Observers assess whether the investigating officers have the appropriate level of seniority, training and experience to handle the particular investigation they are facing. Again, all respondents indicated that this is a reasonable factor for the Independent Observers to assess. There have not been any recommendations by Independent Observers in this regard to date.
- Timeliness of response: Independent Observers assess the timeliness of response by the investigative team. Poor response time could indicate a breakdown in impartiality on the part of the police. Respondents, including the Independent Observers, indicated that timeliness has not been an issue in the six IOPP-engaged cases thus far.
- Conduct: Conduct of the members of the investigative team must be consistent with section 37 of the RCMP Act, which requires members to adhere to a certain standard of behaviour and ethics, including impartiality, when performing any police duty. Independent Observers can comment on this, although it appears they have not observed any need to do so.
As a general observation, both RCMP officers and CPC officials believe the Independent Observers have provided competent, professional and timely observations regarding RCMP impartiality.
Respondents were asked about the effectiveness of CPC management and reporting structures and about the effectiveness of the decision-making process regarding CPC involvement in an investigation. In particular, they were asked whether these elements contribute to the effective operation of the IOPP or whether they be modified.
RCMP respondents had no concerns with these aspects of the CPC. CPC officials acknowledge that since the IOPP is a pilot project and has only been in place for one year, there has been a higher than usual level of oversight by the Chair and Vice-Chair. This has been true particularly with respect to decision-making on which cases to attend, and on matters of reporting the findings of the Independent Observers. Now that the project is established, the Chair and Vice-Chair will defer increasingly to the newly appointed Director General responsible for the operation of the project, and will take more traditional oversight and public roles, making final decisions on Independent Observer reports and getting directly involved only in certain key cases.
The Independent Observers expressed views on the management and reporting structure within the CPC. One Independent Observer said that the management approach was effective and that the lines of communication and reporting to CPC Headquarters were excellent; that he could always "go straight to the boss" (i.e. to the Director, Reviews and Investigations at the time). He had no problem with his level of authority and the role of Headquarters in that regard.
The other Independent Observer indicated that, in his case at least, there were some frustrations around the Observer's degree of independence from the CPC itself. He suggested that the Observer must make decisions and deal with issues as they arise in real time. Being "controlled" by CPC Headquarters, or having to seek advice or approval for actions he might take, was a problem for this particular Observer. The example he cited concerned the question of attendance by the Observer at all daily briefings during an investigation. According to this respondent, CPC instructed him to attend only "tailored briefings" given for his benefit by the Team Commander and not to attend daily team briefings. This Independent Observer believes that in order to do his job properly, he must attend all operational briefings. The RCMP generally holds a divergent view. One senior investigating officer indicated that daily briefings are, in effect, creative strategizing sessions. The RCMP's concern is that the presence of an Independent Observer in the sessions might stifle their creative value because investigating officers would worry about evidentiary or disclosure issues in a future court setting or other public arena. The RCMP believes it is the decisions arising from strategy sessions that are critical, not the decision-making process itself. The RCMP would also say that the Independent Observers are provided with all the information they require to assess possible bias, including the completed Impartiality Questionnaires, other relevant documents, and transcripts of witness interviews.
The Observer who expressed concern about attendance at briefings indicated he was also told by the CPC not to attend the scene of any incident because of the danger of becoming a witness. He did, however, attend a scene after it was released by the police, an opportunity offered by the Team Commander. The Observer saw his attendance at the scene as being important primarily in terms of establishing the credibility of the Independent Observer in the eyes of the RCMP. A senior investigating officer confirmed there would be no problem with the Observer attending the scene after evidence collection and documentation.2
These issues – attendance at operational briefings and attendance at the scene – suggest there is a need to establish clear guidelines regarding the nature of engagement by the Independent Observers, as well as the level of authority of the Observers in relation to CPC Headquarters.
In terms of the RCMP reporting and management structures, there appears to be no significant problem as far as the IOPP is concerned. Respondents stated unanimously that RCMP members are very responsive to the Independent Observers' requests for information. The only concern on the part of the CPC is that, in some cases, the Commanding Officer at the scene is not fully aware of the IOPP or its responsibility to report on impartiality. CPC officials say that this problem is being resolved as the project continues, a view confirmed by RCMP officers.
The issue of timeliness of engagement by Independent Observers is critical to the effective operation of the IOPP. It is essential for the Observer to be present when the Team Commander is making his/her selections of team members, a stage in the process when the question of impartiality is critical. Similarly, it is important for the Observer to be present at the first team briefing, where the known facts of the case and the investigative approach are laid out, and where tasks are assigned. The Independent Observer, together with the OISP officer, explains the mandate of the IOPP and the role of the Independent Observer at the first briefing, a task that is seen as vital by RCMP officers and the Independent Observers.
There are differing views on the timeliness of the RCMP calls to CPC Headquarters informing the CPC management that an internal investigation, possibly appropriate for IOPP engagement, is commencing. CPC officials stated there were some delays at the beginning of the project that prevented the Independent Observer from arriving onsite within the desired twenty-four hours of the incident. One Independent Observer noted that in the specific cases of Vancouver International Airport, Penticton and Burnaby, the calls were made the day following the incident. (The same Observer said that Chilliwack was an example of a very timely notification – "the way it's supposed to work.") CPC officials said this matter appears to have been resolved as more Team Commanders have become aware of the role of the CPC and their obligation to ensure the CPC is informed through "E" Division senior management. For its part, "E" Division senior management now have a protocol in place whereby the Deputy Criminal Operations Officer (Contract) is the individual responsible for making the call to the Senior Director, Operations in Ottawa. It has also been acknowledged by all parties that the call should be made at any time of day or night, as time is of the essence.
It was agreed by all respondents that the CPC response to an incident is always timely. Decisions as to whether to engage are made quickly and the Independent Observer is contacted immediately. For their part, the Independent Observers have always responded quickly in terms of making travel arrangements and getting to the site. In some cases this has been facilitated with the assistance of the OISP officer.
With respect to the question of protocols between the RCMP and the CPC regarding the operation of the IOPP, it is fair to say that the Independent Observers and the RCMP officers who have worked together have generally found the process to work well. In large part, this is thanks to the role played by the RCMP's Office of Investigative Standards and Practices in "E" Division. The OISP officer assigned to a case where the IOPP is engaged acts as liaison between the Independent Observer and the investigating team. The OISP officer performs a number of functions:
- meets with the Independent Observer prior to arrival at the site and provides an initial briefing;
- travels with the Observer if required;
- introduces the Observer to the Team Commander and other members (potential and actual) of the investigating team;
- explains (i) the rationale and mandate of the CPC and the IOPP to the Team Commander and other members, (ii) how the Observer will carry out his duties, and (iii) how the members of the investigating team are to cooperate with the Observer (e.g. regarding information requests);
- is the first to hear concerns regarding impartiality that might be raised by the Observer;
- relays those concerns to the Team Commander or other officers as appropriate;
- ensures that the Observer has access to the information he requires to fulfill his mandate; and
- undertakes other liaison tasks as may be required to ensure the smooth operation of IOPP engagement.
All respondents said the role of the OISP officer has helped to ensure an effective IOPP engagement in the six IOPP-engaged cases thus far.
A concern was raised about the Independent Observers and OISP officers travelling together in RCMP vehicles. This could be perceived by the media or members of the public as indicative of a less than independent relationship, although it clearly facilitates the process whereby the Independent Observers do their jobs. This is a point that bears discussion by the CPC and the RCMP, and possible inclusion in a joint protocol or set of guidelines.
All respondents confirmed that the Independent Observers had full access to the information they required to fulfill their mandates. Documents, transcripts and tapes of witness interviews, Impartiality Questionnaires (see below), and other relevant materials were consistently supplied to the Independent Observers in a timely manner. Again, the OISP officer was usually involved in facilitating the provision of the requested materials.
Another, more conceptual issue arose in the interviews conducted for this review. That issue relates to the definition of "impartiality". There was some concern expressed by RCMP members, and seconded to a degree by the Independent Observers, that there is no common understanding of the standard that is being applied to the concept of impartiality. It appears that in some cases, at least, the IOPP may be employing a higher standard than that understood and typically applied by the RCMP. Two examples arose regularly in interviews with RCMP officers wherein the Observer had raised the possibility of bias of a potential team member based on an early brief and very informal meeting between a potential investigator and the member being investigated. The RCMP's concern – recognized clearly by the Independent Observers – is that there are practical realities that must be accommodated when selecting members of an investigating team. From the RCMP's perspective, while it is essential to have impartiality among team members, it is also the case that: (i) the number of officers in "E" Division who can take the time from other duties to do an investigation is limited; (ii) the number of available officers who are trained in major crime investigations is also limited; and (iii) finding, vetting and transporting officers from other parts of the division in a timely manner can be a problem. Thus, while high standards of impartiality are valid and necessary, practical realities must also be taken into account and the standard not so stringent that it compromises the effectiveness of investigations.
This matter – the definition of impartiality – should be discussed between OISP and CPC officials. It was suggested by the Officer in Charge of OISP that broad parameters might work most effectively; a flexible protocol as opposed to policy. It was suggested that this protocol should be drafted jointly by CPC and the RCMP, and shared with the public in the interest of transparency. The agreement on such a protocol may be of particular significance if a case goes to inquest or, more importantly, to trial.
A significant innovation has been the design and use of the "Impartiality Questionnaire" now employed by all Team Commanders in "E" Division when considering officers for membership on investigative teams. The questionnaire asks each potential team member about past or current relationships or dealings with the officer(s) under investigation. Such relationships or dealings would include work, social or other situations, and would cover similar relations between family members such as spouses. The questionnaires also provide the applicants with the opportunity to detail their qualifications and experience relevant to the investigation at hand. RCMP officers, including Team Commanders, see the Impartiality Questionnaire as providing hard evidence for the files that impartiality was an important consideration in the selection of the investigating team. It forces the Team Commander and investigators generally to be particularly aware of impartiality issues and, again, provides some degree of safeguard if the matter goes to inquest or court.
In view of the value of the Impartiality Questionnaire, the RCMP should consider implementing this tool in all divisions across the country, regardless of the presence of the IOPP. It should be a standard part of Major Case Management training and operational directives.
The final operational factor addressed in this review was the IOPP budget. Both Independent Observers indicated that their travel and work were adequately covered. CPC senior management noted that they believe the budget to have been adequate to date. However, the CPC has only been tracking the direct costs of IOPP involvement; i.e. travel, Observer fees, etc. The "softer" costs – the internal costs of CPC time and the costs to the RCMP – have not been tracked, although managers acknowledge the need to detail all costs if the program is to be ongoing or expanded. For their part, RCMP senior management say the cost of engaging the OISP officers is not known precisely, but is a cost-effective use of the officers' time. For the RCMP, the benefits of OISP and IOPP engagement outweigh the costs.
At the beginning of the IOPP, there was some lack of clarity on the part of the RCMP regarding the mandate, purpose and role of the Independent Observers. Initially, for example, there were concerns by some RCMP officers at the investigation site that the Independent Observer was intending to extend his observations beyond questions of impartiality to assessing the quality of the investigation or the facts of the case. Independent Observers, CPC management and RCMP all indicate that this situation has improved, as officers have been more clearly informed at the outset of an investigation regarding the reasons for the presence of the Observer. Improvements are partly thanks to the involvement of the OISP officer, who introduces the Observer and explains his role. As well, Independent Observers say the sooner they can arrive at the investigation, particularly to take part in the first briefing, the better the understanding and cooperation by police.
The qualifications and experience of the Independent Observers is an important question. Respondents all agreed that the Observers thus far have been well suited to their responsibilities, although it was stressed that the Observers must continue to be very familiar with police investigations, specifically with major crime investigations. RCMP officers have made themselves available at CPC Headquarters and in Surrey to instruct potential Independent Observers on techniques of major crime investigation. The CPC has taken advantage of these offers and, as suggested by the RCMP and the Independent Observers, should continue to do so.
In the case of the two Independent Observers active to date, one is a retired police officer and the other a lawyer familiar with investigations. RCMP officers interviewed for this review were very positive about the abilities of the two Observers. The Officer in Charge of OISP confirmed the views of other officers that the Observers have been clear and forthright in explaining their mandates, and clear in terms of not overstepping their roles. In one case, an Observer was asked a question concerning the investigation itself; however, he explained immediately his inability to comment. RCMP officers also appreciate the fact that if the Independent Observers see something of concern, they raise it immediately with the attending OISP officer. The police want to know right away if they are engaging in bias, real or perceived. This immediate communication has happened on several occasions; e.g. Chilliwack, Vernon and Vancouver International Airport. (On one of those occasions, the Observer spoke immediately with the OISP officer and also contacted CPC Headquarters for confirmation of his position.)
One of the Observers stated that all Observers should, ideally, be lawyers. His reasoning is that only a legally trained Observer will understand the legal technicalities of police work, investigative techniques, and the implications of possible court related follow-up such as inquests and criminal or civil cases. While the CPC may not decide to contract with lawyers only, maintaining high standards among the Independent Observers is essential. High standards translate into credibility in the eyes of the RCMP, as well as into the ability to perform the Observer's tasks efficiently and effectively.
The CPC should develop clear qualification and hiring guidelines prior to engaging future Independent Observers. The guidelines should be posted on the CPC website.
As noted above, the RCMP accommodates the operational needs of the Independent Observers in a manner that enables the Observers to fulfill their roles effectively. Both active Observers indicate they have always received absolute cooperation from RCMP officers at the investigation sites and that information requested has always been provided. The effective relations between Observers and investigators are enabled largely by the liaison role played by OISP officers.
The security of documents or other forms of information shared with the Independent Observers was an issue in only one instance at the beginning of the IOPP when a Team Commander expressed concern about material handed to the Observer. However, the issue was resolved quickly by mutual agreement that the Observer would either keep the documents in a secure setting or would look at the documents on site. The question may have been further alleviated as Commanders learn more about the IOPP.
A concern expressed by some RCMP officers, both in OISP and at the district level, is that Team Commanders are not getting the feedback they expect from the CPC. Commanders want timely closure on the question of impartiality, either pointing out problems and how to resolve them, or simply that there were no issues of impartiality in the investigation. One Team Commander said he expected feedback in the form of lessons learned or best practices. There appears to be a general lack of awareness at the detachment and district levels that the CPC publishes the results of investigations on its website, although officers who are aware of the website believe there should be something more than the brief Web report.
The issue of feedback raises several questions. First, officers at all levels should be aware of the IOPP and the fact that Independent Observers' findings are published on the CPC website. Second, the responsibility for providing feedback to Team Commanders should be clarified. To date, "E" Division Headquarters has assumed this responsibility; however, several officers said they had not seen reports from Headquarters following the work of the Independent Observer. These are questions that should be addressed in discussions between "E" Division and the CPC, and the decisions incorporated in a protocol. One strategy would involve the CPC providing a brief report regarding the existence or non-existence of impartiality directly to Team Commanders immediately upon completion of the Independent Observer's work. The Independent Observer's more detailed report covering his/her engagement in the investigation and his/her conclusions could be provided to "E" Division Headquarters which, in turn, would pass the information to the Team Commander in a timely manner.
Media relations is an area where both CPC and the RCMP indicate improvements are needed. Again, the general concern is that the message of CPC involvement in assessing RCMP impartiality is not having the intended impact on the public. (This assessment is made by respondents without the benefit of a public survey on which to base their views.) Respondents all acknowledged the challenge of working with the media who, as one RCMP media relations officer put it, "see the role of the media as 'exposing' issues in order to protect the public" rather than reporting on positive stories about the IOPP and about RCMP impartiality.
Both the CPC and the RCMP have concerns about the role played by the other regarding media. CPC management say the level of coordination between the two organizations needs to improve. The CPC sees itself as taking the initiative in contacting the RCMP to develop information for the media. On the other hand, RCMP media relations officers believe they are often left to explain the CPC to the media on behalf of the CPC. They say a CPC spokesperson is needed in British Columbia. Further dialogue is warranted regarding respective roles and responsibilities vis-à-vis the media.
There is an argument to be made for the joint design of a CPC-RCMP protocol to cover issues such as: the qualifications of Independent Observers; the role of OISP officers; the working relations between Independent Observers and OISP officers (e.g. the use of RCMP vehicles); the responsibility of RCMP officers, including Team Commanders, to accommodate the Independent Observers; the means to ensure documents and other materials are secure; the responsibilities and coordination with respect to media relations; and some definition of the concept of impartiality.
In addition, the CPC and the RCMP should jointly develop and deliver an IOPP briefing package to all "E" Division Team Commanders and Investigators. This package would include the background and purpose of the IOPP, as well as the protocol.
Respondents generally indicated support for the continuation of the Independent Observer program in "E" Division. Several respondents added the caveat that both the CPC and the RCMP are not doing enough to get the important messages out to the public: (i) the presence of an Independent Observer at internal investigations, and (ii) the fact that the RCMP is doing a good job with respect to impartiality. A more proactive approach is seen to be needed, as noted in section 6.1, above. On the other hand, several respondents also stated that since the beginning of the IOPP, investigating officers have become more aware of the possibility of real bias and the appearance of bias. This, in itself, is acknowledged to be a significant benefit of the program and worth its continuation.
The question as to whether the IOPP should be extended to other divisions is less clear and several questions would require investigation. First, "E" Division is the only division with an OISP unit of more than one person. In view of the importance of OISP in facilitating the work of the Independent Observers, it would be a challenge to operate the program in those other divisions.
Second, as CPC managers pointed out, certain provincial jurisdictions such as Alberta already have a police oversight capability and would not likely wish to be involved with the IOPP. As well, RCMP divisions themselves may differ with respect to their openness to IOPP involvement.
Third, it would be essential for the CPC to engage highly qualified individuals as Independent Observers in the other jurisdictions. A formalized standard of experience and qualifications would be required, something that does not currently exist. Independent Observers assigned to other parts of the country would have to be able to respond immediately to a call-out, and so would likely be required to reside in each IOPP jurisdiction.
These questions should be explored jointly in discussions between the CPC, RCMP divisions and provincial governments across the country. In view of the value of the IOPP in British Columbia, the exploration of its establishment in other jurisdictions is warranted.
Based on the findings presented above, the following recommendations are offered for consideration.
- The CPC should seek approvals to extend the IOPP in "E" Division on an ongoing basis.
- The CPC and the RCMP should jointly discuss and clarify the following elements of vital importance to the effectiveness of the IOPP and IOPP-RCMP collaboration:
- a definition of the concept of impartiality;
- the qualifications of Independent Observers (specifically, whether the Observers should have legal training and training in major crimes investigation);
- the precise role of Independent Observers;
- the precise role of OISP officers in IOPP-engaged investigations;
- the working relations between Independent Observers and OISP officers (e.g. the use of RCMP vehicles);
- the timeliness of calls to the CPC by "E" Division in the event of an internal investigation;
- the responsibility of RCMP officers, including Team Commanders, to accommodate the Independent Observers;
- means to ensure documents and other materials handed to Independent Observers are secure;
- feedback by the Independent Observers to the Team Commanders either to discuss issues of concern, or to give closure to IOPP involvement by noting the absence of impartiality; and
- respective CPC-RCMP responsibilities and coordination regarding media.
- Discussion of the items listed above should result in a protocol between the CPC and "E" Division. This need not be a formalized policy, but a relatively flexible set of guidelines that enhances the work of the Independent Observers and the RCMP.
- The CPC and the RCMP should jointly develop and deliver an IOPP briefing package to all certified "E" Division Team Commanders and investigators.
- The CPC should consider taking a more proactive approach to getting the message to the media and the public that Independent Observers are engaged in observing RCMP internal investigations in British Columbia. This could involve technical briefings for the press (by an OISP officer and a CPC media relations officer) at the beginning of any high profile investigation by the RCMP, and a statement to the press by the CPC media relations officer at the close of any investigation.
- The CPC should hire a media relations specialist to be based in the Surrey office.
- The CPC should maintain its policy of non-attendance by the Independent Observer at daily team briefings. For its part, the RCMP should continue its practice of holding special briefings for the Independent Observers. These positions should be confirmed in CPC-RCMP discussions and the agreed position built into the protocol noted above.
- The CPC should reassess its policy of non-attendance by the Independent Observer at the scene of the incident once the scene has been cleared by police. This issue should be discussed with the RCMP and the agreed position built into the protocol noted above.
- The CPC should identify its precise program costs, including the internal costs of CPC time. The RCMP should do the same with regard to the involvement of OISP officers once the precise role of OISP officers has been established (see recommendation no. 2).
- The RCMP should consider the use of the Impartiality Questionnaire in all divisions across the country, regardless of the presence of the IOPP, and should include it as a standard part of Major Case Management training and operational directives.
- The CPC should consider undertaking a detailed media analysis and a limited public survey with respect to media/public awareness and views of the CPC, the IOPP and RCMP impartiality. The results would be informative regarding the CPC aim to improve public attitudes toward RCMP investigative practices and the role of the CPC/IOPP.
- The CPC should investigate the feasibility of establishing the IOPP in other divisions on a pilot project basis. This investigation should be done cooperatively with individual RCMP divisional headquarters and individual provincial governments.
1 Objectives are quoted from a public information release published on the CPC website on March 21, 2007.
2 CPC Headquarters maintains it is not necessary for the Observers to attend the scene in order to do their jobs. The other Observer interviewed for this review agreed with the Headquarters' position.
Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP
Paul E. Kennedy
Chair
Brooke McNabb
Vice-Chair
Robert Falla
Senior Reviewer/Analyst
Nelson Kalil
Communications Manager
Independent Observers
Richard Grounds (former Independent Observer)
Mill Bay, B.C.
Larry Smith
CPC Office
Burnaby, B.C.
Rick Stevens
CPC Office
Burnaby, B.C.
(Mr. Stevens is a CPC Analyst.)
RCMP – "E" Division
Gary Bass
Deputy Commissioner, Pacific Region and Commanding Officer
"E" Division
Byron Boucher
Superintendent
Assistant Deputy Criminal Operations Officer (Contract)
Dale Carr
Corporal
Media Spokesperson
Integrated Homicide Investigation Team
Brendan Fitzpatrick
Inspector
Operations Officer
Major Crimes Section
Sam Ghadban
Corporal
Major Crimes Unit
Southeast District Headquarters
Kathy Hartwig
Sergeant
Office of Investigative Standards and Practices
Randy Hundt
Staff Sergeant
Serious Crime Unit
Major Crimes Section
Peter Jadis
Sergeant
Office of Investigative Standards and Practices
Pierre Lemaitre
Sergeant
Strategic Communications Section
Al Macintyre
Assistant Commissioner
Office in Charge, Criminal Operations
Kevin MacLeod
Inspector
Office of Investigative Standards and Practices
Steve McVarnock
Inspector
Officer in Charge
Vernon/North Okanagan Detachment
Atoya Montague
Civilian Member
Strategic Communications Section
Operations Strategy Branch
Tom Robertson
Staff Sergeant
NCO i/c, Major Crime Unit
Southeast District Headquarters
Matt Toews
Sergeant
Serious Crime Unit
Major Crimes Section
Respondents Providing Additional Comments
Wade Lymburner
Inspector
Major Case Management
"E" Division Integrated Proceeds of Crime Section
RCMP
Michael MacDonald
Director
Strategic Policy and Research
Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP
Wayne Rideout
Superintendent
Operations Officer
Surry Detachment
RCMP