Crime & Punishment

Crime and justice comment and analysis

Posts Tagged ‘corruption

Were the YVR Mounties scapegoated for political reasons?

with 3 comments

The more time I spend looking into the case of the four RCMP officers who responded to a call to YVR in October, 2007 which resulted in the tragic death of Robert Dziekanski, the more it appears they were railroaded, or scapegoated if you will.

The YVR four have been put through the ringer in this, pawns in a political game of blame, cultural ass-covering by their employer, the RCMP, and ultimately had their lives changed utterly and their careers effectively ruined. And two of them still face perjury convictions that are at best, a flight of fancy. Yet, all they did to deserve this was their job.

Regular readers will know that I have said publicly that they responded according to the way they were trained. The question then becomes “why?”

The mess started with then Media Liaison Officer (MLO) Sgt. Pierre Lemaitre released information which contained some factual errors and extrapolations or assumptions he should not have said.

The problem is not specifically with some inaccurate information in the ‘fog of war’ and all that, provided to Lemaitre in his initial briefing. That can be corrected as more information came to light as the investigation progressed. The problem was that the RCMP knew at the time that it was inaccurate and stood mute. They then exacerbated the problem when the officer in charge of the section responsible for the investigation, the Integrated Homicide Investigation Team (IHIT), Wayne Rideout, made a conscious decision not to correct the public record. That decision made it appear as though the RCMP had engaged in a cover-up with the release of the now infamous Pritchard video.

This, coupled with the public outrage over yet another death resulting from the use of a Taser, supposedly a non-lethal use of force, triggered the political knee-jerk that became the immensely expensive Braidwood Inquiry which led to another review by the Commission for Public Complaints (CPC) against the RCMP, which was also flawed, and ultimately to the formation of the Independent Investigations Office (IIO). Talk about a bad decision.

Now, I would never presume to understand the RCMP’s media relations strategy, but having had a foot in both camps over the course of my career I do come at this with a little knowledge. Had the RCMP come out at the time and said, “We’re sorry, but our MLO was given initial information which was later found to contain factual errors.  We strive to be as accurate as possible but in rapidly unfolding investigations this sort of thing does occur from time to time and was in no way the fault of Sgt. Lemaitre.” and gone on from there, the matter would have died in the news cycle of a day or two.

But they didn’t. And then, in the wake of the flawed Braidwood Inquiry report and the report made with great fanfare by Paul Kennedy, Chair of the CPC, the then-Commissioner of the RCMP, the bombastic bureaucrat, William Elliott, doubled down.

He conceived of a strategy that the Force would provide “Operational Guidance” to each of the four members blaming them for essentially, acting too quickly. The “discipline” isn’t that actually. It came in the guise of Form 1004’s which are designed to be “at the time” opportunities for supervisors to provide guidance to subordinate officers. You know the sort of thing where a direct supervisor says “That might have been handled better if you had. . . “ The RCMP policy says: “All entries on form 1004 are considered official notes. Each entry must be discussed with the member at the time or the incident and the member should be requested to initial and date the entry.”

They are to be kept on the member’s file for a period of two years. Unfortunately, Elliott waited for 37 months to provide “at the time guidance.”

The first drafts of the 1004’s were even back-dated to 2007-10-14, the date of the incident at YVR. The one that actually was served on the members was dated 2010-11-26. I have seen copies of both.

The document was grieved by two of the four members and an Early Resolution (ER) discussion determined that the forms should be removed from all the members’ files.

But, what this was really all about was scapegoating the four so that the RCMP could say publicly they were “disciplined.”

They had a set schedule, everything timed to a fare-thee-well complete with talking points all set by Elliott. The brass at “E“ Division all smartly saluted and did their parts, emailing draft documents back and forth, making revisions, suggesting changes, but at the end, Elliott got his way and no one spared a thought, officially and publicly, for the four members at the sharp end.

I have seen many, if not most of the email traffic, the timing schedule and the talking points memo labelled, “Q&As on Discipline in the YVR Case.”

This went on for months and God knows how many hours of very expensive persons’ time to give the Commissioner the ability to use the word “discipline” in relation to the four members who responded to the  violent actions of Dziekanski.

And the worst of it is even though the 1004’s were wrong-headed, they are not supposed to be used for “discipline,” but for guidance. And the senior members of the RCMP knew that info contained within the 1004’s was just plain wrong.

An email exchange took place on November 26, the date on the final 1004, between Assistant Commissioner Peter German, then the Lower Mainland Commander and Staff Sergeant Mike Ingles, the Staff Relations Representative. Says German, “Good talking to you Mike. Attached are the draft 1004’s…plse get back to me re your wishes. As indicated, I hope to have the final versions on Monday for service on Tuesday….tx…pete.”

Ingles replied, “Peter, I’m not going to get into the merit of a 1004, that is the right of the organization to provide guidance that is misguided. What these members can’t accept is statements that if they accept become integrity issues. (sic) They didn’t meet privately with anyone. They were in police buildings in full view of everyone from start to finish. They didn’t discuss or fabricate notes, statements, or anything resembling that. I would like to be a part of helping to conclude this, but there is no way these will be accepted. What you had in June was what was appropriate for a 1004: guidance. These are a media release consistent with Braidwood’s report. Everyone in policing knows that the response was not as good as it needed to be, including the members involved no doubt, but that it was a response within the parameters of training.” 

Then there’s this. In an email addressed to many of the the senior RCMP management in BC of the day, including Gary Bass, then the Commanding Officer of BC, A/Comm. Darrell Madill, then in charge of Contract and Aboriginal Policing (CAP), said: “Good evening Peter (German), as discussed with the Commr I have prepared the 1004’s and attached them for you.”

“The only changes to the 1004’s from those provided by the Commissioner for our joint review the other day were the following:

  1. I amended the date to 2010-11-26 for each 1004
  2. I amended the last line in the first paragraph after the list of “deficiencies” in each 1004 to read “”It is critically important for the RCMP as a whole, other members and you an an individual to learn from mistakes and shortcomings and to make appropriate statements.” and
  3. In the Robinson 1004 “duty of care” for Mr. Dziekanski was referenced in the last line of both the 2nd last and last paragraph of the last page. I removed the second reference in the last paragraph so the repetition was eliminated.

Call if you have any questions.


(So, an Assistant Commissioner is admitting that the RCMP was going to back-date an official document and he decided not to at the last minute and they were all, up to that point, going along with it? Isn’t falsifying an official document illegal?)

To which Bass replied copying German and the Commissioner Elliott, “As discussed in our telecom I have been in touch with the POBC (The Government of the Province of British Columbia) and they are fully briefed. In discussion on the issue of “failures at several levels”, they agreed and added that the POBC could be added to that list, that the fact that policy was inadequate was everyone’s responsibility. I add this as I think it further strengthens my suggestion that a re-ordering of the various documents, as discussed, would be beneficial.

I am enroute (sic) Ottawa this AM for a meeting and will be back in BC tonight.


One might ask what in the world the wording of Elliot’s “discipline” has to do with the provincial government? One might. But clearly this whole thing was a sop to the government and conceived by Elliott.

Why then? Well, there was the matter of the multi-billion dollar policing contract that was due to expire in two years and the fact that the government had served notice on the RCMP that they intended to have the RCMP fall under the BC Police Act in any new contract negotiations, which I might add, incensed Elliott .

Is that what this is all about? Is that why these four police officers were put through the meat grinder when they were just doing their jobs? To ensure the government was happy so the RCMP would keep their contract?

It seems to me they define the word scapegoat.


Leo Knight


Written by Leo Knight

June 21, 2015 at 2:55 am

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Favours for political donations is corruption

with 2 comments

Reaction to my column this week in 24 Hours because of the NDP’s intention to give one last big favour to the unions in return for their being the largest donors to the NDP incensed some, all of whom are pro-union and anti-business.


Fair enough. I suppose that was predictable. But their aim was off with their pointed shots and rhetorical diatribe. In the first instance, it is the recycling of taxpayer dollars to government coffers, to government workers wages, to union dues to NDP donations that at best creates a conflict of interest so large you could fly a 747 through it. At worst it lends itself to a quasi-legal version of the corruption we are seeing played out in the findings of the Charbonneau Commission in Quebec.


In the second instance no comparison was made to somehow say business contributions were good but union contributions were bad. I said the NDP platform released two weeks ago contained a sop to the unions that was nothing more than reward for their loyalty and contributions – card check.


Card check is the term for the elimination of the secret ballot in an organization attempt for a union and in my view this will cost all of us a lot of money if the NDP get a majority and try and ram this through.


A version of card check used to be the norm in Canada, but more enlightened governments through the 80’s and 90’s brought in the secret ballot so that all affected workers could have a vote to say yes or no to the union’s application to organize a bargaining unit.


In a great leap of mental gymnastics, the unions say that one person, one vote is somehow not democratic. The reality is that a majority of Canadians want nothing to do with the shackles of a union and would never vote for a system that wants to create a universal system of mediocrity and support for progressive causes which by definition are nothing but.


Consider the case in Waterloo, Ontario last December when two activist type municipal workers were dispatched on a Saturday to build a shed behind a city building. With all the rest of their colleagues enjoying their weekend, they signed cards to join the Carpenters’ union which because Waterloo Regional Municipality allowed card check, certified them and all of their colleagues as members of that new bargaining unit. And the kicker is that they were already members of another union these two didn’t think were active enough.  (Here’s the story:


So much for card check being democratic when the rights of two, simply because they were the only ones at the “workplace” that day, could affect the whole group. Whatever happened to Solidarity Forever? 


Card check is the antithesis of what is democratic and is exactly why the unions want it and exactly why this is wrong. The taxpayers of Waterloo are being held ransom to pay what could be an additional $20 million for the shed.


I have issues with of the misuse of taxpayer dollars at all levels. The donation of union dues taken from public sector workers, paid by tax dollars, and then given to the NDP is just one of those issues.


Corporate donations given to parties who are in a position to award contracts is also anathema to what is good for the taxpayer as evidenced in the Charbonneau inquiry. And is especially made more so when one adds organized crime into that equation.


As are donations by organizations in expectation of tax subsidies or other benefits. It all contributes to the corruption of our political system and costs all of us much more money that we need be paying for the functions of government.


I don’t have any issue with the NDP saying they are going to eliminate union and corporate political donations. In fact, I wish them good luck with that. The problem is that it is very difficult to police. 


Again, I point to the Charbonneau Commission as evidence of that. Suppose I am a family member of a highly placed union or company executive who wants to give money 

to a particular party or candidate. I donate $1,000 or whatever the individual contribution level is set at and my family member repays me for that donation. I am not out a cent. But I also get a tax-deductible receipt from the party for my efforts and will get a cheque from the government for somewhere between $300-$500 depending on my income level. The line-up to play along would be miles long.


This is especially more likely on the union side because they are not susceptible to things like annual CCRA audits or annual reports to shareholders. 


They technically have to report to their members how money was spent but with a line item marked ‘political activities’ they can hide all manner of mis-deeds.


Card check is wrong. Donations to political parties by public sector unions is especially wrong. Any donation for a favour in kind is also wrong regardless of political stripe.


That is called corruption.




Leo Knight




Written by Leo Knight

May 2, 2013 at 10:36 am

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged with , ,