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