Just recently I had a chance to read an interim report from the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, entitled: Commissions Interim Report Following a Public Interest Investigation into the Complaint of Garry Kerr. The report is like most of its ilk, long drawn out, detailed, and in the end one is left wondering what good ever comes of it. One must also remember that all the Commission is empowered to do when given a public complaint is to make “recommendations” that “focus on steps that the RCMP can take to improve or correct conduct by RCMP members”. Whether those recommendations are enacted is another story.

The facts of this particular case are pretty convoluted. In 2004 and 2005 two members of Prince George Detachment were suspended with pay and were made subjects of the RCMP internal investigation process.

The two members in Prince George were alleged to have been involved in a sexual assault(s) of underaged sex-trade workers in Prince George in the the 1990’s and 2000. Judge Ramsay of Prince George during this same time period, in a very public case, was implicated as well and eventually convicted and given a 7 year sentence. One of the witnesses to Judge Ramsay was also a witness against the Prince George members but she died in hospital sometime later. Neither member confessed to misconduct, and none were charged criminally. (This report is Protected A information– and since neither member were found guilty of any wrong-doing their names have been excluded here)

One of the members implicated was served notice of the suspension and married Cst Lisa MacKenzie (Cst MacKenzie has been the subject of many media reports) in late 2004 and subsequent to that both were later transferred to Kamloops Detachment. In March 2005 the member married to Cst MacKenzie was suspended with pay pending the investigation. By May 2005 Lisa and her husband had separated and would eventually divorce.

In January 2006 Constable MacKenzie allegedly informed S/Sgt Bill Goughnour of Kamloops detachment of five or six videotapes she claimed to show evidence in the case that she had found in her house. She claimed that Goughnour told her to “hide them” and to tell “no one” about them. A mere few days later, she said that her house was entered by her ex-husband and the videotapes went missing. She complained to Inspector Lacasse on January 24, 2006 about her ex-husband “breaking into” her house. She was then interviewed by Sgt Dale Einarson later that day. For some reason during that interview she never mentioned the tapes. The break-in was eventually deemed to be civil when reviewed by the local Crown counsel and no charges were layed.

Five years later on May 5, 2011 in a completely separate matter S/Sgt Kerr and “others” at the Kamloops Detachment had complained about management in particular focused against Inspector Yves Lacasse. Deputy Commissioner Peter Hourihan, the Commanding Officer of E Division ordered a “Directed Review of the Detachment” . The review was to be “managed” by C/Supt Rick Taylor, who was to be assisted by Inspector Nazaroff and a “small administrative team”.

Cst MacKenzie in the first week of June is interviewed with reference to the management complaint. She did talk about her husband “breaking into” her house, and having told Insp. Lacasse about it, but again, did not mention the videotapes.

On June 11th, 2011 she tells the story to S/Sgt Kerr who agrees to take the matter forward on her behalf in parallel with his general complaint about RCMP management in Kamloops.

So Kerr then contacted Assistant Commissioner Craig Callens by email that night. Callens agrees that the allegations were “serious” and relays the complaint to C/Supt Taylor and “other senior members”; including Acting Chief Superintendent Kevin De’Bruyckere who was the Employee Management Relations Officer in Charge of “Development and Resourcing in Human Resources. Also notifed was Supt. Stephen Lee, who was the Acting Southeast District Officer for E Division. Callens, De’Bruyckere and Taylor then came to a monumental decision that Constable MacKenzie “needed to be interviewed”.

And the ball keeps rolling down the upside down pyramid.

On June 14, 2011 Sgt Lisa Fossum of the Professional Standards Unit was assigned to conduct the interview. She reported back that MacKenzie was “not co-operative,” and made no further attempts to interview her. However, on December 7th, 2011 both Kerr and MacKenzie were interviewed after persistence by Kerr, and having drawn on another senior colleague, Inspector Tony Hamori of K Division. By this time Chief Supt Mike Sekela had taken over as E Division South East District Officer. Again at Kerr’s urging, De’Bruyckere arranged for Inspector Ward Lymburner from E Division Major Crime to interview MacKenzie and Kerr. In 2012 De’Bruychere reviews the “non-relevant video” and declares it to be not relevant. There is no evidence that he reviewed the interview of Cst MacKenzie. (It was good that it was not relevant because the RCMP received the tape, but then later lost it, or “misplaced it”.)

Kerr retires in March 2012. He had not heard of what happened in the investigation and waited to January 2015 to write to RCMP Commissioner Robert Paulson. Paulson then re-directs it back to Craig Callens, who in turn delegates it to Chief Supt. Darren Lench. Lench meets with Kerr twice but does not go into details about the breadth of the investigation. Kerr later gets a letter from Callens, saying in essence, don’t worry about it, it’s all good, no charges were indicated.

So Kerr launches a public complaint on August 11, 2016 to bring the whole thing back full circle. He charged that there was an insufficient investigation and that the RCMP failed to charge the members and that throughout he was not informed of the RCMP’s response to it.

The Chairperson of the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission notified the Commissioner of the RCMP on December 16, 2016 that the Commission would be conducting a public interest investigation which of course eventually led to this report. It is interesting to see that they sent to RCMP management a disclosure request for all the relevant materials. They got some materials that December, but then felt it necessary to put in five further requests all the way up to March 2018. The Commission then conducted a number of interviews through 2017. In 2018 they had granted the retired “subject” members an opportunity to provide further information or a response. They finally received the end of those submissions in the Fall of 2018.

What resulted from these high-level inquiries as determined by the Commission in terms of Recommendations?

“That E Division engage a review forthwith to ensure that, whenever internal investigations of criminal conduct by RCMP members are made, reasonable case management practises are implemented without delay, including but not limited to:

a) File number assignment

b) Clear responsibility tasking in writing

c) assurance that responsibility tasking is known by all members assigned to the file…..”

Thats right, this illustrious group of senior executives given the investigation never thought it necessary to open a file and track responsibility for the investigation even though a two minute member knows you need a file number, and you get a diary date.

This case is the perfect study of how RCMP senior ranks kill any legitimate inquiry into policies and practises. They wear it down, they obfuscate, and then they delay. They point the would be inquirer down through the layers and layers of meaningless bureaucratic offices thus ensuring that one is never responsible. For those keeping track, there were seventeen individuals involved in this twelve year odyssey. Thirteen officers of the RCMP above the rank of Inspector, which included two Commissioners, a Deputy Commissioner, three Chief Superintendents, four Inspectors and a “small Admin team.”

In the recommendations of this interim report, the RCMP is asked to provide “a written apology” to S/Sgt Kerr… and that C/Supt De’Bruyckere learn better evidence “handling practices and RCMP policy on exhibit handling”. Of course, that was only a recommendation.

Photo Courtesy of Flickr Commons by Christian Schnettelker – Some rights reserved