End of the RCMP?
HALIFAX — Though flawed from the very beginning, the public inquiry into Canada’s deadliest mass shooting has demonstrated that the RCMP days in this province are likely numbered, says a Nova Scotia lawyer.
“I think we’re witnessing the beginning of the end of the RCMP in Nova Scotia,” said Adam Rodgers, who’s been following the Mass Casualty Commission from the beginning and providing regular commentary online.
“Many things have added up to the point that I think Nova Scotians are not sure that this agency is the right agency to be policing Nova Scotia."
Rodgers is quick to point out that there are many great individual officers that behaved heroically and admirably during the unprecedented tragedy, but he says that’s not the issue.
“The issue is the structure and the culture of the RCMP seems to be a problem.”
TRUST KEY
One of the key issues is trust, said Rodgers. What’s emerged during the public inquiry is a rationale for why a public alert was never issued during the gunman’s rampage.
One explanation is that senior RCMP officers were worried that a public alert could have put officers at serious risk by causing “frantic panic.”
"That shows a mistrust of the public, said Rodgers. "They didn’t know how citizens would have behaved. That shows that they didn’t trust us.
"They don’t acknowledge very clear mistakes that they’ve made they don’t seem to acknowledge that they need to improve in some regard."
Rodgers, who was involved in the recent Desmond Fatality Inquiry, says the commission proceedings have unfolded very differently than the fact finding process in which he was involved.
The Desmond Inquiry was truly independent and the MCC is not, he says. For starters, Rodgers points out that the judge overseeing the Desmond inquiry was appointed by the chief judge of the Provincial Court of Nova Scotia. The MCC is a joint federal, provincial inquiry. Both of which selected the three commissioners overseeing it.
“It’s not designed to be independent. The Desmond inquiry was independently appointed and had complete independence on how to operate the inquiry.
“There was no way to cancel or amend that inquiry once it was started and that was by design.”
WITNESSES DETERMINED DIFFERENTLY
Another notable difference between the two probes is that in the case of the Desomnd inquiry witnesses were determined beforehand and were directly crossexamined.
With the mass shooting inquiry lawyers for the families of the victims must submit their questions first. Those questions must be approved by consensus by the other participating lawyers, including those representing the RCMP and the commission, as well as commissioners themselves.
“If an area is not agreed upon, or the commissioners don’t agree with it, it’s not allowed,” said Rodgers.
Lawyers for the families have been limited in the amount of time to cross examine witnesses. Lawyers of Patterson Law, the firm representing most of the families of the victims, have pushed hard for key senior officers involved in the Portapique shooting to appear as witnesses at the inquiry. They include Brian Rehill, Addie MacCallum, Steve Halliday, Sgt. Andy O’Brien; incident commander Staff Sgt. Jeff West; and Cpl. Tim Mills, who oversaw the emergency response team.
ACCOMMODATIONS REQUESTED
But the Attorney General of Canada and National Police
Federation — the RCMP union — have asked the commission for accommodations to be made for those officers.
That could mean that any of those officers may not appear before the commission and instead provide video testimony. The lawyers for the families would not get an opportunity to ask questions.
But also they are not given an opportunity to argue against whatever accommodations might be made for those officers.
The inquiry is operating on a trauma-informed basis. While the inquiry should aim to avoid further trauma to the officers it shouldn’t be at the expense of getting to the facts of what happened in April 2020.
“The shocking thing to me has been the marginalization of the families’ lawyers. The inability of any of them to effectively question the narrative that has been put forward by the commission.”
“That really undermines the entire process. I’m very surprised that the commissioners have chosen that way to proceed. It’s mindboggling that they would risk the trust of the public in this way.”
DISAPPEARING DOCUMENTS
Besides this hundreds of documents have disappeared and were subsequently reposted on the Mass Casualty Commission website. Some of that evidence included Mountie statements, emails, and surveillance footage. Those documents are among the material that the commission is using to form its account of what happened in April 2020.
“There’s such a volume of evidence that it’s very difficult for any individual, including the media, to keep track of what’s happening,” said Rodgers.
“The commission has a very large staff dealing with all of these things it doesn’t engender trust in the commission itself if they’re removing documents that are supposed to be public exhibits.”
Rodgers says the consequence of the commission limiting information in the public realm is that it is “limiting the scope of possible change that may emerge from the inquiry.”