130 Dufferin Avenue

P.O. Box 3240, Station “B”

London, Ontario N6A 4K3

“O” Division

July 20, 2010

Honourable Vic Toews

Minister of Public Safety Canada
Public Safety Canada
269 Laurier Avenue West
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0P8

Dear Minister;

In recent years, a series of high profile events have not only led to the erosion of public
confidence in the Force but have adversely affected the character of the Force and its
membership. However, events like the sudden departure of former Commissioner, Giuliano
Zaccardelli, the parliamentary review of RCMP pension funds and the Dziekanski incident
have served as catalysts for action, providing the Force the opportunity to embark not only
on meaningful organizational change but a much needed change in ethos as well. As the
Force continues to move forward with its transformation effort, it will be critically important
that those in positions of authority throughout the organization, and particularly at the
Commissioner level, provide the dynamic leadership that is needed to effect real change and
instill public confidence.

Similar to any agency head or chief executive officer, the Commissioner’s role is vitally
important to the overall success of the RCMP. A report on the Examination of Internal
Management Structures of Police Forces (2007) by the Police Executive Research Forum
stated that, “one of the primary functions of a police agency head is to provide leadership
and set the direction for the organization.” It has also been my observation that the character
of RCMP Commissioners is often reflected in the work and spirit of the membership. Thus,
it is with great care and thought yet with a sense of urgency that I offer my insights to you
on the current leadership of the RCMP which I believe to be severely deficient.

Consequently, my comments are based solely on the Commissioner’s execution of his duties
and are not, as some may contend, to be interpreted as a voice of the past that is clinging to
the notion of a paramilitary organization resistant to change or transformation. Neither are
my comments based on any ill will towards the RCMP. If I may borrow the mantra of our
recruiting unit, the RCMP has certainly given me “a career nowhere near ordinary.” I leave
 -2-

with pride, I leave with gratitude and I leave with an abundance of respect for the men and
women who form the cornerstone of the Force. It is simply my obligation to the members of
the RCMP and the citizens of Canada (to which the Force belongs) to share my observations
on Commissioner Elliott’s leadership.

Despite being the first civilian RCMP Commissioner, Commissioner Elliott was welcomed
with open arms into the RCMP, particularly by those in the senior ranks. He has had at his
disposal, an advisor in the form of a Senior Deputy Commissioner as well as the
commitment from the Senior Management Team (SMT) to assist him in achieving his vision
for the Force. Throughout his tenure as Commissioner, I have observed severe deficiencies
in the following core areas : Management style, Operational Awareness/Knowledge and
Partnership Building.

Management Style:

In policing, the operational environment is one that can be best characterized as fluid,
dynamic and often, dangerous and harsh. In other words, we are well versed in dealing with
a clientele that are less than professional or courteous. That being said, and in light of the
need to “do things right/treat people right,” the Commissioner lacks considerable tact and is
often heard treating not only senior command staff, but his personal staff as well, in a
manner that is often described as brutal, disrespectful, intimidating and careless. The
frequency of these interactions has become the norm and I believe that his behavior with
senior executives is counter-productive to achieving the goals of the Reform
Implementation Council. In fact, it distills to nothing less than harassment and abuse of the
authority of his office.

The SMT, in its interaction with the Commissioner, appears to be suffering from “battered
wife syndrome.” From my seat at the SMT, I believe the SMT has ceased to provide advice
(particularly contrarian) to the Commissioner for fear of backlash and appears to be fully
subservient to his needs and desires. Again, this dictatorship-like regime runs counter to
goals of Force transformation and change. Is this the “new kind of leadership” that the Force
is seeking?

The need for change within the RCMP was a common held belief of our Parliament and the
citizens of Canada following the recommendations of the Brown Task Force. I suggest that
any changes that have taken place were already in motion and not the result of the
Commissioner’s own vision for the RCMP. A strong example of inertia that has plagued the
membership’s desire for change is the failure of the Force to respond to the recommendation
which stated: “We recommend that the regional structure within the RCMP be evaluated by
senior management to determine whether it is the most cost effective and efficient way of
managing an organization with the diversity and complexity of the RCMP.” An evaluation
study led by recently retired Senior Deputy Commissioner Bill Sweeney was completed
without subsequent discussion or decision on Deputy Sweeney’s findings to date.
 -3-

In essence, the RCMP is a grass-roots (based on community and intelligence led-policing

models) organization that relies heavily on the work and trust of its members. The
membership has become aware of the Commissioner’s lack of respect for staff both through
direct interaction with the Commissioner, as well as through the ever-present “grapevine.”
This negative impression of the Commissioner continues to increase the level of
disengagement of middle management and our front-line members who have apparently lost
their connection to senior management.

Operational Awareness/Knowledge:

As the Commanding Officer of “O” Division, I cite a particularly insightful example that I
noted during our effort to secure the 2010 Summits which illustrates the Commissioner’s
lack of understanding and focus regarding operations.

Securing the 2010 Summits (June 25-27) was the largest security operation in the history of
the Royal Canadian Mounted Police - an operation that would require the participation of
25% of Canada’s police community. In preparation for the Summits, the Summit Integrated
Security Unit (ISU) was operational in Barrie, Ontario for twenty months prior to the events.
Numerous sub-offices were populated in the Huntsville/Toronto corridor. Throughout this
twenty month period D/Commr. SWEENEY visited quarterly and D/Commr. SOUCCAR at
least bi-monthly with a higher frequency as the summits approached. At no time prior to the
Summits did our Commissioner choose to visit the men and women working under
tremendous pressure to plan the security for the summits.

During the week prior to the arrival of delegates, the ISU was visited by the Minister of
National Defence and the Chief of the Defence Staff. On June 23, 2010, you visited as well
Sir. Late on June 23, we learned of our Commissioner’s desire to visit the ISU in Barrie,
Ontario, the G8 site at Deerhurst Resort, G20 site in Toronto as well as the Metro Incident
Command Centre (MICC) at Toronto Police Headquarters.

Despite being advised not to attend the Summit command centres on June 25, 2010, the
Commissioner chose to attend and in doing so, completely disrupted operations which took
the focus of the security force from its primary objective. In particular, he caused a
distraction to the RCMP and Canadian Forces (CF) personnel engaged in preparing to
transport Internationally Protected Persons (IPPs) to the Deerhurst Resort. Further, he
disrupted members/partner police services who were preparing to respond/responding to
protest activity in Toronto. In fact, The Commissioner’s vehicle was rerouted due to
significant protest activity at the MICC. Despite being advised of a repatriation ceremony
for a Canadian Forces member which would be occurring outside the MICC, the
Commissioner insisted to his reluctant driver to proceed through closed streets. I can state
unequivocally that the Commissioner’s demeanor was dismissive and aloof. In fact, I
apologized for his rudeness to our Corps of Commissionaires at the ISU.
 -4-

Partnership Building:

It is by custom, not by regulation, that the Chiefs of Police in Canada recognize the RCMP
Commissioner as the senior law enforcement officer in this country and pay him the
courtesy and respect afforded the senior law enforcement officer. It is my opinion that the
professional and personal equity that maintains this courtesy is fast diminishing. At
Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police Annual General Meetings, I have observed that
the Commissioner’s churlishness with his domestic peers has not gone unnoticed and is
certainly less than appreciated. He seems less interested in the subject of discussion than in
projecting the fact that he is the Commissioner of the RCMP. Yet another example that
supports my opinion are the repeated discussions amongst Criminal Intelligence Service of
Canada (CISC) National Executive Committee (NEC) members over the governance of
CISC. Our NEC partners took great umbrage with the unilateral actions of the RCMP to
change the governing structure of CISC. Repeated attempts by NEC to discuss this issue
with senior RCMP officials were met with disregard as it was stated the Commissioner had
decided this was the tack we were going to take. It was only through exhaustive lobbying
that this position was reversed.

Further, based on the relationships I have established over many years, it is my opinion the
Commissioner has not adequately cultivated or maintained relationships with the RCMP’s
US law enforcement partners and remains an unknown entity to the US Security and Law
Enforcement. This is particularly disturbing in a time when sovereignty issues related to
cross-border crime (for example, terrorism, drug and human smuggling) continue to be
contentious issues in the eyes of the public and elected officials on both sides of the border.

In conclusion Minister, I submit that a critical review of Commissioner Elliot’s harassing

behaviour and dictatorial leadership is urgently required. We are not progressing and our
membership at all levels is becoming increasingly disengaged. Further, I believe that his
severe lack of leadership will have a detrimental effect both on the public’s ability to regain
its trust of the RCMP and ultimately the Government’s ability to adequately manage the
RCMP and its transformation.

Sincerely,

Mike McDonell, Assistant Commissioner

Commanding Officer
“O” Division (Ontario)