Canada: A Deepening Police State?

People think about a Police State in terms of police violence and images of men in uniform. A Police State goes much deeper than that. Canada, today, presents the question: What is a Police State and how close are we to living in one?

We begin, of course, with the police. At the same time, as hopeful Canadians, we want to deny there is any reason for concern. Naturally. But whether sparked by a random murder by police, the violation of innocent demonstrators (UBC), a pension scandal at RCMP headquarters in Ottawa, the huge RCMP “stumbling” in the BC Rail Scandal, the almost certain RCMP cover-up in the Alberta Kelly Marie Richard dental malpractice case, the disaster of the Vancouver International Airport Taser death and apparent attempted cover-up by RCMP, or the Maher Arar fiasco - and much more - real questions arise. They keep arising. They become insistent.

We do right to think unexamined (really unexamined) police actions, the seemingly obvious protection and cover-up of police wrong-doing, and the failure to review police behaviour in depth and to institute serious reforms point to a malaise, to something that looks like a dangerous increase in police power. Those things make up the tip of an iceberg. They are not by any means the whole story. Because the police in Canada have distinct, real authorities to whom they must answer. Attorneys General, Solicitors General, the federal cabinet, provincial cabinets, and, finally, provincial legislatures and the House of Commons. All of those authorities may act to oversee police activity.

The inaction of responsible authorities points to the real meaning of the phrase “police state”. In a police state the police are merely the public face of a corporate tyranny, one which, almost by definition, is supported by the major press and media. In addition, is has to be supported – however opaquely – by the so-called “independent judiciary”. And, finally, it has to be operated and controlled by a combination of cabinet power and corporate wealth. The purpose of a police state is to turn the wealth of the country (and its power) away from the people of the country and to funnel it to a small, influential class inside and outside the borders. Go under the surface, below the tip of the iceberg. Two things are evident.

Cabinets are closing doors on the people they are elected to represent, moving into greater and greater secrecy across the country. The Stephen Harper government, for instance, passes limp “accountability” legislation while gagging elected MPs and cabinet ministers, refusing to face the press, and making access to information increasingly difficult – and expensive – to obtain. That government even goes farther. The Kelly Marie Richard dental malpractice case – just for instance - has given rise to allegations of RCMP misconduct, serious malfunctioning of the Court of Queen’s Bench in Calgary, violations of professional conduct among dental and legal organizations, and the suspect involvement of some Alberta government officers and the government contracted corporation CGI.

Repeated solicitations have been made to Rob Nicholson, minister of justice, and to Stockwell Day, minister of public safety - over some months (from a number of people). Neither man will do as much as acknowledge receiving correspondence. The press and media are completely mute. Asked, as well, for a public inquiry into the bizarre circumstances of the case, Alberta’s Attorney General, Ron Stevens (falsely) wrote that he does not have jurisdiction. Alberta’s Solicitor General, Fred Lindsay, refused to discuss allegations of RCMP wrong-doing, reporting (falsely) that he has no authority over the RCMP in Alberta.

In British Columbia the Gordon Campbell cabinet gives every indication of attempting to thwart the pursuit of justice in the B.C. Supreme Court case arising out of the corrupt sale of B.C. Rail. Allowed clear sailing, that case might well point fingers at guilty cabinet ministers and the premier. The RCMP gives many signs – to quite innocent, ordinary Canadians – that it is using every impediment it can dream up to obstruct disclosure of accumulated evidence in the case. Be assured, the so-called RCMP ”cop-on-the-beat” is not deciding to frustrate the work of the court. If the foot-dragging, the apparent obstruction, the incompetence perceived are really there - are not a figment of the imagination - the reason for them has to be at the highest levels of RCMP decision making. And that suggests the highest levels of RCMP decision making may be shaking a devious hand with members of the Gordon Campbell cabinet.

The major press and media ask no questions. They report, a little. Because they have to. In the Alberta case, the RCMP looks as if it broke confidentiality, assisted a huge corporation in wrong-doing, and provided information to harass and to practice barretry against an innocent single mother (Kelly Marie Richard) with a real grievance to make a claim upon. By persisting I was able to have R.R. Knecht, RCMP Deputy Commissioner of the North West Region and Commanding Officer of Division K, undertake an investigation of RCMP behaviour in the matter. The resulting Report was so lame, so lamentable, such a transparently perverse charade that most Canadians wouldn’t believe it was possible. In fact, the “investigation” was such a piece of trumpery, in my judgement, it could not have happened in the way it did by accident. Is it possible to say in the Kelly Marie Richard case that the RCMP deviously cooperated with a huge multi-national corporation, hand in hand with professional organizations, the Alberta cabinet, and judges of the Court of Queen’s Bench in Alberta to destroy the integrity of justice in that Province? While the major press and media looked and look the other way?

If that scenario is real, if it really happened (and is happening) we may say it offers us a picture of a police state in action. In British Columbia, concerning the BC Rail Scandal, the same kind of numbers seem to be adding up. The Gordon Campbell cabinet and the RCMP appear to be pursuing the same goals instead of radically different, independent goals. The court seems helpless to stop them – or distinctly unwilling to do so. The Crown, prosecuting the criminal case, appears to be almost ineffective on matters of disclosure of evidence when it is not giving the appearance of active procedural delay. Since, unlike the Alberta case, the RCMP is not (yet) itself in direct question in the B.C. case, its apparent connection to other “police state” forces is not as clear. All of this is not a matter of undertow gossip, back-room rumour, or vapourous allegation. It has been thrown into searching light by the Report of the Task Force on Governance and Culture Change in the RCMP, submitted to the federal cabinet on December 14, 2007 – a scant three months ago. The Task Force was created by Stephen Harper in order to prevent a more wide-ranging investigation of the RCMP.

By-passing a Public Inquiry with a Task Force, Harper effectively prevented any of the apparent violations mentioned above from being investigated. He asked the Task Force for a prompt reporting. Among the five Conservatives appointed all were not Stephen Harper Republicans. Some were Canadian Conservatives of integrity who respect the rule of law and believe in a democratic framework for Canadian society. The result was a clear Report within the boundaries drawn for the Task Force. It records that “trust in the management of the RCMP has been shaken. This has had a stunning impact on the members and employees of the RCMP and on the Canadians they serve.” The Task Force heard “with remarkable consistency about major problems with the discipline system, recruitment, performance evaluations, promotion and personal development.” It goes on that all “of this led us to conclude that there is a need to radically overhaul the way the RCMP is governed.” (p.vii) In Chapter 5 of the Report, the Task Force members recommend the immediate appointment of an “Implementation Council” with a purpose: “to make fundamental changes in the governance, culture and accountability of the RCMP”. (p. 47) They recommend that the Council establish “a timetable for reform” and be responsible for “development and execution of an implementation plan”.

The Task Force recommends the first ”progress report” of the Implementation Council be no later than June 30, 2008, and that subsequent reports follow no less frequently than every six months”. (p. 48) We are now approaching the end of March 2008, three months from the first deadline the Task Force has set. Only today Stockwell Day, Minister of Public Safety, announced there would movement on the Report’s recommendations. Almost unquestionably, an “Implementation Council” will not be able to make its first Report by deadline date. In fact, no one yet knows how far the Stephen Harper government is willing to go to make the Task Force recommendations meaningful. The members chosen for an implementation body are of key importance. The list provided is not promising. Suspicions widely held in Canada of a deepening police state will either be confirmed or gently put away with the Stephen Harper action on the Task Force on Governance and Cultural Change in the RCMP.

If the Harper cabinet does a botch-up of the RCMP overhaul similar to the one it perpetrated in its move to ensure government accountability, we will know the Harper Republican Partry is the willing architect of a police state in Canada.