Bond to RCMP: Show You Mean Business on Change
Saturday, May 26, 2012 @ 3:48 AM
Prince George, B.C. – Attorney-General and Minister of Justice Shirley Bond says the controversial transfer of a disgraced RCMP officer from Alberta to British Columbia highlights the systemic changes that need to be made in the province’s dealings with the national force.
Sergeant Don Ray was ordered transferred to B.C. after admitting during an internal review to seven incidents involving drinking and sexual contact with fellow employees on the job in Edmonton. He was also docked pay for ten days. Ray is to serve in some federal policing capacity somewhere in B.C., although the precise location and nature of his duties is not being released.
Bond says Ray’s transfer raises several questions. “How did this decision get made, who made the decision and what is the vetting process.” Bond says currently the province has no say in such transfers. “The British Columbia Minister of Justice does not run the federal RCMP. Having said that it is my responsibility to express British Columbia’s concern about a policy that would allow this to happen.” She says she has directed the assistant deputy minister of policing to place this policy item of the agenda of the next meeting of the Contract Management Committee in early June. Bond says “this item will be taken to the national table through the Contract Management Committee to say we need to make changes and it needs to start with policies like this.”
Bond says she specifically asked RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulsen whether this transfer could be rescinded. “Obviously due to personnel issues the commissioner made it clear that changes need to be made. Certainly he did not commit to reversing the transfer or anything of that nature, but I did specifically request and look at whether that was possible for British Columbia. So we’re going to keep holding the RCMP accountable for the comments that they’ve made about change and I do believe that the current leadership of the RCMP does recognize the need for change and wants to deliver on it.”
Bond says she has made it “abundantly clear that British Columbia expects better and we expect action and we expect to be a part of making those changes.”
The Minister concludes by saying “we have new leadership in the RCMP that I have stood up and supported in terms of their desire for change. Now they need to show that they mean business.”
Comments
It would be automatic dismissal for me if I was caught doing either of those things at my place of employment, a transfer wouldn’t even be considered. Why should it be different for them?
Bond is way out of her league. She signed the contract that locked BC out of decision making only a few months ago, then feigned surprise at the announced pay raise a day later. A missed opportunity to create a BC force that takes its direction from the provincial government and not Ottawa.
IMO the real big question about Ray involves the matter of huge potential for lost justice and misuse of the authority to wrongly implicate. He’s operating a bawdy house of sorts out of a interrogation room where he determines who is telling the truth and what the official story should be in a multitude of serious cases involving lie detectors.
I think lie detectors are voodoo justice that only open the door for people like Ray with the moral ethic of his character to decide ones fate. That IMO is an issue that should see the RCMP take a more firm position in not tolerating at all his kind of behavior.
“She says she has directed the assistant deputy minister of policing to place this policy item of the agenda of the next meeting of the Contract Management Committee in early June”
The contract with BC can be read here:
http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/policeservices/shareddocs/police-agreement-provincial-2012.pdf
The contract management committee section starts on page 55.
Looks to me that this is a boiler plate provided by the RCMP. I cannot read anything about the structure of the committee. Sounds like a national body which would then deal with many issues which may not be common to provinces. There is no terms of reference of the committee, and no specific reference to one. I would assume that there is one. Not sure if it was available at the signing of the document.
I think the wording is very broad. It speaks about quality of service. It does not speak specifically about personnel issues. I suspect process will be created as the committee starts to go about doing its business, whatever that may be. A work in progress.
In such cases, one cannot include details in the contract. The language has to be such that matters of detail cannot be excluded unless specifically done so in contract. In my opinion, wording such as: “Nothing in this contract excludes any matter from coming in front of the committee for deliberation unless specifically excluded” would have helped in that case.
If there is blame to be made, don’t blame Bond, blame Ministry lawyers. They should know better.
Another major disappointment by our RCMP. Their image has been so tarnished, and yet their leaders continue to let us down in so many ways. I can’t believe my hard earned tax dollars help support this kind of organization.
Bond- pretty weak attempt by your government to now criticize the decision by RCMP brass to move their worst officers to B.C. You locked us into this contract for many more years, too bad you won’t be in government after the next election to have to answer for it!
RCMP- do the right thing and fire this man. How will you encourage good, intelligent, young people to join your organization, with the kind of image you now have.
The RCMP really needs to present its reasons for keeping this guy on. Do they think that the misconduct was not serious? Do they think that he didn’t know that what he was doing was wrong? Do they think that he was mentally ill and that the problem has been dealt with? If there is a valid reason, they need to tell us what it is.
Like pretty much any union, it’s practically impossible to get fired no matter what you do.
This appears top be a management decision (RCMP brass). It has nothing to do with any union. And, for your information, any union member who did this stuff would have been fired at once.
whatever ammonra. We all know the unions make firing a very hard avenue. Try firing a teacher.
“any union member who did this stuff would have been fired at once.”
I see ….. and exactly what do you mean by “at once”?
I assume that you mean after due process was followed. I know due process is not necessarily a union strong point. Individuals are expendable to save the majority of the memembership.
I assume that there are a number of very valid reasons why this person was not fired. The most obvious is that it may not be that clear cut a case.
Comments for this article are closed.